How'd it look? What was done during intermission?

I didn't like the direction (and camera placements) during most of it--the side angles looked static and too low, and the cuts to the high angles were a little jarring at times. The center camera cuts also weren't great. The last act and tomb scene were better and the CUs worked well. As usual it was an all-male camera crew so as usual, I caught the missing details which showed a lack of experience filming dance.

During intermission, Leslie Stahl (who also intro'd the program) interviewed Peter Martins, (she then flubbed actress Joan Fontaine for Margot Fonteyn--PM corrected her), and asked some good questions (though we've all heard them before), and some only a non-balletomane would venture. She then interviewed the technical director, who briefly explained the collaboration process that created the set: a triumvirate of Peter, Per, and Perry. (How's that for alliteration?!) Then they showed some video clips of rehearsals in which Hyltin and Fairchild were interviewed (which might have been the same ones aired on the NYCB website.) And finally, an interview clip of the NYCB music director rehearsing with the orchestra. There was also an offscreen announcer (I assume in the booth) who seemed slightly more knowledgeable.

(Apologies for any misspellings or missing names--no program/notes in front of me. Also... in the interest of full-disclosure, I've never been a fan of this production; I prefer better sets, costumes, drama, and choreography. Still, the dancers were good, and I do like the more realistic swords and fight choreography.)

I'm almost certain that all of the video clips that they showed were the Kristen Sloan creations that were on the website, though there was no acknowledgement, at least during intermission, as to the original source

The dancers were brilliant, really brilliant. As far as the production itself goes, I've seen it before, and I'm not exactly a fan.

A brilliantly succinct review.

Back to my favorite relative, Dr. Johnson:

The work is good and original. Unfortunately, what is good is not original, and what is original is not good.

And some of the DORKIEST dancer acting ever, from principals and corps alike, with some lovely closeups to pick it all up. Dancer acting tends to be super dorky (sorry guys, but it always hits me like a wave when I see it in a full-length). I love the "concerned face" and attendant concerned gestures when something distressing happens center stage. And I swear someone was mouthing faux words, looking first at one person, then the next, then back to the first, etc. (perhaps mouthing, "wtf...wtf...wtf...wtf?").

I've seen this production live several times (from the first performance, in fact).
However, whether or not we are personal fans of Martins' ballet, the fact that public television is able to offer
this live performance from Lincoln Center is to be applauded, and commended. What a wonderful opportunity for
people all over the country -- especially those that don't live in ballet-rich cities and towns -- to see one of the best
companies in the world perform. What is sad though, is that this program was broadcast on the same day that
WNET and WLIW (local PBS in NYC and Long Island) announced a huge reduction of staff. Why? Lack of viewer contributions, as well as big business donations, in this tough economic climate. This program prompted me to finally make the annual donation that I've been remiss about making this year.

As for the merits of this particular cast -- they were delightful within the confines of the ballet. And that music is simply stunning (no matter how many times I've heard it). The NYCB orchestra, under the direction of the excellent Facyal Kroui, never sounded better. Finally, any chance to see Jock Soto (I'm still not over his retirement) on stage again is reason enough to go to this ballet (as I did last week), or watch it on PBS (as long as they are able to fund such programming).

Absolutely correct. However, let's call a spade a spade: this production is a real klunker, as I (and practically everybody else) wrote on this forum two years ago. The giant cardboard box of a set remains that, although it looks even worse in person, from the 4th Tier. At least the set looks less sparse from the lower levels, with the decorative backdrop in full view.

And now for what really bugged me about last night's telecast. Forgive me my usual honesty but...I have a serious problem when Juliet's nurse or even her mother have younger-looking faces than the Juliet. Some dancers are simply not telegenic and Sterling Hyltin is one of them. What a shame that make-up artists were unable to intervene.

On the other hand, Ms Hyltin's long lines, legs, feet, positions were absolutely glorious. Robert Fairchild was also quite wonderful but even HE does not have the most telegenic of faces, compared to how I see him in real life. On the other hand, Joaquin De Luz as Tybalt and Dan Ulbricht as Mercutio were both spot-on in their dancing and looking just as they do in real life.

It's hard to find much that's good in this horrendous production, though. To think - such a grand company with such an exquisite repertoire and this is what PBS saw fit to telecast? grrrrr..... Still, it's a once-every-four-years chance to see a top company on live TV in an evening-length ballet.

I'd never realized how much Sterling looked liked Darci Kistler when she was young. With her hair up like that, she looked eerily like Darci, especially in profile. I hadn't noticed that seeing her in person, or even the youtube interviews. Maybe it's the curly hair.

Are you sure? Darci was (is) very telegenic, even now, with angelic facial features. The features of the two -- face and body -- are quite different, IMO. Only the blonde hair and perhaps the long legs are alike.

I'm not going to debate the merits of R&J. Honestly, I'm not high on any story ballets at all (which is why I'm a NYCB fan).
That said, this particular R&J is packing people into the Koch theatre. Anything that helps bring NYCB (or any ballet company)
revenue works for me.

As for the comments about people being photogenic or not.
That's just a little too personal a discussion for me.
And it has little, if anything, to do with the merits of this or any ballet. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, afterall.
For the record, I thought Robbie and Sterling both looked young and beautiful (as they do in real-life as well).

You may like their looks, think they're beautiful, but there isn't anything 'too personal' for most of us about talking about somebody being 'telegenic', any more than there was about Marilyn Monroe being 'photogenic' or 'cinematogenic'. And in her juxtaposition of 'Appalachian Spring' productions about 10 years apart. Deborah Jowitt says of Matt Turney 'she's a real beauty', and 'the camera loves her'. That is definitely part of it, even if not the main part of it. It is a legitimate observation.

Edited to add? Sorry to ask here, but i missed the show on Channel 13 last night, can't find the original post with the schedules, and can't find it in the WNET TV Guide? Is there going to be another broadcast on WNET? I might as well give it a shot if I have time.

Thanks, p. This is a visual art, after all. The 'look' of a leading dancer can 'make' or 'kill' the experience for somebody, regardless of how well the steps are performed.

Maybe the comments about faces are partly implicit comments about camera technique? Without close ups, this viewer at least is less aware of any shortcomings as conventional dramatic character in a dancer whose element is -- no joke intended -- body language, anyway. We're all better off when we're shown the whole body.

Sorry, I don't agree at all with the telegenic comments by Natalia or Jack Reed.
This isn't a beauty contest, despite what various reviewers may or may not write about movie stars or dancers. And surely a ballet dancer
can't be compared to a movie star -- who is often, but not always, (partly) popular because of their good looks (as well as their acting talents).
I don't agree -- at all -- that a ballet dancer's "looks" can hurt/kill a performance. But maybe that's just me.
As for discussing camera angles, I think we should just be thankful that PBS was able to find the funding to put this
ballet -- or any ballet -- on national television (with reduced crews because of budget cuts etc.).

As for me, I'm heading back to NYCB tonight (and all weekend).

Have a good holiday weekend everyone!

I was unable to watch and am hoping that my programming for dvr and videotape worked.

Thanks, 4mrdncr, for your insights as a filmer of ballet. And thanks, Deborah R and others, for reminding us how rare and important it is to have ballet availble to national audiences.

That said, it is a disppointment how many PBS affiliates opted not to show this performance when scheduled. There was much to be said in favor of having ONE SIMULTANEOUS broadcast, as in the old days. That bound ALL arts lovers into a single community (within our time zones, at least), sharing the experience in the same real time.

The director of the old Dance in Americ series had time to experiment and come up with techniques that were quite successful. Current tv producers must not get the chance to do this kind of work very often. Did anyone notice especially effetive camera work -- or something that was lost, glossed over, over- or under-emphasized, etc.? (This question is a for DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS. Please!)

One scene that typifies the camera work was the scene when Juliet's parents visit her bedroom to urge her to marry. There are very few dancers on the stage, yet the camera kept cutting to a view taken from the right third-ring box. At the very end of the scene, Soto exits the stage, leaving Juliet alone and that camera angle pops up. There's Sterling Hyltin in the very corner of a practically empty stage and the camera is on a wide view, showing all that empty space. It seemed strange. It seems at that moment, you'd want the camera right in tight on Hyltin to show her anguish, especially since she's the only thing on stage. I do not like the ballet. I agree with one poster who said their dislike begins with Prokofiev score (which I think works best as a concert work rather than a ballet). I don't find the choreography distinguished in this production, nor the sets and costumes. That said, I think it looked better on screen, especially the first half than it does in the theater. The dancers did their best, as the always do.

Bart, there were a couple of moments in the first swordfight scene where we got a view on the diagonal with the camera very low to the ground that I thought quite effectively put us into the middle of the fight. Rewatching that, though, I just noticed that one of the Montague's is wounded in this scene, and no one goes to his aid. Strange.

I don't think anybody was talking about the most IMPORTANT kind of performance in ballet--live performance--but the televised broadcast. That is less important, but talk of 'telegenic' never refers to live performance, 'Live from Lincoln Center' is still television, subesquently to be shown in recorded form.. And the performances by those not considered 'telegenic' were praised, if I reacll correctly. 'Being thankful' for a PBS broadcast of ballet doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about 'camera angles', when that's what's involved in any television show. Critique is necessary, and not just by professional critics that have more clout.

What's more, I only used one movie star for comparison, and did one example of a dance critic talking about a major dancer.



And even that's not so pertinent in today's film actors, is more the case with the old days , esp. 30s and 40s stars, and going in some cases into the 50s and 60s, before not being so important.

Okay, I finally found out it's on Sunday just after noon, so I'm going to check out this business.

The thing that strikes me in the opening scene is, there is no character definition. Who are these people? neither the choreography nor the costumes tell you anything about them. The two color coded groups of women could have wandered in from a Tharp/Robbins ballet. Oh for Cranko's whores and flying oranges!
The acting was for the most part indicating by the crowd, and melodramatic from the principals, but I don't think you can blame the dancers so much as the direction, or lack thereof, that they received. And of course, this was a stage performance. Normally for an actor a performance for film would be less broad, and for TV even more subtle.
On the positive side, Sterling Hyltin's dancing......gorgeous! Daniel Ulbricht was a terrific Mercutio, and the sword fights were exciting, really well staged and performed.
I enjoyed the intermission segments, and you had to laugh at the idea of Joan Fontaine dancing Juliet!

Especially when it was her sister, Olivia de Haviland. People always confuse the two.

It wasn't even the Fontaine-DeHaviland mix-up, volcanohunter. Leslie Stahl showed that she is not a member of BalletTalk by forgetting who is MARGOT Fonteyn!

I watched my DV recording again last night. What truly amazing dancing we had from all principals. Earlier, I had forgotten to praise Antonio Carmena's Benvolio. Exquisite! That Act I exchange of 'dueling back cabrioles' between Carmena and Ulbricht is a highlight. Ulbricht's were a mile high - "Ivan Vasiliev high" & perfectly parallel to the floor. I'm glad that all of these dancers have now been filmed in their prime, for posterity's sake. I hope that we don't have to wait another 3-4 years for another NYCB telecast...hopefully with choreography by Balanchine, Robbins or Wheeldon.

Yes, the angles were rotten. Seldom flattering for the two leads.

Aside from the ugly sets and simplistic choreography, the use of "young" lovers simply did not work for me. I longed for the grandeur of a Ferri or Fonteyn--who tell volumes just by sitting very still---and not showing all their emotions in their face alone---it was like watching an emoting heroine from a silent movie. But the character that really raised my hairs was Martins treatment of Mercutio---he looked like an escaped Joker from Swan Lake---he kept bobbing up all over the place.

That said, my apologies to Hyltin and Fairchild (a most handsome Romeo!)---two very talented dancers--it's not their fault.

I don't think it's exactly forgetting. It's more like "surfacing subtext", in this case a mnemonic. At least she didn't use FRANK Fontaine to remember how to pronounce "Fonteyn".

Lesley Stahl, a highly respected, award-winning journalist, made a mistake (she seemed a bit nervous which I found charming) with a "big" name. Mr. Martins corrected her (politely and with good humor, I might add).
End of story.
Oh, but I should add that Ms. Stahl is also a member of the Board of Directors at NYCB, and volunteers a lot of her time at various events (including the "Live From Lincoln Center" event) to help promote NYCB.

I'd also like to clear up something about PBS shows (as I do work with various PBS stations). Each local affiliate has the option to not only pick up an individual show, including "R&J", but can choose what day, and time of day to put the show on the local station. Whether shows are produced by a big PBS affiliate like WNET in NYC, WGBH in Boston, or KQED in SF, or by a syndicator (for public television shows) like "American Public Television, " it is rare that a public television show runs from coast-to-coast at the same time (anymore, at least). These stations try to figure out what their viewers want, and what programs will bring in the best ratings -- also good for donations (the shows themselves are offered for free, as part of an local affiliate program). For example, most public television stations do have a two hour "cooking" block of shows on either a Sat. or Sunday afternoon because they do well in the ratings. But it's the individual stations' choice --they don't have to run the shows at all, and they can choose certain shows and leave out others.

Anyone who wanted to see "R&J" at 8pm EST on Thursday but couldn't (because it wasn't offered), should write/email their local public television station to express their concern. I do have to say the public television folks are really terrific; they try to offer up fine programs for their local viewship, on minimal funding. And they do like feedback. Again, they were very hard hit by the recession, and have had big staff cuts -- that includes crew members to shoot live tv shows.

I must apologize, being the person to introduce the Fontaine-de Haviland line. I hoped the " " would convey that I intended a joke.
Good suggestion!

I remember commenting two years ago that I felt the choreography was very weak, the dramatic development was poor and the physical elements; i.e. sets and costumes were pure ugly.

Watching it on tv didn't change my views. Unfortunately Sterling Hyltin didn't appear particularly youthful on camera, aside from being untelegenic in ttheir first scene together the main difference between Juliet and her nurse were their costumes.

I just don't get the PBS situation. NYCB puts on some super programs, if they wanted to showcase NYCB WHY pick this????? If a story ballet was needed WHY
choose NYCB. Midsummer Nights Dream was already filmed and a different performance was shown on LFLC. Nutcracker has been filmed and Coppelia was already LFLC'd. That only leaves the three Martins pieces, that well is pretty dry!

Actually there was nothing good-humored about it. Martins corrected her without so much as a smile. Stahl is a fine, respected journalist , as you say,and seems like a lovely person, but her questions were a little odd. First she asked him why we were "ready" for yet another Romeo and Juliet, which was a good but tough question that he didn't really answer. But after asking why he'd chosen teenagers for the lead roles, she wasn't satisfied with his reply, but kept pressing him on the subject. "But, but, as dancers, what do you think you gained . . . ?" (he'd just told her), followed by "but you don't think you lost anything?" (he'd just told her he'd gained everything). It was as if she was second guessing his decision. And then she compared Paris' smacking Romeo to child abuse ("it's almost like"), and asked him to explain that. It was another good question, but tactlessly phrased. And then she asked him what we should look for in the second act, prompting him to reply in part "I don't have to tell you what to look for; the public knows what to look for." I don't about anyone else, but the whole interview made me uncomfortable.

There were things about this production I didn't like: the set reminded me of the Stonehenge prop in "Spinal Tap;" the courtiers preceding Juliet's parents into the ballroom reminded me of characters on "Star Trek"; at the end of the balcony scene, the emotional height of the production so far, we're distracted by the moving of the set, and then denied a chance to savor that scene in memory because the ballet continues without intermission there with a scene of far less emotional weight; and how in the world do Romeo's friends get away with groping Juliet's nurse as they try to get their hands on Juliet's note?

Having said all that, I largely enjoyed the ballet, and my far more stronger feelings are of admiration, not just for the beautiful dancers, but also for Martins and his collaborators for having the courage of their convictions and working hard to bring their ideas to fruition.

That's just Stahl's style. I've known for some years that she's a big patron of NYCB just from looking through the Playbills. She's the second big TV journalist to be on the board of directors that I know of, the first Robert McNeil (he may still be, and there may be others I don't know about), who hosted a big NYCB 'Dance in America' (I think?) in the early or mid-90s. He's a lot more naturally easygoing, the way you describe it it sounds like she was trying to work with the material in much the way she does with things in which she's more well-informed. C'est normale, it wouldn't be a Lesley Stahl interview without a little nagging. Most of the big TV interviewers are like that, it's just some know how to do it without the prodding showing (Ms. Walters is amazing that way, and gets people to tell all sorts of things they'd surely promised themselves they wouldn't!).



Yeah, that was a good question, because it seems from most reports here that we might not have been any more'ready' for than we were for the 'Swan Lake' and 'Sleeping Beauty' he made, and this could have been a clever way to say 'did we really need this R + J?' Most here seem to be answering 'not that much', but he could hardly be expected to see it as being anything other than urgent necessity.

Wasn't this production pretty much panned all around? If so, what is the thought behind pushing something which has not received critical acclaim? Why not drop it or improve it, but the same weird looking staging? And broadcast on TV? Is there some sort of death wish there or serious denial?

Skipped the show, having seen the Love Scene, which I thought ought to be the high point, at Workshop and thought it "very weak", as richard53dog says of the whole thing.

But Stahl's questioning of Martins reads here like a journalist's habitual trying to bring out what might be there. Something, anything. Maybe a little unthinking in a board member who might think instead of trying to make the AD look as good as possible, which is not how he reads here. But maybe she just thought if she kept it up, he'd say something more valuable than he had already.

As to why the choice of R + J: Isn't this ballet a hot item? Doesn't it sell tickets? Sell out, in fact? So, you need to bring in money, you publicize what you have reason to think people will buy. I happen to think television can do better, that even when it presents ballet (or drama, for that matter) simply and straight, it has some incidental publicity value, but when you look at how ballet is often presented on screen nowadays, isn't it a very busy presentation, almost like a commercial? So, does that treatment reveal something about the thinking of the people doing it? That they are thinking mainly about making a commercial, and little more?

My speculation for the evening.

Disclaimer - I generally do not like story ballets (except maybe Slaughter). So we traded in our tickets for Thursdays R+B for Wednesday :-)

The issue discussed about the beauty of the dancers is less relevant to me than their ages. You need young dancers to pull it off as far as I am concerned. Seeing an older dancer - no matter how good - doing Juliet just doesn't wash with me. Peter got that one right. I did however watch it on Thrusday night. And the best part of it is some wonderful dancing by Hyltin and Robbie Fairchild as well as the magnificent sword play. Those are real (if dull) swords and the choreography of their duels is amazing. And they never get to do a retake. Errol Flynn never had it so hard...

When I saw it 2 years ago, sitting in the front of the orchestra the set was so dreary and dull looking. Everything was so dark. It is better on TV (or from above) where the floor provides some contrast and a little lightness.

I also understand why Peter chose this ballet - it is a real money maker for the company as best I can tell. They have invested marketing bucks on it and it must bring in the general public more than a more traditional NYCB program.

Patrick and Jack, thanks for your perspectives on the interview. As journalism, it was fascinating; as theater, I found it discomfiting. It was odd to see the artist asked to defend his choices on an occasion on which they would usually be celebrated. Of course there was some celebrating too.

The Ballet Talk thread on this ballet when it premiered two years ago is here.

What I saw in this presentation, in this medium, was that the bones of the show were ill-assembled. The score has been treated as if it had been thrown down a flight of stairs and someone who had heard it two or three times had been told to put it back in order. The same could be said for the choreography. When you've never seen a given ballet before, but get the inkling that you've seen this part before, yellow flags go up. The confirming moment for me was the part of the balcony pas de deux where the B theme comes back cantabile, and Romeo provides gentle support for Juliet as she does hops on pointe in arabesque - right out of the Ashton version. As things continued, I recognized more Ashton (actually lots more, some MacMillan, Cranko, even Oscar Araiz' version seen in NYC with Joffrey. Eclectic is one thing, derivative is another. Quoting a famous bit from another's choreography might be homage, but this looked like plagiarism, and rather disjointed plagiarism at that. It was a bit like reading Shakespeare from Bartlett's Quotations. The outstanding bit of choreography, I thought, was the Mandolin Dance for boy students. It was a good use of their talents, which are usually not much noted, but the dance was unmotivated. When it's presented as part of a street wedding procession, it makes more sense, as these are the entertainers, but these seemed like a troupe of buskers who just happened by. Once the dancing started, though, things were all right. There's something wrong when the high point of a dramatic ballet is a divertissement entrée.

I agree with kfw about the appropriateness of Stahl's questions in the broadcast: I mean it's a bit late to start interrogating the production at halftime. If indeed she is a patron of NYCB, her questions need to be raised earlier: Repertory choice is a systemic issue. But that's the problem, isn't it? Who's going to question Peter Martins, or any other AD, in a forum where hard discussions happen? It's easier to take potshots and ask gotcha questions after the fact that will lead to absolutely no change whatsoever (NOT that I'm a Martins fan, mind you, nor do I mind watching an AD squirm in the least. But my amusement probably won't translate into meaningful changes in the field).

The costumes, BTW, remind me of those 1950s Shakespeare musicals, like Kiss Me Kate.

Like a high school "Kiss Me Kate" production.

I can see why you might think that, but I see it as guts on her part, or just good instincts, to ask them whenever she gets the chance--because she might not get another--I like what Jack said, to try to 'get him to say something more valuable than he has said already', 'anything', which is how a hard-nosed journalist has to work incidentally--not necessarily knowing what it might be in advance. He's not Sarah Palin, but 'gotcha questions' have to be done, esp. when there is so much talk (and more excellent by this morning, which will help my dread ordeal of having to give up the first part of my Sunday afternoon since I've shot my mouth off...), and if we've now heard her ask even one eyeball-to-eyeball question of Martins, even if he didn't answer it, then the fact that she is also part of NYCB board proves her integrity as a good journalist still more. I wish there were more of this kind of fearlessness. At NYReview of Books, for example, you have writers who will hardly ever say anything even slightly perjorative about the other contributors even when it is warranted (and this includes some of the best writers they have that agree to keep some things 'in-house'). Here Stahl is cutting through such 'clubbishness', and I find this admirable and pretty rare.

And although it won't lead to 'change' in terms of what's already showing on television, it may well lead to some new thinking through of what Sander0 said, and others, about why this piece had to be exposed so, aside from the usual crass necessity.

Again, I don't really disagree with any of this (it's great to watch an autocrat squirm), and hadn't really considered the repercussions of Stahl's status as an interviewr--i.e., that her questions may be more meaningful b/c other patrons might listen? I do hope that this will lead to more pre-production questioning. And like you, the crass necessity arguments are really starting to rub me the wrong way--I mean even if R&J does fill seats, it's not going to boost NYCB's bottom line significantly unless they do 8 shows of it a week--and even then maybe not.

After reading all the comments, I wasn't sure what to expect when I watched last night; however I actually thought the production looked better on television (originally saw it in 2007). Thoroughly enjoyed all the dancing - especially Daniel Ulbricht, Joaquin De Luz, Robert Fairchild and Sterling Hyltin. Her dancing was amazing and I thought she looked beautiful.

Can we start discussing the show more than the intermission here, please? Another symptom of things being not beautiful at the ballet is things that happened while the curtain was down generate more interest than it what happened when it was up!

Okay, Mel, but I now just saw it, and will just say that I thought the interview was excellent, agree with DeborahB on this part, and think Ms. Stahl and Martins were both fine, the 'Joan Fontaine' tiny gaffe didn't matter a whit, she even smoothly says 'not the actress'. And talk about TELEGENIC--wow, does she get more gorgeous with the years! and IMO as gracious as possible. (Okay, promise not to say more about the intermission. Thanks.)
Anyway, whole productionb has sawed-off look, never feels Italian at all, feels all boxed-in and the male dancers' costumes except for Romeo's make them look squat. Everything looks pretty squat and closed-in. Are there R & J's by RDB? Because sometimes I wonder (since I don't know) if Martins's often 'compact look' in his pieces comes from what is very naturally the scale in Bournonville, as La Sylphide with smaller, more subtle movements. Here exuberance is needed, and you don't ever get it.

Agree that Hiltin's (mainly, what some arms and legs, and not only that, then they move! oh yes, I love her in the balcony Scene) and Fairchild. I'm never going to like a Romeo (most likely) as much as Corella (who is the focus even with someone like Alessandra Ferri, he is so perfectly cast as Romeo. I don't think I've seen the Ashton, mainly the Cranko, which I saw a lot back in the late 70s, and the McMillan. Much preferred these, they are expansive, not boxed-in and -up.

But Ms. Hyltin worth the whole fairly pedestrian business, I hadn't seen her before, and didn't know how exquisite she is.

I have to agree with you, Patrick, and even on the small screen with relative acres of open space around the moving image(s), it still seemed claustrophobic. The dancers did make the show, and that's as it should be, but my concern is in great measure for the craft of making ballets at NYCB. The work just isn't put together well, in my opinion.

I think part of your response comes from the camera work here. I started watching dance on television with the wonderful Dance in America/Balanchine works, and my preferences are influenced by them, but having done a little film work in the past I know how very difficult it is to balance the near and the far view of something. One of the most powerful tools film and television has is the close-up, and yet a ballet is rarely choreographed with that in mind. Bringing the camera in close on a moment that's really designed to be seen from further away creates an odd tension, and yet, keeping a wide shot for any length of time makes the dancers seem like ants in a colony. The fact that they're shooting a live performance, and the limitations that places on camera setups as well as the overall tension of getting it right the first time makes for a very constrained kind of production.

Coming late to the party as my local public television station waited until today to air this . . .

Where to begin with this disastrous production? (FEMA could spend years studying what went wrong with this one.) Other posters have covered the low lights so I'll focus on the most egregious problem: the costumes. Oh brother! Whoever the poster was who referenced Star Trek was spot on. The ball scene reminded one of nothing so much as one of those episodes of Star Trek where The Enterprise plays host to visiting dignitaries from the Federation and the viewer gets to see a raft of extras parading around in garish, "futuristic" costumes. I half expected to see a Ferengei come strolling onstage!!!

Since I pretty much hated the entire thing, the intermission ended up being the highlight for me. (Sorry Mel!) Leslie Stahl's interview with Peter Martins was great -- there was more crackling tension in that interview than in the entire production. (I guess no one bothered to tell her that she was interviewing a second or third-rate choreographer instead of a dictator of a Third World country.) The only thing that was missing was a tactless question about Suzanne Farrell.

The only other thing to hold my attention was Adrian Danchig-Waring's face. Facially, he can look quite angular at times (somewhat like David Bowie during his "plastic soul" phase circa 1975) and then at others he can look movie star handsome. He was definitely the latter in this one. Is he such a chameleon that he can "alter" his looks depending on the production? If so, nice talent to have!

The New York City Ballet may be one of the "best companies in the world" but this production will never convince anyone of that premise. Overall grade (not including the intermission, which was an 'A'): F+ (The + for the man of 1,000 faces, Adrian Danchig-Waring.)

P.S. When this production was first announced, I was super-annoyed that Peter Martins went with this production rather than staging Antony Tudor's abstracted version. What a masterstroke that would have been for Peter Martins, I thought! (Being the savior of the Tudor Romeo and Juliet at ABT's expense!) But, having sat through this production today, I'm now convinced that that would have been a bad idea. Whatever their many other virtues may be, the City Ballet dancers would not appear to be naturals for the subtleties of Tudor.

Hilarious.

Same here.

Disclaimer: Highly unscientific survey with only one participant.

First act: Loved the dancers; everything else .

Intermission: Not interested so decided to wash dishes.

Second act: Literally forgot about it; instead, finished washing dishes, cleaned stove and refrigerator, mopped kitchen floor.

Conclusion: Washing dishes is more interesting than NYCB's R+J.

I loved the dancers but I could not persevere in watching it. I tried, I really tried. I think the costumes got to me. A moving crayola box .

I am intrigued that Ms. Stahl would not have known the difference between Margot Fonteyn, the British prima ballerina assoluta, who was considered by many to be the greatest English ballerina, and Joan Fontaine, when she interviewed Peter Martins backstage during intermission. Maybe it was a slip of the tongue; but, please this disturbing! I am glad that Mr. Martins tactfully corrected her during the interview.

Maybe the press needs a little extra arts education from time to time!