The Royal Ballet: Frankenstein, May 2016

[Bruce Wall]

Just quickly wanted to come on and say that I saw Scarlett's Frankenstein again last night - the official premier of the second cast - and I have to say that I think overall I preferred them so much more to the first one.  Or perhaps it was because this was this team had the advantage of doing an audience-attended dress rehearsal.  Or was it simply that it was MY second chance at watching this ballet?  I cannot tell.  I even found the tavern scene much less bothersome.  

 

There are still some relatively simple things I WOULD change:

 

(i) The end of the first act needs to be altered.  There needs to be at least a moment of pleased amazement from Victor in recognition that his experiment to animate the creature had actually been successful ... and then the shock horror of the reality would be much more telling when it quickly set in.  I agree that it should be Victor who flies out of the door in fearful disgust.  This would allow the creature to depict those all too human immediate fears of isolation.  That's where - after Victor's departure - and after the creature's jolting spasms of doubt - he can begin to destroy the preserved samples surrounding him.  Never again says he will another such be created.  It's at this point I would have Henry run in.  The creature could then appeal to Henry - who in an understandable fight or flight episode - would again dash away leaving the creature stymied in his own neural slashes (monster like creator).... and reaching out to the audience as - yes, then as now - lights would black out - indeed black out at that moment when the creature picks up Victor's notebook now in front of him and is as amazed at the drawings.  Much as Juliet does at the discovery of her breasts at the end of her first seen in R&J as depicted by McMillan - we would FOR ONCE see the stroke of a potentially hopeful smile across his face.    .  

 

(ii) The opening of the second act is easily fixed.  With the music already extant the lights come up with the conductor's down stroke.  The creature - now clad in Victor's abandoned coat - moves forward - to and fro in appeal - individually to the three different civilian brutes who approach him in the relative dark one after another.  When confronted by the first two - we see their individual horrified shock and immediate instinctive lashing of the monster.  Perhaps the second could have a knife - to give a reality which sadly would strike a cord close both then and now - and its strike could only add to the creature's physical - and indeed mental - wound.  By the time of the third confrontation the creature would no longer appeal but immediately fight as he has seen the others do.  He would know the third brute out cold and pulls his spoil away as the scrim rises ... and we see the vast expanse of the Frankenstein back yard in a momentary period of Genevan calm.    

 

(iii) After Justine has been wrongly accused of William's demise because she has had the mothers locket on her person (and a scapegoat - then as so often now - must be found) - the - Manon-like throws simply - in my estimation at least - do not work.  To my mind's eye they are merely derivative - and being such - sadly do not honour anyone - most of the all the tale being told.  (I can completely understand why Scarlett wanted to include such here - it being a point of comfort for those whose ballet going experience is almost entirely restricted to watching the Royal Ballet at Covent Garden or seeing foreign companies performing almost similar choreography as demanded by presenters in the name of their own - and understandable - commercial return.)  The music here is much more interesting than the choreography now extant which uncomfortably squeezes like a misshaped shoehorn.  There is SO much more opportunity that is possible here to bring out the individual and corporate responses of the party crowd in response to a girl - Justine - that many in fact would have previously simply ignored.  This would of course be off-set by the response of the family which she serves - with the response of the mother and Victor preserved as is already currently in place.  

 

(iv)  I think there is yet more detail to be gleaned in the 'Phantom of the Opera'-like horror filled ghost sequences of the last act - replete with the creature's blood-red coat (minus the skeleton mask) and the ensemble's sequinned attire spinning - like the attendant dancers - in an Ashtonesque 'La Valse' rip off - all the while wrought in/through Victor's mind.  This could be helped by injecting a touch of the drama that Balanchine bought in his depiction of Ravel's music with its practical embodiment of the figure of death.  In fact I was wondering last night if once during the prolonged waltz the creature might not actually (i.e., practically) return in the waltzing crowd in Victor's coat cutting a practical swathe of fear before brave Henry has his solo (so gloriously served by both Campbell and Hay) successfully imploring the crowd to overcome in an act of the 'siff upper lip' dominance in face of their own corporal fear.  This too would be an easy adjustment.  Certainly - and this is simplicity in the extreme - I would - at the ultimate moments - have the creature actually begin to pull the body of the dead Victor away - like a cherished 'Winnie the Pooh' teddybear - after having embraced it once the ashes of the shredded notebook had been scattered above its now deflated dimension.  This is one place where the lighting fade could be slower .... allowing the audience more time to sorrowfully muse as to the fate of the monster we have all - at some point or another - had a hand in - in some way or another - fostering.  (Anyone who has EVER worked in a prison will be all to aware of this.  In many instances 'There but for God' can loudly chime ... )   

 

I SO admired Tristan Dyer's Victor - so filled with the emotional stuttering of his understandable repression.  This disability was colourfully and consistently deployed with variety throughout.  Bravo.  I thought too his partnering with Lamb was wonderful.  This combination is rich in the cleanness of that North American gleam - much as you used to see spark with artists such as Seymour (who would have been a stunning Elizabeth) or Penny - or indeed the current radiant Stix-Brunnell or Hinkis.  I do hope this partnership is encouraged in the future.  I can certainly see it flourish in A Month in the Country, say, or Oneign.  The cast throughout last night was uniformly excellent.  Avis was rich in the characterful detail we have come to expect as the father much as the ever brilliant Gartside relished in as the professor.  That sequence was worthy of a ticket unto itself.  Helen Crawford brought a wonderful 'Dianaesque' humility to her depiction of Caroline and Mendizabal as Moritz looked the very spectre of a haunting and haunted Martha Graham were had she ever had to be squeezed into anyone's service - which blessedly she wasn't.  (What a different dance world we would now live in if that had been the case.)  James Hay's relationship with Victor was wonderfully rich in its humane vulnerability and oh, so beautifully danced.  Francesca Hayward dazzled as Justine - entirely radiant - much as Hinkis had been in the opening evening - and was well paired with the truly ebullient thrill of Espinach's William.  (What a gift both of these young talents are.)  Reigning above all was Kish's Creature.  What it difference it made to have a monster that was able to physically tower - both in height and breadth - over his creator.  It made the partnering between the two particularly oh, so telling and - at least for me - helped add a note of sympathy that was not always present at the opening.  I found myself wondering if Golding might not be good in this assignment ... and certainly I would love to see Muntagirov appear in it as well as Victor.  He would I'm sure sorrowfully thrill.  Certainly there are many fine artists in San Francisco who will be brilliant in such.  (Still long to see Joe Walsh as Victor.  Indeed I can see it in my mind's eye even now.)    

Whatever else the quality that is already present in this production did not deserve either the Monohan or - more discursively - the Crisp dismissal.  Gentlemen, those acts are simply TOO EASY and I fear say more about your good selves than it ever it will about Scarlett's gifts.  What is it they say about 'last laughs'?  Forewarned is forearmed.  

Edited May 7, 2016 by Bruce Wall

[Beryl H]

This ballet definitely needs to be seen more than once, although last night confirmed most of my thoughts, Act 1 seems to go on for ever, the tavern scene means nothing and should be dropped (although secenery changing is probably it's reason), the ending is rushed and muddled, I did notice the pdd for Victor and Elizabeth this time, and a short solo for Victor but Elizabeth doesn't seem to get a solo at all.  The scene in the anatomy theatre with the bangs and flashes gave me the giggles, and it's very difficult to get used to the 18th century costumes and the Frankenstein horror story mixture.

 

The best dancing comes in the third act with the waltz for the corps, which includes a beautiful pdd for Victor and Elizabeth, wish there was more like it! 

 

This was an all American cast and I thought they were splendid, all giving their debuts a few hours early (just realised Sarah Lamb has done it again, replaced someone in what was her own debut) they all have to do it again in a few hours time!  James Hay did some elegant dancing but the character doesn't count for much,  Sarah Lamb was absolutely beautiful, Tristan Dyer excellent in his first full-length lead role (I think), and Nehemiah Kish brought true pathos and suffering to the Monster, I really felt sorry for him at last!  Francesa Hayward danced Justine which is small role, surprised there wasn't a riot when she was hung at the end of act 2, and the little boy who plays William is outstanding, especially as he is blindfolded much of the time.

 

The costumes and designs are superb, so lots of good things but lots that needs to be changed too.

[Scheherezade]

I thought, by the way, that Gerald Dowler's criticism in Classical Source was an extremely thoughtful and well-reasoned piece.

[capybara]

 

 Francesa Hayward danced Justine which is small role, surprised there wasn't a riot when she was hung at the end of act 2, 

 

Unfortunate that the girl who was hanged was too obviously not Frankie!

[SPD444]

Unfortunate that the girl who was hanged was too obviously not Frankie!

 

 

Really!!!!  For the first time I was seated up in the amphitheatre so was too far away to see faces that clearly, which is the only disappointment I felt sitting up their. Not being very good with heights I have veered away but having tried was very pleasantly surprised. I was very impressed with the dancing and thought the whole production was terrific. Sure, a bit of pruning here and there wouldn't go amiss but not as bad as some of the critics have reviewed it. Kish was a revelation. I have tended not to go to his performances in the past, indeed I had bought tickets thinking I would be seeing Nela and Vadim until they were replaced, but he was terrific. In fact the whole cast danced brilliantly as Bruce has identified earlier and the young man who danced William was wonderful. Lovely to see he was brought front of curtain with Frankie for his own bow.

 

I do have one or two queries with the storytelling. Can anyone explain why Frankie, as Justine, having presented William with his birthday gift and played with him was confronted by her mother which caused her to throw the flower in her hair onto the floor and storm off. What had she done to deserve that. I thought the death of Victors father should have been better conveyed. He suddenly appeared at the bottom of the staircase and collapsed like a bag of potatoes with the creature standing over him ( where had he come from? ).

 

Finally, one final word for the cast. Having finished at about 10:15 last night they are now about to start to dance it again as they are doing the matinee this afternoon. They will be totally exhausted tonight, good wishes to all of them.

[Beryl H]

Unfortunate that the girl who was hanged was too obviously not Frankie!

 

Again, really? I had no idea, I didn't look through my opera glasses as I would have been too upset, perhaps they use a stunt girl?

[capybara]

Please can anyone explain the death of Victor's father. His exit up the stairs is followed by more dancing. When he returns, he simply appears behind the stairs (rather than coming down them), climbs onto them at the bottom, and lies down dead.

[MAX]

Was Helgi Tomasson in the audience the other day ?  With all these very mixed reviews San Francisco Ballet must be quite disappointed...

[Tony Newcombe]

I think he would have enjoyed the audience response

[SPD444]

Unfortunate that the girl who was hanged was too obviously not Frankie!

If not Frankie, and I can understand why ( wouldn't want a star ballerina injured hanging in the rafters ) then who was deemed replaceable? One of the stage crew?

[Fonty]

If not Frankie, and I can understand why ( wouldn't want a star ballerina injured hanging in the rafters ) then who was deemed replaceable? One of the stage crew?

 

A critic?

[FLOSS]

Justine is merely a servant and has got above her station by dancing with the quality. That is why her mother tells her off. Even if she appears to have been invited to dance by the "gentry" as a good servant she should know her place. I know that this is not at all obvious given the way in which Scarlett mixes the servants and their social superiors up but that is why her mother is angry with her. A good housekeeper would be expected to keep all the servants under control especially her own daughter.

 

Unless we concentrate on Victor's father and don't allow ourselves to be distracted by other activity taking place on stage I fear we shall never know how he dies.

 

Gerald Dowler's criticism is more considered and does not read as if it was written by "disgusted of Tonbridge Wells" but I don't think that he has stopped to consider how much tweaking a ballet like Manon which is now a repertory staple of many companies required to get it right. I don't think the critics have been as bad for this ballet as they were when Manon was first performed. I seem to recall Mary Clarke wrote that all you needed to know about the ballet was that "de Grieux is a fool and Manon is a slut."

 

I am not sure Mr Monahan is entirely accurate when he writes that taxpayers money has been wasted. The cast sheet make it clear that it is a co-production and several sources of financing are listed. Perhaps Mr M. is about to launch  a campaign for the AD to be sacked or perhaps he just wants to start a campaign to stop the arts being given any support by ACE. Who can say?

Edited May 7, 2016 by FLOSS

[Lindsay]

This is not a Manon or a Mayerling. Not even close.

 

I think the critics have been very kind considering. I suspect there was no wish to slam the dancers, who indeed did their best with the very thin material they were given.

 

And why does anyone think it wasn't Hayward being hoisted on the wire? From the front of the stalls it certainly looked as though it was. Perfectly normal theatrical practice and totally safe - see Fritz in the Nutcracker.

 

Fixating on that and clumsily staged details like the father's death may be a distraction from thinking about the overall dramatic coherence (or lack thereof)?

[Nina G.]

Mr. Monahan should do his homework before writing his reviews.

 

The cast sheet clearly shows generous support of many Private Donors, Supporters, Trusts, Syndicates and the American Friends of Covent Garden.

 

Can Mr. Monahan prove that taxpayers money has been used creating Frankenstein? Can he back-up his statement with facts?

He's clearly one of those young (if Frankenstein is the worst Ballet he has ever seen in his life he really can't be that old!) ill-informed critics who LOVE to use the tired cliche  "...taxpayers money has been wasted...".  Makes me yawn.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Nina G.

[annamk]

I re-read Mark Monahan's review and I don't really understand why he has come in for such criticism on this thread. Ok he didn't like Frankenstein but his review explained what he thought was wrong with it and IMO the issues he raised were entirely valid. 

[CHazell2]

Golly, the reviews on here have been mixed. I personally prefer that a new work stimulates debate rather than boredom. Certainly it doesn't seem dull, by the sounds of it.

 

I am sure if we gave Frankenstein and Mr Scarlett a chance - all the nit-picks will be ironed out or rethought. Question- are people on here perhaps not seeing the wood for the trees - or is there a genuine problem with the ballet as a whole. It is certainly not ​Strapless.

 

​

Edited May 7, 2016 by CHazell2

[Nina G.]

If not Frankie, and I can understand why ( wouldn't want a star ballerina injured hanging in the rafters ) then who was deemed replaceable? One of the stage crew?

 

Hinkis, Hayward and Naghdi (all three cast as Justine) are hanged without a stunt girl in sight!!!!  So I was told at the Stage Door.

[Duck]

I saw cast 2 this afternoon. I loved Johannes Stepanek’s portrayal as the father as benevolent and so proud of his family, which then twice turns into complete despair; what an excellent performance. Yasmine Naghdi’s acting had me in tears when she carried William on to the stage and grieved for him. Lucra Acri delivered a vivid and detailed performance as a good-natured Henry Clerval. Nehemiah Kish was a revelation as the Creature, he made me believe in his despair at being rejected by everyone else. I missed on Wednesday that the Creature feels sorry for William once he is dead, and that equally he mourns Victor’s death and takes up the notebook again, looking for information as to how he might be able to bring Victor back to life (tears again!). Last but by far not least, a convincing performance by Sarah Lamb and Tristan Dyer, both on their own and in their PDD. In act 1, Victor really looked in love with Elisabeth, and I much enjoyed Dyer’s facial expressions that showed his inner torment in act 2 and 3 as well as Lamb’s attempts to understand and comfort Victor.

In contrast to my first viewing on Wednesday, I found the scenes both in the anatomy theatre and in the tavern too long, not sufficiently moving the story forward. I noticed today that Victor is massively disappointed when the Creature initially seems inanimate and I do agree that there is potential to add further detail to Victor’s reaction once the Creature is alive, and the latter’s reaction thereto. Equally, it is not clear that the beating up of the Creature at the start of act 2 stems from his appearance, and so this scene would also benefit from some amendments. These aspects however do not diminish my enjoyment of the ballet as a whole. The wedding dance in act 3 that shows Victor haunted by the Creature continues to amaze me as superb, and I much enjoy the various PDD between the three leads. I do hope that there will be a DVD issued of this ballet.

 

------

edited for typo

Edited May 7, 2016 by Duck

[Nina G.]

This afternoon's cast was truly superb. Tristan Dyer was simply amazing. I loved everything about his characterisation and his dancing.  Sarah Lamb most wonderful too. Kish as the Creature made me fully empathise with his character, he was a revelation as Duck said.  

There were moments I was a bit bored during the ballet: Act 1 is too long and the Tavern Scene is unnecessary or should be re-worked, but all credit to the Corps dancers. Some really wonderful Sarah Lamb-Tristan Dyer pd2's.

I really felt sorry for poor "Justine" and Yasmine Naghdi gave a wonderful in-depth portrayal of her character, beautifully danced as was expected. It was truly moving when during the curtain call Naghdi took a flower out of her humongous bouquet and gave it to Master Guillem Cabrera Espinach ("Victor's Younger Brother"), especially so after Sarah Lamb had picked a rose out of her bouquet and had given it to Kish and Dyer. Young Espinach was clearly taken by Naghdi's thoughtful gesture.

 

Overall I enjoyed this work much more then any other work I have seen by Scarlett (except Asphodel Meadows); he is still young and he needs time to grow as a Choreographer. There is much potential. Yes I do have a few points of "criticism" but this does not overshadow my enjoyment of "Frankenstein".  Congratulations to ALL artists involved in creating this new work for the Royal Ballet. The applause was rapturous and clearly the audience did enjoy this Ballet; that's all what matters really, who cares about what the critics have to say as long as the audience enjoys it!

[CHazell2]

This afternoon's cast was truly superb. Tristan Dyer was simply amazing. I loved everything about his characterisation and his dancing.  Sarah Lamb most wonderful too. Kish as the Creature made me fully empathise with his character, he was a revelation as Duck said.  

There were moments I was a bit bored during the ballet: Act 1 is too long and the Tavern Scene is unnecessary or should be re-worked, but all credit to the Corps dancers. Some really wonderful Sarah Lamb-Tristan Dyer pd2's.

I really felt sorry for poor "Justine" and Yasmine Naghdi gave a wonderful in-depth portrayal of her character, beautifully danced as was expected. It was truly moving when during the curtain call Naghdi took a flower out of her humongous bouquet and gave it to Master Guillem Cabrera Espinach ("Victor's Younger Brother"), especially so after Sarah Lamb had picked a rose out of her bouquet and had given it to Kish and Dyer. Young Espinach was clearly taken by Naghdi's thoughtful gesture.

 

Overall I enjoyed this work much more then any other work I have seen by Scarlett (except Asphodel Meadows); he is still young and he needs time to grow as a Choreographer. There is much potential. Yes I do have a few points of "criticism" but this does not overshadow my enjoyment of "Frankenstein".  Congratulations to ALL artists involved in creating this new work for the Royal Ballet. The applause was rapturous and clearly the audience did enjoy this Ballet; that's all what matters really, who cares about what the critics have to say as long as the audience enjoys it!

 

Hear Hear, can't wait to see the cinema transmission

[alison]

Hinkis, Hayward and Naghdi (all three cast as Justine) are hanged without a stunt girl in sight!!!!  So I was told at the Stage Door.

 

I should hope so too!  If it's good enough for Irek Mukhamedov ...

 

And regardless of whether a DVD is issued, if this recording follows recent patterns with new RB ballets, it should at the very least be shown on the BBC - probably at Christmas?

[CHazell2]

I should hope so too!  If it's good enough for Irek Mukhamedov ...

 

And regardless of whether a DVD is issued, if this recording follows recent patterns with new RB ballets, it should at the very least be shown on the BBC - probably at Christmas?

 

Would it be considered a bit too scary for Christmas?

[loveclassics]

I thought Clement Crisp was much gentler than usual in his review (given that he didn't really like it).  When Wayne Eagling's version appeared he was encouraging ballet-lovers to storm the ROH with scythes, pitchforks and flaming torches!

 

Bless,

 

Linda

[alison]

Would it be considered a bit too scary for Christmas?

 

They could put it on post-watershed, if necessary, I suppose.  I think they did that for Winter's Tale, or something else rather "adult".

[Fonty]

"Why, in the wake of Sweet Violets, Raven Girl,  The Age of Anxiety, Carmen  and Strapless – all expensive failures – does the company not insist that its narrative choreographers are guided by experienced directors? Britain is home to some of the most brilliant theatrical minds in the world. Is the Royal too proud to ask for help?"

 

A quote from Luke Jennings in his review of Frankenstein.  He gives it 3 stars, so he isn't panning it.  But many people on this forum have made suggestions  that in their opinion would improve the ballet.  There are some points that are common, such as pruning the first act, and showing more of the creature when he first comes to life.  Surely anyone with experience of watching three act ballets would have said more or less the same things, let alone an experienced director?

 

Which brings me on to the next point.  I can't believe that all the ballets mentioned arrived on stage without input from other people.  Apart from Keven O'Hare, who must have looked in from time to time, who else would be suitable, or have the experience that Mr Jennings refers to? 

[Ian Macmillan]

Off the top of my head: Cathy Marston has worked with Edward Kemp, Director at RADA, on the majority of her successful narrative works.  Scottish Ballet brought in theatre director Nancy Meckler for its acclaimed Streetcar Named Desire.  So I'm sure there is plenty of theatrical help out there.  It just needs someone to ask - and, apologies if I'm wrong, but isn't this the second time that Liam Scarlett and the RB management have taken knocks on just this point?

[Anna C]

Would it be considered a bit too scary for Christmas?

Well my teenage daughter attended the Students' performance last night. She detests anything even vaguely horror-related so I was wondering if she would find an evening performance of Frankenstein alarming enough to give her nightmares but apparently not. So an 8.30 - 9pm start time would probably be fine for TV audiences.

 

Incidentally she absolutely loved the ballet and found the Creature's plight extremely moving. She's seen a great many ballets, including Manon, which she loves, and was absolutely absorbed by Frankenstein, saying she felt as if she was in a trance throughout. "Amazing and so emotional" was her summing up, so Scarlett seems to have scored highly with teenagers. :-)

[FLOSS]

I think that the question about who would be suitable and have the experience to advise on the structure, emphasis and impact of a ballet is the problem. There does not appear to be anyone. If there was somebody who understood about the theatrical impact of a ballet from the audience's perspective we might have seen fewer turkeys.

 

The problem is that there is a profound difference between getting the technical aspects of a ballet right and making it work for the audience. It is the difference between seeing the entire operation from a performer's perspective and seeing it from that of the audience's perspective and understanding what will register with the audience and how it will make its impact. Staging revivals of existing ballets that work does not automatically generate the necessary skills.

 

Ashton did not make his first full length ballet until he was forty four and by then he had a wealth of experience gleaned from creating classical ballets and creating dance interludes for the commercial theatre for people like CB Cochrane who would have been quick to demand that anything that he thought would not work should be reworked. MacMillan who made his first full length work at the age of thirty seven said that he had learnt everything he knew about making ballets from watching Ashton at work. His Romeo and Juliet was made twelve years after he made his first ballet.

 

Somewhere in the story of the great ballets created by Ashton and MacMillan those telling it have lost sight of the reality of their creation and have elevated MacMillan to the status of a towering theatrical genius who did it all himself.Somehow in emphasising the primacy of the choreographic text which can not be altered the choreographer has been elevated  to a genius whose works cannot and should not be questioned at any stage of the creative process. Perhaps if there was a greater understanding of how those choreographers actually worked the present management might have shown greater inclination to intervene at an early stage in the creation of the works being made for the Covent Garden main stage. Perhaps they might have felt that they had a right to do so as their budget was being spent on these artistic endeavours.

 

Both Ashton and MacMillan had years of producing successful one act works behind them before they embarked on their first three act narrative ballets .Ashton's Cinderella is a homage to Petipa and the late nineteenth century Russian ballet; Sylvia is a French Empire ballet which follows the narrative of the original albeit with its  tongue firmly in its cheek as far as the second act is concerned. I would not be surprised to discover that Ondine followed a nineteenth century libretto. Fille follows Dauberval's  libretto and Two Pigeons follows the structure of the original libretto while altering the detailed story line. You may want to argue that Ashton never left the safety of the shallow end as far as his full length works were concerned but the resulting works are all exemplary. Who knows perhaps not having to worry about the story line gave him more time to concentrate on staging the narrative and choreographing for it. MacMillan's first full length ballet follows the Lavrovsky's structure. Manon may have been all his own work but with both Mayerling and Isadora he used a dramaturge.

 

Both  choreographers worked under the watchful eye of de Valois who had seen the Diaghilev ballet close to, had been in the rehearsal studio with Nijinska when she created Les Biches and was also a choreographer in her own right. Many of Ashton's narrative works had pre existing scores and pre existing librettos which he modified. A Month in the Country is based on the play and I seem to recall reading somewhere that he had some one with him in the studio to check that what he was doing would be understood as he intended it should be.

 

One of the US critics said that Acosta's Don Q seemed to have been staged from the perspective of someone on stage rather than from the audience's perspective. The problem is that dancers see things differently from the way the paying public sees them. Years ago I read an article in which Sibley said that while she was dancing Manon she had thought that a step which she danced during the brothel scene in Manon  could have been changed without having any impact on the over all effect of the pas. It was only when she had stopped dancing the role and was watching the ballet as an audience member that she realised that the step she thought could have been substituted for the original would have made a totally different impact on the audience. There is no easy answer but clearly Mr O'Hare should be more involved in the creative process and search out someone who can assist Scarlett and others in their creative endeavours. If all of those posting  on this website can identify the weaknesses in Frankenstein  and what needs to be cut it is very odd that no one at the RB seems to have been able to do so. 

Edited May 8, 2016 by FLOSS

[alison]

"MacMillan's first full length ballet follows the Lavrovsky's structure."

 

Doesn't it actually follow Prokofiev's very specific titles for the individual items, FLOSS?  I've seen it mentioned on a number of occasions what a straitjacket the score is for anyone wanting to be a bit more flexible with the structure.  Ashton didn't have the same problem with his R&J because he didn't have a full copy of the score/the running order, IIRC.

[alison]

My second viewing of the ballet yesterday afternoon, with the "third" cast, I enjoyed rather more than on opening night.  Whether it was simply a matter of greater familiarity, the greatly improved viewpoint, the different cast (or maybe just the fact that it was their second performance rather than a debut) or something else I don't know.  Firstly, Act I didn't seem nearly as neverending as it had on Wednesday (I complained then that it felt as though I'd stood for longer than the first act of Romeo & Juliet, although Frankenstein's first act is 15 minutes shorter!) - and I realised that the tavern scene did actually serve the useful purpose of allowing the dancer playing Victor to get off stage for a bit, because although Mayerling it is not, Victor similarly is on stage for most of the ballet.

 

I think Bruce has hit the nail pretty much on the head as to where changes need to be made: certainly the Creature is under-served in this production, and we have little chance to understand his predicament - having Victor reject him and then run away at the end of Act I would certainly improve on that score (although would the musical score as it stands allow it, or would that, too, have to be tweaked?  That could make things more difficult).  As I've said before, the staging in Act II also needs tweaking: from where I was in the Stalls Circle, I would guess that even some people in the side Stalls wouldn't be able to see the Creature lurking in the trees early on in that act, and I think it's important that we *do*.  I also don't understand why Victor has to appear to be hallucinating the presence of the Creature at the wedding ball, given that he is actually there in reality - it's a bit of a ballet cliche, and not only from La Sylphide.

 

I was impressed particularly by Tristan Dyer in his first leading role as Victor (and particularly the fact that it was the second time he was dancing it in 24 hours - ouch), and surprisingly moved (yes, for the second production in a row!) by Nehemiah Kish as the Creature: for some reason, possibly the makeup, I was far less aware of it being specified-dancer-in-a-costume than I had been with McRae on the first night.  I have a feeling, though, that Alexander Campbell has set the bar so high as Henry that I doubt anyone else will be able to make as much of the role as he does.

 

As I've indicated previously, though, I do think there is more than the germ of a very decent ballet in here, even if it's not all realised yet.  I also suspect it's going to be very effective on a big screen, where you can see people's reactions much better than you can in the theatre. 

[alison]

No, I agree it needs significant reworking, it was just that the points I'd mentioned above would probably constitute little more than tweaks: putting in another tree or two closer to the centre of the stage so that the Creature could be seen by most of the audience when he's lurking, for instance.

[Sim]

Tree??? I missed that altogether! So you are right, Alison...things need to be shifted a bit!

[FLOSS]

Alison. While Prokofiev wrote his score for Romeo and Juliet quite independently of Lavrovsky what we hear when the ballet is performed is a score modified at Lavrovsky's insistence. The changes were not inconsiderable and Prokofiev did not give in without a struggle indeed at one point Lavrovsky is said to have threatened to insert music of his own choosing if Prokofiev did not make the modifications he wanted. As I understand it the music at the beginning of act 1 for the cushion dance is Lavrovsky's idea and that for the Balcony scene is also the result of the choreographer's demands. The music for that iconic scene is said to be the result of reworking the music that Prokofiev had originally composed for the happy ending which had been part of the original scheme. Other choreographer directed changes include, cutting Mercutio's role, providing music for a spectacular pas de deux in the ballroom scene and music extending the role of Paris. So all in all I think the modifications which have the effect of providing a score which has a structure more in line with standard ballet construction is, if anything, even more the responsibility of the original choreographer than the composer.

 

If  I described the standard way of handling the score choreographically as following the Lavrovsky structure that does not mean that I think that is the only way of using it. I think that it is too easy to ascribe a choreographer's problems with creating an original ballet using Prokofiev's music to the score being a "straight jacket". I think the real problem is that once you have seen the Lavrovsky R and J or its two best known offshoots the Cranko and MacMillan versions there are so many images that stay permanently in the mind that it is almost impossible to eradicate them. I think that Ashton's version is different because it was created for a more intimate theatre which did not require the lavish spectacle of a grand opera house and that this enabled him to concentrate on the story as intimate drama. It is his creation of the individual characters and their personal tragedy which is so compelling, that, and the lack of operatic style staging and acting. I think it probably helped that the Lavrovsky was not well known in the west at the time that Ashton made his version but I don't think that he would have found himself so much of a prisoner of the original version as subsequent choreographers have been.I  think it is a great pity that the RB can't have both the MacMillan and the Ashton version in its repertory.

 

As far as Frankenstein is concerned it will be interesting to see what it looks like after it has been staged in San Francisco. I think it will be revived here because the audience response has been so positive.  The critics were very dismissive of Manon but the audience liked it and bought tickets for it which  is why it survived .

Edited May 9, 2016 by FLOSS