PROGRAM A --
October 8, 9, and 11 evenings, October 12 matinee.
Liebeslieder Walzer; Ragtime; Episodes (with Ballet Austin)

PROGRAM B --
October 10 and 11 matinee, October 12 evening.
"The Balanchine Couple" featuring narration by Suzanne and excerpts from:
Apollo, La Sonnambula "The Unanswered Question" from Ivesiana, La Valse,
Agon, Meditation, Pas de Mauresque from Don Quixote, Diamonds, Stars and
Stripes.

It will certainly be interesting to see what they do with Liebeslieder. Farrell always was a risk-taker.

(from Washington, DC) The hour is late and I don't know how long this terminal will let me use it, but I've just returned to my hotel from the opening night, and Liebeslieder was amazing. I've looked at Farrell's dancers quite a lot over recent years. Let me say that I recognise dancers and even friends in the next block by distinctive qualities of their movement, and having read the cast list in the program and even seeing a familiar face, profile, or physique on stage, as the minutes went by I felt I didn't know this company. They've never done Liebeslieder before, of course, and their realization of it is so deep and thorough that the movement quality of all eight dancers was unlike anything I've seen from any of them before. And the piano playing was consistently enlivened and aware, too. And the singers were fine. I'll save my quibbles about the set and lighting for later. The hour didn't exactly seem like half an hour, I really had no sense of time anymore with it. Farrell speaks of Balanchine's ballets as "worlds" and that couldn't be more apt: This world has its own time-flow. When this was first announced the pessimist in me wondered if they could pull it off. Did she have the dancers? She has a "new" set of dancers, which they all made (out of themselves) for the purpose. Miraculous!

After intermission we had more familiar dancers, strangely enough, considering a number of them were from Ballet Austin. Farrell is a kind of sorceress, a mistress of white magic:

I've heard Stravinsky's Ragtime in one or another performance with his participation, and here the musical performance, by a small on-stage band, lacked some punch by comparison with those, but the dance (Elisabeth Holowchuk and Michael Cook, of TSFB) seemed another different time-flow experience. It runs 4-1/2 minutes still, yet there's an impossible amount of fun in this without cramming, rushing, or dragging -- here's another "world", a smaller one, but where time goes very differently from what we're used to.

Episodes, by contrast, seemed a more familiar planet, to me, if not to the attentive audience, which filled the main floor and was audibly with everything all evening if unsure when to applaud in Episodes.

Thanks for your review, Jack. Now I am _really_ excited for both Sunday performances and am trying to prepare by watching Liebeslieder (I've never seen it all the way through, nor Episodes. Blasted German films). May I ask - how were the sightlines in the renovated theater? Think you will go again?

emi

(from Washington, DC) I envy you your preparation, emilienne. That's a very good idea. Even just hearing the music through a few times. (You know Balanchine's statement that the words don't matter, right? Except for the last waltz, which is not danced, either.)

I agree, RM Productions, I think they were, zoomed in and zoomed out to the waltz rhythm. What were they thinking? Interpretation, that's what! Reminds me of Stravinsky's remark about "interpretation" in musical performance: "What most people call interpretation I call bad manners," or somthing like that. Okay, I'm a frustrated television director -- for ballet -- and that's another topic, but your remark struck a nerve. It's best when they just show, and don't interpret. Still, it's good to "warm up". My off-air tape is packed away until I can be sure I have a vcr that won't damage it playing it...

I sat in the center of the orchestra, in row S, and found it only a little distant, and though the main floor is not as strongly raked as some theatres, I was not blocked.

Go again? You don't know me! I'm in for the run, I want to memorize these ballets, especially a performance of such quality; that's one way to deal with the video situation: memory. I'll be there for every performance.

And then there's the subtle or not so subtle differences from one performance to the next. (And hopefully, not so subtle: I hope the chandelier flies out of sight for the second section; the stars do come out. When the girls are on pointe, it's more aerial, "big"in the sense of infinity.)

Is there a commercially available video or DVD of Leibeslieder? If so, please direct me to it!

Jack, thank you so much for your wonderfully evocative comments about opening night. I'll be there for both performances on Saturday and I can't wait.

While I'm at it – this seems as appropriate a place as any to direct a big thank you to the gentleman with whom I stood on line for 4 hours at City Center last month waiting to buy Fall for Dance tickets. The hours flew by as we exchanged our views on the current NY dance scene and when I told him that there was going to be so much ballet at CC in October that I wasn't planning to make my usual pilgrimage to see the Kirov/Mariinsky or head down to DC to catch the Farrell Ballet performances he looked at me like I had two heads and said something to the effect of "What are you crazy? How many more opportunities do you think you'll have to see Suzanne Farrell stage her favorite Balanchine pas de deux and give her thoughts on the Balanchine couple?" His words hit me like a thunderbolt and I bought tickets the next day. What was I thinking?

There is no commercial release for Liebeslieder, unfortunately. The Balanchine documentary had a clip of Jillana from the L'heure du concert video (which was static) and there's also Verdy/McBride/(mumble)/(other mumble) from the 73 RM film that makes me airsick. What did Mr Astaire once say? "Either the camera will dance, or I will." I don't know whether the camera movements counted as 'dancing', does intent count?

The RM productions are *occasionally* shown on German television (ZDF Theater). They showed La Valse/Valse Fantasie/Concerto Barocco back in March and April, but since then I don't think anything else has been scheduled.

Jack - have you been up to the balcony? I was feeling stingy (ah school payments) and bought a side balcony seat, but now I am strongly considering giving that up for an orchestra seat. I foolishly gave up a row N dead center orchestra for it. Sorry Ms Farrell.

I am going to both performances Sunday and would love to meet up with people before or after either performance. It will be exciting and perhaps highly uncomfortable, my favorite combination.

(Will be very *very* glad to see liebeslieder from a stationary perspective.)
emi

(edited to include the correct quote from Mr Astaire. I can't remember exact words to save my life)

but important.
Words for every dance cinematographer to live -- and die -- by. Thanks for that, emilienne.

I once took some dance classes from Fred Kelly, Gene's brother, who noted that Fred Astaire invented a lens that allowed the camera to take long takes of the dancing catching the dancer's full figures, from head to toe. Hard to believe that before then, they weren't able to photograph so well. But dance lovers owe a great debt to Astaire not only for his supreme artistry but for his technological contribution.

It was a device called the 'Astaire dolly,' devised by technicians so that the lens was off the ground by a couple of feet, enabling shots of the dance that were continuous but also mobile and close in.

Thanks, dirac.

(from Washington, DC) I think I've seen a picture or two of it, a three-wheeled affair, so it did have some agility. Maybe it was in Arlene Croce's "The Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers Book".

Anyway, as I'm getting my feet back on the ground, I realized that although I've praised the Liebeslieder dancers, I've been remiss not to tell everybody who they are:

Natalia Magnicaballi Matthew Prescott
Bonnie Pickard Michael Cook
Erin Mahoney-Du Momchil Mladenov
Ashley Hubbard Runqiao Du

Actually, I typed that up earlier today but was unable to post. Since then, I've seen their second (Friday) performance, and from two rows closer. What a difference!

(I've not been in the balcony for some time, emilienne, and not having my notes about seats with me I can only recall that the first few rows of the balcony were better than the back of the orchestra. Certainly height usually helps at the same distance in any theatre, but row S, for example, is forward of the balcony. On the other hand, row N is closer than necessary for me and, at least in the previous version of the theatre, a bit low, so that I could be partly blocked sometimes. So giving up N might not have been some seriously to regret.)

So I'm airborne in spirit again! What a company! And so good to see Magnicaballi come back to herself, among so many pleasures of the evening: In Chicago, they were on the ground for maybe 48 hours, and she was atypically inexpressive; in the concluding Ricercata of Episodes which I have just come back from, and which is of course Bach arranged by Webern, she was just expressive enough, as each measure of the music tells her to be. She and Matthew Prescott and the superb corps made this the just-right conclusion of the evening -- recollecting the "German school" of composers of which it mostly consists, the hour of Brahms -- but in a modernist crystalline distillation. Farrell does so much right, and laying out a program is not the least of them.

In Ragtime, I realized this evening it's not only my familiarity with the composer's performances that make the music here sound like it lacks a little -- just a little! -- punch, it's also that the dancing, typical of this troupe, has plentyof punch. (No, they don't punch up Liebeslieder, but they do do it large and full.) And I've come to think less of the singers, but just as much of the pianists, Ron Mattson, Farrell's music director and conductor, and Glenn Sales, whose playing with TSFB I have enjoyed before.

I'd be glad to meet some BTer's on Sunday or whenever: I always stretch my legs just inside the ticket-taker's stations, usually not going down the steps into the main foyer. My hair's been white since I was 20 (Irish are like that) and I usually carry a portfolio. I've never worn a carnation in my life!

I will be at both the 2:30 and the 8 PM on Sunday, and I echo what Jack said about meeting up. As I don't know the KC very well I'll probably look for Jack as well!

emi

I went last night to the Liebeslieder/Ragtime/Episodes program. It was an evening of mixed blessings, although I felt that things improved as the night went on.

I was somewhat disappointed with Liebeslieder, which can be such an exquisite experience if performed in languid style, rather than the choppy pacing delivered here...making the four couples appear to be peasants playing dress-up with their masters' clothing, particularly in the first half. Where are the aristocratic-seeming Kyra Nicholses, Jenifer Ringers and Maria Calegaris when we need them? Last night, the way that one of the ladies sat down on a chair after a dance -- plopping herself down and widening her skirt in a brusque (not soft and discreet) manner ruined the magic for me early-on. Other ladies would mug and over-emote as they sat and watched whoever was dancing at the moment. It's incredible that so much effort went into coaching the steps but not the perfume of the work!

Ragtime (II) is a delightful little bon-bon with charleston-esque hints, toe taps, circular hand movements and even a kissy-kissy moment at the end. I very much enjoyed the on-stage jazz orchestra. Audience seemed to love this ballet the most -- short and sweet....in contrast to not-so-happy rumblings on Liebeslieder. I actually overheard one gal whisper to her neighbor, "At least they danced ballet in the second half."

For me, the evening was all worth it due to an exceptionally beautiful performance of Episodes to four different Anton Webern pieces of music, with the final "Riccercata" section for a full ensemble and leading couple displaying a work that is every bit as masterful as the choreographer's earlier Concerto Barocco. A major reason for Episodes winning the top prize of the night was the participation of the corps de ballet from Ballet Austin in Texas. Kudos to them and to the valiant soloists from the home troupe.

(from Washington, DC) I think Natalia's points are well-taken. So why? I gather the company's budget has swollen.* From offering 11-week contracts, they're up to 13. (I understand Carolina Ballet -- to take just one well-known, widely seen and respected company, right? --offers 38 weeks, for comparison.) Other details even less postable attest to some scrambling to get this program on at all. Yup, we need those three, and Ringer, who's the one still dancing, I think, needs this. I stand by my original astonished comparison, without essentially disagreeing with Natalia.

Among the things Farrell has done well (besides getting the dancing up this level at least) is to go back to something like the original set for Liebeslieder, as she says in her Notes from the Ballet about this program. For a revival or something, Lincoln Kirstein had a photographically-detailed set built, based on some historically-significant interior, but this ballet is not about that kind of thing. (It's hard to imagine a good one that would be.) I never liked that set. It seemed an upstaging distraction.

Maybe Kirstein was trying to deal with the non-hit-ness of Liebeslieder in New York, which Arlene Croce remarks on, in contrast to Vienna Waltzes, which she says was a hit. Thursday night it was seen here by another crowd that got it, was with it pretty well (although they still had some problems with where to applaud Episodes; still, they wanted to applaud Episodes). Maybe Liebeslieder has found its time and place. It's to Farrell's credit that she mounts a potentially demanding program. I don't know quite how big it is, but she seems to have an audience for it, too. All for the best.

Today's (Friday's) "Washington Post" has a good review by Sarah Kaufman. Usually "a good review" means a positive one, but I mean that it positively, actually helps the reader to comprehend and enjoy what they may see, and Kaufman gives us some of that.

I have more quibbles about the pictures and their captions: The one on the front page of the section turns out to show, not TSFB dancers, but, ironically, Ballet Austin's dancers, of whom there are a dozen in Episodes. And under the second picture it would have been better style to have used the full title of the ballet shown, "Liebeslieder Walzer" instead of just the first word. To identify the eight dancers there might have made the caption too long, or maybe not, because Kaufman speaks of them just below on the newspaper page. Anyway it's more a matter for those with a deeper interest in the subject. People like us? From left to right, they are Ashley Hubbard with Runqiao Du (back of his head to us), Natalia Magnicaballi with Matthew Prescott, Erin Mahoney-Du with Momchil Mladenov, and (mostly hidden) Bonnie Pickard with Michael Cook.

Notice in this picture not only the girls' gowns but their character shoes, and the chairs at the back, details which identify it as of part one, to the Opus 52 music.

Balanchine says, in Balanchine's Complete Stories of the Great Ballets, that he didn't put the words of the love-songs in the program because that "would suggest that the dances were illustrations and I never had that in mind." Instad of the words, I listen to the melodies and watch how these melodies are danced, their emotional tone, their rhythm, their outline, even: If the melody goes higher, chances are one of the women will, too.

But of the last song, Balanchine says, "The words ought to be listened to in silence", and prints them in his book. Because they're not in the program, and the Complete Stories are not widely available, I put them here: Now, Muses, enough! You try in vain to portray how misery and happiness alternate in a loving heart.

("Listened to in silence"? In silence, there's nothing to hear, right? Whether Mr. B, always the teacher, hands us this little paradox as an intentional challenge or whether it's a "slip", something from deeper within him, I think here again there's the idea of "See the music, hear the dance." As the dancers come back on stage, they don't dance. They're "silent".)

Kaufman speaks of Episodes as "a ballet of little sound and few steps. Webern's jagged music is reduced in spots to elemental notes, while the dancing is similarly spare." Leaving aside the filling-in in the very last piece, the Bach orchestration, that's a fair account, although, again, Balanchine's description seems to me more evocative: "Webern's music fills the air like molecules." Molecules. Remember that chemistry course, where molecules were represented as... little spheres... or... clumps of little spheres... with... ... ... in between.

*I thought I was choosing this word as though speaking tongue-in-cheek. I've since gathered that the budget is the same as before; they've just found ways to get more out of it. *sigh*

Thank you once again Jack for bring Ms. Farrell's company to those who are unable to see it in person!

Thank you for also identifying the dancers in the photo. Mr. Prescott was easily identified by his glorious curls, but I had a hard time with the others.

Would you be so kind as to describe the costuming detail, and also who gets credit for their construction?

I don't mean to be beging for details, but I do love all the details!

If not too much trouble, were any of the regular corps members there? Reed? Kurt? Ian? etc.?

Thank you soooo much for your incite, opinions and observations...keep them coming!

(from Washington, DC) You're welcome, TutuMaker. I have to disappoint you a little about answering your request. All the program said was "Costumes made possible through agreements with San Francisco Ballet and National Ballet of Canada."

Now I have to reveal that I'm one of those guys who knows about six names for colors, but I'll try to remember to solicit others' descriptive details Sunday. Too bad the New York Times review has no pictures (online, anyway). For the Opus 62 part, the girls have gauzy long skirts I thought might do for La Valse, but actualy the colors are much too pale for that one; still, there's a little of that layered-color effect, if you know those. (Why would someone with a screen name like TutuMaker want costume details? Hmm...)

As to corps members, the ones actually onstage rather than just in the company list, have been Violeta Angelova, Amy Brandt, Jordyn Richter, Andrew Kaminski, Laurie Lou Garside, and Sara Ivan. There are a couple more cast in "The Unanswered Question", James Reed Hague and Danny Scott, but these perfomances have not gone yet.

Meanwhile I recommend Macaulay's review. He, like Natalia, felt something missing, although I can't tell if it's the same thing; but what we get is, we feel -- he and I, not that I see anything like so keenly as he -- quite a lot. The dramatic weight may come; I indicated, to explain, not to excuse, for this company needs no excuses in my view, only better circumstances, the circumstances they're in in the meantime.

Jack, I have a real problem with the artistry and 'soul' of the Farrell dancers, in general. Quite simply, they are not at the expected level for a company to dance as intricate and 'deep' a ballet as is Liebeslieder. It's not enough to Do The Steps. I also found the over-brisk tempo of the music distracting. I have sung the alto soloist in Liebeslieder, professionally, and know this music intimately. The music must ooze and be milked by both vocalists and dancers. What is saw & heard last night was a good ol' college try, sorry.

I'll be there for the performance tomorrow night, so can relay costume details, Tutu maker! See everyone there.....

(from Washington, DC) I have this odd sense that I agree with Natalia much more than she agrees with me about Liebeslieder. Certainly I was aware of a lot of room for further improvement. Sometimes for me this took the form of "seeing ghosts": Things like Oh, how that would look on Verdy came to mind more than once. Essentials of what I'm seeing have to approach what I saw years ago for this unconscious suggestion process to happen, I think.

And I felt that the "Ricercata" conclusion to Episodes was most fully achieved and so, most satisfying. A strong ending for the evening.

But what many of us "old audience" are enjoying here, I think, was well put by Alistair Macaulay in yesterday's New York Times where he said of these ballets, (There's a photo in the paper verion of his review; the Times's caption identifies the dancers, too.)

I'd add that it's not necessary even to wait until the choreographer's death to see the life go out of his (or her) dances, just watch an unsupervised performance or two. And I hope I can add that there were probably some in the audience who never saw these dances before and who enjoy these performances for such virtues as they have.

Costume note: I'n not very original sometimes, if ever, but when I heard someone's color names for the girls' Liebeslieder costumes, I thought they fit well. The first part is in creamy beige satin and the second has gray over lilac. (This is pretty accurate historically, isn't it?) But we'll see what Juliet has on this, and anything else that comes to her mind.

I saw the first performance of the "Couples" program last night, and among the high points were the Apollo pas de deux with Sara Ivan and Du and, even better, the Agon one with Indre Vengris Rockefeller and Mladenov. Both girls are listed as corps members. Low point: No ensemble or rising stripes after the Stars and Stripes pas de deux.

Theatre seating note: I think row S in the Orchestra is under the first row of seats in the Box level just above; for my eyes, that's a tad far, although height seems to help even when there's not a crowd of performers on stage.

Jack, we totally agree on the highlights in last night's The Balanchine Couple opener! Vengris-Rockefeller's Agon pdd, in particular, introduces a real gem of a tall Balanchinesque artist! I was also very taken by the tender, musical performance of Natalia Magnicaballi in Meditation. Alas, she was unable to repeat that level of performance in the Diamonds pdd, where her petite limbs could not do justice to the iconic images that we all know and love (think the developes of Farrell or Lopatkina)....but -- ha! -- Magnicaballi beat them all with the sheer brilliance of her sparkle-packed tutu, which had me reaching for my sunglasses!

It's a shame that the many 'highs' of the program were eclipsed by the final two pdd's on view, one of which featured a ballerina whose moves reminded me of the TV commercial of the granny who tries to be a high-school cheerleader, barely getting her 'split jumps' off the ground. Sorry to be so critical but it's a bit jarring to see such a feeble performance on the stage, particularly when 80% of what preceded it was magnificent.

p.s. - It was a treat seeing and hearing Suzanne Farrell introducing the ballets. For our fashionistas: she wore a lovely, cocktail-length, salmon-colored chiffon dress with ruffly skirt. Wouldn't this program make a great PBS special telecast? (hint - hint)

I have a hard time picturing Magnicaballi in "Diamonds". She was a knockout in "Rubies" in Phoenix, and I could imagine her in the Mimi Paul role in "Emeralds".

Saturday afternoon ("The Balanchine Couple" again) I noticed the heightening effect of bringing out all three pairs of dancers at the end of each set of pas de deux: We're reminded of how varied the Balanchine "worlds" we just visited were by seeing them next to each other, and the effect is, well, doubled at the end of the last set by bringing out six pairs. (We've seen nine pas de deux, of course, but there have been costume and changes and cast rotations.) I don't know if Farrell anticipated this effect or not, but it shows again how good her instincts are.

Saturday evening as I was watching Liebeslieder I thought again this is beautifully achieved and maybe the best thing they've done, a real step up from even the fine performances of the past. Afterward I caught up with a couple of New York friends from the old days of Balanchine's company. One, an "everynighter" then, or almost, said, "It's so nice to see Liebeslieder again. It's not what it was when Suzanne and Violette and the others were in it, but it's Liebeslieder." Mahoney-Du and Mladenov were especially fine.

Young-audience note: The woman on my right, with girls ages 4 and 6, liked Mahoney-Du and Mladenov especially, too; the little ones got a little squirmy near the end of the second part of Liebeslieder, but another 6-year old on my left remained attentively erect except during the pause. After hearing my quick gloss on the repertory to come after intermission, the group on my right elected to stay (the one to the left stayed without consulting me). I learned, however, these children were not in your representative sample of the general tot population; one was involved in dance and gymnastics, and all had previous experience watching theatrical dance. (I didn't pick up any sign that their moms urged any of this on them, which is anathema with me.)

Further costume note: In the last waltz of part one, as the four girls turned, spreading their gowns, I noticed that two of them match my friend's description and two are white with four broad pale yellow stripes running down from the waist. Tutumaker, can you enlarge the second picture in the Washington Post's on line review of the Liebeslieder program? It shows the gowns worn in part one, but at the moment, on a shared computer, I can't enlarge it well enough to see the stripes.

Ragtime looks a little thin if you look hard, but there's so much fun coming so fast you don't. The "Ricercata" of Episodes was led Saturday evening by Mahoney-Du and Mladenov, and it was even more effective than with Magnicaballi and Prescott. Their only one, though, according to the printed program.

The "Ricercata" this time was led even more effectively by Mahoney-Du and Mladenov. Alas it's their only one. The rest of this number is mainly Ballet Austin, which seems just a little less sharp and crisp than TSFB. Clean and clear, though, as Episodes requires.

A quick note after a full day of ballet - more description &tc will doubtlessly come tomorrow once my brain resets.

It was a pleasure to meet Jack and kfw from BT. The only thing I can add at this hour is that the renovated Eisenhower Theater has great sight lines at the balcony level (not the boxes). I was four seats in from the end in row C and very little of my view was obstructed. The obstruction became a little worse from the top corner of the balcony (10% to about 20% at most - one set of doors to Liebeslieder and the tenor was obscured) but it didn't affect my view of the main group.

Could you elaborate on this for me? I'm trying to understand how something is less "sharp and crisp" but still "clean and clear" in this context. Or maybe I'm not reading it properly.

Thanks!

~Pointe1432

I'm with you, Pointe1432! As far as I'm concerned, the best ballet on view during the recent Farrell season at the KennCen *was* Episodes, by a mile, and a great reason for this was Ballet Austin. 'Nuf said.

Pointe1432, thanks! Part of the value of posting here is that people's responses help me to write better.

My phrases differ in degree: I'm thinking of a range from "over-etched, similar to a demonstration", let's say, to "smooth and featureless, lacking details", so "sharp and crisp" is in between these two extremes, closer to the "overetched" end of the scale, and "clean and clear" is in between too, but closer to the "smooth and featureless" end of the scale. Does this help?

Struggling to analyze what I see as I do this way, I'm all the more taken by the professional writers like Alistair Macaulay or or own Alexandra Tomalonis, who catch more than I do, in fewer words. Less is more. I think a great value of ballet talk, whether in a theatre foyer or on line, is to help us to engage more fully with our experience of ballet.

For example, Natalia also saw a difference in quality of movement between Farrell's dancers and Ballet Austin; she disagrees with me about which is better, but as we are all different and we care about the same thing, that's bound to happen. Along the way, I'm reassured that the difference I saw really was there.

I'm trying to sum up my thoughts about the run, but in the meantime I can say something about seating in the renovated Eisenhower theatre in line with emilienne's remarks: A couple of my friends had bought tickets for the third row in the Box tier only to discover when they were seated that they couldn't see the stage because the heads of the people in the rows in front of them blocked their view. The floor of the boxes is not raked. They were reseated in the center Orchestra around row M and saw just fine from there. (My own previous experience there was that that row is a bit low, but that may have ben changed.)

And I found that I could be blocked in center Orchestra row Q because many people sat in row P in chairs whose seats were about four or five inches higher than the few theatre seats in that row (two at each end, next to the aisles). Row P is directly accessible from the cross-aisle and has few permanent seats in the center section, apparently to accommodate people in wheel chairs; this seems to me a laudable effort which has suffered slightly in how it was carried out. Maybe lower chairs will be provided.

Having danced just enough pas de deux to really appreciate the challenge, I have to say that I enjoyed the “Balanchine Couples” immensely. While I was considering writing a review, Maculay’s review of the 14th actually stole 95% of my own thoughts, and much better written! All in all, I was impressed with the dancers since the production featured, if my count is correct, 15 dancers in the spotlight, from a company certainly not normally thought of for its depth. I also felt it was a much more personal production than what we are familiar seeing, not only because of the nature of being solely pas de deux, but also the connection Ms. Farrell lent to them and conveyed in her personal remarks.

Thanks also to all here for the feedback on seating at the renovated Eisenhower. With regard to my experience, I was dead center Row L. Like Emilienne, I was somewhat concerned when I got them but they turned out great, particularly so for the more intimate “Couples.” The rake there made for a surprisingly good sightline. While even that close, eye level was several feet above stage level. Having said that, for a production with more dancers on stage, I think I would still prefer seats with a higher perspective.

Thanks Jack Reed, that did help a bit. I initially read it and said "huh?", so I appreciate you explanation. Figuring that of course there is a difference in styles between the SFB dancers and the BA dancers, I was wondering especially what the "regulars" saw.

I think it is such an interesting concept to partner two companies together, and what a wonderful networking opportunity for both groups.

Next week the SFB will be in Austin to perform Episodes on Ballet Austin's program. I wonder what the Austin audience will think of the pair up.

~Pointe1432

I apologise for the lateness of my report but the commitments of an academic-in-training is never done. Also food poisoning killed whatever was left of me for three days and that is never fun. I went to both programs on Sunday 12 October, the matinee of Liebeslieder Walzer/Ragtime/Episodes, and the night time curated performance of Balanchine's pas de deux. I don't have very much to say about the second program, so I've combined impressions from both into one post.

For those people looking for seating information, I've posted about it in this thread a few messages back. (http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=27990&view=findpost&p=234758)

Liebeslieder Walzer/Ragtime/Episodes
Sunday 12 October 2008 2:30 PM
Eisenhower Theater, Kennedy Center
Row C 23 (Left Balcony, four seats from the left end)

All three pieces on the afternoon program were new to me. I've seen Liebeslieder Walzer on video (including Karin von Aroldingen coaching pieces of it on Balanchine Lives!) but never from a stationary perspective. From a first outing perspective I think I would have preferred to see no other company. While the dancers seemed tentative at first they settled into the dances soon enough, especially in the pointe section. There were some lovely movements - the couple who danced the 'pushing' duet in a later segment lost themselves to the delirium of the dance. The woman spun away, reaching for something out of the confines of this particular ballroom. The man grabbed her hand at the last moment as if anchoring her to reality, it looked as if he reminded himself as well. All in all, the steps and the moods were there, but aside from flashes of insight the dancers were not yet comfortable enough to delineate distinct personalities among them. With Liebeslieder I wonder whether the dancers are distinct couples trying out different moods and fates while they associate, or whether they are anonymous projections of relationships, viewed at a remove. With the SFB I currently lean toward the latter. Part of it, I think, is simply dancers needing more time with this particular ballet. They do not yet look comfortable, as if waltzing was not yet firmly ingrained in their bodies.

All of that being said, here are my caveats, as have been mentioned by several posters and reviews already. It may have been a function of where I sat, but the male singers were overpowered by the women, especially at first. They sorted themselves out and performed admirably, but it was to the audience. The acoustics may be off but I wanted them to remain within that diegetic space, to preserve the illusion of unity between music and dance. Second, Jack's right about the chandelier - the sparkliness was even more distracting and provided a very clear 'ceiling' to the dance during the second part. I would rather not have souls fly up and hit themselves on a million and one shards of waterford crystal. Third, someone (was it you Jack?) mentioned the lighting change - the distinct impression of lights fading into the starry night in second section instead of an abrupt dimming of lights. It was so subtly done at first that I thought it was my eyesight. I think I really would have preferred an abrupt dimming to clearly cue the difference in moods.

But these are all staging caveats, the dancers danced beautifully. I would love to see what they can do in a year's time, or perhaps even five. It would be a lovely ballet to grow into.

The dance archeologist in me wonders what the first concert version of Ragtime looks like (with Diana Adams). This version with its demi-caratère gestures and the loose-limbed choreography can only connect in my mind to Farrell and her little eccentricities. Elizabeth Holowchuk did admirably, but she filled the Farrell mold - is it possible for her to exceed it? Actually the first thought I had when they began dancing was, "My God, it's Rubies with Suzanne Farrell!" But it wasn't, not quite, she was perhaps a less cynical jazz baby, before she had acquired quite the verve and edge of Rubies.

I went into Episodes completely cold, as I had seen only a recording of Kent in Episodes from the RM Productions. I must confess that I had to stifle giggling all through it. There were wickedly funny quotes from Agon (splits from the pas de deux, non linear canon work), what seemed to be the Rite of Spring (distorted plie work), and even tendu éffacés and écartés from what looked to be Theme and Variation in the Ricercata. The dancers, from both the SFB and Ballet Austin, had terrific energy and commitment in the performance of it, and the SFB dancers looked visibly more comfortable in this than in Liebeslieder. I did notice that the SFB dancers had sharper, more clearly delineated movements than those from Ballet Austin. The difference between whips and knives, perhaps?

Finally, I will add that the corp work in the Ricercata, both in canon and also in its echoing of the principals, reminded me strangely of Fokine's logic in his corp work in Les Sylphides. The orchestration in the 'style of Bach' did nothing to dissuade me of that impression.


Sunday 12 October 2008 8 PM
'The Balanchine Couple'
Orchestra Row S 123 (Center Orchestra on the Left Aisle)

I thought that this would be a good program to take a ballet neophyte to - and while Farrell's narration was great - the pas de deuxs were too disconnected from each other to make for good continuous watching. Watching Balanchine's work in excerpt always reminds me of how interlocked his choreography was - how do you begin to understand Apollo and Terpischore when there is no context of what came before or after?

As I have nothing substantive to say about, this portion is broken up into random impressions:

Apollo: See above for my complaint about context. Apollon Musagète is my favorite Balanchine ballet for its simplicity of both dance and orchestration. I'd love to see what sort of an Apollo Runqiao Du is in a complete ballet. After seeing him in Liebeslieder and this I have in mind him as a Martins type - he of the quiet controlled majesty. All right, perhaps Martin's majesty was a bit less controlled.

La Sonnambula: I've only seen the recording of Baryshnikov and Ferri in this, so I don't have a fair comparison of it. Kirk Henning was a suitably yearning poet, perhaps too curious or attracted for his own good. Magnicaballi was a beautiful Sleepwalker - her controlled dancing created a lovely and menacing contrast with the lush and (I thought) rather insipid orchestration.

The Unanswered Question: Hands down, my favorite pas de deux de six of the evening. I love Ives, and Holowchuk's disquieting performance was wonderful. There looked to be a few technical difficulties when the men moved her about, but it didn't break the atmosphere. Cook's dancing read very clearly on the stage against the dim lighting, but its sharpness also lent it a bit too much theatricality.

La Valse: I told Jack that Maurice Ravel is one of my favorite composers. I love Dear Maurice precisely for his sense of orchestration - that one or two acidic notes in a lush chord that subtly throws my harmonic universe out of alignment. Death's appearance was sudden and dramatic (this being the revised version from the 70s), but I am of the opinion that if danced with suitable aplomb then his presence is not needed until the final scene in the ball room, the menace should have been telegraphed alone by the tension inherent in both the music and dancing. That said, I have nothing substantial to say, except that I'd love to see a full La Valse from SFB.

(I've just realized that I had more to say than previously envisioned. Whoops.)

Agon: I asked Jack if Agon was a contest between the dancers and the music, or whether it was a contest _between_ the dancers. He said Yes. In my limited experience I've never gotten the sense of the second part from a performance. It could be dancer proficiency or any number of things, but this performance put some of that menace, that sense of competition between the man and the woman, back in. Is he guiding her or is she being presented with a challenge that she cannot win? Moreover, did she provoke him to it?

Meditation: ... After the last few pas de deux, Meditation felt surprisingly conventional. It was quite a shock, really.

Pas de deux mauresque: Not the greatest of works, but it was a great display of range. It was character dancing à la Balanchine and a charmingly sinuous one, In a Manner Other than Coffee.

Diamonds Pas de deux: Seeing this done in a Swan Lake esque classical tutu (instead of a powderpuff) just reminds me all the more powerfully that Diamonds is _not_ Swan Lake. Magnicaballi and Mladenov gave a good performance but she was slightly off her legs (tired perhaps?). It wasn't as majestic nor as mystically ecstatic as it could have been. I think I'd love to see Magnicaballi in Emeralds. Mladenov slipped off the radar (sorry!) as I spent most of it trying to figure out what she was doing with the role.

Stars and Stripes: Pickard and Cook gave a spirited performance of the pas de deux (but alas, no full company finale!). They've both got the idea of it, but I don't think that either of them quite had the legs for this sort of dancing. Pickard at the end especially looked tired (perhaps concerned?) through the split jumps. Both of them played it straight. While the pas can be too campy, I remember seeing a recording of Hayden in her delight and perhaps even amusement at the things that her legs were doing (look at them go!). Of course, in this I could be a little biased, as my own private nickname for Liberty Bell is Tweety Bird.

The Balanchine Couple is a lovely program, but it simply whets the appetite for _more_, for complete renditions of each of these ballets from the company. At moments I did question Farrell's casting, especially in the Stars and Stripes, but for the majority of it her choices worked well and gave _distinct_ performances in the pas. It is this very distinctness that I would like to see more of in Liebeslieder.

A lovely day of visual overload and then it was back to academia for emi. i look forward to seeing them again in fifteen months or so.

I may have more to say in the future but I think for now this is it.

emi

Wow, emiliennne! Good things are worth waiting for. Thanks. I'll comment on a few things you said because they reminded me of my own reactions.

I too have only seen Liebeslieder on video, but I agree with everyone that the personalities weren't fully delineated. Yet something from Alastair MacCauley's review of this program sticks with me: "Perhaps the tragic and transcendent aspects of “Liebeslieder” — its dramatic weight — can emerge only where dancers have achieved the authority of being familiar year-round to their audience?" I take him to mean that the full dramatic weight of the ballet can only be felt when the dancers are well-known, and really, that's a keen but common sense observation: the more experience we have with particular people, the more we understand them in a particular situation. Having seen the Farrell and most of the dancers in this staging year after year, and remembering them, even during my two viewings of this ballet, in other much different settings -- Erin Mahoney-Du in Clarinade especially, and Matthew Presscott, at an age where he looks so much more mature every year and even more so with his relatively tamed hair here -- I found these performance plenty rich. I saw characters, not projections. I take the point that the singers weren't fully integrated into the setting, but, more than that, what dimmed the illusion for me was the simplified set. I would have preferred a more detailed room, like the ones in the recorded and broadcast NYCB performances.

As for Ragtime, although this second version as reconstructed was made on Farrell, I thought of her only in retrospect, and that'a a tribute to Holowchuk. I guess she was nervous in Pithoprakta in New York, but I've never seen her look that way in D.C., and she kept me laughing with delight all the way through this ballet. But even on second viewing, and from close up, the choreography was less interesting than on first viewing from the back of the orchestra. It was fun to see the orchestra onstage, and to see Ron Matson get into the spirit of things and shimmy a bit as he conducted.

I agree that the pas de deuxs lose too much by themselves to make The Balanchine Couple a fully satisfying program, but of course when it's Balanchine, one can't complain.

I think Runqiao Du has the temperament for, as you say, a quietly majestic Apollo, and after seeing him do yeoman work in ballet after ballet, I'd love to see him get a shot at the full role. Here, I didn't think he had much of a chance.

In her review in danceviewtimes Alexandra praised Kirk Henning as the Poet in La Somnabula, but I didn't care for his performance. Perhaps I was too close, or perhaps I couldn't get past the memories of the wonderfully ardent Jason Redick in 2003 with this company, but Henning struck me as less enthralled than puzzled, and when he pushed the Sleepwalker he seemed downright rough, almost as if he was toying with her. I didn't see a sympathetic poet, I saw a frat boy.

The Unanswered Question was my favorite piece in this program as well, and Holowchuk is suitably remote for it. Oh, to have seen Kent! I wish Farrell would stage the whole ballet sometime.

I saw Erin Mahoney-Du and not the more commented on and praised Rockefeller in Agon, but I felt the same competition with an edge of menace you mention, and that made this one of the best Agon pas de deux's I can remember, far more dramatic than the relatively NYCB bland version with Whelan and Evans this March.

Meditation with Magnicaballi just went by me this time. She is well cast for this, if not in the first bloom of youth, and if it had been programmed first (not that it should have been dramatically) I would have been better able to concentrate, but Farell has brought this at least 3 times now, and I've probably seen a half a dozen performances, and apart from its historical background, I find it all too swooney. Boal made it memorable, but I think it would take star casting to make me care again.

Thanks to everyone for their reviews. I enjoyed them all.

Images from Episodes in Austin with Ballet Austin cane be viewed at : http://insightphotography.smugmug.com/Dance

Enjoy