So, there are finally some current pictures in the advertising, the rehearsals are back to back, the adrenalin and hopes are high....

A rousing Bravi! to Farrell and her dancers for undertaking this mammoth work.......it may or may not be an uneven work, but uneven Balanchine is still on another level than much of the choreography being made now.....I wish them all the best and hope for a succeessful and rewarding run.....

Who among us will be there? Shall we meet by the Kennedy bust before the curtain? (Other suggestions welcome!) I will be there every day but Thursday......

Juliet, I'll be there Sat night.

I'll be there Thursday and maybe Sunday afternoon...depending on whether I think once was enough after Thursday.

(from Washington, DC) I'm here for the run! Meeting by the Kennedy bust sounds like a good, albeit popular, idea. Tonight I'm at a dinner, and I don't know wheher we will be herded directly into the Opera House (this "cosseting" clashes somewhat with my democratic instincts, I must say), but at other performances I'll loiter there, and I'd be pleased to meet other BT'ers. I expect to wear my customary pink face (although I'm feeling a little pale this morning, in spite of my level of anticipation), blue eyes, and very pale blond hair.

It's the Sunday matinee for me!

NPR's Morning Edition today broadcast a short "segment" twice, just before the hours of 9:00 and 10:00, in which Kim Kokich presented Suzanne Farrell talking about this production and also George Jackson talking about past ones. I think people with the appropriate audio player on their computers can hear such items from the NPR website later on the day of broadcast, so check it out. (There was not a lot really new, but for me, it's fresh, nevertheless : Farrell said, for example, "I feel him [Balanchine] in every book, every piece of scenery.")

In Paul Kolnik's Gallery Walk and Talk last evening, we found out his response to what he sees and especially to what he catches with his camera is also what I would call transcendant. His interpretations of his images and of the reception they got from Balanchine were an enlarging experience to hear, and I am glad to report that an "interactive" version of the talk is supposed to go online eventually at artsedge.kennedy-center.org, with images of the pictures and an edited version of Kolnik's comments. Meanwhile, though, I suggest planning at least a few minutes to give time to the exhibit, in the Opera House lobby, of the fourteen or so affecting photos (some of Farrell, many of her company). There's also a central case with a display centered on Don Quixote, with costumes (Farrell's "Dulcinea" costume is on loan from the Smithsonian, if I remember correctly) and Farrell's "memory book".

Suzanne Carbonneaux gave a lecture Monday about Farrell and Don Quixote which was enthusiastically received by a self-described "arts critic" in Kolnik's audience. I wasn't here yet. Did anybody go? What did she say? What did you think?

Jack, I'm posting Mark D's link to the NPR piece, for those who might have missed it in the Links thread for today.

...thanks for the link Bart, I enjoyed listening to it. I envy all of you who will be there tonight or later in the week. With dancers from my own company taking part I'd love to be there but I just couldn't manage to get away right now. I will look forward to everyone's comments on the production and the leading dancers - especially Rodriguez and Ogden. Whatever the the critical reaction is to Farrell's restaging of this work, she is to be celebrated for the effort it took to get it to get it back on stage some twenty-five years after the last performance. I suspect just getting the funding for the production was quite a task. A new generation needs to see this Balanchine work and judge it for themselves, and thanks to Farrell, now we can. (Well...in my case, it will have to wait perhaps a season or two - or whenever the new AD of the NBoC decides to schedule it!)

And, hopefully, now that it's been done in a three-truck, commute-ready production, NBoC will bring it to Vancouver.

We hope to hear from those who are attending

To drop a leaden weight on the anticipation: what do you all think about the effect Nabakov's music is likely to have on the audience? This was, for me, the single most (and perhaps only) strong negative in Balanchine's strange and wonderful ballet. Alas, it casts its pall from beginning to end. I notice no one is mentioning it in the publicity or in Ballet Talk memories of the original production.

P.S. I write this as someone who actually enjoys a great deal of later 20th-century serious music and listens to it frequently.

I don’t think anyone really wants to focus on the negatives right now, and that includes the score. From everything I heard and read, it will present a problem. (I remember Suki Schorer saying from a dancer's perspective that it was hard to listen to all week long.)

I’ll be interested to see how the critics react – will the reviews be good (at the very least they’ll be respectful, I’m sure), and if so, will they be genuine raves or praise of the let’s-plug-the-production-because-everyone-worked-so-hard-and-we-don’t-want-it-to-be-DOA kind?

I'll be there for several performances & am genuinely looking forward to it. This is Ballet History, after all! I've mentally prepared myself to expect the unmelodious score and, instead, concentrate on the great psychological tale, with, hopefully, some wonderful Balanchine choreography. Any happy surprises above & beyond that will be the icing on the cake! So I'm set to accentuate the positive.

Here's the $64,000 Question: How will the KC ballet subscribers & 'plain folk out for a night at the ballet' react when they realize that this isn't their 'safe' DON Q with Kitri's 32 fouettes, the merry oom-pah-pah music and scores of classical tutus????? I'll have my ears perked-up at intermission time to glean a few quotable-quotes. Maybe the audience will pleasantly surprise me!

Natalia

Well, being a fairly "plain folk" , I wish I could be there for several reasons - the obvious being that it's an historic moment of sorts (and I've never seen Balanchine's Don Q, just read about it) and I'd love to see the dancers, particularly those whose parents I know, perform! Merde to all the dancers! I look forward to detailed reviews here. :yes:

I don't frequent this board the way I used to but would love to know if Farrell Fan is going to be down for this performance - I certainly hope so.

Since one of the related events is a ballet class for adults taught by Suzanne, it's a sure bet!

Really!? Isn't that an interesting draw - very smart. If any of you attend I hope you'll give us some feedback on that as well.

Well the first review is up - John Rockwell's is generally favourable. (Someone else will have to post the link...I don't know how) I'm very interested in what everyone who was there last night thought of the show. Rockwell's comment about the music being sometimes "downright gorgeous" is kind of amusing given the general opinion by those who saw the original production that the score was a major problem.

What was he snorting?



Last night amounted to the most downright-boring, sickeningly-laborious night at the ballet. People around me left as early as the first intermission, they were so disgusted.

It does not even work as a mime-drama, as the leading actors/dancers breathed ZERO life into their characters. Don Q himself was as wooden & lifeless as the 'gee-whiz' props that stood before him (the dragon, the wooden donkey, the giant knight). Perhaps I am a bit spoiled in just having recently experienced nine consecutive nights at the Royal Danish Ballet, in which the dancer-actors breathed life into the smallest of characters. Last night, we could marvel at a bunch of pretty costumes & nifty sets occupied by leaden characters. I tried really REALLY hard to get into the 'mood,' to cry, to care...but all I could do was yawn and look at my watch.

I could list the many positives -- Sonia Rodriguez's (Dulcinea) pliant back and lovely bourrees; the sharpness of the corps in the Act I Village Dance and Act III classical dances; the masterful designs, etc., etc. -- but this would paint an inaccurate 'big picture,' the negatives so outweighed the posititives. Yes -- so much went into this undertaking but is that reason enough for me to file a false review and lead people to believe that this is a hunky-dorry good ol' night at the ballet? Sorry -- not me.

By the time that the main all-dancing portion of the work came around -- the Act III "Dream Scene" -- very few of us were awake enough to enjoy it and care.

BORING! BORING! BORING!

It's a good thing that Suzanne Farrell was given her Capezio Award at the start of the program -- taking up the first 25 minutes of the night...the ballet did not begin until 7:55 pm -- because the enthusiasm would not have been there had the Kennedy Center management elected to present the award AFTER the show. Sad but true.

Natalia Nabatova

Until last night I thought that the ultimate oxymoron was "low-carb bread" but Suzanne Farrell's Don Quixote presents us with "low-dance ballet". Not only was there very little dancing -- perhaps 15 minutes in a two-hour performance -- but half of that dancing was invisible, because it was underneath head-to-toe velvet gowns, or, in the case of the men in Act three, hampered by stiff ruched collars, long sleeves, and worst of all, the puffy turkish bedroom slippers with curlicue toes that Nehemiah Kish had to risk his limbs and dignity to dance in in Act 2.

All the pageantry and mime and symbolism could have nonetheless worked -- if the production had succeeded in portraying the complex relationships between Don Q, his religion, Dulcinea and the power establishment that constitute the story. Even the loooong -- I mean really really long -- hallucinatory procession at Don Q's deathbed could work, but only if we had already appreciated his tragic delusions. But this was not at all conveyed in the preceding 2.5 acts. In fact, the vision of the scary knight with a swinging axe resolving into what was really just a windmill -- a brilliant piece of stage craft -- did a better job than the actor in conveying Don Q's state of mind.

There was some superb dancing by Sonia Rodriguez, Shannon Parsley, Erin Mahoney, NAtalia Magnicaballi and Runqiao Du in the the third Act, but since all of the dancing takes the form of divertissements and variations, the dancers can't create much in the way of relationships or spark. It was sort of academic, with the exception of Sonia Rodriquez' moving final variation which brings us back to the main story.

The word for Nabokov's score is cheesy. It's not that it's dissonant or clanging -- it's that it's so OBVIOUS and predictable.

Around us in the audience there were bail-outs after the second intermission and a tepid reaction at the end. Only the principals and some of the soloists took bows; the corps was nowhere to be seen. It was odd.

By the way, I do think it would be better if those of you who are ballet experts could try avoid looking down your noses at us "just plain folks" and caricaturing other peoples' taste. We pay the same $60 per seat as you do and we like ballet just as much. (Although not this particular ballet...)

Tammy, I don't think anyone is looking down their noses at anyone.

Ouch! Now I can hardly wait for the 2006/07 season so I can be underwhelmed as well!

Poor Nehemiah Kish - he deserves better. I'm glad Rodriguez at least impressed with her dancing as she is one of my favourites. Rockwell described her as "adequate" I believe.

Any of you who've posted thus far - had you seen it performed in the past when Balanchine was Don Q?

I certainly did not, but I would find it interesting to hear from someone who will have now seen both - to get their take on it.

I see that John Rockwell's review has been posted in the Links section and have read it - he certainly seems to have a different take on it all as compared to those who've posted thus far. Not meaning this to imply that anyone is right or wrong...just bringing it up.

Hoping to hear more on this one.

One of the veteran DC-based writers touched bases with me soon after the performance. This person had seen the 'original' at NYCB & told me, "You did not see DON Q. The DON Q that I remember had living, breathing characters." Hopefully this person is slated to write a review of this production; I did not ask him/her.

I'm in general agreement that the mime and "acting" were not very effective, and I'm ready to take Natalia's word for it that the RDB outclasses this from the first moment. (They have, I think, decades or centuries behind them, while this production has five weeks - not to excuse, but to try to account for it.)

Act II, which is mostly dance, arrived not a moment too soon; dancing is what these performers know. For me, Magnicaballi and Kish's Pas de Deux Mauresque, the third Divertissement, and Bonnie Pickard's Ritournel, the last of the Act II Divertissements, were among the few high points, and I also enjoyed Shannon Parsley's Danza della Caccia, the second one. (I prefer the Mauresque costumes on the Kennedy Center's website, from Farrell's previous showing of this, to the nearly-monochrome ones we saw last night.) And I also enjoyed the dream-dance which begins Act III, even - rather, especially - when it begins to become disturbed toward the end. And the bit of stagecraft Tammy mentions was very effective, upstaging Momchil Mladenov's Don. (He is the only one in the cast lists; I hope by the end of the run we will see more preparation or development from him.)

But there are no "big" relationship pas de deux. Indeed, this is not a very "dancey" ballet, and the pyschological and philosophical themes are perhaps inherently difficult to show, ironically in a piece of work from someone who famously remarked, "There are no mothers-in-law in ballet," that is, there are things you can't adequately show in ballet.

*People who are tempted to leave at the first intermission should somehow be informed that the dancing comes next, in Act II and the beginning of Act III.*

As to Nabokov's music: Ron Matson and Farrell did some snipping here and there to remove what Matson calls "paper music" - music that looks good on paper, according to ways of composing in fashion at the time, but - well, they decided to take some of it out, especially where Farrell didn't have any action.

I remember the music gave me a lot of trouble when I saw the ballet a few times in 1972 (never with Balanchine in it). I don't enjoy Berg's music either, but in his opera Wozzeck I take his cracked harmonies as generating the world of Wozzeck's cracked mind, and I enjoy the opera from beginning to end, and so, when I hear Nabokov's music for this ballet, I take it that way, too, but it's so thin, I can keep it in the background of my attention where I don't really listen closely to it, unusually in a Balanchine ballet, where typically the music is equally important to the choreography and often seems to generate it.

Noreen, for what it's worth, I'm told NBoC wants to inaugurate its new building with this production, and construction is far behind schedule; that seems to be what's holding up their staging of it. I hope for your sake and others' that the intervening time will be put to good use in the studio.

Between the New York Times review and the reviews here, I don't quite know what to expect tonight! I have been somewhat breathlessly anticipating this ever since I obtained my ticket and, while a night at the ballet never disappoints, I do hope this is all I expect it to be.

I’m kicking myself for not bring my program and notes to work. Anyhow, I wasn't bored, but I understand the complaints. The scenes with Don Quixote and Marcella/Dulcinea were affecting, and if Mladanov and Rodriguez weren't great actors, they believed in what they were doing and made me believe as well. I thought Rodriguez was adequate technically, and in the third act that was extremely impressive. But she didn't project very well (I was 4th row center) and there wasn't much depth or variety to her characterization. I was moved by the story, and I was moved because I was rooting for her as she assayed such a monumental role; and she looked the part -- lovely and pure. The Don sure picked a Lady. But I hope she’ll have time to develop the confidence and experience to develop the character. The same goes for Mladenov-- affecting but one-dimensional. Sancho Panza was likeable, but pure buffoon.

The second divertissements were entertaining, but nothing more. Pickard and Parsely and Mahoney and Ritter (and the corps in the marvelous third act ensemble passages) were terrific, and the little girl shadowing Pickard with a hot pink feathered parasol couldn’t have been cuter, but the story stalled. Heather Ogden has been quoted as saying that the story builds momentum. That’s exactly what it didn’t do for me. The tone kept shifting – now we’re watching an epic tale told mostly through mime; now we’re admiring Balanchine choreography. It didn’t cohere.

For someone who doesn’t go to Broadway musicals, or even many story ballets, the sets and costumes were stunning. To give just one example, on the scrim used before each act the pages of a book open out into a sunset landscape with "Dulcinea" written in the merest wisp of cloud.

The audience applauded the dancing several times, but after the curtain they were polite at best. I felt bad for everyone onstage.

I thought the same thing, Jack! How to do it gracefully? Maybe an announcement over the loudspeaker at the start of the show: "Ladies & Gentlemen, please be aware that the dancing begins in earnest in Act II. We appreciate your patience during Act I. Thank you for your support."

Also, I overheard some people commenting that the previously unannounced (unpublicized) Capezio Award ceremony stretched the time & patience of the audience. The president of the Capezio Fdtn's speech to announce Michael Kaiser -- who, in turn, gave the award to Suzanne Farrell -- went on for 15 minutes. The rest went on for about 10 minutes. The performance - set to begin at 7:30 pm, becan at 7:55 pm. My neighbor whispered: "Why are they imposing this advertisement on us?"

During the first intermission, I heard another neighbor say: " What a shame that the Capezio Award added 25 minutes to Act I, which is a drag in & of itself."

Perhaps Act I would not have seemed as draggy without the Capezio Award? Surely Capezio could have found another way to honor the great artist Suzanne Farrell -- a celebratory dinner in NY or a gala 'cocktail' prior to the 7:30 pm curtain?

Food for thought.

A few wispy thoughts....like the clouds on the front scrim.....

The first act was exceedingly dull. I know what they were trying to do, but you know, it just looked thin. There was NO dancing until the happy villagers bit (and I get real tired of happy villagers real quick.)

I wanted to like it, the costumes were gorgeous and very carefully done, and sets were good, but it was, as Natalia said: B o r i n g.

Act Two I looked forward to for the costumes and sets. The one dance for the nobles, made me happily shift in my seat and say, "well, that was quite lovely, quite interesting, well done! Maybe this isn't a dud...." Then the divertissements were good (although I have Gelsey Kirkland indelibly impressed on my senses), and they got better.....

I thought the ballet did build. The dark,repressive cruelty of the court; the beating and caging, the masks....the stagecraft was good and the intensity a world away from those happy villagers.

I am very glad that I chained myself and my companion down to stay for the last act: it was worth the evening. Wonderful to see Balanchine choreography again, excellent dancing by the soloists and corps---great energy, lots of flying draperies and shades of Walpurgisnacht....very clean, very memorable. Nothing like it being produced currently, that's certain!

I had initial reservations about Rodriguez.....but her third act variations were terrific! That gorgeous pliancy, clean execution, and she danced like a demon in the last act---I used binoculars so saw a good deal of emotion in her face and dancing, but obviously she needs to work on projection as others have not mentioned what I saw.

Mladenov tried. His makeup was so heavy that he was trying to act from behind a mask. I think that his portrayal may improve--I saw definite nerves there.

It was wonderful to see Alex Ritter again--
I am going several more times, so hope to see more. I wish they could just cut that first act....

Oh, the music--it meanders. Not like a burbling stream, not with a lovely, lazy summer aimlessness, but like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that occasionally are fitted together in the beginning of a pattern or direction, but then are thrown helterskelter back on the table. It was easily the weakest element.

There was a stubborn horse, and a recalcitrant donkey......something for everyone! (No jester, sorry!)

Here's that LINK to John Rockwell's review, for those who haven't made it to today's Links thread. Thanks, Alexandra

Mime and Acting and Lavish Sets, and a Back Story, Too?

Ah but we had the jester-like juggler (Jared Redick, dancing the first pure-dance solo of the night) in the midst of the Happy Villagers, Juliet. It looked like a jesterish collar to me!

I forgot--actually I quite liked him. I must have been captivated by the horse....

Natalia, that's a nice expressive fantasy about the announcement over the P. A., I hear where you're coming from, but as a practical matter, I sometimes just butt in with something like, "Not enough dancing for you, either?" or "Didn't go for the first part?" and let those gathering up their belongings to leave know that what's next is different and in what ways. It's often worked in spades for me - people are so happy for a good tip 'midst all the hype in our lives - and so far at least, even people who disagree at the end are polite about it, and appreciate the consideration they're shown. Doesn't our passion need all the adherents it can get?

Jack - Unfortunately, I am out & about during intermissions & notice empty seats just before the house lights dim for the next act. It's not as if we can stay in our seats during intermissions, like vigilantes, trying to spot potential deserters. The sad thing is that the seats vacated by the couple sitting in front of us (front orchestra) were fabulous. In any other given night, people would have run from the back/upper levels of the house to grab those seats! My husband & I had absolutely unobstructed view in front of us during all of Acts II and III. Imagine that.

I'm happy about the view, but sad...disgruntled...that the others left before things got rolling. It was a tedious first act, but the pacing and stage business may improve as the production gets more seasoned.

Re: the Capezio Award, this was not a secret--I knew it was going to occur and while I wished that it had taken much, much less time, I thought that Ms. Farrell's acceptance remarks were lovely. Much more memorable than the drivel one usually gets at these things. It is a very belated recognition of her gifts, but better late than never!

Thank you to Juliet and others for your descriptions of the sets and the better part - the dancing - of this performance. I'll be interested to read how the rest of the performances progress and what changes you notice.

Nice description. But I liked that about it! I'll have to listen more carefully Sunday, but what I heard last night was an intriguing change of pace from the grand -- at times verging on grandiose -- scores of some other story ballets. (Not that I don't love Tchaikovsky).

The Capezio guy only spoke for 15 minutes? "Advertisement" is exactly what I was thinking, and a very badly written one it was too -- overwrought and cliched at the same time. I didn't think Michael Kaiser's was much better-- certainly it lacked the imagination that characterized Farrell's dancing -- but he had the graciousness to be short.

With all the publicity this production received ahead of time, it's hard for me to believe that so many people came to the theater either unprepared for something unconventional, or unprepared to stick it out.

Believe it or not, I think some people were expecting Kitri. I didn't leave my seat during intermissions, but heard many, many comments!

Yes, of course theere were program notes. One has to bother to read them, however......

I sure wish I had seen the show --

I've TREMENDOUSLY admired the clips of Dulcinea's dances that were shown in PBS's Farrell video.

But I have to say, I am very impressed by Rockwell's review. I have never seen him write better -- he's done his homework, but put that in the background, and gone with a mind open to a complex spectacle, the most expressive moments of which will be danced. If he's too generous, I couldn't say -- but he's certainly responded with a large imagination, and to the piece itself, not some idea of what it should have been..

Hi, MichelleW! Slipping in between the post-throwers, I see. Forgive the delay in in welcoming you to BalletTalk. I hope you'll be back when you can see for yourself what our members and Rockwell have been describing. And please go to the Welcome Page and tell us a little about your life watching ballet. You can open a topic by clicking "New Topic" at the top of the page, towards the right.

Yes, there are both a synopsis of the story and cast credits in the program, but even if you do read them, you won't have an outline of the ballet anything like some of the books we talk about here provide.

Anyway, Thursday night I had a much better time, and I had a much better seat, too, to be fair to Sonia Rodriguez, last night's Dulcinea; nevertheless, Heather Ogden's dancing seemed more supple, after being a little stiff and careful in the solo with the sheperd's crook. Indeed, at the end of Act II, in the Pas de Deux with Don Q, she was lovely, and she was even better in the dream early in Act III, although actually, both women opened this dance with the lovely port de bra Farrell had quoted Balanchine last night as evoking by telling some dancers, "It's like you're opening the windows in Monte Carlo and smelling the salt in the sea air," a simile I believeFarrell added she didn't get until sometime later but now uses herself. It sure gets results, from the looks of it. I'll be interested in others' comments as to whether they think Ogden projects better than Rodriguez.

But one of the problems with B's Don Q is that neither of these women have Farrell's power to carry it. Another old timer claimed, I think correctly, that while there have been several excellent Diamonds performers other than Farrell, none of whom looked like her, some other ballets haven't had the same success without her. Chaconne is one, and Don Quixote is another. So we have the other dances, like the Act II Court Dance and Divertissements and the Dream in Act III, where Dulcinea appears later. (For that matter, there were some ballets she couldn't do: Balanchine let her try anything, this person pointed out, even The Four Temperaments, which "didn't work.")

Bonnie Pickard's dancing is always on a large scale, beautifully nuanced, and very effective even from my somewhat distant locations, and her Rigaudon Flamenco tonight was like that. With her in that, Erin Mahoney took over the Ritournel, the last of the Divertissements, and I wrote "another wow!" in my program. She doesn't look like Pickard - why should she? - but she also made it a powerfully effective end to the suite.

Some of the audience where I sat tonight had a pretty good time with much of Act I, including the superbly imagined puppet drama, nearly all done by children (except for some magical lifts done through a slit in the backdrop of the puppet theatre) well within their abilities. Nevertheless, most of the two rows in front of me were empty by the start of Act III. *sigh*

And the music hardly ever bothers me now. Thank God for small favors, I guess.

I completely agree about the Rigaudon Flamenco. I noted that Pickard's technique was clean and her affect was infectious. Her dancing drew the audience in. I found this to be, frankly, a sharp contrast with Shannon Parsley's Danza della Caccia.

Parsley's pirouettes and fouettes were, of course, a crowd pleaser (and technically lovely!) but there was something lacking there -- a certain emotive quality. I didn't feel it. My mother, however, said that this was her favorite of the divertissements, so perhaps there was something that I didn't get.

My favorite of the divertissements in Act II, however, was the Pas de Deux Mauresque. Natalia Magnicaballi was able to nail that perfect mixture of acting and dancing. Nothing felt forced and it was utterly, completely charming. I was entranced.

I am still processing Dulcinea's variation in Act III/Scene I (I think). All of those off kilter/off balance arabesques and attitudes, piques and turns, looked devilishly difficult. The fact is, that variation looked fairly difficult if it wasn't off center. I'd love to see it again to gauge my reaction the second time through.

In general, I was quite taken with Heather Ogden, although I still had difficulty thinking of her as "Dulcinea" rather than "the dancer cast as Dulcinea." I think this gets back to Jack's point about neither dancer having the power to carry the role. I didn't know how to react after that shepherd's crook variation -- I didn't feel like I had much to go on -- but as the night wore on, she won me over.

A couple of other things I noticed: the corps' pointe shoes seemed unusually loud tonight. A couple of the sets of bourrees sounded like a herd of elephants setting out across the Opera House stage. One of the solo variations in Act III Scene I was terribly loud as well (I assume it's the brand of pointes, but can't they hammer them before performance?). I expect a certain level of noise, but when my mom comments on it, it's reached the point where it's a little too much.

The sets were, in a word, exquisite. It was worth going just for the sets and costumes.

Overall, I'd call it an uneven evening at the ballet, but I'd absolutely go back this weekend to see it again, just to take in all of the details.



(PS: Dear Kennedy Center, when are you going to replace that wretched curtain in the Opera House? It really is quite awful.)

Almost all ballet -- but especially Balanchine -- seems to demand re-visits. There's so much there that passes by so quickly that I sometimes feel I have to re-check: did I really see that? what WAS that and how did it go?

I'm one of those 1965 Don Q viewers who saw it twice, and, to be honest, came away with few impressions of Farrell's role. She was not yet the icon to the audience that she was to Balanchine. I was too young perhaps, but the memory of the evening (even as I left the theater) was overwhelmed by wonderful sets, contumes, action, the strange lack of dramatic impactd, and the overlay of music that I dislikedy.

I've often wondered about these "off kilter/off balance" postiions which are spoken of so often. What do dancers think of them? I know they must be difficult, but do they add to Dulcinea's characer or to the progress of Don Q's idealization of her? In other words: what do you all think of this part of the ballet?

Clare Croft has a good, accurate, detailed review of Wednesday's performance in this morning's Washington Post, but she makes a mistake on the history of the casting of this ballet where she says no one but Farrell danced Dulcinea: Had she looked in Nancy Reynolds's Forty Years of the New York City Ballet, she would have found that Sara Leland and Kay Mazzo danced Dulcinea, too. And looking there myself, I got to thinking: Some of the other Dons are still very much with us, Jacques d'Amboise, Richard Rapp, and Jean-Pierre Bonnefous. (I think Francisco Moncion is no longer among us; apologies if I'm wrong in this bit of history myself.) Maybe Mladenov could benefit from some coaching from one of them? (I saw both Bonnefous and Moncion, opposite Leland, in 1972, and preferred Moncion as a "prodigy of detail," according to my notes.)

"'The dancer cast as Dulcinea'" is right on, Michelle W; and my progression in the effect of her performance as that dancer was the same. But there was a similar progression, though less well projected and effective for me (sitting in an upstairs seat more to the side), in Rodriguez's performance Wednesday, so maybe we are also seeing something in the role as staged this time. We'll see. Or maybe not.

In defense of the confused ticketbuyers, I thought the preview coverage of “Don Quixote” focused largely on the Farrell-Balanchine relationship and the return of the ballet to the active reportory rather than on the problems that led to its being dropped in the first place. That’s understandable, but I wouldn’t blame the casual balletgoer for being puzzled or even for thinking of the wrong “Don Quixote.” I don't always go right for the program notes, myself, although it's probably wise to do so........

Friday evening, Cheryl Sladkin and Alexander Ritter took over the Pas De Deux Mauresque from Magnicaballi and Kish, and while Ritter was fine, it was a little inauspicious for Sladkin, whose dancing looked small-scale - except when she had his support. I got more out of Rodriguez's Dulcinea this evening than previously, beginning with her long dance late in Act I, which still looked incompletely realized; but her dancing in the dream scene beginning Act III did look clear, secure, and fully mastered, right out to her fingertips "but no farther," as a BTer I met who had seen Farrell and Leland aptly put it. And Magnicaballi's Variation in the dream ballet was beautiful, while Pickard's Ritournel in Act II was again large, beautifully shaped and nuanced, as it had been opening night, if not better.

The entire evening was more tightly paced, more cohesive, more flow.....
quite enjoyable....
although I didn't feel that Rodriguez is an expansive, dramatic dancer......
technnically, she was fine.....but technique is not what I am primarily looking for in Dulcinea.

I saw the opening (Wed), Thursday night and just got back from the Saturday matinee. It's starting to jell. Today's performance was much more alive than the opening. I think it's a great work; there's nothing else like it, in Balanchine's oeuvre or out of it. I'd expected a modernistic experimental work, having read about what a failure it was. But it's not experimental in the usual sense of the word. It builds on Bournonville (there's bits of "Folk Tale" in it), Fokine and Petipa, but with 20th century choreography. There are references to other Balanchine ballets, both those which would have been known in 1965 ("La Sonnambula," "Serenade," "Allegro Brillante,") and those to come, most notably "Davidsbundlertanze." The dancers are beginning to be relaxed in it, and some of the divertissement dancing this afternoon was very good indeed.

Sladkin was *magical* in the Saturday matinee. What a difference a day makes! She's a corps member now, but there should be very good things in her future, if what I saw is any indication.

I agree, Mike, you'd hardly know it was the same dancer! Chalk up Friday evening to debut nerves, or something, I guess. For the record, I still find Magnicaballi more satisfying, but I want to see Sladkin again.

Yes, I think the production as a whole is jelling, notwithstanding a few mishaps this evening (Saturday), especially around the transition in Act III from the Garden (Scene 1) to La Mancha. And also tonight, Mladenov showed many strengthened and clarified moments, the procession at the end didn't bunch up, and so on - people have been at work on this, apparently. But, Alexandra, could you be a little more specific about the references you saw? Allegro Brillante? I recently saw a few performances of that, and I would like to know where that and the other examples are. (Not that I doubt what you say or anything like that.)

I also think Heather Ogden has the edge on Sonia Rodriguez as Dulcinea - they're both a little too "vertical" and correct in a role originated by someone famously abandoned, but I wouldn't expect many dancers to leave behind hard-earned technique quickly - but Ogden has more dramatic imagination, I'd say.

One little improvement I'd like to see someday, if it's not impractical, is to have more of the cast take final bows. If I remember correctly, there are eight at the end - the three principals, the two solo couples from the dream ballet in the Garden scene, and the conductor. There are droves of people in this. Still, maybe it's a lot to expect to have people wait around while Act III finishes up. Speaking of the conductor, the orchestra plays more vividly for Ron Matson than for Ormsby Wilkins.

Jack, the "Allegro Brillante" link was pointed out to me by a dancer friend, who found it in "the groupings in the Courante Sicilienne." He also caught a whiff of "Brahms Schoenberg" in the dream sequence. I think most of the second act is a close cousin of "Sonnambula" -- the decadence and cruelty (which they could emphasize more ); the visionary guest -- here a knight, there a poet, but both are Outsiders; the actual divertissements. They're structurally similar -- little dances with a character favor, not virtuoso set pieces. "Serenade" -- the idea of a woman leading a man who cannot see, guiding him to his destiny. As for Davidsbundlertanze -- the ballets are thematically related, I think. The huge black, accusatory Quills in Davidsbundler are the secular version of the stern, disapproving clerics in Don Q, and Farrell's last solo in Davidsbundler has some steps and ports de bra that also appear in the last solo for Dulcinea. There are others, but those are a few.

Well, I guess I'm glad my show (Friday night) was not earlier in the run than it was. The company had two nights to tidy things up before I arrived.

I had a great time, and had my usual DC host not been away this week, I might have stayed a bit longer and seen it again.

The evening was not as heavy as I remember it from NYCB. And the set pieces from Acts II and III were absolutely gorgeous. While I would be hard pressed to point them out now, there were echoes of and precursors to other Balanchine ballets. One thing about Mr. B, he sure stole from the best!

Thanks, Jack, for posting my biggest disappointment about Rodriguez. It's not that Farrell herself knew how to inhabit and charge the space around her. City Ballet has danced that way since I've been watching them seriously (albeit to a lesser degree during their late-'90s nadir). Rodriguez failed to enlarge herself by making the space around her part of the dance. Nor did she go off her center. That's not a choice but intrinsic to the choreography.

Memory plays tricks. The scene at Court seemed less populated and shorter than my recollection Maybe it was. The Inquisitors in the final scene lacked the menace. Perhaps it's just the more recent Davidsbunder viewings overwriting the old ones of DQ. And I didn't remember the children having been so prominent in Act I.

One of the big highlights was Alexander Ritter proudly partnering Cheryl Sladkin in a fabulous pdd Mauresque, then as a Cavalier in the dream scene. The company as a whole would have benefited if more had his command and clarity. Of course, he's alone among the performers in that he actually spent time as an NYCB dancer.

I'd seen the dream scene presented once by NYCB as an excerpt. I wonder if they would do it again (assuming the owner of the rights would let them). While it loses much of its impact whenpulled from its context, well, same holds for Aurora's wedding, doesn't it?, and we see that all the time.

I would jump at a chance to see this production again. If it meant going to Toronto -- hmmm , possibly. If it meant going to New Jersey or Brooklyn? Absolutely! For this, I made the round-trip in one day -- a total of nine hours in the bus plus just under two more waiting around bus terminals. Definitely worth it.

Highlights off the stage included seeing Farrell -- from a distance -- walking towards Virginia Ave., another was greeting Ritter as he entered the theater. Making the acquaintance of Jack Reed was a treat, as was stumbling over three of the usual suspects from home.