Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Acocella article- New Yorker


Recommended Posts

In the July 4 issue of the New Yorker J Acocella reviewed/opined on the Balanchine festival. One comment, in particular, struck me- she claims that when Martins took over the company's technical level has steadily declined.

Now, I don't get to see as much of NYCB as I would like, and don't have the image memory to compare then and now. Comments from the NYCB-omanes?

Link to comment

Who is J Acocella?

I've been going for about 30 years. The company has always had some strong technicians, some who are less proficient but have other "assets" and some who are big personalities but not technical wizards. There are roles to suit all these types in the NYCB rep. There are roles for mature, Indian-summer-of-the-career dancers and roles for young dynamos.

Back in the 70s I saw some very memorable performances and some mediocre ones. It is the same today. The corps can be really on one night, ragged the next. It was the same back then. Some people could do triple pirouettes, someone else might only do two...but beautifully. There were turners who couldn't jump, jumpers who couldn't turn, men who landed too heavily, partnering glitches, broken wrists, funny fingers, people fell, you name it. I think it is a human condition to remember the past as being golden and feel the present to be somewhat tarnished. That is certainly true in the opera world.

I have kept a "ballet diary" over the years, and all my programmes...sometimes I read back about those early years and am surprised at how I reacted to some of the dancers who we now consider legends. But mostly I like to enjoy the present. I do not think it is worse today; it is different...but that is inevitable. I have accepted this and that is perhaps why I enjoy going now more than at any time in the past.

We have no way of knowing how it might be if someone other than Peter ran the company; we can surmise. Someone else might have cracked the whip more, kept that elusive "technical level" at a higher notch. Maybe it could be better. I always think: it could be much, much worse. Or, it could not exist at all. So I don't complain much. If it got to a disturbingly low level, I could stop going. Instead I seem to be going more and more, and regretting the nights I have to skip.

Link to comment

I agree with Joan's article. Perhaps why I have become so bowled over by Ashley Bouder and Sofiane Sylve recently is that these two relative newcomers to NYCB can actually dance Balanchine roles without my having a "white-knuckle" experience while they are dancing. (Of course, I count in Wendy too.) And Joan is right on as far as the men go; her point about the Scotch Symphony was so very true. Only Damian has kept the flag flying high; he will be sorely missed when he retires.

One thing I remember when Peter first took over the company was his casting for Baiser de la Fee. He cast Heather Watts and corps boy David Moore in Helgi's and Patty's role. The disparity in the level of artistry and technical expertise of these casts just floored me, and unfortunately, we have had so much of this sort of "downward" and miscasting in so many of the classic Balanchine ballets over these past twenty years.

One point where I would amend Joan's article is that I thought the Ballos this season were everything they should be: extremely well coached and well cast. I went out of my way to see all three of them. Unfortunately, the lead ballerina was not an NYCB dancer, but perhaps that bolsters Joan's point: there is no dancer capable of doing justice to a Merrill role today (except now Ashley B. and Sofiane).

Link to comment

I think the general technical level is a problem, for whatever reason. It may be partly because the corps is so very young, and learning so many new roles, but I have never seen so many falls before--it seemed like at least once an evening, someone would take a spill. And it wasn't the type of fall that comes from trying too hard, it was just tripping over their feet. The quality of the pure classical variations, like those in Raymonda, was really off, I thought. Though Ballo was the great exception.

Link to comment

I haven't wanted to get into this discussion, but I guess someone should present another viewpoint. I haven't been watching the company as long as Acocella; she's probably got two decades on me. That being said, what she sees as a steady decline I see as cyclical. That's pretty much how I felt about the whole article; I didn't disagree with her details, right now the men are weak at the top; I'm worried about what will happen when Woetzel and Boal retire. I did find it interesting, though, that Acocella's examples were men, two of whom are very new to the company (de Luz is in his first season from ABT, Tewsley has been here a bit longer, but was out nearly a full season from injury). Right now, the company is dancing without Woetzel, Neal or Askegard. I think the only two women with Theme and Variations in their active repertory are Whelan and Weese; if Whelan was to do Theme, it had to be with Tewsley. To respond to Cargill above, to my mind, Raymonda Variations has actually improved from a few years ago. In notes I have from a performance dating 1997, I felt only 1 and a half of the variations were even gotten through out of the five. This could just be me, but I don't regard some sorts of falls as a technical issue, rather as bad luck. (Yes, I realize Muller's fall in the final performance was a technical issue. I had seen two other performances where she did those turns properly.)

For me, I was less affected by the fact that Acocella disliked what I found tolerable than that she likes what I found dissatisfactory. When it comes down to that, the only thing one can do is agree to disagree. We see the same details and award points completely differently.

Link to comment

I also disagreed with her assesment of ABT's Balanchine evening. I did not see the casts she saw but the evening I saw was not encouraging. ABT female corps was weak in T & V. Nina A left steps out of Piano Concerto #2 and took it at an intlerably slow tempo. Halberg did not succeed in the turning sequence that she describes as a fiasco for Tewsley.

Link to comment
You don't see a lot of souls on that stage, and when you do they tend to belong to the older dancers, such as Peter Boal and Kyra Nichols.

I think that one sentence perfectly sums up Joan Acocella entire article. With the exception of the two dancers Acocella mention and a small hand full of others, many of the dancers perform with no real sense of individuality. In term of body type of course they are all different. But I'm talking about that certain, also undescribable quaility the seperate most dancers from other. I don't mean lyrical, muscial, technically strong. Almost all dancers have that. I'm talking about:

The Americana openness of Patricia McBride;

The rise-taking regalness of Suzanne Farrell;

The coquettish chicness of Tanaquil LeClercq;

The bubbling french champagne of Violette Verdy;

The subdue elegance of Diana Adams;

The boyish charm of Jacques d'Amboise;

The noble elegance of Arthur Mitchell;

The premier danseur noble of Peter Martins;

The intense passion of Edward Villella

and so forth.

I don't think many of the current dancers can be describe like that. Mainly because I think the dancers are not being ask to being their own uniqueness to the stage. That's not to say they are robots program to perform steps - not at all. They all have given me great enjoyment. Just this season I wrote hear that I think the company danced better then they have in some time. And I still believe that. But they do dance much to often with no life in their eyes.

And I really believe that if Peter Martins would simply allow former dancers train and taught by Balanchine himself to come and coach the present dancers, I truly believe we would see more individaulity in the dancers as well as seeing the ballets of Balanchine perform in the way the great choreographer intended for them to be perform.

Link to comment

But the ballet masters now, were all trained by GB. Leland, Von Arnoldigan, Tanner, Hendl, Dunleavy, Lavery, Ashely and for the Robbins rep - Castelli, Redpath and Frolich.

Maybe these aren't the ones you meant or would have chosen. but they all meet your criteria.

I see a lot of personality;

The romanticsm of Ringer

Fayette, who can be exotic one moment and the all American male the next

The creaturliness of Kowrowski and Whelan

The intelligence of Weese and Millepied

Bouder is a PA cheerleader recast as a ballet virtuoso

The openeness and joy of Carmena

Reichlen and Lowry - the sexiest high school girls around

Jon Stafford who has grown up this season from a boy to a man right before our eyes

Abi Stafford is the quintessential "good girl" and I love her for it

Jared Angle, everybody's best friend and the guy all the girls want to dance with

Elizabeth Walker, the prettiest girl at the prom

And who knows what is coming. I'm happy when I see talents like Jessica Flynn and Tyler Angle and know that probably I'll get to watch them grow up into unique dancers in their own right.

Link to comment

Part of the genius of Balanchine was his ability to draw out aspects of his dancers' personalities. The difference between George B Fan's list and Liebs' is the acute specificity of the first. Interview after interview with dancers who'd worked with B'chine includes the surprise that "he saw something in me that I didn't know was there." He never did it by telling them specifically what to do, but by giving them an image that may not have immediately made sense, making the dancer work to find its meaning, to use their imaginations and intelligence, and thereby making a more lasting impact.

That talent is perhaps as rare as his talent for setting movements to music in unexpected but inevitable ways, and just as deeply missed.

Link to comment

I think GeorgeB fan identifies something I've observed as well, although I might describe it somewhat differently: specifically, as that quality referred to in opera-land as "temperament." "Temperament" in this sense doesn't mean "temperamental," of course, nor does it refer to something that might be characterized as "personality" -- rather, it is that combination of guts, glamour, imagination, and authority that results in vivid and compelling performances utterly unique to the artist in question, but devoid of mannerism. (Ahem -- I'm referring to good performances, or at least validly interesting ones. We've all seen awful performances that one might also elect to characterize as "vivid and utterly unique." :innocent: )

NYCB seems to go through "temperament" cycles in the same way that it goes through cycles of greater or lesser technical accomplishment. (And note that the two cycles aren't necessarily congruent: more than one great technician has been utterly devoid of temperament.) When I first started going to NYCB performances regulary in the 70's, it semed as if temperament was practically a component of the house style; at every level there were dancers who fired one's imagination. (I still remember the particulars of how Carole Divet danced, for instance.) Then there was a great temperament drought 90's where it seemed hardly to feature even in the Principal and Soloist ranks, and the dancers were practically interchangeable as a result. You'd leave a performance and could barely remember who you saw much less what you saw them do. Now I think we may be seeing something of a resurgence in temperament.

So what does "temperament" look like? I think Hübbe and Bouder are positively saturated with it, as is Evans. Even when they're at less than their best, or haven't really gotten a lock on a role yet, or are doing something that I might otherwise consider completely wrong-headed, I still can't take my eyes off of them. Ansanelli, Somogyi, and Whelan -- as different as they are in terms of style and experience -- all strike me as dancers with temperament as well. One can see in one's mind's eye how they might dance a particular role or even phrase. One of the things I've found interesting about Weese since her return is an apparent blossoming of temperament; she could always do the steps, but now I find her performances compelling and memorable in a way I just didn't before -- and I don't think it's because her technique or even her musicality has "improved" in any meaningful way. (I found her Aurora a revelation and I think her Calliope was the best I've seen in at least a decade.) Before, I thought she could dispatch a role competently, if a bit perfunctorily, and was relatively indifferent as to whether she was cast or not. Now I really WANT to see what she's going to do with something -- I want to see her dancer's imagination at work.

And I think it's that "wanting to see" that drives the distinction between dancers with and without temperament. Or more prosaically, between the premier cru ballerinas and the "house ballerinas." The latter are perfectly acceptable in the sense that they're not going to maul a role or leave out half the steps or even perform ungenerously; it's just that one doesn't head off to the theater thinking "I wonder what she's going to do with that role tonight?" or "I'd really like to see what she would make of this role or that."

In sum, although I agree with Acocella that NYCB is at best flat in more than a few of the ballets that comprise their heritage, I'm feeling rather more optimistic about the company's ability to renew its hold on that heritage than I was even half a decade ago.

(By the way, I mean "flat" almost literally. I can't really speak to the steps that have been lost, but I certainly sense the loss of a certain fully three-dimensional qualtiy that NYCB dancers used to exhibit -- even at top speed -- that seems to be missing today. Many of the dancers seem to just skitter across the stage like paper dolls blown in the wind.)

Link to comment

I haven't seen NYCB regularly for extended periods for a decade, but I have been back several times a year. I don't see the same lack of technique that Acocella does; I would describe the differences a little differently:

*I think the technique is there but what is often missing is the movement impetus. Even 25 years ago when the corps was ragged, even when everyone seemed exhausted and/or injured by the end of the Spring Season, there was a common commitment to move. One of the most remarkable things about Suzanne Farrell Ballet is Farrell's ability to take a group of dancers whose technique isn't the quality of the NYCB corps and to breathe life into their movement. By having the technique to begin with, the dancers will be ready if someone comes along who can do the same.

*To me the best performances of Balanchine's ballets, particularly the non-black-and-white ballets, where the hierarchy is less fluid, have been like a wedding cake: the corps is the base layer, with demi flowers along the side; the soloists rise above that, and the main couple(s) is swept to the top by common purpose and focus. While I've seen some beautifully danced roles, I haven't seen many beautifully danced ballets, although one of this year's Spring Season's first week rep performances of Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 2 gave me hope.

*Beginning with Ecstatic Orange, I've only seen one ballerina's strengths and style exploited in Martins ballets -- the rest have been rather neutral. (I haven't seen Janie Taylor dance Martins.) I went through my performance log yesterday, and in the American Music Festival and first two Diamond festivals, I could find only one ballet by a guest or company choreographer that showed me anything new about the specific dancers cast (a Robert LaFosse ballet set to music by McDowell.) I haven't seen NYCB perform Wheeldon; he may be more accomplished at choreographing for specific dancers' strengths.

*For at least the last 25 years NYCB has always supplemented the male contingent, particularly the principals, with dancers from the outside. Some had been hired specifically to partner the tall ballerinas, and they weren't expected to be more; (Lindsay Fischer, Otto Neubert, Charles Askegaard). It seems to me that NYCB is growing some of these men on its own instead of importing. The men from Royal Danish Ballet were trained in a technique that complements Balanchine's style of movement; that isn't necessarily true of men trained in Spain, Cuba, South America, Ukraine, Albania, and France, which is where the majority of imported men at ABT, PNB, SFB, MCB, and other regional companies come from these days.

Ib Andersen said in one of his Q&A's at Arizona Ballet that boys in America start ballet too late. Given the existence of rampant homophobia and bullying against male dancers in this country, it's not surprising that even a company like NYCB doesn't have men consistently at the same level as its women.

Link to comment

Liebs has made some wonderful observations about the current crop at NYCB, though the list could be much longer. The variety of personalities, strengths and "perfumes" there today is astounding. A casual ballet-goer, dropping in once or twice a season might not see it but those of us who go often don't know where to train our opera-glasses first.

"Things are not as good today as they were yesterday," is a pervasive theme in ballet, opera, tennis, baseball, politicians, you name it. Maybe it is true. But we have to have ballet, opera, tennis, baseball...well, maybe we don't need politicians.

Longing for the past won't get you anywhere. The past cannot be recreated; the wonderful dancers of the past are gone. You can either find things to enjoy in the new generation or...you can feel depressed. Or stop going. You can "seek the snows of yesteryear" as the Marschallin says, but they are gone. As I have said many times, things could certainly be better at NYCB...and they could be much, much worse.

One of the problems in this high-profile Balanchine season has been all the injuries. We didn't really see the full roster at peak form. Some dancers danced thru injuries, other "healthy" dancers were put in roles they probably would not be doing if everyone were in good shape.

Also, the turnover in the corps has been brisk lately. I feel like every time I go there are people onstage I've never seen before."Who IS that girl??" is a recurring theme. These kids are getting their bearings while the world is watching during a big anniversary season. I think they did quite well.

As far as coaching, again Liebs is right to note all the "old timers" on the staff. Merrill Ashley and Sean Lavery are in the audience every night and going back during the intermissions to give notes and moral support. Many of the "departed" dancers are teaching elsewhere, running their own companies, not in the best of health. And not every great interpreter is a great coach: a friend of mine in the corps was at a coaching session last year where a very famous Balanchine ballerina tried to impart her knowledge of one of her most celebrated roles to a young dancer. The woman was so wacky and self-absorbed that no one knew exactly what she wanted to convey.

Link to comment
And not every great interpreter is a great coach: a friend of mine in the corps was at a coaching session last year where a very famous Balanchine ballerina tried to impart her knowledge of one of her most celebrated roles to a young dancer. The woman was so wacky and self-absorbed that no one knew exactly what she wanted to convey.

This story has a familiar ring. Peter Martins didn't think Suzanne Farrell was capable of coaching either.

Link to comment

Dear Oberon and anyone else who's of the "the past is past, get on with the future" school: No, the past can't be created. No one is suggesting that it can. But there's such a thing as standards, and standards can be maintained, or a company can work to get back to a standard once the standard has slipped. That is what Acocella and others are saying. This can be done. It has been done in the past, in every art form.

Link to comment

You know, this conversation is funny. I'm a big opera fan, and any opera student will tell you that very often the most famous singers make the rottenest teachers. Some are clearly resentful of younger talent, others are abusive, and still others had no idea how their voices worked. Titta Ruffo was famous for refusing to teach, because he said he had no idea how his voice worked, and he couldnt ruin other voices by proclaiming to teach something he had no actual knowledge about.

So therefore, if a corps dancer says "X was a really crappy teacher" I tend to believe the corps dancer. I mean, being a fan is one thing, but I think we have to accept that being a famous ballerina does not equate with being a great teacher. I think seething that so-and-so isnt teaching at the School of American Ballet or whatnot is useless -- maybe they dont want to teach. Maybe theyve moved on, and would prefer to do other things. Maybe even if Mr. B were alive they'd refuse to teach. Its easy to blame Peter Martins, but I tend to think it takes two to tango. For instance, the part in Suzanne Farrell's book that always chills me is when she talks about Diana Adams pressuring her to lose weight. Adams naturally had a super-long, thin physique. Farrell obviously had enchanting baby-fat cheeks and a curvier figure. Given what we now know about eating disorders, I find a famous ballerina like Adams pressuring a very thin, very young Farrell to lose weight or else chilling. The point? That dancers are human and they bring their own baggage to the classroom, especially famous ones.

OTOH, I find it interesting that at the ABT, the complaint is hardly ever about lack of talent. It's always that extremely talented dancers like Veronika Part or Herman Cornejo don't dance *enough*.

Link to comment

To anyone who would like to see just how invaluable and precious a tool it is to have a ballet coached and taught to them by a former Balanchine dancer , see Leigh Witchel excellent serious of articles in previous DanceView issues intitled: The George Balanchine Foundation: Interpreters Archive and Works and Process. I believe all of the articles are online. Unfortunately I can't do a link to save my life. Perhaps someone could put a link up?

These people were there when Balanchine made these ballets. They are a direct link. Many of them have made coaching sessions for the Balanchine Archive and I'm sure many would be happy to help coach at NYCB.......if they were asked.

Link to comment

Alexandra, I certainly understand your remarks about standards but if you have been going to the opera for 40 years as I have you will know that the standards there have slipped precariously (well, beyond precariously actually...) and it seems unlikely that they will ever be restored. The further we get from the source (the composers and the maestros who worked with them directly) the lower things go. With such "pop" influences as Bocelli & Charlotte Church, the use of amplification and sur-titles, the craze for slender, believable bodies in roles which demand vocal titans, and the sheer silliness of many opera productions which literally spit in the face of the composer's intentions...it is unlikely these effects will be purged. How will the old standards ever be retrieved? My belief is they won't. But still, the operas themselves are what keeps me going.

Now that Balanchine has been gone for 20 years, can we really expect NYCB to look like it did when he was there? I don't think so. And believe me, there were lacklustre nights in the 70s & 80s, and there were dancers who were not technical wizards but who we loved for their personalities and perfume. Do you really think the dancers today don't aspire to the highest level? Do you think Peter and his staff are indifferent to how the company looks? Would it be preferable for the company to disband since the original Balanchine aura is slipping away? If the great interpreters could be lured back to coach their roles, to what extent would that alter things? Even if a current dancer were coached by some legend from the past, the current dancer can never BE the earlier dancer. That seems to be what some people want...they want Suzanne & Allegra & Violette back. I, on the other hand, want Wendy and Miranda and Janie Taylor. And in five or ten years, I'll want whoever rises up from the corps...fresh air keeps us alive. But I would never forget Wendy any more than I would forget Merrill Ashley.

I have not forgotten the past at NYCB...there are wonderful memories. But it has to go forward or perish. I for one don't want to lose it.

Link to comment

I'm wondering if it's at all common practice for the dancers themselves to seek outside coaching if they're so inclined to do so, especially coaching from the former dancers who are still in NYC. They take daily class from whomever they choose, why not hire private coaches if they want? I sure would.

Of course, this would be limited to principal/solo roles and small groups I would think.

Link to comment

Perky, here's the link to the list of articles by Leigh that you mentioned:

Balanchine Archive

lampwick, from time to time one hears that a dancer (at both NYCB and ABT) has gone to another dancer for coaching on a particular role. It would be hard, though, if the coach tells the dancer to do something that has been changed in the current production, or that the company's official coach doesn't like, so there may be times when this is a successful approach and times when it is not.

Link to comment

I don't think it's just a matter of coaching. I think it's a matter of leading. Acocella ends her article by saying,

On the evidence of the performances, they think he’s [balanchine's] a millstone around their necks, a standard they’re always being asked to come up to, without ever being told how. And that’s because their boss can’t tell them.

I wouldn't ask for Farrell back as a dancer, or even necessarily as someone to coach principal dancers in her roles. (If there are any dancers she hasn't been successful with in her own company, I think these are the already formed principal dancers.) I think Farrell has two strengths: first, as a Ballet Master, she's able to take whatever undeveloped talent is in front of her and breathe life and common purpose into it. Second, as a teacher, she is able to give class to prepare her company for the ballets that they are going to dance. I remember an interview with Calegari, who had stopped dancing until she went to work with Farrell. She said that Farrell gave the exact types of exercises to wake up the right muscles for speed and the ability to react.

I think that there are fabulous dancers in NYCB today; unfortunately, the ballets that are made for them don't grow them. I just don't know how many fabulous performances of entire ballets there are.

Link to comment

Someone should write an article on the declining standards of dance criticism at the New Yorker; how no one has anything new to offer. They can just rework Croce in a diminished form. That was such a jaded, cynical pro forma piece. Some of what Acocella has to say about Martins' bad choices in programming, choreographers, and in setting a poor example of discipline are quite on target, but she chooses not to pursue any of those arguments. Instead she has to launch a tired attack on carefully selected "bad" dancers. I've read it all before. It's not interesting anymore.

Link to comment

Just a few random comments:

Whether one agrees with Joan A. or not, I believe she does address the big-picture issues. That said, she balances her arguments with specific examples, given her space limitations in the New Yorker. I suppose the same issues keep coming up because she, among other writers, feel they are not being addressed.

I think it is possible to be a great fan of the company and like the dancers one is seeing and still appreciate the viewpoint of a critic who wants to see changes in the way the company functions. I would say this is possible just about everywhere in the dance world.

It's no big surprise that City Ballet puts ballets on without a lot of rehearsal. They have a huge rep and only so many dancers and hours in which to prepare. One of the issues seems to be how that time is used and how those dancers are deployed, from class (do they still do enough slow tendus) to rehearsals to coaching to casting.

I, for one, appreciate all the view points. An anology: in British music, in which I have been somewhat involved for the past ten years or so, there exists an active pool of performers/writers/scholars/enthusiasts, many of whom have voiced their opinion in Gramophone magazine. This ongoing exchange (reviews sparking new research that results in new musical editions and recordings, producing more reviews and criticism) has generally been very healthy for the state of music making and music research in London and beyond.

Link to comment

Perhaps if Martins' offerings in the areas of choreography, programming, casting, and maintenance of the Balanchine masterpieces which constitute the heart and soul of NYCB's repertoire were more elevated the New Yorker's critics would say something new and interesting about them. Indeed articles like Acocella's are not interesting any more; they are distressing beyond words and truer than ever. The steady decline of standards at NYCB during Martins's tenure and its proximate causes (his stubborn refusal to hire great ballerinas to restage their great roles, in the face of every proof that this produces great performances-- NOT rehashes, but great performances in the tradition of what is required in a role-- his apparent lack of concern with the maintenance of the technique required to dance Balanchine brilliantly, as opposed to getting through the steps acceptably, etc) are enough to make any critic cynical, not to say vituperative.

It is not that Whelan, Weese, and Bouder, to name three excellent dancers, do not give us perfume, virtuosity, or personality; they do, and Whelan produces semi-miracles regularly with no coaching and no mentors, which is nothing short of astounding. It is that the framework and the sensibility necessary to bring their talents (and many other talents at NYCB now) to the fullest blossoming is not there. Rather like the dancer at ABT who nearly died when Tallchief informed her there were double saut de basques in the Tchaikovsky Concerto finale-- she didn't know, nor would she have without a coach who did the role the way Tallchief did.

Oberon, in the past every great singer went, as often as was feasible, to the source to study a role: the composer, the diva on whom the role was created, or if possible both. This is no longer possible in opera (one of the reasons for the horrible death of singing) but it is still possible in ballet. Tallchief, Farrell, Kent, Wilde, Jillana, Hayden, Mazzo, and many other dancers are alive, well, and bursting with brilliant insights about Balanchine; I've seen most of them speak or coach , and not one ever asks of a dancer that she BE the reincarnation of a creator. No one wants that, nor would it ever be possible. They all ask that the dancer give more, demand more of herself not only technically but spiritually (as Mimi Paul once said in a class, "you must strive for the outer extremes of positions, of what is asked in the choreography. don't be satisfied with the middle.")

they ask for what Balanchine wanted: MORE.

Link to comment

It is clear that Martins is more interested in preserving himself than the Balanchine Legacy. But nothing can be done about it. 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

Joan Acocella wrote another excellent column in the New Yorker about Suzanne Farrell, which appeared in the 6 January 2003 edition.

In it, Farrell describes her relationship with Martins, "...what happened is, he did offer me little things. He asked me to teach company class during 'Nutcracker,' when no one comes to class. He asked me to stage a ballet for S.A.B. -- Balachine's 'Gounod Symphony,' an enormous piece that I had never danced in, and had hardly seen. He offered me things that he thought I would turn down. But I didn't turn them down. I took these crumbs he offered me. Eventually, he figured out that he was not going to get rid of me that way, so then the other thing happened"--the call from the manager came. " (You're off the payroll.) :)

So what's a girl to do? Have her own Ballet of course! The Suzanne Farrell Ballet.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...