The Winger » Thoughts on Kennedy

Thoughts on Kennedy

January 29, 2007 at 7:10 pm · Filed under backstage, ballet, tour, kennedy center, washington dc, DAVID, american ballet theater, cities, opera house, city tour

| | Posted by David

I always feel that when we go to the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., it is one of the ideal theaters for dance.

Along with the plush red EVERYTHING in the Opera House, the stage, dressing rooms, and backstage area are very accommodating. The size of the Opera House is not as big as the Met, but just as beautiful, with the jeweled chandeliers hanging from the theater ceiling. It is always a pleasure to dance in the Opera House and the dancers from the company have a good feeling from the feel of the stage.

Although,
As big and intimidating as the Met seems to be, I feel most comfortable on that colossal stage (with 4500 people watching…)

Permalink

tonya said,

January 29, 2007 @ 8:44 pm

Ha ha — more ceilings! It looks beautiful.

I thought the Met was about twice that size — shows how off my spatial sensibilities are!

I really enjoyed watching you last night — OF COURSE! You look SKINNY up that close!! Maybe it was just the black clothes… Stella is soooo gorgeous… And Lar seems brilliant; I’ve never heard him speak before. I can’t wait to see the real thing! Although, I have to say I really enjoyed watching you all in your work clothes — I feel like ironically, with all the elaborate stage sets and costumes, something is lost from the sheer enjoyment of just watching the dancers dance…

SanderO said,

January 29, 2007 @ 11:03 pm

I haven’t seen the Kennedy Center interior and I love to see ballet and opera at the Met… but I find it rather ugly and gaudy in a very unsophicated way. It looks very dated as if someone from the 60s tried to do a stylized version of what elegance must look like… gold and red and odd out of scale decorative motifs. I’f flunk them in architecture design.

I find the chandeliers that lift when the performance is about to start hysterical… I call them UFOs… whose idea was that? Like what is it supposed to “mean”… low chandeliers over the orchestra seating? And the exterior is awful too. That looks at about the same level of design as the Kennedy Center. Both are offensive to my visual sensibilities… especially when compared with beautiful buildings Sao Paulo.

Both need architectural do overs… I hope they do something more sophisticated with the interiors too. The ABT and MetOpera are far superior to the interiors of the theatre in which they perform.

delirium tremens said,

January 30, 2007 @ 3:18 am

SanderO,

I don’t really agree about the MET

I used to feel that way (about the 60s stuff looking dated) but I find as I get older and like Kitch more, I kind of love it.

And I think the chandeliers are fabulous. I don’t think they need to *mean* anything except to signal that the show is about to begin.

That said it could use some refurbishment–the ceiling has blotches on it, and a lot of the fabric looks threadbare.

The sculpture-thing above the stage however is hideous (and I always think it looks like it might fall)

And while I like the facade whose stupid idea was it to put the chagall’s behind glass with heavy leading? You can’t see them at all! I might not consider Chagall my favorite artist (I’m a renaissance girl myself) but its a disgrace to display art in that fashion.

I like great older elegancel, but 60s era modern can be nice too!
(PS, I post as Aurora over on ballettalk)

jennifer said,

January 30, 2007 @ 4:47 am

the kennedy center is lovely but the met opera house will always be my favorite; it has so many special theater memories for me!

david, you’re right though…the kennedy center is a slightly more intimate theater, really enjoyed watching othello there!

SanderO said,

January 30, 2007 @ 11:55 am

As an architect I may be seeing some different things than others, but I truly believe that the “look” of the MetOpera will not survive and in a few years these awkward architectural edifices will be religated to the dust bin of history.

Not all modern architecture will have such a fate. But it is my belief that the designers of the MetOpera could not find a new language to use and tried… in my opionion… unsuccessfull to re interpert elements of classical architecture into a modernist (at the time) vernacular. It failed.

We can look at it in a kitchy nostalgic manner and even develop an emotional attachment to the building because of the great art we experience there, but even you point out how the Chagall is not properly displayed (failure).

The choice of travertine was another example of a faux pas. This is a delicate material from Italy and not suitable for the harsh envirnoment of NYC, but used becuase of the reference to classical Rome. So rather than use classical elements of style they cut the decision to use a material most associated with Roman architecture. It is not holding up well and it almost looks silly. Granite would have been a more appropriate choice or even limestone.

Architects are much more conscious of using appropriate materials and the meaning of style elements in their work today. Post modern architecure, another failure as a genre, ushered in a return of classical elements of style. It’s not easy to improve on this, but with the absence of skilled artisans and craftsmen, and the use of modern technology.. the marriage of new and old is often awkward. You get edifices like the MetOpera.

Even the restaurant is awkwardly placed in the grand lobby and the boundry with the lobby and the restaurant is awkward at best.

I am not privy to the thinking of the designers at the time, but I am sure that they were too intimidated to find a completely fresh vernacular, and might have been pressured by “powers that be” to include some of the feature of historical reference.

I don’t think many architectural historians will shed a tear when the MetOpera is re built.

It is known for the great performance art on stage, but for it’s architecture.

david hallberg said,

January 30, 2007 @ 1:51 pm

Thank you for all your insight about the two ‘battling’ Opera Houses. Although I love the intimiacy of the Kennedy Center, there is something to be said about the grandeur of the Met. Although… the Chagalls are mispalced, And the lobby has always been an issue for me. It has no room for roaming around during intermissions, and the stairs seem to dominate right as you enter the House. It has been talked about to re construct the lobby but no further progress has been made…

Nevertheless, I appreciate the opinions on all sides. Educated ones at that…

SanderO said,

January 30, 2007 @ 2:05 pm

David… let me take this “opportunity” to thank you for your beautiful work… which would not be possible without a stage and a hall to perform in. Frankly, as annoying as the architecture is at the Met, I could care less when the curtain raises and you and your talented colleagues perforn what to me is the most transcendant of experiences… ballet.

I come for the performances and that is what these halls are really for… YOU and of course, US to see you… and the ballet.

Thanks again for your hard work.

tonya said,

January 30, 2007 @ 4:30 pm

SanderO, I don’t even know what you said in that middle comment, but it sounds brilliant! I feel so dull — I don’t even think about these things when I go to the ballet; I just run to my seat and start flipping through the Playbill and looking around curiously at all my neighbors… I will be more attuned to these things now Also, I didn’t know they were planning to re-build…

SanderO said,

January 31, 2007 @ 1:05 am

Tonya,

Don’t quote me please… but I believe I read that there was some serious discussions about a Lincoln center “facelift” several years back. I am not sure if it was a radical as a tear down and rebuild or something much more “cosmetic”…

I never liked the Linc Cntr architecture except the Saarinen designed Beaumont theatre. I believe most architecture critics have panned the project.. which is truly a shame because it hosts some of the best performance in the world.

I’ve not been to a performance at the Paris Opera, but the building is stunning and the architecture enriches the experience… at least good architecture should do.

We, and our wonderful artists really deserve much better. Look at the Zefferelli sets for Traviata or Tosca or La Boheme… the architecture of the sets is superior to the threatre by a long shot!

One day… it will happen..

delirium tremens said,

January 31, 2007 @ 7:04 am

a good friend of mine works for the firm that just did the SAB revamp. I can ask if he knows what else is in the works and report back.

philip said,

January 31, 2007 @ 4:20 pm

One of the main reasons I hardly ever go to ABT is that I think the Met is way too huge for dance. I always feel so distanced from the stage, no matter where I sit - and I have sat everywhere. In the ‘old days’ I went to ABT much more often but lately the distancing effect has really hampered my enjoyment, despite liking several of the dancers there and actually being good friends with one of them.

Even more do I dislike City Center which is uncomfortable and the ballets never look ‘right’ to me there, though I have memories of such dazzlers as Kirkland’s Giselle and van Hamel’s Swanhilda from that stage.

The State Theatre, built for dance, is my second home. The house is just the right size, you feel connected to the dancers no matter where you sit. The house has a sort of wrap-around warm & cozy feeling, with the big ‘chandelier’ casting a pleasant glow. I love the spacious Promenade, too. I’ve spent an awful lot of time there over the years (starting with my Sills addiction 1966-1970) and I’ve become very fond of the place.

I wish - though I guess it will never happen - that ABT would dance at the State Theatre again. They used to from time to time, as I recall.

So David: how did you like IN VENTO?

Philip aka Oberon

tonya said,

January 31, 2007 @ 7:43 pm

Who, Who do you know, Philip!?!

I love the State Theater too — mostly because you can walk around and look at all the spectacular pictures! They do need to re-do the carpet at some point though…

I hate the City Center seating with an intense passion — no matter where you are in the theater, unless you are in the very first row of the orchestra, someone’s big fat head is right in front of your face, taking up the entire stage. All throughout the performance everyone is harumphing, shifting in their seats, bumping into the person next to them, asking the person in front of them sit back, sit still, etc., children saying “mommy, mommy, I can’t see…” etc. etc. etc. It’s horrifying that someone thought it was okay to line the seats directly in back of each other like that, instead of diagonally.

I guess I never thought about the Met, but you are kind of confronted with the stairs when you first walk in, like D said, and there really isn’t room for roaming about. I guess I never noticed the lack of roaming space since I like to walk outside and watch the salsa dancers on the plaza (of course ABT is always at the Met during summer; during winter I’d probably go down to the basement and wander around that little area with all the opera memorabilia). Well, the renovation sounds very interesting, and exciting, although the construction doesn’t!

Sophie said,

February 1, 2007 @ 6:36 am

I was there for the ABT open rehearsal on Jan 9th and had probably the best time of my life. Being a poor college student, I’d never thought I’d be able to watch THE american ballet theater at all. All the dancers were wonderful and I just absolutely love the Opera House. Even though I was way in the back of the 2nd box, I could still see everything so clearly. Definitely one of my favorite theaters.

PS. I love that picture of the “opera house” sign with that advertisement box. In my url, I linked a picture that was taken of me in front of that ad.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI