the traveler's resource guide to festivals & films
a FestivalTravelNetwork.com site
part of Insider Media llc.

Connect with us:
FacebookTwitterYouTubeRSS

Film and the Arts

Actor Turned Director Diego Luna Celebrates "Cesar Chavez"

Photo by B. Balfour

Born on December 29, 1979 in Mexico City, Diego Luna Alexander lost his mother in a car accident when he was only two. So Luna became immersed in his father's passion for entertainment as Mexico’s most acclaimed living theatre, cinema and opera set designer. From an early age Luna began acting in television, movies and theater. Once he achieved international recognition, he expanded his resume to include writing, producing and directing as well.

This producer-actor-director’s full bio includes such highlights as big budget sci-fi thriller Elysium (2013),  the Oscar-nominated Milk (2008), Tom Hanks starrer The Terminal (2004), and provocative Y Tu Mamá También (2001). But his most recent directorial effort Cesar Chavez not outlines a slice of the famed civil rights leader and labor organizer’s life (powerfully played by Michael Pena) but also chronicles the birth of a modern American labor movement. The film also tells the story of a man torn between family duties as a husband and father and his commitment to the fight for a living wage for farm workers. 

Passionate but soft-spoken, Chavez embraced non-violence as he battled greed and prejudice in this struggle to bring dignity to his community and disenfranchised people in general. Chavez inspired millions of Americans who hadn’t worked on a farm or been to California to fight for social justice. His journey is a remarkable testament to the power of one person’s ability to change the world.

Buttressed by two incredibly strong women — wife Helen (America Ferrara) and Dolores Huerta (Rosario Dawson) — Chavez presciently foresaw the impact the Latino American community would have on this country as he drew attention to this long disenfranchised sector.

chavez posterQ: Once you got this idea, how long did it take you to do this film? 

DL: At the beginning I didn’t know I had to do it; I would’ve quit had I been told this was going take four years and a half of my life. When I started I thought, “Wow, it’s amazing that there’s no film about Cesar Chavez. But this is so powerful and comes in time for many reasons, and  since this community’s growing, everyone’s going to want to do this film.” 

I went out and started shopping as is done with films. You go to studios and sit down with executives and everyone gave us a chance to sit down which sounded like, “Okay it’s happening,” then they said, “Wow, this is great, we love that you’re doing this, we’re not going to join but once you have a film, come and show it to us and probably we’ll be part of it,” and we’re like, “No! We need the money to do it!” 

It’s not like I’m just going out and doing it. I heard things like, “Can you make it more sexy?” and I was like, “How can I make it more sexy? If it was sexier, farm workers would probably be living a different reality today.” 

They said, “What about A-List actors? Can you have Antonio Banderas and Javier Bardem in it?” And I’m thinking, the man existed, there are pictures, there’s murals! You cannot just say, “Well now it’s just going to look like something else…” This is about a Mexican-American, a guy who was born in Arizona. Anyway, we found no support in this country. But by that point, I promised the family that I was going to deliver a film.

I promised that it was happening and then invested a year of my life into it at that point. We were working on the script with Keir Pearson, so I said to my partner Pablo Cruz, “Let’s go to Mexico and finance it the way we do in film.” 

We went to Mexico and in a week and a half we found the money. At least 70% that allows the comeback for the other 30%. Then we came back and found the perfect partners, Participant Media and Pantelion Films, two different kind of film [studios], but they’re both doing films that would be perfect for this market — one that we’re trying to prove exists. That’s how everything started in terms of putting it together. 

We wanted to come to the States and open a company and office here, so we said that we have to do a film that mattered on both sides of the border. It would allow us to work here but still do stories that connect us with where we come from and the community we belong to, to the point that my son who was born here, in the States, so he’s knows he’s a Mexican-American. In fact, he had an American passport before the Mexican one.

In a way, this was an attempt to tell a story that he would be able to use to find out where he comes from and what needed to happen for him to be where he is at the moment. That’s how everything started.

Q: Do you hope this film will change society’s perception of Latinos and the issues that concerns this community?

DL: There’s something that’s happened here before which is that all us Latinos, we have to learn from these guys that if we organize, if we’re united, we have the strength to change the world. That’s definitely a reality, because I don’t think we’ve been so well organized since then. Yes, there’s a lot of complaints that we have to this country, as a community, but I would start looking at ourselves in the mirror and [ask] why we haven’t done [anything]? 

We have a chance to send that message on the opening week, March 28th, which is, “We want these films to be out. We want our stories to be represented. We want our heroes to celebrated in film.” 

There’s two things that matter here. As Cesar said and showed us, one is that our strength is in our numbers, and they’re growing. So I don’t know why we, as a community, haven’t experienced that feeling of power [that] we actually have in hand. The other is that the film confronts you, not just us Latinos, but everyone in this country, with a reality that’s very uncomfortable, that today in the fields, the conditions still aren’t great. 

The struggle continues and consumers have also not been aware of what they’re part of when they buy a product since then. The amazing thing they did as a community, is that they connected with consumers, the rest of America, a community they didn’t think they had a connection with. They found a way to say, “Our story matters to you.” 

When you buy a grape, you’re supporting child labor. Moms listened to that, when a mother was in a store in Chicago, she found a farm worker saying, “When you’re buying that product, you have to remember that behind that product is the work of my six year-old. ” 

Mothers stopped buying grapes. So it’s about connecting, finding out what connects us, not what separates us. I think that’s a beautiful message about the film, and that applies not just for America, but for the world. It’s a nonviolent movement that said it’s about the responsibility of knowing we’re not here alone. The work of many has to happen so we can experience the life we have. It’s just being aware of that — that’s what matters. 

Q: Was it tough for actor Michael Peña to have this on his shoulders?

DL: I was walking coming with Rosario from having lunch, and she told me, ”It’s unbelievable how much Michael changed for this role. He’s just nothing close to what he portrayed here.” 

I always told him, “Michael, we have to be aware. We cannot do the Hollywood way, you know? We cannot say suddenly that Cesar was a great speaker, and the Martin Luther King kind of leader.” 

But he wasn’t. He was very humble and timid. As a result of the amount of urge he had for change to happen, he had to become the leader. If he would’ve had a chance to stand back and stay behind, he would have done it. He was a great listener. 

That’s why he could organize these people, because he came and took the time to listen to everyone’s story. This is a community that has been ignored for so long, that suddenly someone arrived that cared about their story and said, “Your story matters.” 

In fact, Mark Grossman, who traveled a lot through rallies and was Cesar’s PR person — he wrote the speeches for him — was very close to him and we worked a lot with him. He told me [that] the rallies were painful because he would stay until nine, 10 pm, and people left, and he was still talking to a woman in the back. He had time, he nothing else to do but this, and everyone realized he was giving his life. We have to remember, this is a man that got out of living in the city. He changed his life, he was wearing a suit, he had a job. But he said, “No, we have to go back to the fields, we have to change things from the inside. It’s not going to come from the outside.” 

He went back and sacrificed not just his reality but the reality of his family. I love when Fernando asks, “Who plays in Delano? You’re not taking me to a place that doesn’t have a major league baseball team, right?” And [Cesar] goes, “Yeah, we’re all going to sacrifice here, and we’re all going to go back to where we come from.” 

Q: You showed how he sacrificed his relationship with his older son. You spent more than four years working on this movie. How much did it affect your relationship with your own children?

DL: It does, it does. I’ve never had to go so far as he did. I was in Chicago on Friday, took the red eye, spent Saturday and Sunday with my kids, and I’m here on Monday. I would never give away the weekend, and stay for another interview. I think that’s what makes him heroic. I don’t know if I would be able to go that far. 

Q: How old are your kids now?

DL: Five and three. I don’t know if I would be able to go that far. These guys left for months. Besides everything we’ve talked about, the film is about a father and a son. To me, the reflection I’m making here is [that] there’s a sacrifice we fathers do. I did not understand until I had a baby. It changed the way I looked to my father. When I had a baby, I went back and said, “Damn, dad. You’ve done all of this?” 

My mother died when I was two, so my father had to play both roles and work and it’s that very unfair part of life where you know you have to do it. I do film because of my kids, I think about them every moment of my life. Every decision I make, they’re involved. Probably, they won’t know this until they have their own. 

That’s the gap that sometimes... Hopefully in life you have the time to bring it back together, but not many times it happens. For these characters, it took a long a long time. They had eight kids. Dolores Huerta had 11 kids. Imagine that and they managed to do all this as well. 

Q: Was it a conscious choice that you avoided his childhood? 

DL: The first script I got, [went] from the day he was born until the day he died. You can do that in a fictional film, it doesn’t matter, but with the life of someone I think that’s very unfair. It’s impossible in an hour and 45 minutes to tell of someone’s 64-year journey. I thought, “I’m going to concentrate in one achievement.” 

That’s the boycott was to me. I said, “If I can explain how the boycott happened, and why the boycott happened, and what [it brought] to the community, I’ll be sending the right message.” 

I didn’t want to do a film just about this community. I wanted to do a film about how this community managed to connect with the rest of the country. Because to me, the powerful message here is that if change ever comes, it’s because we get involved and we people connect with others. 

We find those who are out there and what connects us with them. So to me, that was the thing I wanted to focus on -- the personal struggle of a father. It’s the first film done about Cesar and the movement, so it’s unfair to ask one film to fill the gap of so many years where there was no film talking about it. Because if I was here, and there were another three films, I could focus in on a specific thing that none of the other films [did], but you cannot ask a film to tell everything that hasn’t been told. Hopefully this will [stimulate] curiosity and awareness so that people will go and investigate a little more about who they are and what’s behind them. 

Q: Why was the movie shot in Mexico instead of where the events happened? Did that have to do with where you found the money? Being a movie about a syndicated movement, with the actors’ unions very strong here, don’t know how it is in Mexico, but how much of the actors and the crew were unionized?

DL: We shot in Mexico because of two reasons. One, the film was financed in Mexico, so a lot of the financing came as support. We first went to California, but even if we would have shot in the States, we would not have shot in California, because the actual places have changed dramatically since the ’60s. So you cannot shoot there, you’d have to recreate the [conditions]. 

We found in Sonora that the fields there have that immensity. Sonora is the state that produces 80% of the table grape of Mexico. Mexico is a huge country, so the feeling when you’re there, it’s the same feeling you have in the valley in California. You really are a dot in the middle of nowhere. There’s this immensity, the feeling that those fields are feeding a world, 

In terms of the union, there’s no way to do a film this big non-union in Mexico. Every actor was paid through SAG; we also have a union in Mexico of actors and technicians. It would be very stupid to do a film about a union without the support of unions [laughs]. But you know what happened…? There was a whole debate on the extras. 

The extras are farm workers. That doesn’t mean they didn’t get paid. The point is, I wanted to work with real farm workers. You know those faces? There’s no way to put makeup on a face and make it look like they’ve been under the sun for so many years, under that condition of dust and wind. Those faces tell you the story. Just by looking at the face, you get many things that can’t be said in dialogue. 

Q: Were these farm workers from the area where you shot?

DL: Many farm workers joined. By the third day they realized that film isn’t glamorous and that the experience was as miserable as working in the fields [laughs]. Because we were in the fields, we put every penny we had in front of the camera, so the conditions we were shooting under were rough compared to the cliché of how Hollywood filmmaking is. 

Q: Did the workers themselves teach you anything, something that you never knew?

DL: The only thing is that they reminded me every day of why the film needed to be done. It just still makes no sense to me that those who are feeding this country can barely feed their families. And by listening to their stories, I got the necessary energy to keep going. No matter what our issues were, they don’t matter. I am lucky to be able to choose where I work, who I’m around, what I do, what stories I tell, I can’t complain. It was a great reminder on why this needs to be out. 

Q: The film deals with social issues. Is that also part of the marketing?

DL: Definitely, and we’re focusing a lot in kids. Before the proper promotion started, we did two weeks of going to high schools and universities. We went to Harvard, Berkeley, Irvine, UCLA, then we did a screening in the RFK High School. It was like a system. We did a screening where they taped it and then that’s going to be shown to kids around California. 

We’re pushing to do tons of little videos in social media and everything to raise awareness about Cesar Chavez and what the movement [stood] for. That’s where Participant comes in. They have an amazing reach in terms of a call-to-action. 

As part of our film, we are also making a petition to President Obama about making a Cesar Chavez National Day of Service. As the campaign goes, if you guys participate, it’d be great. There’s a page called takepart.com/cesarchavez and you can sign. If you sign the petition, we need a hundred thousand signatures to go to Obama. 

Film should be the beginning of something bigger. This film should trigger, hopefully, the curiosity of people to find out exactly what this movement was about. It’s difficult to inform in an hour and 45 minutes about everything they did and still entertain but it is pertinent to talk about this because the issues today in the field are even more complicated [than ever]. 

We thought also about a day of celebration... A few states today celebrate Cesar Chavez day, but we thought that a national day of service would be the way he would like to be remembered, a day where you work and give something back to your community, which is what they did from beginning to end. 

There [are] so many things happening at the same time, and there are so many things happening in Latin America. Because if few people know here the story of Cesar Chavez, you’ll go to Latin America and everyone thinks he’s a boxer. No one knows, and it’s something that hopefully the film, and everything happening around the film, might be able to change. Also, the foundation is working really close. 

Dolores Huerta has been promoting the film with us, and every time she grabs the microphone, she talks about it and the 10 other things that matter to her. If film can work for that to happen, if film can bring attention to the work of those that are still in the struggle, still out there, I’ll be very proud. But it’s definitely about kids.

You know an amazing thing that has been happening is that today there’s many Latinos in key positions and many have the chance to actually choose what they want to do in life. They have businesses and so many of these people are buying out theaters and giving them away to schools. 

For the first weekend, someone said, “I would like to share this film with every high school kid of the community I come from” which is an amazing thing. The distribution company Pantelion is getting these calls and managing to actually make it happen, where you basically buy out a theater and fill it with kids that normally wouldn’t go watch it, or will probably watch it two years later on their phone while doing another 20 things, which is how kids now watch films... so that’s also happening. People like Henry Moreno — he was the first one. 

Q: Is he one of the producers?

DL: No, no, no! He’s just a guy that cares about this. I was at an event in Washington, and Moreno talked about this, he was doing a show and he told me, “I’m buying out theaters to share with the kids, and this is happening, people are starting to react.” 

That’s fantastic. I did this film because I think I have some distance to the story. Generationally, I wasn’t around when this happened, so also that gives me some objectivity, I guess. But the angle which I’m telling this, it’s the perfect angle for people who don’t know the story, to listen [to] it for the first time.

Q: What did it teach you about yourself as a father, as a director, as an actor? 

DL: You know, I found a connection. It was through telling personal stories that they managed to bring the attention to something bigger. It was about a mother going out, as I said, a mother going out of a grocery store and telling another mother, “Behind that grape, there’s the work of my kid. Are you sure you want to be part of that?” 

Then that mother got hit so badly and so profoundly, that she’s gonna turn into an advocate for the movement. But it’s by telling personal stories that you can trigger that, and I think film has that power. Today, if I was sitting in a board meeting of this movement, I would say, “Let’s do short documentaries about each other’s experiences and get them out, because that’s the way to get people’s attention.” 

We do the same thing, in a way. At least film is capable of doing what these guys did. That was a connection that I found on the way. When I was out and everyone was like, “Oh, you’re doing the film about Cesar Chavez! I gotta tell you something. My grandfather, one day, he grew up and blah blah blah…” 

If I do a documentary where I tell you, “More than a 100,000 have been killed in the last eight years in my country because of the war on drugs that our president started, our former president started…” You’re going to go, “Oh, that’s a big number.” 

But if I tell you the story of a kid who lost his father and now has to work and had to get out of school to support his mother, and how the life these four people changed dramatically, not just his but his brother and his sister... The next day you’re going to care about the war we’re living there. So by telling personal stories you can trigger that attention and that’s something they were doing that was way ahead of us. 

 

"The Girls in the Band" Honors Music's Unsung Heroines

How many female jazz musicians can you name? Judy Chaikin's new documentary The Girls in the Band can help. By the time the credits roll, you will have met three generations of distaff players, composers, arrangers and GreatDayinHarlemconductors reaching back to the 1920s. Names like saxophonists Roz Cron and Peggy Gilbert, trumpeters Clora Bryant and Billie Rogers and drummer Viola Smith will roll off the tongue as readily as those of Thelonious Monk and Dizzy Gillespie.

Read more: "The Girls in the Band" Honors...

March '25 Digital Week III

In-Theater Releases of the Week 
Black Bag 
(Focus)
In Steven Soderbergh’s typically stylish espionage flick, a married British spy couple (Michael Fassbender and Cate Blanchett) attempt to root out the traitors in their midst when they realize they’re being set up from within the agency.
 
 
David Koepp’s clever script withholds just enough info to maintain interest, while the double crossings are recorded by Soderbergh’s sleek camera, which along with his editing is unsurprisingly impeccable. It all builds up to not much, but it’s a fun 90-minute ride, enlivened by Fassbender’s sturdy presence and Marisa Abela’s scene-stealing drone operator. Only Blanchett’s icy operator seems off-base.
 
 
 
Any Day Now 
(Blue Harbor Entertainment)
The brazen 1990 robbery of Boston’s Gardner Museum—which netted Vermeer and Renoir paintings along with other priceless objects—has never been solved and the artifacts have never been found; Eric Aronson’s cleverly mounted drama imagines how the heist was planned and executed, with the film’s runtime the exact length of the actual theft.
 
 
It’s more a stunt than a full-blooded story, but it’s enacted compellingly by a cast led by Paul Guilfoyle (usually cast in subordinate roles, he’s given a chance to be the anchor), Taylor Gray and Alexandra Templer.
 
 
 
Ash 
(RLJE/Shudder)
This derivative sci-fi flick introduces its heroine Riya, the lone survivor of an attack aboard a space station on the distant planet Ash—her fellow astronauts are dead and she has no memory of what happened. Soon, flashbacks help her piece together the incident along with a rescuer named Brion, whom she supposedly knows but doesn’t completely trust.
 
 
Director Flying Lotus cleverly conveys Riya’s fraught situation, but even with the gifted and properly intense Eiza González in the lead, the film ultimately doesn’t amount to much more than mere fragments, disappointingly.
 
 
 
The Assessment 
(Magnolia)
In an authoritarian near-future, couples can only have children if they pass rigorous government testing, and director Fleur Fortuné’s stylized debut feature stars Alicia Vikander as Virginia, an assessor who visits the home of Mia (Elizabeth Olsen) and Aaryan (Himesh Patel) to see if they will be worthy parents.
 
 
The script by Dave Thomas, Nell Garfath-Cox and John Donnelly starts out well, but as Virginia acts more illogically infantilized and, finally, dangerously reckless, the extremes in everyone’s behavior are less than plausibly developed. The final half-hour is a mess, and the committed cast—led by the always magnetic Vikander, a captivating Olsen and Minnie Driver in a memorable cameo as a centenarian—keeps this watchable as it stumbles to end.
 
 
 
Bob Trevino Likes It 
(Roadside Attractions)
Despite the mawkish premise—a young woman, Lily, with a mostly absent father Bob reaches out on Facebook desperate for a connection and finds a man without children (and with her dad’s name) who becomes an unlikely correspondent and, later, friend—writer and director Tracie Laymon has made a sweet-natured study of two lonely people who fulfill each other’s needs, at least for a little while.
 
 
Most of the credit goes to the quietly affecting John Leguizamo and Barbie Ferriera, with good support from French Stewart as Lily’s deadbeat dad and Rachel Bay Jones as her friend Bob’s wife.
 
 
 
Misericordia 
(Sideshow/Janus)
French director Alain Guiraudie’s latest slow-burn drama shows the complex underside of placid village life as a young man returns to his hometown after his employer, the local baker (whom he had a crush on), dies—he is soon at odds with the baker’s son, spends time with his widow and begins a reciprocal relationship with the local priest.
 
In Guiraudie’s world, sexuality brazenly intrudes on a seemingly conservative lifestyle, but here contrivance overpowers a more nuanced exploration of human behavior. Instead of finding depth in these characters, Guiraudie moves them around like pawns; even the quiet ending isn’t as affecting as it wants to be.
 
 
 
Blu-ray Release of the Week 
A Woman in Paris 
(Criterion)
This 1923 silent feature was Charles Chaplin’s Interiors—an attempt by a one-of-a-kind comic voice desperately wanting to be considered a Serious Artist. Despite the baggage, it’s an entertaining melodrama notable for not starring Chaplin; instead, Edna Purviance stars the eponymous heroine. While not a disaster like Chaplin’s final film, A Countess from Hong Kong, it’s nowhere near the level of Chaplin’s legendary comedies that would come right after this.
 
 
The restored film (which is the 1976 rerelease version featuring a score composed by Chaplin) has an excellent hi-def transfer, and the extras include an alternate score by conductor Timothy Brock, based on music by Chaplin; intro by Chaplin scholar David Robinson; new video essay by Chaplin biographer Jeffrey Vance; Chaplin Today: A Woman of Paris, with interviews of Liv Ullmann and Michael Powell; an audio commentary; audio interview excerpts with Chaplin Studios cameraman Roland Totheroh; deleted shots from the original film; and archival footage.
 
 
 
Streaming Release of the Week
Invader 
(Doppelgänger Releasing)
What begins as a reasonably diverting mystery—a woman named Ana goes to her cousin’s home in suburban Chicago and finds someone else there—quickly degenerates into a ridiculously unpleasant study of a maniac terrorizing innocent people as if Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs was given too much screen time.
 
 
Director-writer Mickey Keating doesn’t seem to be simply showing such abhorrent behavior but actually reveling in it, negating the sympathy afforded Ana (a nice turn by Vero Maynez) in the beginning.
 
 
 
CD Releases of the Week 
Kate Lindsey—Samsara 
(Alpha Classics)
“Samsara” refers to the recurring cycle of death and rebirth, which is why mezzo Kate Lindsey chose it as the title of her latest recital disc—and the major song cycles she sings so beautifully, by Robert Schumann and Gabriel Fauré, take women’s points of view about the joys and sorrows of life. Schumann’s Frauenliebe und Leben, which was composed in 1840 (his celebrated “year of lieder,” during which he also wrote his other great cycles Dichterliebe and the two sets of Liederkreis), is remarkable in its piano writing, which in no way sounds like mere accompaniment.
 
 
Fauré’s La Chanson d’Eve, an autumnal work of uncommon grace and sensitivity, is also the fastidious French master’s longest cycle. Several other Schumann lieder and Faure mélodies round out the recording, and pianist Éric Le Sage provides delicate and thoughtful playing to complement Lindsey’s lovely vocal performances.
 
 
 
William Walton—Violin Concerto and Other Orchestral Works 
(Chandos)
British composer Wiliam Walton (1902-83) had so much success early on with Façade and his First Symphony that he had to live in their shadows for the rest of his long career—but, as this disc of a trio of his flavorful orchestral works shows, at his best, Walton was as formidable a composer as his contemporary Benjamin Britten. The rousing Portsmouth Point Overture is the earliest piece here (written when Walton was in his early 20s), while the Symphonic Suite from Troilus and Cressida—Walton’s wonderful opera that has never gotten a foothold in the repertoire (I don’t think it’s been staged in New York City since its 1955 City Opera production)—contains Walton’s music at its most dramatic and gripping.
 
 
Finally, there’s his masterly Violin Concerto from the late 1930s, lyrical yet technically demanding and containing a surfeit of melodies and inventive ideas throughout. Charlie Lovell-Jones is the accomplished concerto soloist, and John Wilson leads the Sinfonia of London in perceptive readings of all three works.

Cleveland Orchestra Performs Stravinsky’s Pétrouchka at Carnegie Hall

Photo by Fadi Kheir.

At the wonderful Stern Auditorium on the night of Wednesday, March 19th, I had the privilege to attend another superb concert presented by Carnegie Hall—the second of two on consecutive days—featuring the outstanding musicians of the Cleveland Orchestra under the incomparable direction of Franz Welser-Möst

The event started brilliantly with a fabulous rendition of Igor Stravinsky’s marvelous Pétrouchka, played here in its 1947 revision. In quite useful notes for this program, Peter Laki provided some relevant background:

After the resounding success of The Firebird in 1908, Igor Stravinsky became an instant celebrity in Paris. His name was now inseparable from the famous Ballets Russes, whose director, Sergei Diaghilev, was eager to continue this most promising collaboration. Plans were almost immediately underway for what eventually became The Rite of Spring.

When Diaghilev visited Stravinsky in Lausanne in the summer of 1910, he expected his friend to have made some progress with The Rite of Spring. Instead, he found the composer engrossed in a completely different composition. Stravinsky had begun writing a concert piece for piano and orchestra in which the piano represented “a puppet, suddenly endowed with life, exasperating the patience of the orchestra with diabolical cascades of arpeggios.” The puppet was none other than Petrushka (or Pétrouchka, in French), the popular Russian puppet-theater hero. Diaghilev immediately saw the dramatic potential of Stravinsky’s concert piece and persuaded the composer to turn it into a ballet. Alexandre Benois, a Russian artist and longtime Diaghilev collaborator, wrote the scenario with Stravinsky and designed the sets and costumes for the performance.

The annotator then describes the initial movement of the score:

The first of the four tableaux (“The Shrovetide Fair”) alternates between the noise of the crowd and songs played by street musicians. At first, we hear a flute signal accompanied by rapid figurations that evoke the bustle of the fair. Soon the entire orchestra breaks into a boisterous Russian beggars’ song, followed by the entrance of two competing street musicians, a hurdy-gurdy player and one with a music box.

Soon, the puppet theater opens and the Showman, playing his flute, introduces Pétrouchka, the Ballerina, and the Moor to the audience. As he touches them with his flute, the three puppets spring to life and begin the famous “Russian Dance,” in which the piano plays a predominant part. The dance and the tableau eventually end with a bang.

The fantastical is seemingly invoked at the very outset of the music even if what it ostensibly depicts is relatively prosaic. The propulsive rhythms impart a suspenseful quality and the “Russian Dance” proves especially exhilarating. Laki continues:

The second tableau moves the action to Pétrouchka’s room. It starts with a sonority that has become emblematic of the work: two clarinets playing a bitonal melody—that is, in two different keys at once. After a short piano cadenza, we hear a theme giving vent to Pétrouchka’s anger and despair at his failure to win the Ballerina’s heart. His fury changes into quiet sadness in a slow, pseudo-folk song, played by the flute and piano with occasional interjections from other instruments. The Ballerina soon enters, and Pétrouchka becomes giddy with excitement. Then she leaves, and the earlier despair motif closes the tableau.

The third tableau takes place in the Moor’s room. His slow dance is accompanied by bass drum, cymbals, and plucked strings, whose off-beat accents impart a distinctly Middle Eastern flavor to the music. Soon, the Ballerina appears, trumpet in hand, and dances for the Moor. She then starts waltzing to two melodies by Viennese composer Joseph Lanner (a forerunner of the great Strauss dynasty) while the Moor begins his own, less graceful dance. The waltz is interrupted as Pétrouchka suddenly enters the room. His fight with the Moor is expressed by frantic runs before the orchestra plays violent fortissimo chords as the Moor chases Pétrouchka out the door.

The Ballerina’s waltz is particularly lovely but not without a comic dimension that becomes more pronounced. The annotator goes on to add:


The fourth and final tableau brings us back to the fair, where, as the sun sets, more and more people are gathering for the festivities. A series of numbers are performed in succession. Among them: A group of nursemaids dance to two Russian folk songs, a trained bear dances to a peasant’s pipe (represented by two clarinets playing in their highest register), and a drunken merchant stumbles across the stage, his tune played with frequent glissandos in the strings.

Suddenly, the celebration is disrupted by a scream coming from the puppet theater. Pétrouchka rushes in, pursued by the Moor, who overtakes him and strikes him down. Soft woodwind solos, accompanied by high-pitched violin tremolos, lament Pétrouchka’s death. But as the Showman arrives to pick up the puppet and take him back to the theater, Pétrouchka’s ghost appears overhead as two trumpets intone his melody. Only a few soft string pizzicatos accompany the close of the curtain; the last event in the piece is the resurgence of Pétrouchka the invincible, thumbing his nose at the magician and the entire world, which had been so hostile to his pure and sincere feelings.

The work concludes very quietly.

The second half of the evening was comparable in strength: a terrific account of Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky’s extraordinary Symphony No. 5 in E Minor, Op. 64, from 1888. Laki again is informative:

After his return from abroad, Tchaikovsky decided to write a new symphony, his first in 10 years. Characteristically, the first sketches of the new work, made on April 15, 1888, include a verbal program portraying an individual’s reactions in the face of immutable destiny, involving stages of resignation, challenge, and triumph:

“Introduction. Complete resignation before Fate, or, which is the same, before the inscrutable predestination of Providence. Allegro. (1) Murmurs of doubt, complaints, reproaches against XXX. (2) Shall I throw myself in the embraces of faith??? A wonderful program, if only it can be carried out.”

Tchaikovsky never made this program public, however, and in one of his letters even went out of his way to stress that the symphony had no program. 

He adds:

Many people believe that the unnamed, mysterious “XXX” in the sketch stands for homosexuality. In his diaries, Tchaikovsky often referred to his homosexuality as “Z” or “That.”

The theme of Fate is first heard in the somewhat lugubrious opening movement’s Andante introduction. Laki comments:

English musicologist Gerald Abraham noted that this theme was taken almost literally from an aria in Mikhail Glinka’s opera A Life for the Tsar, in which it was sung to the words “Ne svodi na gore” (“Do not turn to sorrow”).

The main body of the Allegro con anima movement is frequently dynamic and passionate but with more subdued passages; it finishes abruptly and very softly. The ensuing, soaringly Romantic Andante cantabile is indeed song-like with a beautiful main theme played by the French horn and a second—that too is captivating—introduced by the clarinet; a powerful crescendo ushers in a recapitulation of the first motif. The music again intensifies followed by the recurrence of the initial theme; the movement closes gently. 

The brief Valse movementthat succeeds this, marked Allegro moderato, is very charming; as it becomes more spirited, it remains enchanting, ending more forcefully. The glorious Finale has a majestic character that becomes more animated, although with lyrical interludes; the music reaches a turbulent climax, while the jubilant, Presto codaachieves a triumphant close.

The artists, deservedly, received a very enthusiastic ovation.

Newsletter Sign Up

Upcoming Events

No Calendar Events Found or Calendar not set to Public.

Tweets!