A
Different Faith
Chichester
Psalms
Eros Piano
Choreography by Peter Martins
New York City Ballet
New York State Theater
June 2, 2004
by
Mindy Aloff
copyright
© 2004 by Mindy Aloff
published June 4, 2004
In
the old Soviet Union, one could find kiosks in Moscow that offered two
items—for example, cucumbers and shoelaces—that were apparently
unrelated, except that they were being sold by the same person. These
two premières, paired between intermissions, were rather like that.
Chichester Psalms, set to Leonard Bernstein’s hopeful,
occasionally explosive yet, ultimately, serene choral work of 1964, with
the words of the Bible sung in Hebrew, put 38 dancers and 63 singers on
stage in a semi-circle of risers that left an arena-like space for the
dancers to fill. Mirroring the music, which is scored for a boy soprano
(James Danner, a last-minute replacement for Jason Goldberg) and 62 adult
choristers (the Juilliard Choral Union, conducted by Andrea Quinn), the
ballet features one pair of leads (Carla Körbes and Amar Ramasar,
a last-minute replacement for Henry Seth), with everyone else part of
a mass of followers. It concludes with the kneeling corps arranged around
the central couple, on whom a golden light pours down. On the other hand,
Eros Piano, to what is effectively a one-movement concerto for
piano soloist (Richard Moredock) and orchestra, composed by John Adams
in 1989, is choreographed for just three dancers, here Alexandra Ansanelli,
Ashley Laracey (a last-minute replacement for Janie Taylor), and Nikolaj
Hübbe, who runs back and forth in Mark Stanley’s glimmering,
Florida-blue light to partner now one lady, now the other, until he manages
to lose both of them; when the curtain descends, the ladies have bourréed
into opposite wings, leaving Hübbe planted on both feet, center stage,
his arms held slightly out from his sides in a gesture that could be resignation
or mild longing, or simply inscrutable.
And
yet, although it looked as if we were meant to see the sacred and the
profane in stark contrast, the final effect was of repetition. Why? To
a small extent, it may have been a matter of the music, which, in both
cases, is tonal yet whose themes do not coalesce into melodies that one
can remember. These are fine scores by Americans one generation apart;
however, despite their considerable merits (beginning, in each case, with
a strong pulse), neither offers the element of aural descriptiveness that
makes concert music intrinsically right for theatrical dancing. This,
in itself, isn’t necessarily a problem for a concert score that
has been adopted for dance; but it does mean that, if the choreography
has problems, the music can’t, on its own, carry the work.
Ultimately, though, I think the sense of sameness originated in the
choreography and elements of visual production, as different as they may
appear.
In both ballets, there were ingenious passages of partnering, and the
effort to produce clear, simple dance images was affecting in its way.
Both ballets were also performed with complete devotion by their respective
casts. However, in both cases the partnering established the same power
relationships between the dancers. The ballerinas are frequently partnered
at the waist, with the danseurs wrapping their arms around the women’s
torsos, or at the elbow or under the arms. Physically, the women relinquish
control. Similarly, both ballets avoid the intermediate shapes of hierarchy
that would provide a bridge between Heroic Soloists and Anonymous Group.
When, in Chichester Psalms, the choreography arrays the corps,
it limits their levels to kneeling and standing. There is faith in this
work, but no transcendence through dance. Both ballets have also been
given essentially unisex costumes. In the case of Chichester Psalms
(costumed by Catherine Barinas, a designer affiliated with NYCB’s
Choreographic Institute), both men and women wear long skirts—the
women’s white, the men’s black—that obscure their legs;
the rationale for this may be the unisex robes for the choir (the women’s
white, the men’s black), or perhaps it’s meant to be a statement
about common humanity. However, when followed by the costumes for Eros
Piano—with the women in unitards and the man in a blouson top and
tights—the theatrical oddness of the preceding set of costumes becomes
business as usual. (The skirts of the Bernstein were not only disfiguring;
the dancers were getting tangled up in them, too.)
All this said, I do think that Martins is attempting to do something
that for his choreography is unusual. The orientation of Chichester
Psalms around one couple—one man, one woman—rather than
around two or three is an uncustomarily decisive choice in his work, and,
I think, a good one. And the passages for both women in Eros Piano
that permit them to stand on their points independently, rather than to
crumple in the man’s arms, are also of interest. I’d have
to see these ballets again in tandem to see if the most crucial structural
link between them—the use of man-and-two-women trios—opens
up into metaphors that give them further levels. At the première,
my overall impression was that it lent them the allure of poetic imagery
without the depth. However, the major configuration of the trios who represent
the peaceful resolution of violence in Chichester Psalms (man,
next to one woman, and a second woman next to the first) is familial rather
than erotic, and, on one viewing, it was a fascinating idea, both formally
and socially. (At least as far back as his hour-long, period suite, A
Schubertiad, from the mid-80’s, Martins has been as absorbed
by trios in his choreography as Merce Cunningham.) The trio of Eros
Piano is quite different in its formal tensions and in its feeling:
its existence is ultimately destructive, not harmonious. Curious that,
with the entire Balanchine repertory before him daily, Martins choses
to ignore Balanchine’s solution to the problems of equally competing
loves: introduce a third girl. It may be that such trinities have a spiritual
resonance that may not be right for someone raised in a different faith.
Photos:
First: Peter Martins' Chichester Psalms: Carla Körbes
and Amar Ramasar, the company, and the Juilliard Choral Union. Photo:
Paul Kolnik
Second: Peter Martins' Eros Piano: Nikolaj Hübbe and
Ashley Laracey. Photo: Paul Kolnik
Originally
published:
www.danceviewtimes.com
Volume 2, Number 20
June 3, 2004
Copyright
©2004 by Mindy Aloff
|
|
Writers |
Mindy
Aloff
Dale Brauner
Mary Cargill
Nancy Dalva
Gia Kourlas
Gay Morris
Susan Reiter
Alexandra Tomalonis(Editor)
Meital Waibsnaider
Leigh Witchel
David Vaughan
|
|
DanceView |
The
Autumn DanceView is out:
New York City Ballet's Spring 2003 season
reviewed by Gia Kourlas
An
interview with the Kirov Ballet's Daria Pavlenko
by Marc Haegeman
Reviews
of San Francisco Ballet (by Rita Felciano)
and Paris Opera Ballet (by Carol Pardo)
The ballet tradition at the Metropolitan
Opera (by Elaine Machleder)
Reports
from London (Jane Simpson) and the Bay Area (Rita Felciano).
DanceView
is available by subscription ONLY. Don't miss it. It's a good
read. Black and white, 48 pages, no ads. Subscribe
today!
DanceView
is published quarterly (January, April, July and October)
in Washington, D.C. Address all correspondence to:
DanceView
P.O. Box 34435
Washington, D.C. 20043
|
|
|