Jump to content

Luke Jennings slams RB as "turkey of the year"


Recommended Posts

And I don't think it is sufficient argument that the dancers themselves need new works created on them, or they get bored.  If a senior dancer is tired of churning out Swan Lake or Giselle, then let them retire, or join another company.  There are plenty of new and eager recruits just desperate for the chance to move up the ranks, and show what they can do in these "tired" old classics.  And plenty of audience members keen to watch them. 

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. Dance or any kind of performance art is so ephemeral, and is not always well captured and recorded. I think that with such short careers, ambitious dancers might want to leave a lasting legacy that is more than just a memory of a few great Giselles and Sleeping Beauties that a relatively small number of people might have seen, and one of the few ways they can do so is to create new work, new roles. I'm really sorry that we never saw great narrative works created around partnerships like Cojocaru/Kobborg or Rojo/Acosta, that no one even tried. I'm all for new works and taking risks, though I agree that the output this season seems to have been quite poor.

Edited by Sunrise
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I completely agree with your last paragraph, Fonty. It is a privilege to dance Odette / Odile, Aurora, SPF and the other big classical roles. If you are bored of them then you should retire from dancing, find something else to do, move companies or at least sit out one run. The audience deserves dancers who are passionate about dancing these roles. Anything less short changes people who have paid for their ticket and contributed to the company's ACE funding through their taxes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree with your last paragraph, Fonty. It is a privilege to dance Odette / Odile, Aurora, SPF and the other big classical roles. If you are bored of them then you should retire from dancing, find something else to do, move companies or at least sit out one run. The audience deserves dancers who are passionate about dancing these roles. Anything less short changes people who have paid for their ticket and contributed to the company's ACE funding through their taxes.

Too right, Aileen.  Although I can understand dancers wanting to experiment and I have enjoyed some of the new work and want more, if a dancer can't give of his or her best in the classical roles, then it certainly is time for them to do the other thing.  They and we are privileged to enjoy some of the most magnificent classical ballet and I don't want somebody dancing for me who would rather be doing Acosta's vaudeville which, IMHO, was a travesty and a blot on RB's repertoire which should never be repeated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 with the remaining Principals holding the fort as best as they can = Nunez & Morera being stars as always. 

 

[and not forgetting Sarah Lamb and Lauren Cuthbertson]

 

 

There may have been some artistic flops - but surely thats what art is all about - a famous writer can write a sloppy novel, films flop at the Box Office - its about experimenting creatively - risking the applause & criticism that comes with it. 

 

 

[so true - and its not as if MacMillan and Ashton never made a flop either]

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that we are all entitled to our own opinion but for the record, I think that that dismissing Bonelli as merely "okay when he is with Cuthbertson" is a great disservice to a beautiful dancer. Not only do Cuthbertson and Bonelli have wonderful chemistry - the reason they are my favourite R&J of the modern era - but Bonelli has beautiful technique and has worked well with other partners, not least with Lamb in Afternoon of a Faun, according to reports.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too right, Aileen.  Although I can understand dancers wanting to experiment and I have enjoyed some of the new work and want more, if a dancer can't give of his or her best in the classical roles, then it certainly is time for them to do the other thing.  They and we are privileged to enjoy some of the most magnificent classical ballet and I don't want somebody dancing for me who would rather be doing Acosta's vaudeville which, IMHO, was a travesty and a blot on RB's repertoire which should never be repeated.

 

I find it difficult to believe that any dancers are tired or bored of dancing any of the classical roles. I believe that also of all of the Senior dancers anyone talks about here, always try their best. The world over! So the whole 'if you don't like it....you know what you can do'....doesn't really work. The career of a ballet dancer must involve all aspects of modern and classical repertoire these days.

 

I think that RB as one of the most important ballet houses feels (justifiably) that it's rich history and budget means that it, along with Bolshoi, ABT, Paris, La Scala etc.. cannot only be a house to only show established pieces, but must act as leading figures, in safe guarding the quality of art, as well as investing to move the art forwards.

 

La Scala have recently co-invested with ABT and Zürich in Ratmansky's project of accurately reconstructing Sleeping Beauty and Swan Lake costing around $6m each. Paris are going though their own changes with Millepied, and the company are not finding it easy to incorporate his new choreographs or adapting to his 'American style', but are staying with the project.

 

RB are going through similar pains for the art, and investing in Wayne MacGregor especially, who is alongside Ratmansky one of the most in demand choreographers in the world right now. Woolf Works was WM pushing himself to work to a narrative, and Royal Ballet invested in him,and it seems he produced a great success, along with other works. Of course bring back some other less popular works may be seen as a 'Turkey', I would say that these great ballet houses cannot always 'win' when they have gambled resources on an artist. If it was that easy, there would be choreographic masters every couple of years, rather than every 10-20 years.

 

I also believe that when an artist has given you success and given their best, they deserve respect and patience. Neither Ashton nor Macmillan got it right every time, and I feel that Acosta will have learned from his Carmen, as will RB, but I think it is credit to Royal Ballet that they stuck with him and let him learn his lessons. Acosta said in his leaving speech 'don't be afraid to make mistakes...'

 

I would say it just isn't RB's best year, but thats what you get when you try new things.

Edited by SwissBalletFan
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm finding it hard to imagine a dancer, who has trained for years, gives their all to dance, basically sacrifices the social life of a "normal" teenager, and gets a coveted contract with a company, "sitting it out for a season". Who in their right mind would do that? Can you imagine saying to your AD "Thanks for casting me, but I'm bored of that role so I think I'll sit this one out"? It wouldn't happen, and to suggest that dancers should do that if some (apparently impossible to please) audience members aren't sufficiently impressed with them, is silly IMHO.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hear, hear.  Why on earth isn't he featuring them?

 

At a rough guess, because he didn't see them?  We seem to have come to the conclusion that the RB didn't offer press tickets for them, I think - several of the critics reported on Hayward's debut.  So either the RB specify who the critics see, or perhaps critics have an option to request casts/performances, but may or may not get them?  I think the issue was brought up in the comments section of the Guardian's review of Hayward's debut, IIRC, if you want to check there.

 

Of course, there's nothing to stop critics buying their own tickets - and clearly some of them do - for whatever performances they like, but they may not write about them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually quite a few dancers tire of the classics.  Most of you won't remember the defectors such as Markarova who said she couldn't face a future of dancing Swan Lake.  Ironically when she jumped the fence the grass wasn't quite as green as she imagined as guess what the new companies wanted her to dance?

 

A number turn their backs on, or dabble in, modern dance, think Baryshnikov and Guillem, most dancers like a varied repertoire but they tend to consider roles created for them the highlight of their careers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have any dancers actually said they 'get bored dancing the classics'?? If so I missed it.

 

Not exactly phrased in those terms, but I have heard various directors state that they have to have new works in order to keep their dancers interested.  And Darcey Bussell said publicly that it was the fact that she was having new works created specifically for her that kept her going. I cannot remember her exact words, but the implication was that otherwise she might not have stayed at the RB. 

 

The career of a ballet dancer must involve all aspects of modern and classical repertoire these days.

 

 

Must it? I am not sure about that.  There are some dancers that are clearly suited both physically and technically to the modern rep, and others that are better at the historic ballets.  I hesitate to mention specific dancers, but by and large the taller, leggy girls seem to excel in the former, but do not always appear totally at ease in the latter.  Of course, someone like Nunez seems to move from the one to the other with aplomb, but she is exceptionally rare.  IMO, obviously. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that we are all entitled to our own opinion but for the record, I think that that dismissing Bonelli as merely "okay when he is with Cuthbertson" is a great disservice to a beautiful dancer. Not only do Cuthbertson and Bonelli have wonderful chemistry - the reason they are my favourite R&J of the modern era - but Bonelli has beautiful technique and has worked well with other partners, not least with Lamb in Afternoon of a Faun, according to reports.

I agree, and he is arguably the best all rounder among the male principals.  He dances classical ballets beautifully and is very good in the more contemporary repertoire and regularly chosen by McGregor and Wheeldon to dance their new works.  Looking at the list of principals I don't see another male principal dancer who can match him when you consider the whole spectrum of the company's repertoire.  

Edited by barton22
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly phrased in those terms, but I have heard various directors state that they have to have new works in order to keep their dancers interested.  And Darcey Bussell said publicly that it was the fact that she was having new works created specifically for her that kept her going. I cannot remember her exact words, but the implication was that otherwise she might not have stayed at the RB. 

 

Must it? I am not sure about that.  There are some dancers that are clearly suited both physically and technically to the modern rep, and others that are better at the historic ballets.  I hesitate to mention specific dancers, but by and large the taller, leggy girls seem to excel in the former, but do not always appear totally at ease in the latter.  Of course, someone like Nunez seems to move from the one to the other with aplomb, but she is exceptionally rare.  IMO, obviously. 

 

The question here is who decides on the repertoire and who chooses who dances them specifically. On both cases I would say that it the AD of the company. In the natural hierarchy of a company, it is the AD who says, I want this choreographer to come and make a piece, and it is a mix of the choreographer with a lot of AD input to then say to the dancer, you are cast in X role by Y choreographer.

 

The dancer therefore must dance a modern piece if the choreographer requests them, and of course be expected to give their best whether it is modern or classical. A dancer cannot refuse a casting as per their contract as far as I am aware.

 

The AD is then responsible for the fallout, from a) whether the dancer likes his choices, or whether there is a threat they may leave if it doesn't suit them, and  b ) an audience who feel that the part has been not cast by the dancer most suited to the role in their opinion, or otherwise.

 

Therefore the dancers, submit to the AD, and the audience (and the world) can judge the AD on the outcomes based on their individual needs and assumptions.

 

Who would be an AD? 

Edited by SwissBalletFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Kevin O'Hare is doing a good job in giving debuts in leading roles to many talented young soloists this season, still to come include Beatriz Stix-Brunell and Matthew Ball in The Two Pigeons, Claire Calvert in The Winter's Tale, Tristan Dyer in Frankenstein, and Akane Takada and Ryoichi Hirano in Giselle, surely more than usual.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question here is who decides on the repertoire and who chooses who dances them specifically. On both cases I would say that it the AD of the company. In the natural hierarchy of a company, it is the AD who says, I want this choreographer to come and make a piece, and it is a mix of the choreographer with a lot of AD input to then say to the dancer, you are cast in X role by Y choreographer.

 

The dancer therefore must dance a modern piece if the choreographer requests them, and of course be expected to give their best whether it is modern or classical. A dancer cannot refuse a casting as per their contract as far as I am aware.

 

The AD is then responsible for the fallout, from a) whether the dancer likes his choices, or whether there is a threat they may leave if it doesn't suit them, and  b ) an audience who feel that the part has been not cast by the dancer most suited to the role in their opinion, or otherwise.

 

Therefore the dancers, submit to the AD, and the audience (and the world) can judge the AD on the outcomes based on their individual needs and assumptions.

 

Who would be an AD? 

 

 

I suspect this is not entirely the case SBF.  I suspect that the AD (of most, if not all companies) is answerable to the Board and while the AD may have the ideas for what s/he wants to be programmed it still has to be financially and artistically approved.

 

Additionally in the UK, if the company is funded by the Arts Council then they may well have a say about the direction they feel the company should be taking.  I am not necessarily talking about ballet companies but many years ago the Liverpool Everyman theatre was threatened with having its Arts Council grant removed because the Arts Council did not approve of the rep at the time.  In what respect I do not know but there was quite a fuss in the local press at the time.

 

It all adds up to your final question though - who would want to be an AD???

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a rough guess, because he didn't see them?  We seem to have come to the conclusion that the RB didn't offer press tickets for them, I think - several of the critics reported on Hayward's debut.  So either the RB specify who the critics see, or perhaps critics have an option to request casts/performances, but may or may not get them?  I think the issue was brought up in the comments section of the Guardian's review of Hayward's debut, IIRC, if you want to check there.

 

Of course, there's nothing to stop critics buying their own tickets - and clearly some of them do - for whatever performances they like, but they may not write about them.

 

 

Indeed, we all know by now how poorly the RB Press Office handled such a big and important debut, a double debut that has marked so many people, except the absent/uninvited critics. Their combined debut deserves to be nominated as a RB highlight of 2015, not to forget their Onegin performance earlier on in 2015.

 

There were of course other memorable performances by other dancers but the Ball/Naghdi R&J was just something so special, something we had not seen at the RB for a long time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, we all know by now how poorly the RB Press Office handled such a big and important debut, a double debut that has marked so many people, except the absent/uninvited critics. Their combined debut deserves to be nominated as a RB highlight of 2015, not to forget their Onegin performance earlier on in 2015.

 

There were of course other memorable performances by other dancers but the Ball/Naghdi R&J was just something so special, something we had not seen at the RB for a long time.

It could be that it could have been better handled, but it may be that KOH didn't want to put more pressure on this young pair by creating an even bigger publicity splash than there would already be dancing their first public performance of these demanding principal roles.  We have seen where putting too much pressure on very young dancers has got the company in the past.

Edited by barton22
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that I'm impossible to please Anna, if you're referring to me. As for Bonelli, he doesn't have huge stage presence, IMO, but he's generally very solid. He can be bland and he is not as strong technically as some (but certainly far stronger than one male principal). I can't see what's contentious about asking, for example, Nunez or Lamb to sit out Swan Lake or Aurora or SPF or Manon for one season. They are cast in most programmes, including new works, and so they have plenty to dance (they could also use the time to guest with other companies). This would give up and coming dancers the chance to dance the principal roles in the classics. The casting in Giselle is a wasted opportunity IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Bonelli, he doesn't have huge stage presence, IMO, but he's generally very solid. He can be bland and he is not as strong technically as some (but certainly far stronger than one male principal).

 

I can't remember the last time I saw Bonelli, but reading this made me think back to the Jonathon Cope years.  I saw Mr Cope partnering both Guillem and Bussell, where he provided skillful support, and a handsome but not particularly dramatic male presence.  For several years, I thought that "solid" was  about the best adjective I could apply to him .

 

Then he danced with Rojo, and it was a revelation.  Suddenly, he wasn't just the figure who stood behind or beside the lady anymore.  I realised he had real personality, and could act.   So I suppose this goes back to the issue of nurturing partnerships that really seem to work together, both from the point of view of the individuals concerned, and that of the audience. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a rough guess, because he didn't see them?  We seem to have come to the conclusion that the RB didn't offer press tickets for them, I think - several of the critics reported on Hayward's debut.  So either the RB specify who the critics see, or perhaps critics have an option to request casts/performances, but may or may not get them?  I think the issue was brought up in the comments section of the Guardian's review of Hayward's debut, IIRC, if you want to check there.

 

Of course, there's nothing to stop critics buying their own tickets - and clearly some of them do - for whatever performances they like, but they may not write about them.

I meant Kevin O'Hare

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to believe that any dancers are tired or bored of dancing any of the classical roles. I believe that also of all of the Senior dancers anyone talks about here, always try their best. The world over! So the whole 'if you don't like it....you know what you can do'....doesn't really work. The career of a ballet dancer must involve all aspects of modern and classical repertoire these days.

 

I think that RB as one of the most important ballet houses feels (justifiably) that it's rich history and budget means that it, along with Bolshoi, ABT, Paris, La Scala etc.. cannot only be a house to only show established pieces, but must act as leading figures, in safe guarding the quality of art, as well as investing to move the art forwards.

 

La Scala have recently co-invested with ABT and Zürich in Ratmansky's project of accurately reconstructing Sleeping Beauty and Swan Lake costing around $6m each. Paris are going though their own changes with Millepied, and the company are not finding it easy to incorporate his new choreographs or adapting to his 'American style', but are staying with the project.

 

RB are going through similar pains for the art, and investing in Wayne MacGregor especially, who is alongside Ratmansky one of the most in demand choreographers in the world right now. Woolf Works was WM pushing himself to work to a narrative, and Royal Ballet invested in him,and it seems he produced a great success, along with other works. Of course bring back some other less popular works may be seen as a 'Turkey', I would say that these great ballet houses cannot always 'win' when they have gambled resources on an artist. If it was that easy, there would be choreographic masters every couple of years, rather than every 10-20 years.

 

I also believe that when an artist has given you success and given their best, they deserve respect and patience. Neither Ashton nor Macmillan got it right every time, and I feel that Acosta will have learned from his Carmen, as will RB, but I think it is credit to Royal Ballet that they stuck with him and let him learn his lessons. Acosta said in his leaving speech 'don't be afraid to make mistakes...'

 

I would say it just isn't RB's best year, but thats what you get when you try new things.

I agree with everything you have said until you get to Acosta.

 

We are not all good at everything and there has been no evidence to suggest that this wonderful dancer has choreographic ability.  I thought Don Quixote was not much at all, very much based on the 'and now we'll do some folk dancing' narrative.  But worse was to come with Carmen which was truly terrible.  Yes, of course, choreographers have to be allowed their mistakes in order to eventually arrive at works which we will treasure, but simply playing amateur night with scarce funds for no reason that I can understand, is simply not on.  Personally, I would also have left Raven Girl buried in the attic rather than give it another outing but that one we can chalk up to experience.  Why Acosta was allowed such licence is a mystery.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't see it, Janet, but the costumes looked good.

 

I just realised that McGregor has been resident choreographer for almost 10 years now.  Here's a question for everyone.  Which of his existing creations do you think the RB will be dancing 10 years from now?  Of the one act ballets, which ones do you think will be regular items on triple bills for years to come? 

 

I am genuinely interested in people's opinions here, as I am not familiar with a lot of his work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't see it, Janet, but the costumes looked good.

 

I just realised that McGregor has been resident choreographer for almost 10 years now. Here's a question for everyone. Which of his existing creations do you think the RB will be dancing 10 years from now? Of the one act ballets, which ones do you think will be regular items on triple bills for years to come?

 

I am genuinely interested in people's opinions here, as I am not familiar with a lot of his work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As fast as McGregor is concerned, I think Chroma is the best thing I've seen from him and I think that could well stand the test of time. It has already been added to repertory of a couple of North American companies ... there might be more as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither do I....and neither do all of the 'regulars' who stand night after night, often in jeans and trainers, to watch their beloved art form. Yes, there are rich people who go along, but much of the audience is made up of the hoi polloi such as me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just realised that McGregor has been resident choreographer for almost 10 years now.  Here's a question for everyone.  Which of his existing creations do you think the RB will be dancing 10 years from now?  Of the one act ballets, which ones do you think will be regular items on triple bills for years to come? 

 

I am genuinely interested in people's opinions here, as I am not familiar with a lot of his work. 

 

I find it hard to see anything other than Chroma and Infra surviving (and I really feel they deserve to survive).  I have always felt they were in a different league to his later pieces, and it is also telling that these are the only pieces (of which I am aware) to have been taken on by other companies of the highest calibre (the Bolshoi has Chroma and the Mariinsky Infra).  I know others have a different view, but for me everything after Infra has been pretty uninteresting and some have just been painfully boring (especially Tetractys).  I think perhaps the first and last segments of Woolf Works deserve to survive but they are saddled with the ludicrous central segment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...