Does Twyla know what ABT is doing to her pieces? November 14, 2007
or…
ABT at Zellerbach Hall, Berkeley, CA….Program B
You know, I really love ABT and the work that they do…a ballet company of superstars, can they really do wrong?
Sadly to say, yes. I saw them eagerly last weekend in my new home in the East Bay area in Northern California…to be completely disappointed. I wondered whether it was worth going at all? To see such a great company, and see them fall so short of what I knew they were capable of. Pieces that were done haphazardly, cautiously (which is a big no-no in Tharp), and without passion or flair. What the…?!? If ABT’s good at classical/modern neo-balletic dances, they should stick to those pieces. I think Tharp lies completely within the modern dance arena, is it really fitting for a ballet company to do Tharp? Just because Baryshnikov did it, does it mean other ballet companies should? Is there such shame in sticking to dances that require pointe shoes, or at the very lease, classical ballet technique? Why is there this need for ballet companies to be “edgy” and “modern” and don character shoes?
The most disappointing ABT performance that I remember is a performance I saw at City Center, a few years ago, when Marcelo Gomes performed in Twyla Tharp’s Sinatra Suites. I thought perhaps it was a fluke, and I was completely bored…I even shut my eyes during this piece to open them, to see the piece was not over, and nothing had changed onstage. (So sorry Marcelo…you really are a beautiful dancer in other pieces). Following this performance, I then saw ABT perform “In the Upper Room”, where I saw ballerinas trying to be rough and ready…while not really succeeding. I just have this image in my head of Michele Wiles flopping across the stage in clumsy white Keds.
With my favorite ballet company, I decided to give it another go watching Tharp at Zellerbach last weekend.
I’m not sure if it’s fair that I saw the spectacular Broadway production of “Movin’ Out”, with seasoned Tharp dancers performing a show that remains one of the highlights of my Broadway audience career. The passion! The humor! The ease of partnering! So incredibly easy! Was it too much to expect ABT would do a similar job?
“Baker’s Dozen” was incredibly disappointing. I felt that all the dancers looked uncomfortable on stage, with faces that said, “Uh oh, I’m not used to this technique so I’ll be careful“, without really letting go and filling up the stage. Many jumps landed with an awkward thud, as if the dancers were holding their muscles so tightly because the movements felt so strange. I dunno, it was really…unsatisfying. There are really funny moments in the choreography; too bad the audience wasn’t sure whether they were dancers’ mistakes (did he really enter the stage and dash off?) or just really hesitant and without flair and confidence. The dancers seemed to loose up in the last 1/3 of the piece, but it was too late…the audience laughed in the last few moments. Sinatra Suites was performed by Herman Cornejo, and Misty Copeland, who really saved the piece. She danced with confidence and flair, too bad Herman was so intensely focused on his hands, the ground and her waist because he looked so concerned about the partnering…he barely had a moment where he had his head facing up at the audience. Is ABT just made up of bad pas de deux partners? Fabulous soloists, sloppy partners? Twyla has such innovative partnering movements, but it was all completely lost. We didn’t even get to see Herman’s dimples and smile, which we see so easily when he’s flipping in the air in Corsaire or pirouetting a billion times. Such a changed person in a Tharp piece!
Jorma Elo’s piece “Close to Chuck” really began in such a different mood; the dancers seemed so much more relaxed and more comfortable with the movements…thank you Elo! You put the ballerinas back into pointe shoes. Sascha sported his amazing 8 pack body, and Blaine’s extensions amazed. Craig Salstein danced with fun and sloppy ease that was really charming, even in such an edgy piece. Hee Seo sparkled with her mile long extensions and lightness of steps. In contrast, Jackie was subtly beautiful, clean and neat, making the movements smooth and oh so easy. Benjamin Millipied’s piece also impressed me with its great detail and innovative movements; however, thinking about these two pieces, they are similar…I think these modern pieces were above average, but not really amazing modern dance pieces. While both had its really intricate movements and edginess, they seemed to be a little too enveloped in the details, and the larger perspective of the dance was lost. It wasn’t clear that these pieces would differentiate themselves as a front leader in the modern dance repertoire. I think in contrast to the Tharp pieces, these were much better in comparison. However, I couldn’t help feel that I was disappointed, as these pieces didn’t really showcase the talents of these amazing dancers.
While it’s always great to see my favorite company…I do hope I see ABT next time in a production that they are famous for…great ballet dancing. Should ballet dancers be required to do great ballroom dancing? Should ballet dancers be great actors? OK, that’s another post for another time….
[...] more here [...]
I’m struck by how beautiful all the pictures from Millepied’s and Elo’s ballet that I’ve seen are. It seems like the choreography for both pieces were SO detailed and were really focused on making pretty poses and snapshots, and somehow missed the goal of a clear big picture.
It was weird how the audience really took a while to warm up to Baker’s Dozen. No one in the audience really reacted or clapped until the very end!
Blaine Hoven was the best part about Elo.
Yeah, I definitely agree with what both of you say about Elo and Millepied. I didn’t hate them, but didn’t love them and was hoping for more, especially from Millepied. I liked Elo a little better because I felt there was a definite concept. Even if structurally, the piece didn’t go that many places, I felt he had something in mind that he wanted to show — the process of creation and overcoming physical limitations imposed by a disability. I felt that that’s what all the spasmodic, awkward movements were about. I really liked Marcelo in that, but it doesn’t appear he was in your program for that one. What I did really love about the Millepied was the music!
That’s funny about Baker’s Dozen. I felt exactly the same way on opening night here as you did there: that the dancers didn’t know what to do with what they were given, and they were very nervous and unsure of themselves and that they just looked out of place. But I felt like it improved each time they performed and by the end of the run here they were really into it, really getting the jazzy moves and having fun and playing with it without making it ballet. It seems like either it just grew on me seeing it 4 times, or else the dancers got all freaked out again! The audience here laughed at Craig throughout, but I think he was definitely the highlight for audiences here.
I’m not sure what it says about the piece if it takes viewing it four times for people to enjoy it!
I knew very little about ‘C to C’ before I saw it, and so I didn’t know whose photo was on the background set and the reason behind the movements. Do you think a dance should be whole in itself, so that it doesn’t require previous research to know what the dance is, before you are able to fully enjoy it?
Out of everything though in Program B, that was my favorite piece, although I didn’t like the entire program all that much.
I don’t know, that’s an interesting question, Jolene, whether a work of art should stand for itself. On one hand, I’d say it should, but on the other, I always try to find out more about what I’m viewing. I went to the Kara Walker exhibit last night at the Whitney and thought about this when I was viewing all of the paintings. The exhibit is about racism, slavery and the South during the Civil War. You could definitely get something out of the paintings themselves — you could definitely see anger and horrible mistreatment of slaves — all of the sexual abuse of black women that went on at the time. But sometimes I couldn’t really tell what was going on and reading the little museum booklet or listening in on a tour helped. For example, there was a painting of a very old white man with saggy nipples and a woman was holding her black child up to him and the black child was sucking on the nipples and the old white man was turning away from the child trying to hide a look of disgust. I mean, I kind of got it, but when I found out the white man was a famous slave abolitionist it meant a lot more (like the futility and inherent racism of white abolitionists, etc.) And everything is painted in silhouette, which I found interesting, but it meant all the more when I learned that silhouettes were a fixture of upper-class white households, and that the figures painted were usually of dainty white ladies. So I realized how rebellious she was being, turning this style on its head.
With dance, I think most of my favorite pieces — Revelations, Jewels, MacMillan’s Romeo & Juliet — I don’t need any explanation. But then, that’s because that subject matter is already so familiar (who doesn’t know the story of R&J or the history of the black church?) — Balanchine requires a little more research for me; I don’t always get his significance, though with his more striking pieces I can still enjoy the beauty. I guess, if I want to know more, then I can do the research, but something should be there to begin with — something striking that makes me want to know more.
Sorry this is all over the place — you asked an interesting question!
And so finishing my point and tying it back to ABT — that’s why I sometimes find contemporary things to be frustrating — Millepied, Elo, Wheeldon. With Balanchine, there’s something written — usually a lot of things written — on everything the man had ever done, so it’s easy to learn more if you want. But with the contemporaries, how do you do that? I’m sure part of why I didn’t love those three mentioned above is that I don’t fully understand what they’re doing. And there’s no one to help me understand! There are no program notes like there are museum notes, or gallery notes when you visit a gallery… With Elo, and with some of Wheeldon — I’m struck by images and some of the movements, so I guess that fits my criterion that there has to be something striking. With Millepied, the most striking thing to me was the music, but, like you said, some of the pictures contain striking images as well that somehow didn’t come through in the performance… Still, I feel if I knew more about it I’d have more appreciation. Sorry to go on — I’m done babbling now!
Tonya, I enjoy your babbling!
I know what you mean about self-researching so that I’ll get more out of a show. Perhaps all we can do is chalk it up to the fact that the choreographer wasn’t successful in betraying his meaning and purpose of the piece to me, as an audience member.
To be honest though, a small percentage of the audience have the time and devotion to even research programs as much even to the extent I do, not to mention study the history of modern ballets in order to understand certain nuances I probably missed. Not to mention seeing the same program multiple times!
That’s true! It is really different in a museum when they have explanatory writing on the wall or a little guide at the front of the exhibit for you to carry around with you — it’s very easy to follow along that way and takes very little extra time.
[...] on its own. Funny to me because Jolene and I had just had a similar discussion on her blog (see comments here) regarding the two new abstract ballets ABT just put on. Alison said she didn’t necessarily [...]