The Royal Ballet: Romeo and Juliet, Spring 2019

[FrankH]

[Some kind poster somewhere on this forum posted in encouragement of less knowledgeable posters, that we need all reactions from WOW! to long erudite reviews. What you may not need is what I usually offer, which is long non-erudite “reviews”. However I do this partly to help me remember performances, and to examine my reasons for my reactions. I do not expect to enlighten anyone in a field in which I have as yet very little knowledge]

 

My prediction as to how full my local Curzon might be for this proved correct; considerably fuller than for the recent modern trilogy, but not sold out as has been the case for all screenings of the Tchaikovsky “Big 3”. I shall be interested to see how Coppélia fares next season.

 

I have only managed to do a superficial read-through of the many reactions and reviews in this thread (perhaps more such than has been recorded for any RB screening?) but am immediately struck by the differences of opinion, especially on the performances of the two main dancers. Were they equally magical? Did one portray his/her character better than the other? Did one show too little emotion? And so on.

 

I was looking forward to this screening with great anticipation as it was my first opportunity to see either Yasmine Naghdi or Matthew Ball in a really major role. As I knew that both were among the most appreciated RB artists for posters in this forum, I wondered if I would have the same reaction as, for example, when I first saw Francesca Hayward in a major role.

 

Yasmine Naghdi. I do see why so many on this forum think so highly of her. However, I wasn’t bowled over by her the way I was by Francesca Hayward (in the much lesser role of Clara in The Nutcracker). For me, Ms Hayward possesses to a remarkable degree a sort of charisma which can really be described as the X factor, because it is undefinable. For me, Ms Naghdi has less of this, but I suspect she is more of a dance-connoisseur’s dancer – one whom those who really know about ballet, will appreciate more than I can at present. So I certainly don’t wish to in any way play down her undoubted excellence.

 

Matthew Ball. Again I can see why so many rave about him. He is clearly a formidable talent – destined for the very top of his profession? As an aged heterosexual male, I probably don’t have the right to say this, but he strikes me as almost too good-looking!

 

But what about their acting in Romeo and Juliet? Contrary to some on this thread, I don’t think either was guilty of underplaying their role. I initially thought they were both over-acting! But I soon realised this wasn’t the case. We were being shown close-ups which would only have been available to well-placed audience members in the ROH, and then only if they had binoculars. Ballet-dancers in narrative ballets have to convey emotions to an audience without close-ups, so exaggerated facial expressions, for instance, are necessary. Perhaps in future screenings of such ballets as MacMillan’s highly emotional dramas, they should avoid close-ups.

 

Despite the excellence of not just Ball and Naghdi, but the entire ensemble (how good are the RB corps at crowd scenes!) and my general enjoyment of the dancing, I found myself largely emotionally unmoved by the ballet as a whole.  But that is perhaps a consequence of what is, to me, a rather unattractive plot.

 

While I can understand why Romeo and Juliet is one of Shakespeare’s most popular plays, I think, at a deeper level, it is far from his most sympathetic. Young Romantic Love will always be a superficially attractive theme. But R & J could also be seen as a portrayal of the obsessive selfishness which is an almost automatic accompaniment of such emotions. And so, among the five deaths which litter this drama, I found myself more moved by the deaths of the minor characters. Especially Tybalt. A great characterisation by Gary Avis, but I wonder if he almost made Tybalt too likeable. He clearly didn’t intend to kill Mercutio, in Avis’ interpretation, which makes his subsequent death at the hands of Romeo that more of a tragedy.

 

As for Paris, the poor chap unwittingly wanders into this tragic mess, and is swatted away without even a drawn-out death scene. Is this a deserved fate for anyone who dares to threaten Young Romantic Love?

 

Despite my reservations, I did enjoy the ballet, and will remember many fine things in it. Perhaps especially the stark beauty of the final tableau – Juliet’s body draped over the side of the bed, her hand reaching for, but not touching, the hand of Romeo. Is that scene pure Kenneth MacMillan?

Edited June 13, 2019 by FrankH

[Xandra Newman]

10 hours ago, Coated said:

It's also in the music - a few bright, hopeful notes before the score returns to despair. Naghdi's interpretation fitted the notes like a glove.

 

I do not recall a RB cinema relay generating so many reactions and discussion. The vast majority absolutely loved this cast (bar a few who didn't, De gustibus non est disputandum, in matters of taste, there can be no disputes). Yasmine Naghdi, Matthew Ball and the entire cast were excellent ambassadors for The Royal Ballet to be seen worldwide.

 

I have been reflecting on why it is that I am so taken with this particular cast (yes there were other really lovely Juliet's and Romeo's during this run!). One of the many aspects I so value and appreciate in Yasmine Naghdi's interpretation (and her dancing in general) is that she dances on the music, as if the notes of the score function as her notation, she uses the score as if the music is her leitmotiv, she makes the notes visible (I have seen that too in other performances of hers). She is known as a highly musical dancer and I think this is what moved me so much in her Juliet interpretation; she simply rides high on the waves of this incredible Prokofiev score. The Macmillan notation is embedded in her feet and body but equally the music is embodied in her dancing and facial expressions. It is this rare combination and ability which moves me so much. Her performances are driven by her tremendous technical control (Firebird. Sleeping Beauty adagios. Swan Lake, to name a few) and her classicism is perfectly explained and justified by To The Pointe here below. Juliet is after all from an aristocratic family and she behaves and acts according to her education, until she manages to escape the strict harness of her controlling parents and her environment, discovers love and takes charge of her own destiny.

 

To The Pointe wrote: (sorry don't know how to get two quotes in here)

"I think it’s quite interesting how some find Naghdi too classical for Juliet. Naghdi and Takada are, in my opinion, the next big classical stars at the RB and I loved both of their Juliets because they looked so aristocratic. Because they naturally have such a classical hold, they really looked like they belonged in the Capulets' decadent mansion, and I think this worked really well. It explains how she is meant to be paired with Paris and married off and why she is a product of her upbringing. I really dislike it when Juliet is made to be too feral which I found with Osipova’s take. She ran into the ballroom looking completely in awe of her surroundings and completely shocked that someone like her could have a place in such a magnificent setting. To me, that is more like Giselle turning up to an extravagant party. Although it’s likely to be Juliet’s first party, it’s being held in her house, and she would be very aware and used to the glorious setting of it all. Naghdi and Takada are so classical, elegant and graceful that I think they were perfectly suited to depict the aristocratic nature of Juliet. I also felt that they cleverly ‘loosened’ as they fell in love, culminating in complete despair and limp like bodies by the end".

•  

[Mary]

10 hours ago, FrankH said:

As for Paris, the poor chap unwittingly wanders into this tragic mess, and is swatted away without even a drawn-out death scene. Is this a deserved fate for anyone who dares to threaten Young Romantic Love?

Macmillan does not portray Paris like this though- he makes very clear that he tries to force himself on Juliet when she has made it clear she does not want his attentions: he manhandles her and there is a suggestion of assault.

I have not seen any interpretation that does not foreground this very clearly.

 

It helps the audience to understand her desperation, and his stabbing by Romeo ( who can't know this- but we do.)

 

 

 

 

[FrankH]

12 minutes ago, Mary said:

Macmillan does not portray Paris like this though- he makes very clear that he tries to force himself on Juliet when she has made it clear she does not want his attentions: he manhandles her and there is a suggestion of assault.

I have not seen any interpretation that does not foreground this very clearly.

 

It helps the audience to understand her desperation, and his stabbing by Romeo ( who can't know this- but we do.)

 

 

 

 

 

My comment about Paris was rather tongue-in-cheek.

 

Perhaps I wasn't paying close enough attention, or didn't catch all the nuances, but in the "assault" scene, I didn't read it as an obvious attempt at rape, although it might have developed into one. I had some sympathy for Paris. It must be rather unpleasant if someone you touch shrinks away in disgust.

 

I still think Paris' despatch was undeservedly perfunctory. However at that late stage in the ballet, it is probably artistically correct not to draw it out.

 

As you say, Romeo can't know what we know, so his killing of Paris adds to the impression I have that, because of his obsessive love for Juliet, he has become a rather unlikeable person.

[Candleque]

3 hours ago, Mary said:

Macmillan does not portray Paris like this though- he makes very clear that he tries to force himself on Juliet when she has made it clear she does not want his attentions: he manhandles her and there is a suggestion of assault.

I know MacMillan is considered a genius (happy to agree) but I find his obsession with rape and abusive relationships excessive. The NYTimes asked: "Does the aesthetic beauty of ballet tame and make palatable the violence we see onstage?" For me, not so much. Am sure many disagree. And apologies if this is off-topic. Fwiw, R&J is my fave of all his work. But I like Paris better as Shakespeare's befuddled suitor than MacMillan's potential abuser. 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Candleque

[onemouseplace]

7 minutes ago, Candleque said:

I know MacMillan is considered a genius (happy to agree) but I find his obsession with rape and abusive relationships excessive. The NYTimes asked: "Does the aesthetic beauty of ballet tame and make palatable the violence we see onstage?" For me, not so much. Am sure many disagree. And apologies if this is off-topic. Fwiw, R&J is my fave of all his work. But I like Paris better as Shakespeare's befuddled suitor than MacMillan's potential abuser. 

 

I agree.  I have't studied the R&J text closely since I did it for GCSE (a long time ago!), but I've been reading this discussion with great interest as I really noticed in the cinema broadcast Paris's aggression and the suggestion of assault and was thinking how different it was from my reading of Paris in the play, who I remember feeling much sympathy for and as much a victim of circumstance as any of them - indeed (and I may misremember this) - isn't the entire reason he is at the Capulet tomb because he is genuinely mourning Juliet?

[Candleque]

20 minutes ago, onemouseplace said:

isn't the entire reason he is at the Capulet tomb because he is genuinely mourning Juliet?

 

Yes. He comes to the tomb with flowers

[Balletfanp]

 

 

I didn’t see Paris’s reaction as “assault” really - it came over to me as short-lived anger over Juliet’s (to him) inexplicable rejection of him when she had seemed willing before. I thought Nicol Edmonds portrayed that very well, as he very quickly looked contrite, and stared at his hands as though he couldn’t believe they had just manhandled Juliet. It didn’t seem that he was a man of habitual violence.

 

After all, her parents and nurse were present, and despite the fact that they were exasperated and angry with her, I doubt they would have stood there and countenanced any real violence towards her.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Balletfanp

[FrankH]

42 minutes ago, Balletfanp said:

 

 

I didn’t see Paris’s reaction as “assault” really - it came over to me as short-lived anger over Juliet’s (to him) inexplicable rejection of him when she had seemed willing before. I thought Nicol Edmonds portrayed that very well, as he very quickly looked contrite, and stared at his hands as though he couldn’t believe they had just manhandled Juliet. It didn’t seem that he was a man of habitual violence.

 

After all, her parents and nurse were present, and despite the fact that they were exasperated and angry with her, I doubt they would have stood there and countenanced any real violence towards her.

 

You remind me of the details of what actually happened in the scene. So that's why it didn't look to me like an attempt at rape. As you point out, it's not that Paris and Juliet were alone together. Her parents wished to marry Juliet to Paris - it doesn't follow that they intended him to rape her!

 

However Mary and Candleque in their posts above say that MacMillan did intend a suggestion of assault, and Candleque connects this with an obsession of his about rape. If that is so, then that didn't come over clearly in the RB performance that was screened. Have they altered the MacMillan original in order to make Paris a more sympathetic character?

 

Candleque and onemouseplace then both agree that Paris in the Shakespeare play is an unfortunate victim of circumstance, which is exactly how I saw him in the RB screening of this ballet. I wasn't influenced in my reaction by the play, as I haven't seen it for decades, and have never studied it closely.

 

So did the RB change the ballet at this point? I wouldn't know if they did, as I have never seen the MacMillan version before. Perhaps Nicol Edmonds changed this emphasis, just as Gary Avis changed the intention of Tybalt in the killing of Mercutio (unless that also is in the MacMillan original). Can anyone who knows the history of this ballet enlighten us on these points?

Edited June 13, 2019 by FrankH
clearing up a point

[Richard LH]

19 hours ago, Dawnstar said:

Reading all the comments, I seem to be in a very small minority in not being blown away by last night's performance. I'm now feeling guilty that I evidently missed or didn't get something that almost everyone else got.

 

Dawnstar if we all felt the same about each  performance this would be a pretty dull Forum!

 

So many  casts, all with their own interpretations, and indeed techniques, all of which is bound to come across differently to individual audience members.

For myself, as a relative newcomer, I am finding the process of learning about ballet, and what/whom I really love, and what/whom not so much, is a fascinating (if expensive) process! And my views have, and probably still will, change about dancers and ballets as I develop my interest.

Some dancers will suit particular roles more than others, and of course that can also change as dancers learn or reprise roles, and  improve their techniques and acting skills.

 

As bridiem says it can be disconcerting when few posters, or even no-one at all, appears to agree with you - I have certainly felt that - but I don't think we should imagine there is anything wrong about this - after all, there can be no right or wrong in terms of one's instinctive, subjective  reaction to a particular performance. I think stating what you like and don't like helps everyone else who has an open mind to learn more about their own understanding of this wonderful art form. Indeed the prevailing view of the majority can  change over time - I understand both Swan Lake and the Nutcracker were  poorly received at the outset.  

 

For what it's worth, though,  I was also in the "not blown away" category for this last  performance of R&J; I have enjoyed  other R&J casts much more.

 

Actually, now the run is over,  I am reflecting that the ballet itself is not (at least at present) one of my absolute favourites  (it would probably just about scrape into my "top 10" of full-lengths). I share many of FrankH's reservations about the R&J story which he cogently sets out above. Of MacMillan's three major full-lengths, I am putting it below Manon, but above Mayerling. 

 

Indeed now we can reflect on the run as a whole, I wonder where  others  would place  the RB's R&J in their list of favourites? 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Richard LH
Sp.

[Beryl H]

 I don't particularly like this production of R and J at all, never have done, too much fighting, not enough dancing for me, Act 2 in particular is very short on dancing, and Act 3 drags on and on.  I like the play, and Ashton's version, which I saw danced by the Peter Schaufuss company, it was shorter, had different orchestration, and more actual dancing. I have read that MacMillan focussed on death and Ashton focussed on love, and I agree with this. I am interested in the discussion about Paris, in the past in this version I have never seen him as anything other than kind to Juliet, and always felt sorry for him, different interpretations are creeping in. Have to say I didn't see any of the current run!

[CCL]

Re Paris: in the text it is made clear that Paris is a kinsman to the Prince, and is therefore of higher status than the Montagues and Capulets. This explains what I see as a touch of pushiness , for example in Act 1, scene 2 when he asks Lord Capulet for Juliet’s hand in marriage, it’s clear from Capulet’s response that Paris has asked before and been given the same answer, ie that Capulet thinks Juliet is too young. Paris answers back ‘Younger than she are happy mothers made’, still not wanting to take no for an answer! Things change after Tybalt’s death when Lord Capulet, in need of an heir, decides the marriage will take place quickly. When Juliet encounters Paris at Friar Lawrence’s cell, Paris addresses her as ‘my lady and my wife’, this hint of possessiveness at which Juliet bridles (‘that may be Sir, when I may be a wife’) would be conventional for a man of his status in that society. He does indeed bring flowers to Juliet’s tomb, and when he sees Romeo challenges him, assuming that as a Montague Romeo’s attendance at Juliet’s tomb is suspicious. Their fight is quick, and it is only after Paris is killed that Romeo recognises Paris. Before Paris dies he asks to be laid next to Juliet. Romeo is sorry for Paris, saying he is ‘writ with me in sour misfortune’s book’.

 

 I do apologise if I’m explaining what some people already know, but knowing the context I think it’s far too much of a stretch to suggest that Paris is capable of assaulting Juliet. 

 

 

[JohnS]

I’ve always found Lord Capulet’s treatment of Juliet disturbing, even when toned down in more recent runs as I’m sure in the past Capulet has indicated he’d hit Juliet with his belt.  But we still see that threat with most Capulets making as if to hit Juliet but then restraining themselves, and all Capulets signal to Paris in effect to do as he wishes with Juliet in that grotesque pdd.  So I’m not in the ‘poor Paris’ camp.  

 

What has thrown me this time round is Mercutio’s death as much caused by Romeo’s push as Tybalt’s sword and then Tybalt’s remorse, particularly as shown by Gary Avis.  Romeo then fights and kills Tybalt but this no longer comes across as justified revenge as Romeo seems as culpable for Mercutio’s death as Tybalt.  With doubts about Romeo’s moral compass, he risks losing some of our sympathy and it’s no longer as clear that Romeo deserves Juliet (as a poster mentioned much earlier in the thread).  That ambiguity I think sits rather uncomfortably with the final scene, and risks diminishing its impact, even when played so beautifully by Matthew Ball/Yasmine Naghdi in the cinema relay.

[Geoff]

6 hours ago, Candleque said:

I know MacMillan is considered a genius (happy to agree) but I find his obsession with rape and abusive relationships excessive. 

 

"Old hat" is the phrase which comes to my mind. Manon, R&J, even my beloved Mayerling look tired in so many ways these days, however much oomph our various favourite casts put into them.

 

Except I know that I am wrong about this, because of what we are told: happily we can rely for many years to come on the MacMillan family guaranteeing the absolute truths that Kenneth MacMillan is the sharpest knife in the box, the greatest choreographer, and above all, the most exciting and cutting-edge radical possible, who finally did away with all those fusty dusty twee works by lesser artists such as Petipa and (mostly) Ashton. 

[Lizbie1]

2 minutes ago, Geoff said:

who finally did away with all those fusty dusty twee works by lesser artists such as Petipa and (mostly) Ashton. 

 

I didn't comment at the time about it, but there was an extraordinary quote from Lady MacMillan in the article in the FT on Clement Crisp's retirement: she said, "He seemed to have an insight into where Kenneth was going: taking ballet out of the 19th century." To which I thought, "I wonder what Diaghilev was up to in that case" (let alone Balanchine, Ashton, Tudor, etc, etc).

 

I like Romeo and Juliet best of all his three-acters - think it's a masterpiece - but I could gladly do away with the harlots' knicker-flashing antics - were they always this crudely drawn or is this a development over the last 50 years? Manon and Mayerling in my opinion have both greater longueurs and more of what I think of as "bad", prurient MacMillan - subtle as a brick when compared to Paris's manhandling of Juliet. I also think that, unlike Georgiadis' matchless designs for Romeo and Juliet, Manon's and Mayerling's could do with being at least re-worked: too much '70s browns and orange, too reminiscent of the wallpapers of my childhood (which my parents had never got round to replacing).

[RobR]

Actually IMHO, the harlots are an integral part of the earthy humour inherent in the street tableaux, with support from the 'lads' (Romeo, Mercutio & Benvolio) & the townsfolk, angry or otherwise. It’s not supposed to be subtle. 

[Lizbie1]

1 minute ago, RobR said:

Actually IMHO, the harlots are an integral part of the earthy humour inherent in the street tableaux, with support from the 'lads' (Romeo, Mercutio & Benvolio) & the townsfolk, angry or otherwise. It’s not supposed to be subtle. 

 

But none of the lads’ behaviour veers into outright caricature. Surely there’s a happy medium to be struck between “subtle” and “Carry on up the Palazzo”.

[JNC]

An interesting discussion is developing here! I have to agree with Richard and Beryl above and say that RJ is not one of my favourite ballets. I think apart from Romeo/Juliet/Mercuito/Tybalt there is little 'real' dancing (sorry!) and whilst the pdds can be incredible, I do miss the divertissements and pure 'corps all in synchrony' that you would get in the Petipa/Balanchine style. I also think Ashton has some incredibly clever footwork and is continual dance, whereas sometimes a lot of MacMillan seems to me like 'filler' for the main pdd and leans more towards telling a story through movement as opposed to classical ballet/dance being the main attraction and a story is simply a consequence of dance (if that makes sense?). 

 

RJ for me is worth watching for the performances for the principals, and the score and some of the fighting scenes, but it's certainly not one of my favourite ballets and I always feel a bit guilty that I haven't been moved or dazzled by it the way others do. 

 

Manon I much prefer because I think there is a far stronger emphasis on dancing (I find it odd that Juliet is nowhere to be seen all of Act 2 in RJ and hardly present in Act 1, similarly Romeo isn't around for a lot of act 3!) and to be honest I prefer the music for Manon too - it always gets me! There also seems to be a deeper storyline as there are more scenes with Manon/Des Grieux/Lescaut, I feel in RJ they are separate most of the ballet so for me sometimes its difficult to see the progression of the relationship and build that connection and sense of time passing (although I do know RJ is supposed to take place in a fairly compressed time frame to be fair). I also think Manon perhaps provides for more interpretative licence for the principal - good girl who is manipulated, or someone who knows fully what she's getting into and then regrets it? Or completely naive? I know there is some room for interpretation in RJ of course, but I feel it is more limited as they are supposed to be young and in love whereas with Manon you never really know how she feels about her relationship with Lescaut/Monsieur GM and it's up to the ballerina playing her to decide. 

 

Mayerling I didn't like at all, no disrespect to Hirano as I think he's a brilliant dancer but I just couldn't get into the character. I found the women more compelling but similarly to RJ felt they only popped in occasionally so it was hard to build that sense of character/time/relationship if they only have one or two short entrances/solos/pdd, and to be honest it got rather confusing as to who they were and their relationship to Prince Rudolph, without the programme I wouldn't have a clue and I think it's a failing of dance if you need to read a plot summary to understand (see the recent Month in a Country which perfectly distills a complex set of relationships without need for a plot summary). I would be willing to see Mayerling again but only with Watson I think. 

 

In short - I can appreciate MacMillan but (apart from Manon) I can't say I feel his ballets have the effect on me that others do, with the caveat I have only seen the three mentioned above and song of the earth (which again I sadly wasn't impressed by). I am hoping that RB gives RJ/Mayerling/Manon a rest in the 20/21 season and perhaps brings back some of his one acters so we get a bit of a different flavour (or just give MacMillan a rest and revive some Ashtons/Balanchines!!). 

 

[jmhopton]

I do agree with your last paragraph JMC. Despite attending and really enjoying four different R and J casts the ballet itself has never been a huge favourite. OK Macmillan might have created down to earth characters and situations that we can easily relate to today but he wasn't the first. Didn't Ninette de Valois choreograph The Rake's Progress? I've never seen it but I understand it was pretty shocking realism wise. Also like some others I think Macmillan concentrates a lot on the pas de deux (which admittedly are usually splendid) but possibly to the detriment of the ballet as a whole as often the corps de ballet don't seem to have nearly as much actual dancing to do as they would in an Ashton ballet. Think how hard the corps work in Sylvia or la Fille and compare the second act of Romeo and Juliet where the street people just seem to be chasing the harlots or the brothel scene in Manon where there isn't a lot of dancing until Lescault arrives. The fact that Ashton seems to think the corps are as important as the principles is just one reason he is my favourite choreographer. Another is he just choreograph great ballets without any agenda about being 'modern' or 'relevant' There are too many others to mention. 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, jmhopton said:

I do agree with your last paragraph JMC. Despite attending and really enjoying four different R and J casts the ballet itself has never been a huge favourite. OK Macmillan might have created down to earth characters and situations that we can easily relate to today but he wasn't the first. Didn't Ninette de Valois choreograph The Rake's Progress? I've never seen it but I understand it was pretty shocking realism wise. Also like some others I think Macmillan concentrates a lot on the pas de deux (which admittedly are usually splendid) but possibly to the detriment of the ballet as a whole as often the corps de ballet don't seem to have nearly as much actual dancing to do as they would in an Ashton ballet. Think how hard the corps work in Sylvia or la Fille and compare the second act of Romeo and Juliet where the street people just seem to be chasing the harlots or the brothel scene in Manon where there isn't a lot of dancing until Lescault arrives. The fact that Ashton seems to think the corps are as important as the principles is just one reason he is my favourite choreographer. Another is he just choreograph great ballets without any agenda about being 'modern' or 'relevant' There are too many others to mention. 

Very srongly agree, Jmhopton! 

[HappyTurk]

Okay, finally got around to seeing the screening and I have to say I have very mixed feelings about the performances -- enthralled yet dissapointed. So, first let's start with the positives! Aside from the stupendous (!!!) Gary Avis (who I could not praise enough), the stand-out performers were surprisingly Nicol Edmonds, Benjamin Ella, and Beatriz Stix-Brunnel (even though they had "limited" roles)! My goodness, charisma just oozes out of these three so readily! Nicol Edmonds was so perfectly aloof yet dangerously charming; Benjamin Ella has such a grandiose presence that I felt myself constantly peering at him in the first act in captivation. I need to see him as Romeo and Albrecht asap! He would be so compelling. And last but not least, the wonderful Beatriz Stix-Brunnel who I may have underestimated at times. In short, she had so much captivating allure (which was aided by her temptous eyes and smile) that it truly showed what a deeply committed (and versatile) actress she is and could become. In fact, I was desperately hoping she would have been cast as Juliet as the minutes progressed! I can definitely see why many in here were smitten by her performance as Juliet -- such charisma! KOH must cast all three of these dancers in more principal roles asap! 

 

Okay, now onto the negatives of which will mostly be directed at Yasmine Naghdi (apologies to her as I admire her discipline as a dancer). Now perhaps because I was already smitten by the grandiose charisma/presence of the aforementioned dancers and had very high expectations of her Juliet because of those who raved about her Juliet in the past, I was quite disappointed by her overall performance. At times I felt she was aware of the audience (understandably first-time nerves!), and never fully engrossed herself into the character to the point where it felt like I was watching a very tragic, borderline ugly/gritty love story. There was no sheer abandonment and I felt she never acted through her body but rather her face (which I feel is not how MacMillan's choreography is intended to be danced as). Too many plastique poses and restrained, cautious dancing especially in the bedroom pas de deux; and I felt her interpretation of Juliet rarely changed as the ballet progressed (it was quite static) -- which made it impossible for me to experience a whirlwind catharsis of emotions. And as a result, this undercutted the rapture between Ball and herself (from my perspective). Ball, however, was a great Romeo. He is clearly a more introverted person and thus takes a more introspective approach but I thought his portrayal was very compelling and got more gritty as the ballet progressed. 

 

 

Okay! Cue the pitch-forks now! 😀  And apologies for my liberal use of exclamation points. Clearly, I was excited about some of these performances 

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by HappyTurk

[Balletfanp]

HappyTurk, whilst I don’t agree with you about Naghdi and Ball, I wholeheartedly agree with you about Benjamin Ella. He is a dancer I have  always liked. I have enjoyed his recent performances in whatever ballet I have seen him in and I hope he will get more opportunities because I feel he should be promoted.

 

Ditto Nicol Edmonds. I really liked his portrayal of Paris, plus having just seen him in Symphony in C tonight (more later on the appropriate thread) I feel he is a dancer who is underrated and who also needs promotion.

[Fiz]

I liked him as Paris too. 

[JNC]

Yes I do often feel a bit sorry for the corps in RJ as they don’t really have much to do (although they do seem to have great fun so I hope that doesn’t offend anyone!). I can’t really tell the difference between the harlots from the amphi, and no one outside the named roles really seems to have any discernible character, and therefore no ‘real’ dancing to do. This is not to downplay the skill that must be required in the corps here, but I feel in ballets such as swan lake/la bayadere or in the recent symphony in c the corps get real recognition as they do some excellent dancing and contribute a lot to the atmosphere. 

 

I also have to say that I was fairly surprised the first time I saw RJ to note that nobody wears pointe shoes apart from Juliet? 

[Bluebird]

7 minutes ago, JNC said:

I also have to say that I was fairly surprised the first time I saw RJ to note that nobody wears pointe shoes apart from Juliet? 

 

Juliet's friends also wear pointe shoes.

[bridiem]

7 hours ago, HappyTurk said:

Okay, now onto the negatives of which will mostly be directed at Yasmine Naghdi (apologies to her as I admire her discipline as a dancer). Now perhaps because I was already smitten by the grandiose charisma/presence of the aforementioned dancers and had very high expectations of her Juliet because of those who raved about her Juliet in the past, I was quite disappointed by her overall performance. At times I felt she was aware of the audience (understandably first-time nerves!), and never fully engrossed herself into the character to the point where it felt like I was watching a very tragic, borderline ugly/gritty love story. There was no sheer abandonment and I felt she never acted through her body but rather her face (which I feel is not how MacMillan's choreography is intended to be danced as). Too many plastique poses and restrained, cautious dancing especially in the bedroom pas de deux; and I felt her interpretation of Juliet rarely changed as the ballet progressed (it was quite static) -- which made it impossible for me to experience a whirlwind catharsis of emotions. And as a result, this undercutted the rapture between Ball and herself (from my perspective). Ball, however, was a great Romeo. He is clearly a more introverted person and thus takes a more introspective approach but I thought his portrayal was very compelling and got more gritty as the ballet progressed. 

 

I understand what you're saying about Naghdi, HappyTurk, in that I don't think her Juliet is very MacMillan-esque. But I think there comes a point when a ballet has its own life independent of the choreographer, and R&J has long gone beyond that point. I think her style of dancing and her approach to the drama is entirely valid, effective and beautiful. She's not wild or completely abandoned, but I don't think that's necessary for the tragedy to unfold. There are all sorts of different Juliets (as there are all sorts of different people!). I did see progression in her, from a happy young girl to a distraught young woman, but she was at all times herself - capable, intelligent, loving and beautiful.

 

I agree that Ball is more introverted as a dancer; and I sometimes feel as if he's not entirely convinced by what he's doing. But clearly others get more from him than I do! (I do think he's an excellent dancer, and a terrific partner.)

[Fiz]

I agree about Beatrix Stix-Brunell. She has such a radiant stage presence that she demands my attention every time she dances and what a fine dancer she is too. Thank you! 💐

[Ian Macmillan]

Just back from an Encore showing at Saffron Screen - a full house but, as ever, very few there under 40.  Hadn't seen R&J for some time, but it certainly still does the business for me.  I see dissenting views above but, based on Act 3, Miss Naghdi is a particularly fine Juliet indeed. 

[MJW]

Until the DVD arrives - 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zXfYygXX0I

[Mandy Kent]

On 14/06/2019 at 01:46, Balletfanp said:

 

 

Ditto Nicol Edmonds. I really liked his portrayal of Paris, plus having just seen him in Symphony in C tonight (more later on the appropriate thread) I feel he is a dancer who is underrated and who also needs promotion.

I agree wholeheartedly. He made Paris into a real character and he partnered Sarah Lamb beautifully with support and accuracy. 

[yvonnep]

I agree completely with HappyTurk on Naghdi's Juliet.

I don't seem to get Ball's Romeo, either. He dances a lot of Romeo's steps with such a princely manner that they have become quite out of context. I don't think MacMillan intended Romeo to be a typical princely character as Albrecht in Giselle. The close-ups in cinema broadcast also didn't do him favour, because clearly he didn't know what kind of expressions he should put on under certain circumstances such as Mercucio's death. His partnering was exceptionally good, though.

[ninamargaret]

If I may go back to the discussion about Paris, surely his behaviour is, in the context of the period in which the story is set, pretty normal? The marriage would have been arranged, very likely with much payment, Capulet might have gone to great lengths to get a good deal and his annoyance at Juliet's behaviour is understandable under these circumstances. Similarly, Paris has been promised a good match, and expects a nice compliant wife. Juliet was considered as property and would be expected to do what she was told!

[Ivy Lin]

I saw the Romeo and Juliet and while I think Naghdi is a lovely dancer she has a very queenly, regal persona that belies her youth. That works against her in Juliet. Margot Fonteyn could look queenly and regal but she also had those big eyes and smile that made her look youthful in Juliet.

 

I thought Matthew Ball was good as Romeo, but he and Naghdi seemed very rehearsed in their balcony duet. 

 

Also this is a drawback of HD ... I could see the dirty soles of Naghdi's shoes all too clearly in HD. It's not really her fault but I'm surprised she didn't wear a brand new pair of shoes for the HD. I know many ballerinas say they pick a clean pair of shoes if they're going to be filmed.