Go back to Flash Reviews
Go
Home
Flash Review 1, 10-23:
From Paris, Avec Feeling
Technique + Emotion = Paris Opera Ballet
By Paul Ben-Itzak
Copyright 2000 The Dance Insider
PARIS -- For about seven
years, or as long as I've been covering dance intensely, I've been
hearing what a brilliant dude this guy Balanchine was. So much so
that he doesn't even require a first name on first reference --
kinda like, well, "God." So I've not really broadcast the fact that,
er, many of his ballets leave me cold. But I had a nagging sense
-- mostly from seeing the work performed by Dance Theatre of Harlem
and Suzanne Farrell's companies -- that it didn't need to be so.
Well, Saturday night at the Palais Garnier, courtesy of Paris Opera
Ballet dancers Jean-Guillaume Bart, Agnes Letestu, Delphine Moussin,
Karin Averty, Beatrice Martel, Aurore Cordellier, and Dorothee Gilbert,
I was re-educated: It definitely ain't necessarily so. Balanchine
does not have to be coldly rendered. The abstract, architectural
beauty of his ballets can be given, well, life, in a way that, er,
gives it life! Elsewhere on Saturday's mostly winning mixed program,
Manuel Legris provided a reminder of how Jerome Robbins humanized
the dance, Marie-Agnes Gillot and Clairemarie Osta rendered Angelin
Preljocaj's stark world with warm humanity, and dancers no less
talented than all these could not save the evening's one premiere,
Lionel Hoche's "Yamm," from making me want to yell, "J'accuse!"
(As I don't know how to say, "Make it stop!" or "Oy!" in French.)
The French staging (no
Balanchine repetiteur is credited in the program) of the 1928 "Apollon
Musagate" catches you by the solar plexus pretty much from the moment
Beatrice Martel, as Apollo's mother giving birth to the oracle god
in this rarely given full version, catches the light from atop a
riser of stairs upstage. (A refresher is perhaps in order here:
The Garnier stage is raked, so when we talk upstage and downstage,
we're using the terms literally, and the effect of this precipitation
is usually stunning for one not used to it.) Martel's legs go up,
they spread open, her stomach contracts. Apollo (Bart, substituting
for Nicholas Le Riche Saturday) materializes, fully swathed, and
then Cordellier and Gilbert remind us there are no small parts,
only small actors, when they delicately, excitedly unfurl the cloth
and release a fumbling, tentative Bart.
From a technique standpoint,
Bart might be called, relatively speaking, the weak link here in
a cast of killer women (in both their amplitude of heart and aptidude
of body). And yet his lack of technical virtuosity actually works
to his advantage here. His is the first Apollo I've seen, with the
possible exception of Ethan Stiefel, who really is tentative, not
just in the first moment of unswathing but in a wonderfully measured
way throughout the ballet. (Okay, I'll name names: Missing the mark
in this regard were the Apollos of Igor Zelensky and Julio Bocca.)
We're talking beyond the cliche here, folks. He is discovering the
world, from the moment he first peels his eyes open and stumbles
out of the swathing cloth, on to the higher discoveries introduced
to him by Terpsichore (Letestu), Calliope (Moussin) and Polymnie
(Averty). Where most Apollos I've seen only act like newborns in
the prologue and then are suddenly masterful gods, Bart plays his
part throughout as a young god being introduced to the world of
the arts and his body's relation to them -- it's the best-acted
Apollo I've seen, by far.
In other casts I've seen
of this ballet, the standard for the women seems to be, well, Maria
Kowroski, circa 2000: High legs, pristine but ultimately sterile
beauty; God forbid you should crack a smile. But the standard among
these ballerinas seems to be City Ballet's Wendy Whelan, sans any
of Whelan's occasional brittleness. They are digging the music (the
Whelan resemblance in Letestu even extending to the way both seem
to be lip-synching the music), digging each other, and it's infectious
to both the male lead and to the audience. Heretofore I'd thought
that Balanchine was leaving it to me to fill in the emotional substance;
but no more. They all these three definitely have the technique;
Kodak moments such as when all their feet go up as they lean on
Apollo's back are as picture-perfect as in any other cast I've seen.
We're not talking about personal warmth as a substitution for technical
peak; in this company, we get both!!
Moussin's Caliope seems
to be truly suffering, poet-like, to produce her words; the raising
of her hand to her mouth, and the mouth's nightingale-like opening,
come directly from her gut, contracting in pain, right to the end.
Moussin is the first ballerina I've seen who truly seems to understand
the meaning of what it means to be a Poet -- that the muse often
comes from and with great suffering -- and who is doing more than
indicating. In the immediate situation, this is good news. But overall
-- egad! It's very bad news -- that is, that every other cast I've
seen, and we're talking stars at New York City Ballet, the Maryinsky/Kirov,
and American Ballet Theatre -- has given such a facile, surface
interpretation to these roles. As if to prove, with a negative example,
that there are no small roles but their are certainly small actors.
Balanchine called Apollo
"the turning point in my life." And I can't help thinking that if
the dancers of the company he co-founded, NYCB, are missing such
a resonating aspect as the warmth so obviously inherent in Apollo
-- it IS about the muses, after all! -- are they missing it in some
of his other abstract ballets as well? For some of you, I know,
the architecture is enough; but for non-initiates like me, the ballet
needs, and can have, so much more -- and if its 20th century god,
Balanchine, could be infused with such life, think of the possibilities,
in terms of exponentially increasing the audience!
But back to this Paris
Opera cast: Averty's Polymnie is similarly natural; her final explosive
utterance surprises even her, as this muse who represents the theater
slinks embarassedly off.
But nowhere is the capacity
for danciing, well, freely, such precise choreography more evident
than in Letestu's Terpsichore, virtuosic of body and heart. I never
saw Suzanne Farrell, Balanchine's last great muse, dance live; but
in films what impressed me most is that even in this very specific
choreography, her dancing appears natural, organic, full of the
joy de esprit that said she was discovering thiis dance in the moment
-- rather than dancing petrified to make sure she executed every
well-plotted step correctly, as Kowroski and so many other of Farrell's
descendents do these days.
Letestu is, perhaps,
the first dancer I have seen, in Balanchine choreography anyway,
who gives the choreography so naturally and free and warm. She takes
choreography that is perhaps more mapped out and known in our time
than any other-- to the dancers as well as to the balletomatnes
who have seen it so often -- and makes it seem as if it is coming
from a reaction in the moment, in her. Always eyeing Apollo -- even
when her torso and head are bent way back -- it is clear that she
is the one that is more than just a muse to him, and not just because
she's got the pas de deux and the most steps! That warmth extends
to the audience as well and, I think, accounts for much that is
organic and raw in Bart's performance. Stand-out moments for him
-- and again, this is the first time I've noticed these -- are,
well, most of all when, towards the end, right before he rests his
head in the muses' palms, he looks out and up into the world, somewhere
up in the balcony, which he knows will be wondrous -- because of
the way these extrtaordinary in heart and body women have foretold
its aesthetic pleasures.
Such warmth is evident,
too, in Preljocaj's 1995 "Annonciation," which entered the POB rep.
in 1996 and was reprised Saturday by Clairemarie Osta, as Marie,
and Marie-Agnes Gillot, as L'Ange, which I think means...the Angel!
Agnes of God, indeed!
I don't think any of
us can hope to fully understand what's goiing on in the mind of
Preljocaj -- he strikes me as Dance's Albert Camus. And I think,
also, that to communicate his work requires dancers who are deep,
and at least have some inkling of not just where he's coming from,
but why he's coming from there. I may be in the minority on this,
but Preljocaj's "Romeo & Juliet" didn't quite work for me. I saw
its integrity; I sort of saw what it was trying to do; but the pas
de deux just made me think, It's so French! As played, it was more
of an argument than a love duet, lots of wrestling and grappling.
With "Annonciation,"
which I first saw at the Joyce Theater on Preljocaj's own company,
I didn't have this reaction. The deficit was rather in me -- I knew
I couldn't begin to understand, on first viewing, what this piece
was about. But after a second viewing, in the grand frame of the
Garnier, I begin to have an inkling.
Story-wise, we're talking
your basic initiation here; of one woman who is, in some fashion,
Virginal; by another who, angel-like, out of a storm of static and
interference (interfering with the bucolic Vivaldi that begins the
piece) materializes, arms cast up. The small cast is deceptive,
because the scale here is rather epic, and epochoal; it makes me
wonder what Preljocaj might do with Joan of Arc -- HINT HINT. Here,
the vocabulary is again extreme and angst-filled, but the purpose
of each image is clear; as with one repeated gesture, where the
Angel dips her head and curves her two arms, hawk-like, as if swooping
down on a prey; then dips one arm and flutters the hand on a horizontal
plane -- the hawk is suddenly a little birdy or, perhaps, a bat.
This flight theme is
repeated towards the end, vividly -- after a sort of purgatory interim
where Osta lies sideways, prostate, sleeping really, while Gillot
prepares above her. Osta rises onto the bench, and there's another
flight moment -- she echoes Gillot's earlier gesture with the fluttering
hands -- before Gillot moves center stage, and alights again, but
not before Osta has reached an arm out, yearningly. The choreography
is designed to illuminate the relationship between these two women,
and how they transform each other, but it's not the choreography
alone that carries it off.These woman know when to be strong and
when to be vulnerable, and they do it all against a soundscore (Stephane
Roy, er, counter-punching an extract from Vivaldi's Magnificat -
RV 610) that can't be an easy one in which to find the musical through-line.
Speaking of finding the
music, in Jerome Robbins's 1994 "A Suite of Dances," the solo dancer
finds it immediately, right in front of him; the solitary musician,
a cellist, is right on stage. This dance was created for a late
forty-something Mikhail Baryshnikov. I'd previously seen it danced
by one of my favorites, City Ballet's Damien Woetzel. I thought
I liked Woestzel's performance -- debonair and adult. The musician
on stage thing seemed just a clever, not too orginal device; a typical
slight but not too revolutionary late-Robbins tweaking. And yet
on Manuel Legris, who danced it Saturday, what was a pleasant diversion
-- a middle-act filler, if you please -- suddenly took on moment
and even monument. A few minutes into this dance, to various Bach
music for single cello, I realized: this is heavy. It's a man, not
middle-aged, but late-aged for a dancer (in other words, thirty-something
like moi!), savoring for perhaps the last time his ability to move
fully to this music -- and maybe savoring much more, past experiences
of life he'll never experience again, in quite this way. Legris,
dancing opposite, really, cellist Martine Bailly, subtly, oh so
subtly, uses the interplay with the musician to complement this
theme: twice, it is she, not he, who wipes the sweat off her brow;
the second time, having already headed upstage center, he shoots
back a quick look toward her, as if catching her in the act. I was
reminded very much of Mark Haim's "Goldberg Variations." What is
it about Bach that lends itself to the sweet-sad experience of converging
on middle-aged, or at least late-young age, men?
From Legris, we get a
moment, late on, where he concludes a section by -- much like Bart's
Apollo, actually -- looking upward, towards and beyond his extended
hand, towards that memory of something that won't be experienced
anon. Then, for the finale, as if he is saying, "Enough of gloom
and doom, I am here now, I am still dancing full, I'll appreciate
this moment for what it is, c'est la vie" he breaks into full-out
jumping, leaping, touring, and, ultimately, rapid turning. What
has been a not particularly challenging dance, physically (or maybe
Legris just made it look that way!) suddenly gives him a score of
quick one-legged turns, which he executes with panache, confidence,
and a minimum of sweat, before sliding triumphantly towards Bailly,
sitting and reclining back on his hands, and smiling at her as if
to say "Voila!," as the lights dim.
Now then: I wish I could
end this review right there, but since Lionel Hoche's "Yamm" was
the one premiere on the program, and since Hoche's work is reportedly
coming to an NYC venue next spring as part of the "France Moves"
festival, I suppose we can't avoid discussing it.... I have just
stepped out onto the terrace of Dance Insider Paris, a.k.a. the
lovely home of B.T., in the 13th Arr. at nearly 3 a.m. on a Sunday
morning. It is foggy but nicely crisp, and quiet, outside. I am
thinking about how Preljocaj's "Annonciation," as, well, noisy on
the surface as much of its soundscore is, is, in content, oh so
simple, a kernel of one idea, played to the max.
Hoche's "Yamm," on the
other hand, is played to the max, but...where's the idea? Based
on this dance, I can only conclude that Hoche is to Preljocaj much
as Peter Martins is to Balanchine. He gives us surface effects,
sans any coherent original movement idea. "Yamm" moves, but it isn't
moving. Celine Talon, as the main woman in a main trio surrounded
by a large corps, does her best, with a heartfelt almost Kylianian
approach and attack. But this material is so vapid, there's not
much for her to hold on to. We, too, can't find an anchor in Hoche's
spastic choreography, danced to an equally bombastic original score
by Philippe Fenelon. We're talking Merce without a plan, chaos without
a design, Ives without the underlying melody. In his program notes,
I see that Hoche uses the word "chaos" a lot. But even chaos --
as Pina (she who, god-like, doesn't need a last name on first reference!)
teaches us -- has to have a plan, some raison d'etre that is communicated,
even if only viscerally, to the audience.
Sometimes I think ballet
company directors, in their otherwise admirable attempts to freshen
up the rep., have little catholicty of taste when it comes to selecting
modern works -- almost as if they can only recognize the effects,
without being able to discern whether the work in question has a
cohesive aesthetic. And as if they have diminished expectations,
and don't expect post-modern dance to have a cohesive aesthetic
-- as long as it's wacky enough that it gives them some modern street
cred, that seems enough. At the curtain call, Hoche appeared in
his sneakers. Preljocaj appeared in his sneakers too. The difference
is, Angelin Preljocaj, by his intellectual and aesthetic vigor and
firmament, has earned the right to wear sneakers in the opera house.
Go
back to Flash Reviews
Go Home
|