|
home
forum
magazine
features
reviews
interviews
events
links
gallery
whoweare
search
|
|
Suzanne
Farrell Ballet
'Divertimento
No. 15,' 'Variations for Orchestra,' 'Tzigane,' 'Apollo'
 by
Art Priromprintr
November 7, 2003
-- Royce Hall, UCLA, Los Angeles
I saw Suzanne Farrell Ballet at UCLA on Friday as well – what a great
company. I was mainly interested in seeing the Balanchine performances
because I’ve personally never seen much Balanchine although I’ve heard
a lot about it. You can’t start watching ballet and get into it without
eventually hearing his name tossed around in the same sentence with the
words “genius” or “legendary.”
Watching this company brought back into focus the idea that ballet isn’t
all about circus-like feats of technical skill; there’s a lot more to
it than girls hopping around on their toes in pink tutus. What more is
there? Well, as the Balanchine repertory argues, it can bring out all
that is breathtaking and emotional about classical music. Take piece that
opened Suzanne Farrell Ballet’s program at UCLA, “Divertimento No. 15.”
It’s set to music the orchestral suite of the same name by Mozart. Music
that was never really intended to be used as a ballet, but as a pretty
piece of concert music.
The choreography ingeniously captures the intricacy and details of the
music, adding a visual and kinetic element to the already beautiful music.
Balanchine ingeniously ties groups of dancers and their movements to layers
within the music, and he plays games with the eye in the way he weaves
the dancers around each other on the stage. So, as the dancers move around,
it makes sense on a subconscious level: it's like their movement is being
propelled by some kind of internal force. It can be thrilling, bringing
out some kind of emotional response from the viewer. So not only are you
getting some exquisite music, you’re getting something exquisite to look
at.
Which brings me back to the company itself. Part of the draw of seeing
this company is seeing them dance Balanchine ballets under the guidance
of Farrell, who arguably knows more about those ballets than most anyone
on the face of the planet. She, after all, played a huge part in the creation
of many of them. The Suzanne Farrell Ballet came about in 1995 as a project
of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. The
company’s principals are drawn from major companies in North America –
New York City Ballet, Boston Ballet, National Ballet of Canada – and the
lower ranks are filled with young dancers trained by Farrell in her summer
intensives. It is thus a somewhat ragged collection of dancers from a
huge variety of different backgrounds. In performance, they aren’t the
most perfect company, and for the most part, there is no jaw-droppingly
impressive technique. But really – who cares. The company has a stylishness,
energy and vitality that I, in my few years of ballet-going, haven’t seen
from the world’s best companies – even the mighty Kirov, who performed
in Hollywood and Costa Mesa only two weeks ago.
Yes, I wrote that correctly: The three-year-old Suzanne Farrell Ballet
danced with more style and vitality than the Kirov did – and that’s saying
a lot considering the Kirov’s reputation as the end all be all of classical
ballet. Comparing these two companies, the Kirov was a bit too perfect;
everything was so well timed and immaculately formed that we missed out
on each dancer's humanity. There’s a moment in “Divertimento No. 15” where
the corps de ballet of women are just standing there along the side of
the stage, in the background of the principal couple’s dancing, and all
they are doing is waving their arms around in time to the second harmony
in music.
Suzanne Farrell Ballet’s dancers waved their arms, however, like it was
the only thing that mattered in the world - and it was the only thing
that mattered in the world at that moment. There was energy and bounce
in those simple movements, and in complementing the dancing of the principal
couple, it added that much more to the choreography’s visualization of
the music. As a point of contrast, there is a moment in “Jewels” – the
Balanchine ballet that the Kirov danced in Costa Mesa – in which there
is a whole bunch of similar arm movement on the sidelines (notably in
the “Emeralds” and “Diamonds” movements). With the Kirov, the arm-waving
was just there: functional, yes, but merely ornamental and comparatively
lifeless. Simple moments such as arm movements end up making a big difference,
as Farrell’s company demonstrates.
The best part of the program was “Apollo.” It brought into focus for me
Balanchine’s genius – especially considering that it was the oldest work
on the program. “Apollo” abstractly represents the Greek god Apollo and
his relationship to the arts and the muses. So there’s not a very direct
story line per se, but more an impression of things. The dancers are all
still dancing on pointe and the technique is ballet, but they definitely
do not look like they are dancing “Swan Lake” -- classically based, but
not 19th century Petipa-ism. The results were fantastic. If the rest of
Balanchine is anything like what I saw on Friday, it gives a reason for
ballet to exist outside of its imperial and aristocratic origins – and
especially beyond the confines of “Swan Lake” and “The Nutcracker.”
Peter Boal, a principal with New York City Ballet, was awesome as the
title character in “Apollo.” There was athletic strength tempered by classicism;
that notion that ballet men prance around like fairies doesn’t coexist
with Boal’s interpretation of Apollo. His three muses, Jennifer Fournier,
Natalia Magnicaballi, and Chan Hon Goh – especially Chan Hon Goh – sparkled.
They added much to the performance’s success on Friday.
The middle part of Suzanne Farrell Ballet’s program – “Variations for
Orchestra” and “Tzigane” – was less interesting for me. “Variations for
Orchestra” to music by Stravinsky struck me as peculiar and random. A
dancer dances with what we think, initially, is her shadow – but it turns
out to be another dancer’s shadow behind the curtain. It’s a short and
puzzling piece that is pretty pointless, and the music is of the atonal
and very, very contemporary kind. There wasn’t much to draw me in on that
one, and by the time it started to even be going somewhere it was already
over.
"Tzigane” to violin music of the same title by Ravel, was okay;
I was more indifferent to this piece than averse to it. It’s more of an
oddity than anything else, with gypsy-inspired movements and a lot of
saucy stomping around from the dancers. Natalia Magnicaballi was intense
and seductive in the lead role though, and that made it somewhat exciting.
I was just more interested in “Divertimento No. 15” and “Apollo.”
More or less, I’m coming full circle watching this ballet. I started watching
ballet probably the way most people do, with the story productions like
“Nutcracker” and “Swan Lake.” More recently, I’m starting to figure out
that there is way more to dance that is more interesting than another
Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy. This fall alone has provided plenty of
examples: George Piper Dances dancing William Forsythe and Christopher
Wheeldon, San Francisco Ballet with Wheeldon’s “Polyphonia,” and now Farrell’s
company in Balanchine classics. I like it. I want to see more.
Edited by Jeff.
Please join the discussion
in our forum. |
|
Archives
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999 |
