ballet: Carmen
Oct. 9th, 2005 08:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioWe saw Carmen, which was derived from the opera of the same name. The plot synopsis in the program was sparse -- also not entirely accurate, which surprised me given that they controlled the program. I'm glad I had applied the power of Google before going.
To my uneducated eye, the Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre did a good job with the material they had to work with. The dancers executed the large moves crisply and the delicate moves smoothly and gracefully. There were a few times during full-company dances where some dancers who were probably supposed to be in sync were slightly off of each other, but it was not jarring.
The combination of lighting and costuming made it easy to tell who was who; in some ballets, my father said, he has not been able to tell who the key dancers are because there is insufficient variation in the costumes. This is important: when you're producing for the stage, you have to think large; in a movie you've got the luxury of more subtlety because you control the cameras and can offer close-ups, but in a theatre, there will always be people who really can't see the actors' or dancers' faces clearly. So don't plan to do it with makeup or even facial expressions, though those will of course enhance the experience for those who can see. You need broad strokes.
The pacing seemed a bit off. They spent a large amount of time on the opening conceit, and we were probably 15 minutes in before the actual plot of Carmen started. I found myself thinking "at this pace we're going to be here for four hours", but other parts of the plot got glossed over rather quickly. I would have divided it up differently. This is a complaint against the choreographer, of course, not the performers, though the producers could have mitigated by writing the synopsis to better match the show.
There were things in the synopsis that I did not see on the stage. Maybe they were implied and I just don't know what to look for, or maybe ballet has a "you know the story anyway so we can do that" convention. I don't know enough about ballet to judge. There were a couple times when I found myself wondering "wait, where are we now?", because I just couldn't tell.
There was a major issue related to the music, but I'm going to talk about that later.
While I'm glad I went, I fear I might be insufficiently sophisticated to appreciate ballet. I found parts of the show -- mainly the ensemble dances -- tedious; I felt they were doing the same moves over and over and none of it was advancing the plot. In general I am fairly plot-driven; I can appreciate performance art that isn't supposed to have a plot, like some forms of dance and acrobatics, but if there is a plot, I expect it to be relevant. In this regard ballet is even harder than opera; at least with opera there's dialogue, albeit dialogue that I have to read for myself. You don't get that with ballet, though; the story is told mainly through movement and secondarily through music, and this might not be enough to hold my attention in a visual medium. (I can, of course, appreciate the music on its own merits, but it seems a waste of the stage and dancers.) If I set plot concerns aside and try to appreciate it as just dance in the abstract, I find that the dance doesn't hold my attention the way, say, the movement from Cirque de Soleyl did.
The reason my parents had extra tickets is that the ballet company made a controversial decision this year, and they lost subscribers over it. (So I see this as a "bring your friends who might then subscribe" ploy.) They've been having financial problems for some years, and when the musicians' contract expired, they didn't renew it. They are doing this season to recorded music. This highlights a difference between those who think ballet is about dance and those who think it is about dance+music. I thought the show would have been more enjoyable with live music, but the recorded music was of high quality and it didn't bother me.
The musicians, naturally, objected to the canned music, and they were picketing the show. (We didn't know they'd be picketing. I think Dani was uncomfortable crossing the picket line.) They did one clever thing: they brought their instruments and played on the sidewalk, behind signs that said "the only live music you'll hear at the Benedum today". It sure beats chanting slogans.
But their signs (and published opinions) referred to a "lock-out", and that's both wrong and misleading. I'm not on either side in this dispute, but I am on the side of truth in advertising. :-) A lock-out is when you show up to work per the agreements you have in place and you get told "nope, go home". But that's not what happened. They had a contract and it expired; that meant PBT's obligations to them were over. (This was known well in advance of the season; it wasn't a last-minute move.) Now it may have been bad judgement to not renew (I haven't seen their budget so I can't say), but it was neither legally nor ethically wrong. When I hire a contractor to paint the outside of my house, I don't then have an obligation to have him do the interior, or to do the exterior again in five years. The contract was for a specific job; there might or might not be future work available.
The musicians were protesting that it was "unfair" for PBT to take their jobs away. Guess what: very few of us have any employment guarantees. A contract gives you more guarantees than most people get, with a catch: it has an end date. If you want the guarantee of work for some period of time, you have to accept the risk of it going away after that time. It's wrong to expect the one without the other. This, of course, is not the only union to exhibit this fallacy; it's just the most recent.
All that said, the protesters at the theatre were polite, and the absence of live music did make a difference to the show. So I hope PBT can get their financial house in order and return to having live music. It would be a win for everyone. But the protesters need to focus less on perceived (but not actual) "rights" and focus instead on the financial and artistic issues, in my opinion.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-11 07:10 pm (UTC)i actually had a hard time telling people apart at times, even with the costumes. i found the synopsis beyond awful. (Act II: paragraph 1 - Don Jose declares his undying love for Carmen; paragraph 2 - he stabs her. i'm thinking there should be some motivation in there or something.)
my professor said he didn't see a good reason for wrapping the story in another story (maybe to have two more leads?). he said he thought the correct order to experience Carmen was the book, the movie (film of the opera, maybe?), a flamenco version he has, and then this one.
another friend of mine with dance experience who is a fan of one of the women who played Carmen went to see it on Friday. she thought it was terrible and uninspired.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-11 07:28 pm (UTC)Indeed. Also, that's not how Act 2 started. The end of the quasi-synopsis for Act 1 really applied to Act 2. Or at least that's the only way we could make sense of what we were seeing.
And if you're going strip a story down to "boy spurns girl, boy reconsiders, boy chases girl", why spend so much time on "boy learns to live on the street" when it doesn't really affect anything? I suspect, though I don't know, that ballet has to simplify plots quite a bit because you don't get any dialogue or exposition. Given that, it's really important to correctly identify the core parts of the story. (Disclaimer: I don't otherwise know this story, so it could be that this was supposed to matter and they failed to convey it.)