“Jewels” lends itself particularly well to this kind of cultural crossover; in fact, it is built into the ballet’s very DNA. While the work is known to portray emeralds in the first act, rubies in the second, and diamonds in the third, it is a hardly concealed secret that the three parts better represent the different periods of Balanchine’s life. “Emeralds”, with a lush, romantic score by Fauré, is a stand-in for the choreographer’s years spent in France; “Rubies”, with jazzy moves and heart-racing Stravinsky music, is pure New York; and “Diamonds”, utilizing Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 3 in D Major, is the Imperial Russia of Balanchine’s youth.
It’s a plotless ballet, sure, but there’s plenty to read into here. “Emeralds” and “Diamonds” seem particularly refracted through the lens of loss and worlds which will never appear again, except onstage and in the pages of certain books. Watching “Jewels”, I’m always reminded of Nabokov, another Russian émigré who fled to the West and who was only five years older than Balanchine. In his 1969 novel Ada, the author describes his desire to “caress time”; there’s something to that effect happening here, especially as Balanchine enlivens decades past and empires crumbled. “Jewels” is dazzling, but in this sense, it’s also haunting.
Given the ballet’s multiple national and temporal hues, there’s plenty of opportunity for a company to showcase a breadth of styles in one evening. The Australian Ballet handled some of these styles better than others. “Emeralds”, a notoriously difficult ballet to perform well— it’s so fragile, like a vintage garment which must not be yanked at— was for the most part successful. The two principal couples, Sharni Spencer with Callum Linnane and Valerie Tereshchenko with Mason Lovegrove, danced their solos and pas de deuxs with care, if not totally coming to embody the delicacy and charm needed to effect the aforementioned “garment.”
comments