Dance: Cinderella Chichester Festival Theatre

Sophi Constanti
Tuesday 21 November 1995 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The best thing to be said about Matthew Hart's new Cinderella for London City Ballet is that it adds a decent full-length production to the unenterprising repertoire that has dogged Harold King's ballet-on-a-shoestring company for most of its 17 years.

However, that doesn't stop you wondering why King decided to commission a Cinderella from Hart - the Royal Ballet's ebullient, twentysomething choreographer-in-the-making - in the first place. Or why Hart accepted a challenge for which he is not yet equipped.

What looks, primarily, like an arrangement of misconceived mutual benefit has resulted in a ballet that is likely to please LCB's loyal punters. And, despite its serious flaws - Hart's step-for-note response to Prokofiev's richly textured score, LCB's rather lacklustre dancing - the work is satisfyingly coherent.

The problem is that Hart is working in the shadow of Ashton's near-perfect 1948 Cinderella. This is also his first full-length ballet, as coincidentally it was Ashton's. He can't escape paying homage to Ashton, yet his own choreographic conceits aren't insightful enough to make you feel he has much to offer. He gives you a perfectly respectable ballet, but for anyone who knows and loves Ashton's version, Hart's production is a poor substitute. Much of its phrasing is riddled with fussiness yet empty - steps for the sake of steps rather than the service of the story. Hart gives the big waltz to a bunch of grasshoppers and dragonflies; and prolongs the slapstick encounters between the Ugly Sisters and Dancing Master / Prince beyond their natural comic life.

At Chichester, Jane Sanig's Cinders didn't look entirely animated until bowled over by Roger Van Fleteren's complaisant Prince. That Hart seems less at home with the ballet's dreamworld and magic than with its amusing grotesquerie is evident in the way he keeps putting the Ugly Sisters and their mother centre stage. But then these three characters are his most noteworthy creations - the sisters gradually revealing their innermost ugliness as we watch them becoming more and more like their mother.

n At the Swan Theatre, High Wycombe (01494 512000) to 25 Nov; Poole Arts Centre, Dorset (01202 685222) 27 Nov-2 Dec; Sadler's Wells, London EC1 (0171-713 6000) 16 Dec-6 Jan

SOPHIE CONSTANTI

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in