Ruminations

[atm711]

There doesn't seem to be much curiosity about Alicia Markova as a ballerina. The first time I saw her dance was my very first ballet performance, in April 1944 at the old Metropolitan Opera House in New York. She performed 'Les Sylphides' with Anton Dolin. Since she was born in 1910 she was 34 years old--usually considered 'prime time' for a ballerina. At various times I saw her dance 'Giselle', 'Aleko', Tudor's 'Romeo and Juliet', 'Firebird' (the Chagall sets), 'Swan Lake' (ActII), 'Nutcracker' PDD, and 'Pas de Quatre' (Taglioni).

She enjoyed a very good 'press'. The so-called 'Dean of American Dance Critics' (I don't know who bestowed this title on him) John Martin of the NYTimes was besotted with her. He proclaimed "...not only the greatest ballerina in the world, but very possibly the greatest that ever lived." He was a bit carried away! To her credit, though,she was quoted as saying: "That's all well and good...it's easy to write that, but it is I who has to live up to it". I suspect she enjoyed the accolade. One of my reservations about her is that she performed like she believed it.

One balanced assessment of her I have read was written by Edwin Denby---"Impressions of Markova at the Met", Dance Mag. Dec. '52. He commends her for her weightless descents, the slender feet, her beautiful phrasing, her mime, her stage presence. All true! (She used these gifts to perfection in Tudor's 'Romeo and Juliet')

The actual ballet technique was another matter. Both Danilova and Fonteyn danced well past their prime, but still had much more than a modicum of technique and did not have to rely solely on reputation. Elevating one's leg to a 45 deg. angle might be OK for a Romantic ballet, but it doen't work in the 'Nutcracker' PDD, 'Firebird' or 'Swan Lake'---all staples of her performances. Denby states: "She cannot keep a brilliant speed, sustain extensions or lift them slow or high; leaps from one foot begin to blur in the air, her balance is unreliable."

When Denby wrote this in 1952 she was 41 years old, but much of this was in evidence when I began watching her in 1944. This was my frustration in watching her perform. But, I had friends who adored her, and were willing to overlook anything.

[paul]

I have never seen her dance. She was well before my time. But for the past 30 years she was a stable on the ballet scene.Lots of TV Programms about her. The last thing I saw was a film showing her rehearse different ballets with students from the Paris Opera. Taken shortly before she died. I must say I was impressed.What a understanding about the drama of it all. So much that she said was new to me. She showed a little bit of Giselle and it all made sense to me for the first time. And my God, I must have seen hundreds of Giselles.

About the unsteady balance. I have never seen such beautiful balances as in her first act solo in Giselle.

[Herman Stevens]

I have never seen her dance. [...] I have never seen such beautiful balances as in her  first act solo in Giselle.

Sorry, I don't understand. How are these two statements to be reconciled?

(BTW no big deal but it's staple, rather than stable.)

[Dale]

I think Paul meant he never saw her dance live but on film.

[sandik]

I've also only seen her on film, but have seen excerpts from her Giselle many times. For me, she has a great sense of self-possession in that role -- she seems set apart from the beginning, so that by the time we get to the second act with its great technical demands, they didn't seem virtuosic so much as unearthly.

[atm711]

-- she seems set apart from the beginning, so that by the time we get to the second act with its great technical demands, they didn't seem virtuosic so much as unearthly.

Sandik, I think part of my problem with Markova's Giselle is that I was also seeing Alonso's at the time. I think your comment that Markova's feats didn't seem virtuosic so much as unearthly applies more to Alonso's performance. Markova's technique could be quite blurry.

[sandik]

-- she seems set apart from the beginning, so that by the time we get to the second act with its great technical demands, they didn't seem virtuosic so much as unearthly.

Sandik, I think part of my problem with Markova's Giselle is that I was also seeing Alonso's at the time. I think your comment that Markova's feats didn't seem virtuosic so much as unearthly applies more to Alonso's performance. Markova's technique could be quite blurry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since I only know Markova's work from film, I'm more that willing to believe that in real life it was different. But in my limited viewing, her approach to the second act seems to be to sublimate the technical demands to an overarching characterization.