The Royal Ballet: Ceremony of Innocence / The Age of Anxiety / Aeternum

[Bruce Wall]

To be fair I'm not a big fan of abstract work, but overall last night's programme really didn't work for me.

 

 

SORRY - WRONG SEGMENT QUOTED .... (sadly you can't go back and alter such even in the 1/2 hour 'edit' window as proscribed) ... MEANT TO ISOLATE 

 

I did talk to and overhear several people who really enjoyed the Brandstrup piece, but it didn't grip me at all - I found my attention wandering constantly.  ....  I will say the lighting scheme was pretty good however.

 

Oh, dear.  I had quite a different reaction to the lighting of the Brandstrup.  Yet another 'seeing in the dark' ballet where what shards of true light on the dancers exist are so severe in and of themselves that they make it almost painful for (at least my) eyes to focus with any consistency.  The shadows themselves are sharp enough to stab.  I well realise I may be alone in this .... and that my difficulties may be but the result of advanced age and ocular decrepitude, but I found this specific aspect (e.g., the so called 'illumination' - or rather lack of it) of this particular 'Ceremony of Innocence' guilty of being rather unpleasant.  The relative stability of Tipon's lighting in 'The Age of Anxiety' came - or washed over - as a balm-filled Valhalla on reflection.   

Edited November 8, 2014 by Bruce Wall

[FLOSS]

An evening which left me wondering whether the Royal Opera House was having difficulty in paying its electricity bill. Each of the ballets had lighting which I think was intended to create atmosphere and mood but which made it difficult to see the dancers clearly all the time which, for me,somewhat defeats the object of the exercise.Perhaps the only people who are intended to see these ballets are stalls ticket holders.

 

The most memorable thing for me about Ceremony of Innocence are the waves which are projected on to the back cloth and occasionally on to the stage.Edward Watson sits on a chair while the action takes place,occasionally he is involved in it, then he moves to another chair on the opposite corner of the stage. Other dancers are seen to greater advantage, Sambe in particular, but for me it does not add up to much..I can not make up my mind whether it is because the choreography is essentially vacuous or whether it is because it was made for a smaller space and needs its audience to be closer to the action.

 

The Age of Anxiety starts with lighting levels so low that Steven McRae was barely visible through the mirk and gloom.Was this a  profound comment on the character he was playing,fashionable ballet lighting,incompetence or total disregard for the audience in the cheaper seats I am in no position to say, but following a ballet with consistently low lighting levels it was a trifle irritating.We then discover that we are in an archetypal American bar, familiar to everyone from films and paintings. Here we meet the four main characters and a couple of subsiduery ones.Quant,a business man (he has a hat and briefcase)(Gartside); Rosetta (a buyer for a department store) who clearly has far better dress sense than the soldier's girlfriend (Morera); Malin a young man(Dyer) and Emble a sailor (McRae).Emble challenges a soldier and makes clear his interest in both Rosetta and Malin.The four main characters leave the bar and go to Rosetta's apartment, eventually Quant and Malin leave.Emble falls asleep on the sofa. In the street Quant kisses Malin and gives him his business card before walking off. The last scene shows Malin gamboling in an open space with the New York skyscrapers behind him. I feel that the choreographic invention ran out long before the music came to an end and too much of the choreography for McRae and Morera was the sort of thing that we have seen them do in other ballets.Whether cutting the score would help I do not know but I do not think that the Bernstein estate would agree.

 

At least you could see what was going on after the opening section of Age of Anxiety with Aeternum we are back in the world of lighting so atmospheric that on occasion the dancers almost disappear into the back of the stage. Once I saw the false start I knew that I had seen it before but it that is all that it did. At the end I did not feel that I had seen a piece of astounding choreography. I am sure that the costume designs do nothing to assist this ballet. They are all too similar in colour and tend to disappear into the background when the lighting is at its most atmospheric. The men's little shorts look silly and the corset like costume that Nunez wears in the second section is risible. 

 

At least the first and third ballets gave the opportunity to listen to vintage Britten. 

[zxDaveM]

 

 

I did talk to and overhear several people who really enjoyed the Brandstrup piece, but it didn't grip me at all - I found my attention wandering constantly.  ....  I will say the lighting scheme was pretty good however.

 

Oh, dear.  I had quite a different reaction to the lighting of the Brandstrup.  Yet another 'seeing in the dark' ballet where what shards of true light exist are so severe that they make it almost painful for (at least my) eyes to focus.  The shadows themselves are shap enough to stab. 

 

You're not alone, I felt the same way - though I did quite like that dividing line sweeeping across the stage like a divider in the space-time continuum (at least, that's what I interpretted it as)

[zxDaveM]

An evening which left me wondering whether the Royal Opera House was having difficulty in paying its electricity bill. Each of the ballets had lighting which I think was intended to create atmosphere and mood but which made it difficult to see the dancers clearly all the time which, for me,somewhat defeats the object of the exercise.Perhaps the only people who are intended to see these ballets are stalls ticket holders.

 

 

 

perhaps we should all chip in with 50p for the meter! This modern trend of doom and gloom lighting isn't nice to look at to my eyes anyway. At least my binoculars magnify light as well as image - else I'd see nowt!

[Bruce Wall]

Just wanted to mention that the snazzy Royal Canadian Air Force bomber jacket that Dyer wore with such style in the Scarlett was only slightly marred by the addition of what we now know as the Canadian flag.  That flag would itself not have existed at the time of this setting or indeed the time of creation of either Auden's, Bernstein's (and how glad I was that they didn't cut his STUNNING score) or indeed Robbins' NYCB balletic take on The Age of Anxiety (in which the choreographer himself would dance aside, amongst over 40 others, Tanaquil le Clercq) although it would have for the later rendition made by Neumeier.  That particular flag would not be FIRST raised until 1965.  At this period (e.g., that of the setting of Scarlett's ballet) the Union Jack would have been the particular colonial ticket for the 'true, north, strong and free'.   They too would have been proudly standing for 'God Save OUR King'.  

Edited November 8, 2014 by Bruce Wall

[helpop]

 Yet another 'seeing in the dark' ballet where what shards of true light on the dancers exist are so severe in and of themselves that they make it almost painful for (at least my) eyes to focus with any consistency.  

 

Good point.  I was thinking of the waves effect, which for me were pretty much the only interesting element of the whole piece, and the dividing dark/light stage effect which Dave mentions.  However, I would agree the lighting of the actual dancing was not great - the usual shadowy effect not adding a great deal.  I don't know if the piece looked better from the stalls, but from the front of the amphi any nuance of acting or gesture was rather lost.  I assume Ed Watson was doing something facially which added some meaning to the whole thing, but it was lost on me (and my eyes are not that old!).

 

.I can not make up my mind whether it is because the choreography is essentially vacuous or whether it is because it was made for a smaller space and needs its audience to be closer to the action.

 

I had the same thought - I'm not sure these stark abstract pieces always work in the huge opera house.  I didn't like the opening, with some people just wandering on to the stage.  I don't want RB to get stuck in the past, but you do get used to the ceremony of conductor applause and red curtains sweeping up...  I don't mind the more modern informal approach in the Linbury, Sadlers Wells, Barbican etc., but you do need to fit your piece to the venue I think.

 

For me it was more of a Sadlers Wells piece, which got a bit lost at ROH.

[AnneMarriott]

An odd evening, yesterday - well part-evening if I'm gong to be accurate.  Didn't read the programme notes before the performance so only got some of the allusions in the Brandstrup.  But I found it intriguing enough to want to see it again.  I enjoyed it rather a lot, although felt sorry that Watson had rather a background role. Lovely designs, very evocative of the North Sea - which is grey, as I knew only too well in childhood.  And I enjoyed the choreography.

 

Sorry to say Age of Anxiety, for which I had high expectations, left me cold.  Splendid set designs and some brilliant performances by the excellent cast, but I didn't "get" any of it, including the score - forgive me Bernstein! - especially the end which seemed redolent of the Born Free big tune, and not in a good way. Quite what we were supposed to take away from the narrative, or theme, I still do not understand, even though I have now read the programme notes.

 

Left before Aeternum.  Wasn't looking forward to it, having not remembered anything about it from last time round - In fact the only thing I thought I did remember, the designs, turned out not to be from Aeternum at all, judging from the photo in the programme.  But after the disappointment of Age of Anxiety my other half and I called it a day.

 

Next week we'll be seeing the programme again with different casts.  Perhaps it will be an opportunity to reconsider ...

[Katie]

I have just seen todays triple bill, and having read the above comments I have to agree.

 

Ceremony of Innocence left me feeling underwhelmed,  I kept waiting for it to heat up, but it didn't seem to ever reach the kind of momentum I needed to concentrate on it.

In saying that I thought Paul Kay gave a very nuanced performance.  Although I wasn't as invested in this piece as I would have liked to have been, his dancing stood out, and I enjoyed the role he played.

 

I really liked Age of Anxiety.  Everyone involved in this piece gave what seemed to me moving and affecting performances, and particularly Frederico Bonelli as Malin.  The dancing in this piece seemed secondary to the evocation of the mood, which was very much felt from where I was sitting, from the upbeat feel in the bar to the slightly downbeat feel in the lounge area.  I really liked the positive ending as the character of Malin literally walks of into the sunrise.  Am looking forward  to revisiting this on Friday.

 

Aeternum, I have seen this twice before so not sure why I stayed today.  It was stylistically interesting, but after the middle ballet which had my full concentration, this ultimately did nothing for me.  However, I can see why Claire Calvert has had so many positive comments.  She gave a subtle performance apart from one little slip. I know nothing about ballet, but noticed how well she moved, particularly her hands and the sensitivity she brought to each movement she made.  Just lovely as she walked off into the sunset with Ryoichi Hirano.  Although will not stay for it again on Friday.

[aileen]

Well, I missed this evening's performance because I only discovered at the bus stop that the buses were not going over Waterloo Bridge because of the fireworks (for Remembrance Sunday?) and I did not have enough time to walk over the bridge (assuming that this was permitted).

[aileen]

I do think that people need to feed back to the ROH that the lighting is too low and that this had affected their enjoyment of the performance.

[alison]

Well, I missed this evening's performance because I only discovered at the bus stop that the buses were not going over Waterloo Bridge because of the fireworks (for Remembrance Sunday?) and I did not have enough time to walk over the bridge (assuming that this was permitted).

 

No, the Lord Mayor's Show.  Did you need to miss the whole thing?

[aileen]

I suppose that I could have gone for only part of it but I wasn't intending to stay for Aeternum anyway. I don't know whether I could have crossed the bridge on foot anyway. With previous events 'on the river' some of the bridges have been closed in my experience.

[ChrisG]

I was at today's matinee and having read previous threads on this forum expected that there would be lots of comments about the lighting, especially in the Ceremony of Innocence.  However, I would like to be at least one voice standing up for its lighting design.  I thought it matched the theme of the piece perfectly, which to me was the remembrance by one's mature self of the shadows of lost innocence, lost potential and lost love.  A different, brighter, design would have made it a completely different piece.  And before anyone asks where I was sitting, I was actually in Row G of the Amphitheatre, not the stalls!  

[Mary]

Saw last night's performance.

The Brandstrup was a bit dull to my eyes. Edward Watson was not so much under-used as unused. What a waste. He sat on a chair for most of it. The theme seemed very familiar and unoriginal. (Man can't grow up. Wants Mummy.) The choreography unmemorable.

 

Age of Anxiety was such a contrast I might have reacted more positively for that reason, partly. Great sets, well used in the dance not just a backdrop.

I did feel that Scarlett had tried to do something different and there was a lot of very entertaining choreography-nothing wrong with that... indeed I was entertained. The McRae role was perfect for him and he gave a characteristically fizzy performance which for me was the best of the evening.

 

I did think Scarlett had reduced a complex,  interesting poem to a short piece about sex!- but maybe that was inevitable.

Morera was characterful-and  not given enough to do. Her role as a girl swirled around by men seemed all too cliched.

 

I was underwhelmed by the very stock ending- walking into the sunrise as music soars. ...and the final solo by Dyer seemed to be rather under charged.

(Oh dear  I am sounding very dour today.)

 

Aeturnum I quite liked. Nunez was excellent. Such power. But it is not Wheeldon's best piece, I have to agree.

 

Maybe the 3 did not work that well as an evening. I agree with all who felt underwhelmed- relatively-as  I am used to being uplifted and thrilled, even, at RB- well, that says something. This 3 reminded me rather of that very weak Metamorphosis evening.

It is the 3rd Brandstrup I have seen and I have not been impressed by any of them. I am sure there is much more interesting work around the RB could use- isn't there? Some of the recent new pieces in the Linbury look more worthwhile than this. It would be good to see the work of one of these new-even female, that might be nice- choreographers on the main stage.

 

On a positive note the music-all excellent- was very well played throughout.

[FLOSS]

I think that it is a great pity that we have so few mixed bills in which there is a real range and variety of works in the one programme. I am thinking of the sort of programme that contains ballets in contrasting styles and moods by major choreographers, the so called heritage works, and one new work.

 

I wonder whether the decision to construct programmes in which all the ballets are "heritage" works and others in which all the choreographers are still very much with us is evidence of the fractured nature of the ballet audience or an acknowledgement of the weakness of much new work ?.

 

May be it was a reaction to my encounter with the plastic shark the night before but I could have done with a bit of frivolity in the Ceremony of Innocence programme it was all so very,VERY SERIOUS.Do young or youngish choreographers have no sense of humour? I heard Marian Tait say that when BRB decided to revive Pineapple Poll a couple of years ago the dancers took some convincing that the audience would enjoy watching it and that they would enjoy dancing it. It seems to be a a generational thing.Dancers used to have a sense of humour as did choreographers; Mark Morris clearly still has one but I sometimes feel particularly at Sadlers Wells that the audience is made uncomfortable by any attempt at humour except the very crudest parody of classical ballet. I sometimes wonder young choreographers have had their sense of humour surgically removed or whether they have all received earnestness implants.

 

My second encounter with the mixed bill gave me the opportunity to see new casts in each of the ballets. I think that the second cast in Ceremony gave stronger performances than the first cast had done. As I knew where to look I had less difficulty in making out what was happening on stage than I had on Friday but I still think that it is far too obviously a ballet that started life in a much smaller theatre.

 

The second cast in the Age of Anxiety were, for me,generally more effective than the first one, because they were dancing against type. By this I mean that it seemed to me that Scarlett had given McRae choreography not that dissimilar from the choreography in Sweet Violets, perhaps that is how he sees McRae. McRae of course danced it with great facility but it seemed to me that Campbell used the same steps to give a real sense of a character. The steps may have been danced with slightly less facility but they had an extra depth to them.This time they said" I am Emble" rather than" I am Steven McRae watch me!".

The choreography for Rosetta gave more of a sense of character when danced by Lamb than it had when danced by Morera for similar reasons. The steps no longer said" I am Laura Morera doing a Laura Morera dance"  but" I am Rosetta".It is always interesting to see  choreography which may be almost stereotypical for the dancers on whom it was made released by being performed by other dancers. Sometimes you lose a lot sometimes you gain a great deal.I do not think that this ballet is a great work or even a particularly good one.It is a step in Scarlett's development and it reveals just as much about what he can't do as what he can.If the ballet that he created for the RBS matinee is anything to go by he is still a much better choregrapher of abstract works than he is a story teller or creator of moods..

 

Aeternum gave the opportunity to see Calvert, Underwood and Hirano in leading roles. Of course they danced it well but it is a very slight work. Ashton, Balanchine, Robbens and many  others had the experience of working in the commercial theatre and for impresarios with great theatrical flair. I sometimes think that the fact that so few choreographers today have had that experience and that few would want it goes a long way to explain the vast number of works that seem to be little more than choreographic doodles; lacking the universality and theatrical effectiveness of so many of the ballets of the twentieth century.Too many works seem to be made by choreographers with a particular dance aesthetic for audiences with similar tastes.The true believers.

 

The current management has said that they want to create a new repertory, fine, as long as it does not consign Ashton's works to virtual oblivion. But just how many lookalike ballets with interchangeable movement, floor plans, costumes and "atmospheric" lighting are we going to sit through before the choreographic "chosen one" reveals him or herself to us all? The "chosen one" will be someone who manages more than the occasional success; does not put large pieces of distracting machinery on stage; chooses not to use low lighting levels in every piece; employs a dance vocabulary that is closely related to classical ballet and does not feel the need to write reams of pretentious programme notes in an attempt to persuade us of the quality of his choreography. We have a long wait so I suppose a few more years won't hurt. I don't want the Royal Ballet to become a museum company but at the same time I don't think that a policy of anything will do as long as it is new is a good idea. O'Hare seems to want new works from people like Ratmansky rather than one or two acknowledged masterworks from them which I think is a weakness in the plan.

[Coated]

Slightly underwhelmed by this bill, pretty much for all the reasons FLOSS just listed. The Scarlett is veering a bit too close to a musical for my taste, the Brandstrup comes across as somewhere between pooh-faced and shouting 'look how deep I am'. I like Aeternum well enough as a pretty piece of dancing but there is not much else to it.

[Beryl H]

Well, I had expected to be the odd one out, and am in one respect, but agree quite a disappointing triple bill, saw it twice yesterday and it's probably not one to see again so soon, disliked Ceremony and Age of Anxiety in the afternoon, but loved Aeternum which seemed like a masterpiece by comparison, agree that Claire Calvert danced with a beautiful sensitivity, also Ryoichi Hirano, Eric Underwood and Marcelino Sambe were excellent, great music and designs too.

 

In the evening I warmed a little to Ceremony, think the lights had been turned up just the slightest, someone had indeed put a few pennies in the meter, the music sounded better too, and of course Ed Watson, Christina Arestis and Marcelino Sambe helped, really liked the video projections which did seem overall the best aspect of this ballet, had read the programme too. Didn't like The Age of Anxiety again, the real problem for me was the lack of decent choreography, everyone had short bursts of action but there were no pas de deux or solo's to remember, apart from the one for Federico Bonelli or Tristan Dyer at the end when he had the whole stage to himself, bathed in glorious light (this ballet had gloomy under-lit moments too).   Didn't particularly like the music, and the humour didn't work for me either, but Sarah Lamb looked very glamorous in the afternoon.  Managed to stick the 30 minutes interval out to see Aeternum, great to see Nehemiah Kish again, also Marienela Nunez and Federico Bonelli were very moving in the pdd, noticed the girls had slightly different costumes, Claire Calvert had the best one, Marienela's is a bit too stark.

[Bruce Wall]

 O'Hare seems to want new works from people like Ratmansky rather than one or two acknowledged masterworks from them which I think is a weakness in the plan.

 

I think this is an interesting point, Floss.  I consider myself a fan of K. O'Hare and much admire his long term policy of building the RB Company from the bottom up.  This is vital both for the artists themselves as much as for the generational build of the RBS itself and the growing urgency for sustainability in terms of a 'newish'/renewed RB audience.  So crucial on all counts.  O'Hare's endeavours thus far are already bearing fruit (Reece and Sambe being recent cases in this particular point) and this year's key RBS graduates (say Katsura, Braendsrod and Dixon - if even now O'Hare is lucky enough to lay hold on them - and those being ONLY the ones I myself have been privileged to see dance) bode especially well in terms of ensuring a brilliant world class RB future.  (Certainly I, for one, would very much hunger to watch those artists named develop over the long term.)  

 

For this reason I think it is key that major works (even those originally established elsewhere) that actually teach the company TO dance - works like Ashton's SV, MacMillan's Concerto and so much of the Balanchine rep - be as frequently exercised as the more-money-spinning and rightfully core narrative works, SL SB - and now Winter's Tale, et al.  I, too, think it is grand to want to have a 'new' Ratmansky ... but equally AS important - in terms of carrying both the artists and the audience with you, Mr. O'Hare - to share in those key works which have earned Ratmansky - and his rare kin - their rightful respect.  Here I think of such works as Ratmansky's Concerto DSCH, Namouna, etc. or, even say, Peck's 'Year of the Rabbit'.   I, myself, would love to see Scarlett's Asphodel Meadows be cherished in as many world ballet rosters as, say, McGregor's Chroma is (e.g., POB, NBoC, SFB, AB, etc.). In a similar light how wonderful it might be to have Robbins' Fancy Free (another ballet treasured in world companies) at the RB so that it too could be held up next to and alongside, say, the development of the current 'Age of Anxiety'.  (I'm quite certain that 'Anxiety' is still a work in progress.)  Both share the same period, number of characters, composer and (in large measure) setting.  I have this distinct feeling (although no proof) that the germ for the idea of 'ANXIETY' might well have come from Scarlett's enhanced exposure to a greater slice of the Robbins' canon during the considerable period of his own work in other companies and - who knows - perhaps even specifically Fancy Free.  Certainly the Robbins has a wonderful sense of humour embedded within the structural walls of its characters, one ultimately making those same appear all that much more touching/humane in the end.  

Edited November 9, 2014 by Bruce Wall

[Fonty]

I didn't book for this triple bill because all the works were created very recently.  Consequently I felt, rightly or wrongly, that they would all have a very similar feel to them as far as the choreography is concerned, and none of it would be particularly to my taste. 

 

I have never thought it a good idea to put 3 new or newish works on any programme at the ROH.  As a member of the audience I am prepared to view one piece for the first time, but at some point during the evening I want to relax with an old favourite, not sit struggling to understand what the choreographer is trying to achieve. 

 

Regarding humour, I suppose the dance world is the same as the acting world.  Would Shakespeare be considered one of the great playwrights if the only works to survive were the comedies? Actors who perform tragic roles are perceived by many as being more talented than those who are wonderful in the comic ones.  Shakespearian male actors yearn to play Hamlet, or Macbeth, or King Lear, and it is in these roles that they are judged by their peers, elders and critics.  I've never heard any male actor state publicly that he really wants to play Bottom, but comic roles require just as much skill.  Yet when acting awards are given out, how many times are they given to someone playing a funny part?

 

And likewise with dancing.  The dancers must feel that they have only reached the very top when they have played the great tragic roles, even if they are thought to be the best Swanilda or Lisa the stage has ever seen.  Slightly different to acting, I know, because the top dancers can and do perform both, but I often wonder if they themselves feel that funny roles are second best. 

 

In the same way, I imagine that choreographers feel that if they create ballets dealing with solemn issues and portraying angst-ridden characters, they will be taken more seriously by the public, critics and so on, rather than if they come up with an amusing, lighthearted piece.   

[Bruce Wall]

 

 

Regarding humour, I suppose the dance world is the same as the acting world.  Would Shakespeare be considered one of the great playwrights if the only works to survive were the comedies?

 

WOULD THE TRAGEDIES SURVIVE IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE EFFECTIVE ELEMENTS OF COMEDY IN THEM TO ACHIEVE THE FULL BALANCE OF LIFE?  I THINK NOT.  

 

Actors who perform tragic roles are perceived by many as being more talented than those who are wonderful in the comic ones. 

 

I DISAGREE.  AS A CHILD I WELL REMEMBER BEING TOLD BY BOTH DAME PEGGY ASHCROFT AND BERYL REID (NOT AT THE SAME TIME OBVIOUSLY) THAT COMEDY - SHAKESPEAREAN AND OTHERWISE - WAS THE TRUE TEST OF ANY ACTOR'S METAL.  

 

Shakespearian male actors yearn to play Hamlet, or Macbeth, or King Lear, and it is in these roles that they are judged by their peers, elders and critics.

 

IS THAT RIGHT?  I'M NOT SURE.  THE LEGENDARY RICHARDSON MADE HIS NAME PLAYING BOTTOM.  I WOULD MYSELF PERHAPS ASK, FONTY, HOW THEY JUDGE THEMSELVES? .... THAT SURELY IS KEY TO PRIMARY SUCCESS IN ANYONE'S CAREER.  

 

I KNOW A GOODLY NUMBER OF MALE ACTORS WHO LONG ABOVE ALL TO PLAY FALSTAFF (JUST AS RALPH RICHARDSON FAMOUSLY DID IN THE PAST AND RICHARD ALLUM MUCH MORE RECENTLY)  .... NEXT UP IN LONDON IN THAT ASSIGNMENT IS SIR ANTONY SHER.  PERHAPS YOU MIGHT DROP BY THE STAGE DOOR AND INQUIRE AFTER HIS OPINION FONTY.  SIMON RUSSEL BEALE HAS SAID HIS FAVOURITE SHAKESPEAREAN OUTING WAS THAT OF MALVOLIO AS, IN FACT, DID BOTH OLIVIER - AT ONE TIME - AND THAT EXTRAORDINARY THEATRICAL PRESENCE KNOWN AS ERIC PORTER.  TO WHICH ACTORS WERE YOU SPECIFICALLY REFERRING, FONTY?

 

CERTAINLY I KNOW MANY FINE ACTRESSES WHO LONG ABOVE ALL TO PLAY ROSALIND.  YOU WILL PERHAPS BE SURPRISED TO KNOW, FONTY, THAT IT IS THE LONGEST ROLE IN THE SHAKESPEAREAN CANON.  YES, LONGER EVEN THAN HAMLET.  IT IS, OF COURSE, A COMEDY ... BUT OH, SO MOVING.   BOTH DAME EDITH EVANS AND VANESSA REDGRAVE - AND INDEED DAME MAGGIE SMITH IN A PRODUCTION IN WHICH I WAS PRIVILEGED TO APPEAR - ARE RECORDED AS HAVING SAID THAT PLAYING IT WAS THE PINNACLE OF THEIR SHAKESPEAREAN CAREER.   .... AND WHAT OF THE LEGIONS OF NOTED BEATRICES IN MUCH ADO - THAT HAS HUGELY ENHANCED THE CAREERS OF MANY .... DAME JUDI DENCH IS ONE  I CAN THINK OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD ... IN THAT STUNNING PRODUCTION SHE APPEARED IN OPPOSITE SIR DONALD SINDEN SET IN THE BRITISH RAJ.  AND JUST THINK THOSE ROLES - AS INDEED WAS CLEOPATRA - ANOTHER SO RICH IN ITS COMEDIC ASPECTS - WERE WRITTEN FOR BOYS.   

 

 

Edited November 9, 2014 by Bruce Wall

[alison]

Maybe the 3 did not work that well as an evening. I agree with all who felt underwhelmed- relatively-as  I am used to being uplifted and thrilled, even, at RB- well, that says something. This 3 reminded me rather of that very weak Metamorphosis evening.

Actually, I think I distinctly preferred the Metamorphosis evening I think I shall save my pennies and not bother seeing this one again - I'm sure Age of Anxiety will be back on another bill shortly.

 

It is the 3rd Brandstrup I have seen and I have not been impressed by any of them.

I usually like his work, and loved Invitus Invitam, but I've never really warmed to Rushes. Come to think of it, I've also really liked some of his work in the Linbury. I'd be interested to hear comparisons from those who saw Ceremony when it was at Aldeburgh.

 

I was glad to view the whole programme from the Balcony: even then, I thought it was an evening more suited to somewhere the size of Sadler's Wells, so I don't know how I would have felt if I'd been as far away as the amphitheatre. I was having difficulty "reading" people even from halfway up the House.

 

I think that it is a great pity that we have so few mixed bills in which there is a real range and variety of works in the one programme. I am thinking of the sort of programme that contains ballets in contrasting styles and moods by major choreographers, the so called heritage works, and one new work.

 

I wonder whether the decision to construct programmes in which all the ballets are "heritage" works and others in which all the choreographers are still very much with us is evidence of the fractured nature of the ballet audience or an acknowledgement of the weakness of much new work ?.

Although the current Ashton bill is full of variety, I keep wondering whether it is actually the best idea to have a "single-choreographer" bill. Certainly if I see an "all-one-composer" classical concert I'm generally unlikely to go to it, and I do tend to prefer a bit of mix-and-match in my triple bills, too. Sure, it allows the [specific choreographer] fans to avoid all that tedious stuff from [insert name of other choreographer here] - and possibly supports their prejudices, too - but at the same time it can cause casting problems if dancers who are particularly in tune with the choreographer's work have to be limited to, say, only one work on a bill, whereas ideally if the works were distributed over several bills the dancer would be cast in each of them.

 

May be it was a reaction to my encounter with the plastic shark the night before but I could have done with a bit of frivolity in the Ceremony of Innocence programme it was all so very,VERY SERIOUS.Do young or youngish choreographers have no sense of humour?

In the same way, I imagine that choreographers feel that if they create ballets dealing with solemn issues and portraying angst-ridden characters, they will be taken more seriously by the public, critics and so on, rather than if they come up with an amusing, lighthearted piece.

It does feel like that sometimes, doesn't it? I'm sure it's not actually true, but possibly coming up with a true crowd-pleaser may be the most difficult job of the lot.

 

It is always interesting to see  choreography which may be almost stereotypical for the dancers on whom it was made released by being performed by other dancers. Sometimes you lose a lot sometimes you gain a great deal.

Very true. I've often said that I can "see" a dancer on whom a role was created in a ballet even when they're not dancing it, and it's often difficult for a replacement dancer completely to erase the original one.

 

But just how many lookalike ballets with interchangeable movement, floor plans, costumes and "atmospheric" lighting are we going to sit through before the choreographic "chosen one" reveals him or herself to us all?

Not to mention an extremely complex and costly set design. I'm not picking on any ballet in particular here, but have often thought how nice it would be if more modern choreographers would just use a simple backdrop rather than a cluttered physical set - Symphonic Variations of course being an excellent example of this, or various ballets by Balanchine.

 

For this reason I think it is key that major works (even those originally established elsewhere) that actually teach the company TO dance - works like Ashton's SV, MacMillan's Concerto and so much of the Balanchine rep - be as frequently exercised as the more-money-spinning and rightfully core narrative works, SL SB - and now Winter's Tale, et al.  I, too, think it is grand to want to have a 'new' Ratmansky ... but equally AS important - in terms of carrying both the artists and the audience with you, Mr. O'Hare - to share in those key works which have earned Ratmansky - and his rare kin - their rightful respect.

Good point, Bruce. Although I think in the Ratmansky case it was a case of opportunism by O'Hare: he was in New York, found out that Ratmansky had a gap in his diary, and grabbed him "on spec". Possibly getting a choreographer into a company in the first place so that s/he can familiarise him/herself with the dancers could be a good point of departure for getting him/her to remount an existing work on that company.

[Bruce Wall]

 

Good point, Bruce. Although I think in the Ratmansky case it was a case of opportunism by O'Hare: he was in New York, found out that Ratmansky had a gap in his diary, and grabbed him "on spec". Possibly getting a choreographer into a company in the first place so that s/he can familiarise him/herself with the dancers could be a good point of departure for getting him/her to remount an existing work on that company.

 

I believe Alison that in the case of Ratmansky remounts that Mrs. Ratmansky often steers the helm (i.e., someone other than the prolific originating choreographer himself).  Of course, in the Royal's regard, I'm sure he would perhaps fly in for a few hours of final oversight.  

 

P.S:  I, too, feel that I preferred overall the RB's Metamorphosis triple bill in comparison to 'The Age of Anxiety' one .... and that had three original scores to boot!  I well remember that I bought only one ticket for that Olympic series and ended up stealing my way into four of the five performances.  In specific reference to the current programme I thought the final pas de deux for Rojo/Watson in the Brandstrup/McGregor outing was stunning.  Of course, we will never know who choreographed what .... but I think I would put my money on Brandstrup in terms of that final pas' regard.  

Edited November 10, 2014 by Bruce Wall

[alison]

Yes, I think so, too (and agree that I too didn't initially buy enough tickets). I'll have to have another look at the bit I "snatched" off the big screen.

[Fonty]

Crikey, Bruce, that's a long post in response to my comedy v tragedy remark.

 

I was just saying that is how it appears to be, I wasn't expressing my own personal view on the subject!. 

[Jacqueline]

I was very disappointed with this triple bill. I left the theatre feeling utterly dispirited and got caught in a torrential downpour not long after, which sort of capped it!

Anyway, here are my thoughts for what they are worth.

I found the Brandstrup piece tedious. All style over substance. A little hand wringing, self absorbed angst goes a very long way and this seemed endless. Nothing much happened in the gloom. To my eyes much of what passed for choreography was wafer thin and meaningless, repeated gestures and lots of staring into the abyss zzzzzzz! Some of the lifts looked rather laboured and it all looked like hard work. This is not to criticize the dancers. Perhaps angst is meant to look like hard work. We should feel their pain whether we like it or not.

The lack of 'curtain up' meant going almost immediately from the announcement about mobiles etc, into the 'action'. The woman next to me left it until the very last second to switch off her phone, so there was the distraction of screen light. The people behind me felt it necessary to whisper loudly for at least the first 5 minutes, before being shushed. They moved on to eating Maltesers from a box so you can imagine the noise. None of this helped to focus on the stage and I never felt engaged. 

The Scarlett piece was mildly diverting although I would say about ten minutes too long. I agree the choreographic invention ran out long before the music and was in any case a little short on anything memorable. It had a touch of Gene Kelly musical about it and would perhaps be better trimmed and inserted into a gala.  

All the dancers were excellent in this, Lamb is light as air and so expressive. I liked the way she climbed down from the bar by herself. None of the gents thought to help her and she seemed not to expect it. They weren't those kind of people. There were various choreographic nods to the radio and the bad/worrying news it might be conveying. However, I did not get the impression that these people were concerned for anything other than who was going to get off with whom. 

Aeternum is what it is, pretty enough but paper thin and instantly forgettable. I felt I had seen it before although I know I haven't. Perhaps it is just very derivative. Although the pd2  is attractive, as the third segment in a triple bill, it sort of petered out and left me thinking is that it?

 I did read the programme notes beforehand but I don't feel they made much difference to the proceedings. As I said, I left the theatre feeling rather depressed. I don't have to see something jolly to be uplifted, I like things that stay with you and perhaps make you think. There is a big difference between something being clever, inventive and even witty and just pretentious and vacuous. 

I am not familiar with the music but to my ears, the orchestra played beautifully. I would have been better to just close my eyes and listen.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Jacqueline

[LinMM]

What a day for you Jacqueline(having read your bit on the other thread)

 

It is disappointing when things don't live up to expectations....or worse even seem to have been a waste of time....Have you booked your next outing to ROH or other ballet yet? Just hope next time is a more positive experience.

 

It's weird as I don't know any of the ballets in this triple bill but I had a strange intuition it wasn't a programme I wanted to trek up to London for. I thought if people had raved about these ballets I could catch them another time.

With triple bills I have to like at least two of the works usually before buying tickets.

[Mary]

Jacqueline you have said what I felt but more so! It made me laugh.

I do so agree, especially re the Brandstrup and all the angst, (-seen it all a 100 times! I don't feel your pain, I'm just bored! )

-though was more entertained than you were  by Age of Anxiety, mainly because the sets and dancers were so good

 

I would like to say though that, disappointing as it is when an evening fails to take off, I go to every production of RB, and this disappointment ony happens to me about once every 2 years,  which is really not bad going.

RB give me a huge amount of joy - I have seen so many wonderful things- so I am going to let them off this triple  bill and look forward to seeing the Ashton one more time tomorrow..

[LinMM]

Love your post Mary hope you enjoy the Ashton tomorrow......wish I could go to that again certainly!!

 

I must admit am rarely totally disappointed by the RB ......but I am rather easy to please on the whole......I have been disappointed by odd programmes of ballet put together at the Coli and occasionally Sadlers but not by any of the main companies who dance there.

[Bruce]

Clement Crisp is not so happy:
"It is an evening to scare rather than attract audiences: ill-conceived, glum, a caricature of the Royal Ballet’s qualities."
http://on.ft.com/1uTNALP

I'll point you at Jann Parry's review also - she has more space, dissects in detail but also rather struggled:
"The programme was so underwhelming that I went twice in succession, to see whether alternative casts could make a difference."
http://dancetabs.com/2014/11/royal-ballet-ceremony-of-innocence-the-age-of-anxiety-aeternum-london/

For myself I warmed more to the Brandstrup than many have. I can't claim to have understood it all, but I liked the design, lighting and movement and the way it all holds together as one - his cinematic eye. It made me want to understand more and see again. I was bitterly disappointed by the Scarlett. It seemed to be about the big stuff of life and the answer he got to was "42". If it had been a piece by Kenneth MacMillan, at the height of his powers, Scarlett might, just might, have got away with the end. But as it is it just made me laugh at how misjudged it seemed. Never mind - we all know that Scarlett has talent and he will bounce back. Didn't see the Wheeldon - will on Thursday...

[John Mallinson]

It seems to me that Scarlett's problem with the ending of Anxiety is that he was stuck with it. The epiphany or transfiguration or whatever you like to call it is in the poem (or so I believe) and very much in the score. I agree that it sits badly with what comes before and looks like a pasted-on trite and sentimental ending - but what else could the poor chap do?

[Bruce]

It seems to me that Scarlett's problem with the ending of Anxiety is that he was stuck with it. The epiphany or transfiguration or whatever you like to call it is in the poem (or so I believe) and very much in the score. I agree that it sits badly with what comes before and looks like a pasted-on trite and sentimental ending - but what else could the poor chap do?

 

He could have...

 

A) made a different piece to different music!

 

if cussedly determined than hire a good dramaturg to help shape it all. And pray it works out.

 

Sorry.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Bruce

[Beryl H]

Funny how we make our own scenario. I've never read the poem and don't intend to but I liked the ending, to me he was saying "who needs people when you have New York"

[Jacqueline]

LinMM, no I haven't booked anymore trips as yet. There is nothing on the horizon I really want to see. I liked the look of this triple bill as it contained all new works for me and I thought why not? I didn't want to see Manon again and Alice, Don and the swans can pass me by. I liked Wheeldon's The Winter's Tale despite its angst  , the new Scarlett sounded interesting and I would liked to have seen the other Brandstrup, 'In Vino Veritas' or whatever! So, off I went with high expectations of these choreographers.

I also agree with Mary, while it is disappointing when a performance bombs, it is quite rare. I too, have spent many a happy hour and sometimes a sad one with the RB, seeing them do so much that is wonderful in so many ways, life enhancing, spirit lifting etc.I have many happy memories and  I look forward to seeing them again sometime next year.

Mary, I hope you enjoy the Ashton triple tonight.

I would like to read Clement Crisp's review. Is there a way I can do this without registering on the F.T. site? I can't get past that sign in/ register box anymore.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Jacqueline