Like Patricia McBride’s, Tiler Peck’s stunning face registers intensely—once seen, never forgotten. Her dancing alone makes a visit to the New York City Ballet heartening. Her technical acumen never falters, only commands, having grown in confidence and in an athletic prowess that’s increasingly managed with subtlety. Yet even viewers who adore her—as well they might—may modify their praise by the worried observation that she seems to have no soul. Peck entered the company as a performer in the show-biz style, vividly “selling” her material. She’s never entirely lost that enthusiasm but, as she has matured (with wonderfully even persistence), it has taken an appropriate place in her skill-set. Surely she’s in her prime now. Just watch her in Liebeslieder Walzer, where she has allowed the steps themselves to teach her the varied moods of her role. Perhaps it’s time to appreciate her without the least reservation.
© 2012 Tobi Tobias
Yes! She is an endlessly rewarding dancer. Her musicality, especially, often makes me laugh with delight.
Todd Bolender used to emphasize in interviews that Balanchine was an extraordinary showman. Yet, when dancers “sell” his work, Broadway or even Bolshoi style, there can be an enormous disconnect between the choreography and the dancer, particularly in works like “Liebeslieder Walzer,” although that showmanship is entirely appropriate for “Stars and Stripes” (which I happen to loathe) and “Who Cares” (ditto). In other words, Balanchine’s work isn’t monolithic and the approach to performing it shouldn’t be either. In a few brief words about Tiler Peck, TT has triggered these thoughts, for good or ill, and for that I am grateful. I also wish I could see more of Peck’s dancing.
Long or short, your writings illuminate my day!
Agree totally, Tobi. –E.
” She has allowed the steps themselves to teach her the varied moods of her role ”
Sounds pretty soulful to me.
I agree with you and your commentators!