Tag: Boris Eifman

Posted on

KINGS OF THE DANCE SHOWS HOW DANCER-RICH BUT CHOREOGRAPHY-IMPOVERISHED BALLET IS IN THE BALANCHINE-INUNDATED U.S.

 

Photo of Desmond Richardson by Andrea Mohin, taken from NYTimes.

So, “Kings of the Dance” made the New York stop of its international tour this weekend at City Center. I was there Friday night. The last time this show toured here several years ago (it is produced by Russian dance promoter Sergei Danilian) there were only four male dancers — Angel Corella, Ethan Stiefel (both of American Ballet Theater), Johan Kobborg of the Royal Ballet in England, and Nikolay Tsiskaridze of the Bolshoi. This year, there were many more dancers and Tsiskaridze was the only one who returned (and, funny, but I totally didn’t recognize him). The others were: David Hallberg, Marcelo Gomes and Jose Manuel Carreno from ABT, Joaquin De Luz from NYCB, Guillaume Cote from Canada, Denis Matvienko from Ukraine, and Desmond Richardson from NY-based Complexions Contemporary Ballet (So You Think You Can Dance fans may recognize his photo above, since he has guest performed on the show a couple times).

What I liked about this program the last time it toured here was that there were fewer dancers, and that way you kind of “got to know” them better, by seeing them each perform several different pieces. Here, you basically only saw many dancers once, and a few twice. If you weren’t familiar with them (as my two friends who came with me weren’t), you could easily get them confused. They played a short movie at the beginning where each dancer (besides Desmond Richardson; I think he may have been a late addition to the American tour) talked a bit and you saw them dance. Jose’s cute Cuban accent seems to have gotten more pronounced 🙂 — I think he did it on purpose, knowing how many female fans would be in the audience! David’s voice somehow sounded a bit deeper than it does in person. Matvienko (who, for ballroom dancers, looks A LOT like former US champ Andrei Gavriline) and Tsiskaridze spoke in Russian and their words were translated.

What I loved about this program though was that there were so many solos that exposed us to so many different choreographers whose work I’d never seen (and some of whom I’d never even heard of) before. Every company in this country is obsessed with Balanchine, so it’s a wonderful wonderful change when we actually get a taste of something else. But more on that in a moment.

As with every Danilian production, there were lots and lots of Russians in the audience, and I think Desmond Richardson and Joaquin De Luz in particular grew a new fan base. Poor Joaquin — well, maybe: after the performance and during intermission I kept hearing, “That little guy was great!”, “That little guy was just incredible,” “Where can I see that little guy dance?” So, Joaquin is the great “little guy” whom everyone is seeking out now. And everyone went wild after Richardson’s solo, Lament, choreographed of course by Dwight Rhoden, an absolute master at presenting his friend’s spellbinding combination of gracefulness and masculinity. My friends were floored, along with the rest of the audience judging by the exclamations.

After the movie, they opened with Christopher Wheeldon’s For 4, for four dancers, which is a carry-over from the last performance. On the night I went it was performed by Matvienko, Carreno, De Luz, and Cote (but the cast varied each night). It’s an adagio lyrical piece, as with the vast majority of Wheeldon’s work, and I wished there would have been some more allegro parts with bravura solos. But that’s just not Wheeldon’s thing.

Then, after intermission, we saw a solo performed by each man, ending with a drop dead gorgeous duet danced by Cote and Gomes choreographed by French choreographer Roland Petit, from his Proust ou les Intermittances du Coeur. The men were dressed in skin-toned unitards, which almost made them look naked, and the duet to me seemed to be about a man obsessed with his reflection, or another side of himself, as each’s movement was mainly a reaction to the other’s. But at some points there was some really beautiful partnering, some really beautiful lifts and it seemed like a man dancing with his soul. Breathtaking!

Anyway, other highlights of the solo section were: a really beautiful solo for Marcelo choreographed by Adam Hougland, called Small Steps, which was like lyrical iron-pumping — a series of beautiful poses showing off his musculature interspersed with flowing lyrical movement; a beautiful, lyrical piece danced by David Hallberg from Frederick Ashton’s Dance of the Blessed Spirits; a fast, fun, more virtuosity-heavy solo by David Fernandez for Joaquin De Luz called Five Variations on a Theme; Jose Carreno dancing a gorgeous adagio to Ave Maria — a modern version — by Igal Perry (which I’d seen before and fell in love with it all over again); and Rhoden’s Lament for Richardson, which, like Marcelo’s solo, reminded me of lyrical iron-pumping (which I mean in a good way of course) highlighting as it did that seemingly incongruous combination of male elegance and virility.

The only ones that didn’t really work for me well were Boris Eifman’s Fallen Angel danced by Tsiskaridze, which I think just didn’t have enough context, and Vestris by Leonid Jakobson danced by Matvienko, which was by turns a comical and bravura piece first danced by Baryshnikov in 1969. I thought Matvienko was a lovely dancer with really beautiful lines who could really deliver on the jumps and especially turns, but I just think it needed to be better acted because there were some places where it almost seemed like he made a mistake, and then you realized it wasn’t a mistake by the dancer; it was supposed to be the character who humorously screwed up. I heard Baryshnikov was excellent and I wish I could see a video of that.

Then, we saw Spanish choreographer Nacho Duato’s Remanso, which I’d never seen live before, but saw in a video performed by ABT. It involves a wall with three dancers interacting with each other around it, climbing over it, looking around it. It’s sweet, flirtatious in places, and loving and romantic. The night I saw it it was danced by Gomes, Cote, and Hallberg, though this cast alternated each night as well.

The program ended with a bravura “Grand Finale” with each dancer coming out and doing jumps and turns, and all the big fancy “male things” of classical ballet.

But the thing I kept thinking throughout was, wow, that’s really cool choreography, who’s that choreographer? Oh,  I’ve never heard of him, or, oh I’ve heard of him, how cool that I finally got to see something by him! I mean: Roland Petit, Igal Perry, David Fernandez, Adam Hougland, Nacho Duato, Leonid Jakobson. We NEVER get to see choreography by these people here. Petit is a major choreographer. As is Duato (we really see his choreography only when his own company tours here, infrequently), ditto for Eifman, and the others I’ve never even heard of. Why don’t we see more variety here? Why don’t we see more Mats Ek and Pina Bausch and John Cranko? Why do we have to drown in Balanchine over and over and over again? Why do dance companies think that we want to see Balanchine? Why do they think Americans are into this man? As far as I’m concerned, his only truly great work is Jewels. The rest, okay, his footwork is more intricate and there are certain subtle little embellishments in the variations, but really, what was so great about his ballets in their entirety? What was so great that we have to be so completely inundated with him here in the US? I mean, it makes sense that NYCB does his work because they were founded by him but every other major company in the US is likewise obsessed – San Francisco Ballet, Miami City, Boston, Pennsylvania, even the Kirov and POB when they tour here they think we want more of this crap. And whenever ABT doesn’t do classical, there seems to be an overload of Balanchine. Does anyone consider that maybe, just maybe, we might get bored? That he doesn’t speak to younger generations of Americans AT ALL? Did someone tell POB and Kirov that Americans only understand Balanchine so you have to do Balanchine when you come here? I think ballet is dying in this country because of every artistic director’s completely inscrutable obsession with this boring boring man.

Anyway, I greatly thank Mr. Danilian for allowing Americans to see something else for a change.

For a completely different perspective, see Macaulay’s review.

Posted on

AMERICAN BALLET THEATER’S PROKOFIEV PROGRAM

 

 

On the Dnieper grew on me after seeing it the second time on Tuesday night, with the new cast, although I still generally preferred the first cast. If you missed my earlier post on Ratmansky’s new ballet, it’s here. Second cast was: Jose Carreno as Sergei the returning soldier; Hee Seo as Natalia, his betrothed; Diana Vishneva as Olga, the flirt who steals his heart; and Alexandre Hammoudi as Olga’s volatile fiance.

I absolutely loved Diana as Olga. She and Hee Seo, who was excellent as well, really drove home the ballet’s pathos and heartbreak. A BalletTalk poster said that with Diana, Olga became the central character and I think they’re right. Diana’s Olga was the most dynamic character in the whole thing; she really underwent a change in those mere 40 minutes. And it was believable. She starts out this carefree and careless flirtatious girl, frolicking around, teasing Sergei, teasing her boyfriend. And when her flirtatiousness with Sergei sets the whole disastrous string of events in motion — Sergei falls for her and she for him, her fiance has an emotional breakdown and beats Sergei, her parents are distraught, and she realizes what she and Sergei have done to poor Natalia — she really grows up, overnight, becomes a totally different person, takes responsibility for her actions. When she and Sergei bow to Natalia at the end in a prayer for forgiveness, before running off to their new life together, you feel equal heartbreak for both women.

Hee Seo and Veronika Part were equally compelling, although Seo seemed a little younger and more naive up front and I didn’t notice the holding out of the arms and the resting of the head on the shoulder like I did with Veronika. Jose, who’s generally ABT’s best actor I think (he never overdoes it; everything is authentic), was good as Sergei, but different from Marcelo. Jose seemed to be searching for something at the beginning, trying to rediscover his hometown with those short, staccato steps in each direction. His movements at the beginning were more modern than ballet, sharp and staccato at points, like he was unnerved that he didn’t recognize things or that things were different. (That kind of movement is more visible on a smaller body though.) Marcelo didn’t seem as sad or desperate up front. But then when torn between the two women, with Jose I  didn’t notice the back and forth of the jumps, this way and that, as I did with Marcelo. The jumps first to one woman, then the other, are my favorite Sergei movement trait, along with the throwing himself to the ground in anguish, almost like a half push-up.

Alexandre Hammoudi was a very different fiance from David Hallberg. Alexandre was quieter, especially up front, not seeming to realize the potential dangers of Olga’s flirtatiousness. He underwent a character change, like Diana’s Olga, then, becoming aggrieved and angry when he realized what had happened. David was more volatile up front, as if that was fundamentally part of the fiance’s character. Those extremely fast-paced steps during his anger scene were not as pronounced with Alexandre as with David. It looked more like he was kicking up leaves (which they had strewn on the ground); with David he was using those feet like daggers. David made such an impression with that character, and specifically that going nuts scene — I’m never going to forget it; I’m never going to forget that insane, almost terrifying, tap dance.

Okay, can I stop talking about this ballet now and focus on the other Prokofiev pieces?!

I generally wasn’t in love with Desir (photo at top of post) by James Kudelka, at least not as it was danced here. The movement is lovely and much of it original and the dancers are excellent but something was just lacking and I can’t figure out exactly what. It’s a ballet about several different couples, and I think my problem is that all the couples are basically the same, at least the way it’s being danced by ABT. With someone like Tharp or Robbins, different couples have different issues — there’s a romantic couple, a sexed-up couple, a fighting couple, etc. Here, the first two couples on first, dressed in fiery red — the women in long, flowing dresses that really whirl when they turn, the men in brown pants and long-sleeved colored tops —  both seem passionate and in love, all but Gillian Murphy from the first night’s cast, wearing bright smiles. But I don’t know if the happy smiles are supposed to be there. Some of the movement is rather chaotic. The woman seems to want to go one way and the man keeps turning her the other, mid-air. Gillian was the only one who made this dramatic, as if there was something not quite right going on between the characters. Apollinaire Scherr noticed that as well; read her very insightful comments on the whole program here (scroll down).

Then we move to a set of four couples, all dancing at once. My favorite part of the whole ballet is the men of these couples. At one point, men and women split and the men all dance together, followed by the women doing a group dance. When the men group dance in this way, each is doing his own thing — one jumping arms up toward the sky as if in ecstasy, another jeteing back and forth as if confused, another spinning himself into a whirlwind, etc. Then the women dance and they all do exactly the same thing — hold up their skirts and tip toe around, jump waving the skirts all about, all in unison, in sync. They’re all the same character — what does this say about men and women? Then, the couples pair up again, each man to a woman, and there’s one really funny part where the women stand still and the men do a bunch of high, twisty turning jumps,their limbs flying — as if to protest, “what’s up with that?,” “how can you say that to me?” It’s very funny, very evocative of real life relationships. The audience seemed to laugh louder on the first night though.

Still, in all, the couple who stood out to me the most is the more adagio one with all the beautiful lifts. The second night it was danced by Jared Matthews and Maria Riccetto, who were very good, but there was just something extra special about Cory Stearns and Isabella Boylston that really took my breath away the first night. Another performance I’m not going to forget.

And then Prodigal Son. This isn’t really my favorite ballet and I don’t honestly see how critics can trash Boris Eifman so and love this. What’s with all that fist-pounding on the thighs, the wide-mouthed screams at what, being asked to get water from the well with his sisters? How melodramatic is that? I know it’s a classic now, but I feel if it premiered today people would laugh and roll their eyes. Unless Balanchine meant for parts of it to be funny, like that up front melodrama, and the “sex” scenes. Anyway, read Apollinaire’s comments about Prodigal too, though; she made me appreciate it more, and talked about how certain dancers can play up the immaturity in those early thigh-pounding scenes so that it doesn’t look so full of melodrama.

Herman Cornejo as the son and Michele Wiles as the Siren danced the leads on opening night; Angel Corella and Kristi Boone the second night. Unfortunately I have to miss the third cast — the magnificent Daniil Simkin and the tantalizingly beautiful Irina Dvorovenko. If anyone sees them, please report! I’m dying to know how they do together!

Herman was excellent dance-wise. As expected, he nailed all those high-flying, angst-ridden jumps at the beginning. He danced a little more carefully than Angel, who had a minor slip at the beginning, then looked like he might fall on his way down that slide in the middle section. But I felt Angel delivered on the drama better; he took me through the emotions with him. The way he watched his Siren, he was like a little boy mesmerized. It made you mesmerized by her too. And then the way he danced with her — it was like an awkward, boy losing his virginity, sex scene. I’ve never seen it quite look like that before, though it’s probably supposed to! Then when he was robbed and left to die (Herman was really shockingly stunning  in this part too — he was a horrid sight, his body up there, leaning almost lifeless against the cross-like slide), and came crawling back home body all dirt-encrusted, then into his father’s arms, like a baby. It does end up being very emotionally compelling, silly as it is at the top. I’d like to see Herman in this later, after he’s had a few goes at it. I think if he could up the drama more, he’d be perfect.

Kristi so far has been my favorite Siren! This role I find a bit inherently awkward too — all that wrapping the long train of her costume around her legs, crouching to get it between her thighs. It almost always looks more weird than sexy, but somehow Kristi whipped the fabric around so fast, it was spellbinding, practically had a dominatrix feel. And then when she does those — what I call upside-down crab walks — where she’s on her hands and toe pointes, belly up and she walks past him develope-ing her legs up with each step, spider-like — most dancers kick straight up, but Kristi’s developes went all the way back, practically to her chest. It looked so much more tantalizing than I’ve seen that before. Kristi’s pointed toes are so pronounced, her feet practically look like ensnaring sickles — she probably has a better Siren body than anyone (except for maybe Veronika Part — I wonder if she’ll ever be cast?)

Okay, I’m done. Sorry I keep writing so much! If anyone sees the Daniil / Irina Prodigal cast, please let me know!

Posted on

EIFMAN BALLET’S "EUGENE ONEGIN"

 

 

Last night I went to see the Eifman Ballet of St. Petersburg in their New York debut of Boris Eifman’s Onegin, based on the 1837 novel in verse by Alexander Pushkin. I’ve seen this company once before and I’ve always been thoroughly entertained. They’re very Russian, very dramatic, very theatrical, very emotional, very angst-filled, doing everything as full-out both movement-wise and acting-wise as you possibly could. There’s never ever a dull moment.

Mr. Eifman’s work is very controversial here amongst the critics — I remember Joan Acocella (of the New Yorker) calling him a “public menace” at one of her book signings! I think he’s very Russian though (as well as very daring), and many in the audience are Russians, of all ages. I felt just as much as if I were in a nightclub in Brighton Beach as at a ballet performance. I also think he would be well-liked among the So You Think You Can Dance crowd. He often combines classical ballet and classical music (here Tchaikovsky) with more contemporary dance (like hip hop or jazz / theater dance) and music (here by contemporary Russian rock musician Alexander Sitkovetsky).

He sets his Onegin not in Imperial Russia but in 1991 in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union and local uprisings against Gorbachev and his liberalism. We see, above the dancers, projected onto a circular backdrop, video clips of people marching, demonstrations, police trying to keep order, and then the images switch to an ensemble of classical ballerinas performing what appears to be Swan Lake. The dance / play begins with the main male characters — Onegin and his friend Lensky (who in Pushkin was a poet, here is a guitarist and musician) in a bar. Lensky seems to be trying to comfort Onegin with his guitar-playing but it doesn’t seem to help much.

Next we’re in the countryside where Lensky has taken Onegin, presumably so Onegin can have a break from the city. (In Puskhin, Onegin is a jaded aristocrat who retires to the country). The setting, by Zinovy Margolin, and lighting, by Gleb Filschtinsky and Eifman, are really cool by the way. Whenever the characters are in the city, the back wall on which are painted a series of black lines is lit in red and those lines become kind of abstract but imprisoning; when they are in the country, the wall is lit in blue and the lines turn into a bridge crossing a river, and the circular backdrop (which the movie images were projected onto) becomes a moon.

Anyway, Lensky goes to the country to see his girlfriend, the playful, flirtatious Olga, and there the bookish Tatyana immediately falls for Onegin, who doesn’t return her affections. Tatyana (danced brilliantly by Maria Abashova) has some really compelling dance sequences, by turns lyrical (showing she’s in love) and more angst-filled with awkward, angular lines and contorted mid-body movements. During part of this sequence, Tatyana’s love letter to Onegin is read (in Russian) by a voice-over. As Olga and Lensky dance a romantic duet, Tatyana walks up and across the bridge holding the letter. It’s really striking, the contrast between the sexually suggestive dancing of the pair and the lone Tatyana with her letter.

Soon, Tatyana has a dream in which she is being seduced by Onegin (pictured at the top of the post). The stage is lit in red and hard rock music is played. It’s very sexual and turns very violent, as soon Onegin turns into several men all clawing at her — a foreboding of the violence and tragedy to come.

I didn’t completely follow the story in the next section — and this is where I think it’s hard to bring Pushkin into the present — but Onegin gets angry at Lensky for some reason — (in Pushkin it’s because Lensky organizes a socialite party which angers Onegin because it represents everything he desires to escape from) — but it wasn’t as clear to me here. Maybe here Onegin’s just a tormented soul in general, maybe his anguish has to do in some way with what’s going on politically and culturally in Russia. Anyway, Onegin gets angry and starts to flirt obnoxiously with Olga (in a very intense duet filled with daring lifts and sexual overtones), leading the same place it does in Pushkin – -to Lensky’s anger resulting in a fight in which Onegin stabs Lensky to death (in the Pushkin, Lensky challenges Onegin to a duel, which Onegin wins).

Then, there’s a really beautiful scene — one of my favorite — where Lensky returns to life, ghost-like, and he and Onegin do a pas de deux. It begins with Lensky hovering over a small table, Onegin underneath. The men see each other through the glass and Onegin pulls himself up as Lensky slowly lowers himself down. They then do a lift sequence, but a very masculine one — with lots of kicks and anguish-filled jumps. One critic interpreted this as a gay scene, but I thought it was more about Onegin expressing his sorrow at what he’d done to his friend, praying for forgiveness.

Eventually Tatyana meets and marries a blind colonel and moves to the city, becoming a member of urban high society the way Pushkin’s Tatyana did. Years later Onegin (who now has greyed hair) spots her at one of the clubs he frequents and becomes enamored of her. There’s an intense pas de deux between them and she tells him she is taken, she’s no longer his to have. It ends with Onegin sitting at a desk crazily writing love letters to her the way she once did him, trying desperately to get the wording right, shredding paper after paper and starting anew. But the letters go nowhere, his time and energy is wasted. Instead, a wind comes along and blows the papers about and he becomes flooded by them.

The main dancers — Abashkova as Tatyana, Oleg Gabushev as Onegin, Dmitry Fisher (who bears a striking resemblance to Slavik Kryklyvyy!) as Lensky, Natalia Povoroznyuk as Olga, and Sergei Volobuev as the Colonel — and are all excellent, both with the intensity of the acting, and the incredible flexibility and gorgeous lines for the women and the athleticism for the men. The two women especially really moved like their characters — Abashkova at times making her movement awkward, at times beautifully lyrical, as if in love, and Povoroznyuk, more playful and sexual as Olga, would often fall into these amazing splits, legs wrapped snakily around her male partner.

One thing: I wish the women would have been on pointe. They all danced in flat ballet slippers. I think pointe work brings out not only the poetry and beauty of ballet but its intensity as well. Eifman could have used it to powerful, dramatic effect here.

The company performs at City Center through Sunday. I think they’re definitely worth seeing if you have the chance, though it might be a bit of a jarring experience for people devoted solely to classical ballet 🙂