Spring Break
Ballet deemed a gem
by Andrea Fineman
Managing Editor
Arts | 3/3/09
Posted online at 7:49 PM EST on 3/2/09
/ Last updated at 8:39 AM EST on 3/2/09
On Feb. 4, the New York Times reported that the last of George Balanchine's protégées, a ballerina named Darci Kistler, had announced her retirement. The news marks the end of an era, to be certain; however, Balanchine's death in 1983 has done little to muffle his reputation as one of the preeminent figures in the 20th century ballet world.
The Boston Ballet's performance of Jewels, a Balanchine work from 1967, proves to be an exciting and diverse production. The ballet, which consists of three parts, each in a different style, is sure to please both the dance connoisseur as well as those cultural dilettantes who are simply interested in seeing a beautiful manifestation of the abilities of the human body. Jewels' plotlessness was, at the time of its debut, something quite innovative. While plotless theatrical or film works are sometimes targeted at the advanced cultural connoisseur only, the beauty of dance is that the mesmerizing display of movement remains visually engaging even without a narrative arc.
The first and longest act of Jewels, the "Emeralds" portion, is based on ballet's French origins. While an inexperienced ballet-goer may not recognize the correspondences between Balanchine's "Emeralds" and the history of French ballet style, one can certainly understand the contrasts between it and the following two acts, "Rubies" and "Diamonds," choreographed in Balanchine's own athletic and modern style, and in the style of Russia's classicism, respectively. I personally found "Emeralds" to be the weakest of the three portions. While the performances were certainly beautiful, the stately choreography and dull costumes and set design paled in comparison to the flashy, modern style of "Rubies" and the vivacious, agile choreography of "Diamonds." This is, perhaps, just a matter of taste; however, I feel that with most types of art, whether visual, musical or theatrical, pairing a subtle and quiet work with a more modern and unusual or more energetic work has the effect of downplaying the greatness of the former.
The Boston Ballet's performance of Jewels, a Balanchine work from 1967, proves to be an exciting and diverse production. The ballet, which consists of three parts, each in a different style, is sure to please both the dance connoisseur as well as those cultural dilettantes who are simply interested in seeing a beautiful manifestation of the abilities of the human body. Jewels' plotlessness was, at the time of its debut, something quite innovative. While plotless theatrical or film works are sometimes targeted at the advanced cultural connoisseur only, the beauty of dance is that the mesmerizing display of movement remains visually engaging even without a narrative arc.
The first and longest act of Jewels, the "Emeralds" portion, is based on ballet's French origins. While an inexperienced ballet-goer may not recognize the correspondences between Balanchine's "Emeralds" and the history of French ballet style, one can certainly understand the contrasts between it and the following two acts, "Rubies" and "Diamonds," choreographed in Balanchine's own athletic and modern style, and in the style of Russia's classicism, respectively. I personally found "Emeralds" to be the weakest of the three portions. While the performances were certainly beautiful, the stately choreography and dull costumes and set design paled in comparison to the flashy, modern style of "Rubies" and the vivacious, agile choreography of "Diamonds." This is, perhaps, just a matter of taste; however, I feel that with most types of art, whether visual, musical or theatrical, pairing a subtle and quiet work with a more modern and unusual or more energetic work has the effect of downplaying the greatness of the former.
Be the first to comment on this story