An “Apollo” Faithful to Stravinsky’s Score

Jacques d’Amboise as Apollo getting to know his lute (screen shot from the video being discussed)

Having vented my dissatisfaction with the performance of George Balanchine’s “Apollo” presented by the New York City Ballet (NYCB) last week as part of the “Digital Spring Season” held on YouTube, I realized that YouTube was probably my best resource for finding a preferable video alternative that did better justice to both Balanchine and Igor Stravinsky. What I found was a film (converted to video) of a Canadian broadcast that took place on March 10, 1960. I was rather pleased to see that this video had been posted by John Clifford, who was a Principal Dancer with NYCB between 1966 and 1974, after which he “changed coasts” to found the Los Angeles Ballet in 1974, serving as its Artistic Director until 1985.

I should “come clean” at the outset by observing that the technical quality of both image and sound leaves much to be desired. In addition, no credit is given to the dancers of the “bit parts” of Leto and her two handmaidens. Nevertheless, one can look beyond those shortcomings to appreciate the interpretative breadth that Jacques d’Amboise brings to the title role. The three Muses are danced by Diana Adams (Terpsichore), Jillana (Calliope), and Francia Russell (Polyhymnia). This is another reason for me to “come clean,” because, by the time I was going to NYCB performances regularly, Adams had left the company; and I have always regretted never seeing her on the stage.

Most importantly, this is the entirety of the version first presented in the United States in 1937, with more abstraction of both sets and costumes than had been conceived for Balanchine’s original Ballets Russes version, first performed in Paris in 1928. I find that the American designs make for a much better fit to the “neo-classical spirit” of Stravinsky’s music. Furthermore, the attentive viewer is better disposed to appreciate the many building blocks of Balanchine’s choreography and the intricacy with which he assembled them all.

One result is that d’Amboise was a highly personable interpreter, which was a welcome change from the more abstract approach I took away from Taylor Stanley’s “Digital Spring Season” performance. For that matter, the entire second scene of the ballet (the only portion presented in the “Digital Spring Season” version) is rich in indicators of individual personality traits, most of which were lacking in last week’s YouTube document. Finally, I realized how much of the content of that omitted first scene I had forgotten, including the birth itself, the “wild child” that emerges, and the presentation of the lute that tames him. Balanchine found just the right balance of wit to complement the seriousness of the narrative.

Balanchine was a master of abstraction. Nevertheless, there was also a strong element of personality in his creations. That element can be found as early as the very first ballet he created in the United States, “Serenade.” My greatest fear is that personality is no longer given high priority in NYCB performances; and, at best, it is “a sometime thing.” When it emerges during the interpretation of a Balanchine ballet, it can certainly be relished; but I fear that, more often than not, it is being neglected.