2009 San Francisco Ballet’s Jewels April 29, 2009
Pierre-François Vilanoba and Sofiane Sylve in Balanchine’s Jewels. © Erik Tomasson
George Balanchine’s Jewels is a Balanchine fan’s dream come true – a full-length abstract ballet of modern neoclassicism at what he does best. San Francisco Ballet’s production of Jewels is a glittering one, showcasing both the grandeur of Balanchine’s choreography and his innovative musicality, as well as San Francisco Ballet’s unique stamp upon the beloved ballet.
Jewels is an evening-length ballet made up of three movements – the poetic Emeralds, the jazzy Rubies, and the regal Diamonds. Despite differences in flavor, the common threads that run through these movements are Balanchine’s innovation in redefining classical ballet steps, and his incessant musicality. The sets by Tony Walton were reminiscent of a dark starry night and a childhood toy, and lent an intimate feel that felt like the inside of a black velvet-lined jewelry box, a suitable backdrop for clusters of glittering jewels.
“Emeralds” is set to the delicately lilting music of Gabriel Faure, defined by lyricism tinged with melancholy. The piece opens with a central couple, Lorena Feijoo and guest artist Seth Orza from Pacific Northwest Ballet, with a line of girls in softly shifting shapes in the background. Feijoo and Orza perform a series of slow turning promenades with intricate, innovative handholds that lend an unexpected yet warm intimacy, with her arms draped around his shoulders with his around her waist. Orza had an impressive regal bearing worthy of a prince, yet wavered visibly in partnering Feijoo, a problem not uncommon with dancing with a new partner. In the pas de trois, Hansuke Yamamoto, Frances Chung, and Dana Genshaft danced with glowing effervescence.
Hansuke Yamamoto, Dana Genshaft, and Frances Chung in George Balanchine’s Jewels. © Erik Tomasson
Even in the simplicity of the choreography, it’s amazing to see Balanchine’s mind at work, creating patterns imbued with emotion even in the simplest of movements. One of my favorites is the famous “walking” pas de deux, danced by Yuan Yuan Tan and Damian Smith. In step with the pulsing beat of the strings, Tan walks delicately on pointe escorted by Smith. Long looks are exchanged, and the gentle walking motif is interrupted by a punctuated arm or a leg ticking like the second hand of a clock. San Francisco Ballet’s version of “Emeralds” wasn’t one of the quietest versions out there, but no wonder, with the casting of its two most dramatic ballerinas, Tan and Feijoo, in the lead roles. Feijoo’s solo was deliciously flirty, and Tan’s solo was marked with swift clarity. It was a generous rendition that dazzled like the brightest of emeralds.
Damian Smith and Yuan Yuan Tan in George Balanchine's Jewels. © Erik Tomasson
The accented offbeats and an insistent bass of Stravinsky’s “Capriccio for Piano and Orchestra” signals the next movement, “Rubies”, and announces it to be a completely different world. It’s a playfully flirtatious movement that’s shamelessly flashy and completely irresistible, filled with seductive hips and daring eyes. Elana Altman is a glorious Siren, kicking her leg up over her head with drama in every inch of her long extensions. Vanessa Zahorian and Pascal Molat cavort mischievously as if playing their own game while sharing an inside joke. Molat’s overflowing spirit and Zahorian’s clean strength in the lightning quick choreography made this “Rubies” a fun ride.
It was an interesting study in unconventional casting. Altman and Zahorian are normally the clean, classic, understated dancers with Tan and Feijoo being the dancers with flair that seem better suited for “Rubies”. It was with impressive effort that these dancers stretched their stylistic muscles, yet I couldn’t help but to wish the volume on “Rubies” was ramped up just a tad, and “Emeralds” was danced with a little more sensitivity and introspection.
Elana Altman in Balanchine's Jewels. © Erik Tomasson
Sofiane Sylve and Pierre-Francois Vilanoba shows us why diamonds are the most precious of jewels. Backed by the sweeping Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 3, Sylve was the queen honey bee, overflowing in unforced resplendence. Even though this is an abstract ballet, Sylve and Vilanoba told a story with their movements, never too much yet perfectly so. It’s a world of nobility that builds to an impressive climax where the stage is flooded with dancers in unison. The starry background lights up in a over-the-top pattern of chandelier-surrounded-by-more-chandeliers which unfortunately overwhelms the eye, but still ends in a blazing celebration.
In all, San Francisco Ballet’s production of Jewels is an exuberant showcase of some of the best modern ballet choreography out there, as well as the vast array of talent amidst its roster. The corps was perfectly on point, matching the style of each movement to a tee. This is a program worth seeing with different casts in varying interpretations of the same roles.
Who have you seen in the lead roles? What were your thoughts?
San Francisco Ballet: Program 7, Jewels. Click here for more information.
I love your descriptions of the stage sets! (And your funny link to the Lite Bright
) It sounds really splendid!
And that’s so interesting about the casting — I don’t know SFB tremendously well but I would think of Tan and Feijoo for Rubies too, especially Feijoo — certainly not Emeralds! But it’s been noted (I think by Macaulay but I’m not completely sure off the top of my head) how Balanchine used to do that — cast against type — so it makes sense Tommasson would have wanted to do the same. By the way, did you read Macaulay’s review in the NYTimes? He saw I think every cast there was and he compares and contrasts them.
Hi Tonya, I certainly think that there’s value in casting against type, but still there’s nothing like seeing a ballerina let go of her ripcord and excel at what she does best. I also think it makes dancers better dancers as well, and more versatile.
I did read Sir Alastair Macaulay’s review.
I would list all the reviews, but there’s something funny about the blogging platform that if I go back and add links retroactively (b/c I never read reviews anymore until after I publish my take), I have to go back and reformat all the photos. It’s really annoying. I gotta say, I’m really loving Macaulay’s reviews more and more. I think his dead honesty is refreshing, and clearly no one cares more about dance than he does. And Denby writes that a good critic is a lively writer first, and if anything, that’s what Macaulay is. He also has the huge advantage of a well of experience, and comparing it to the previous interpretations that he’s seen as well as the standard that has formed inside his head.
I think he saw the first two casts, and I could see how he liked Vanessa Zahorian in Diamonds more than Rubies, although I’m not sure if anyone could hold a candle to Sofiane’s Diamonds! She was simply amazing, and made my entire night.
For those who haven’t seen it, his review is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/arts/dance/29jewe.html?_r=1&ref=dance
Yes, I agree reviews should be lively and interesting above all else. How else are you going to have an audience, right! I’m reading H.L. Mencken right now and he says a true critic is someone who above all has something s/he’s just got to say — not someone who wants to be prescriptive and change the direction of an art form, not someone who just wants to criticize nor someone who just wants to pander to the artists. I don’t know why I’m writing all this here! Haha, you just made me think about criticism! But, yes, I find Macaulay a very lively, interesting writer in general, though sometimes, when I haven’t seen what he’s seen or don’t know much about the company he’s writing about, I get lost in some of the detail. But generally, he has a big persona with lots to say.
I’ve been thinking a lot about reviews too, especially with the discussion on Claudia’s blog, where she asked the question, what is dance criticism? As always, lots of interesting discussion there, that really made me think. http://blogs.wnyc.org/culture/2009/04/13/performance-club-easter-slaughter/comment-page-1/#comment-3056
Hm… a critic is someone who’s got something to say. Can you elaborate a little bit, Tonya? Do you think it has to be something interesting? Something true? Something controversial? Something nice?
Dear Jolene: All of the above, or why bother?