Vanity Act

“Pierrot Lunaire,” “F.L.O.W.,” “Three Point Turn”
Diana Vishneva: Beauty in Motion
New York City Center
New York, NY
February 23, 2008

by Leigh Witchel
copyright © 2008 by Leigh Witchel

From Anna Pavlova to Rudolf Nureyev, star dancers have assembled their own small groups to showcase their talents.  Now it’s Diana Vishneva’s turn and she cooked up an evening using dancers and musicians from the Mariinsky Theater. Three choreographers made works for her, but as often happens in these ventures, the dancer is more important than the dance.

Alexei Ratmansky gave the evening its nod to ballet with a new version of Schoenberg’s “Pierrot Lunaire.”  The title character of Schoenberg’s work is male, setting the whole enterprise up for problems unless Pierrot were to undergo a sex change or if Ratmansky decided (as he did) to only use the original libretto as an allusion.  Three men were costumed in simple white costumes that recalled Pierrot’s floppy outfits; Vishneva started in white and changed to beige, and was the only one not wearing whiteface.

As with his previous ballets, I found Ratmansky’s work cryptic, as if it needed translation from Russian.  Though I liked what I saw on the stage, and it seemed coherent and cohesive, I have no idea what Ratmansky is intending until I read his notes.  It seemed to be a wordless dialogue between Vishneva and the men, but in a language I didn’t catch and with a mood that changed from moment to moment.  One moonlit pas de deux recalled “Central Park in the Dark;” Vishneva returned shortly wearing a cone hat and did a comic dance as well as a brief variation of speeding chaînés. After another pas de deux the man left on all fours as she walked him off by the scruff of his shirt.

Ratmansky structured the work loosely, meandering through brief episodes in response to Schoenberg’s lunar melancholy, and as he noted, the personalities of his dancers.  But a loose structure, no storyline and a score that is long, atonal and anything but Easy Listening does not make for a great opener. 

Vishneva probably would have been better offering up Moses Pendleton’s “F.L.O.W (For Love of Women)” as an undemanding start to the performance.  “F.L.O.W.” is less a dance and more of a Russian Circus piece.  There were three parts: The first was an Alwin Nikolais styled number with three women, all concealed in black clothing with black lighting making parts of their hands and legs fluorescent.  They made undulating shapes with their limbs, pyramids, then swans. The three formed one ballet dancer with their arms.  Which one was Vishneva? Assumedly the one in the center, but did it matter?  The gimmick in the second part was a mirrored ramp that Vishneva laid upon and stretched, making shapes with her reflection.  Clever, but I kept hoping that somehow her reflection would go off on its own and do something else. Vishneva returned for the last section wearing what seemed like a human-sized lampshade composed of heavy beads that formed fascinating patterns from centrifugal force.  I have no idea why Vishneva thought she needed to waste her talent and abilities doing this, but in one of Pavlova’s favorite dances she played a California poppy.  “F.L.O.W.” was a piece of harmless kitsch that the audience enjoyed. 

“Three Point Turn,” by Dwight Rhoden, is harmful kitsch; crap choreography that has the chutzpah to take itself seriously.  Rhoden, assumedly influenced by William Forsythe but without his talent, is from the One Damn Extension After Another school of choreography.  In Triplicate. Vishneva is in the center with Desmond Richardson as they partner their way through bits of pointless sexy violence while two other couples Xeroxed their movements, which included plenty of fan kicks and pliés in second position.

Even these Mariinsky dancers couldn’t make sense of the mishmash or make it look good.  Per the notes, it was all about relationships, natch. Richardson, who has danced Rhoden’s work for years, seemed to revel in the mess as if he benefits from weak choreography.  It means everything he does looks as if he made his own part.  I spent most of the ballet trying to make out the tattoo on Vishneva’s left hip.  This could be my own suggestibility at the situation, but I think it was the masks of tragedy and comedy.

Following the ballet there was a ragtag company bow, stretched out discreetly to allow Vishneva  to change into an elaborate black dress just for her curtain call.  There’s no harm in an evening of dance devoted to a star.  But why not show what makes Vishneva a star?  One thing would be her talent in the 20th century neoclassical repertory; which fortuitously appeared just at the point when Russia wanted to assimilate those works.  She would have been better off canning the Rhoden and the Pendleton and doing “Rubies” and “In the Middle, Somewhat Elevated” instead.  True, one of the virtues of the evening was that she commissioned new choreography, but next time let it be choreography that explains why Diana Vishneva is a ballerina worthy of her own evening.

copyright © 2008 by Leigh Witchel

Photos by Nina Alovert:

Top: Diana Vishneva in “F.L.O.W.”
Bottom: Desmond Richardson and Diana Vishneva in “Three Point Turn”