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

Rockwell on the New York City Ballet


Recommended Posts

How about a special series on The Swan for ballet dancers? It would be certainly be cost effective since I would presume they would not have to do any work on the rest of the dancer other their the faces. I was, as a parent of a dancer, very put off by the article. As well as everything else that a young dancer must work to master and overcome, now they must also worry if they are beautiful enough in other peoples' eyes as well? :D

Link to comment

"the City Ballet might try cultivating a few more gorgeous hothouse flowers..."

'Cultivate?' I don't understand how this could be done? I think it's an impossible task.

There seems to be a lack of personality EVERYWHERE these days. The game of tennis for example, where are the Borg's and the McEnroe's? Who are these people that are the top players now? Lleyton Hewitt? Marat Safin? I could not care less about them. I've wondered about this I suppose it's because the players today start at an extremely young age and do NOTHING but play tennis so they never develop into 'personalities.'

NYCB should be sure to look for its flowers elsewhere, not finding them in its own hothouse. Sofiane Sylve is a good example.

Link to comment

More eloquent than the article is the wonderful photograph of Suzanne Farrell that accompanied it. As Dale said, it's another interesting Sunday piece by Rockwell. I was also happy with the big article about Alicia Alonzo (but not with that photograph.) Is this the beginning of a ballet boomlet at the Times?

Link to comment

I would say, don't count your chickens.

At least City Ballet isn't advertising, as happened in the '30's, "18 Beautiful Balanchine Girls 18". They're simply saying it's a ballet company. My own prize for less-than-gallant on the matter of feminine attractiveness still goes to Serge Diaghilev. He changed the name of The Sleeping Beauty to The Sleeping Princess because, he announced publicly, none of his Auroras were beauties! :D

Link to comment
My own prize for less-than-gallant on the matter of feminine attractiveness still goes to Serge Diaghilev.  He changed the name of The Sleeping Beauty to The Sleeping Princess because, he announced publicly, none of his Auroras were beauties!  :D

I read that the change was due to the fact that in England, where Diaghilev staged his Beauty (or Princess), theatergoers knew "The Sleeping Beauty" as a pantomime, and Diaghilev didn't want them confused.

Link to comment
Among other things---Rockwell is no gentleman.  :excl:  :excl:

I agree. It's not sexist to lament that the current roster isn't full of beautiful girls, but it's rude to do so in public.

Otherwise, Rockwell makes a point or two, but elsewhere sounds confused. If Balanchine style might flatten personality, how did Balanchine "wind up cultivating all kinds of star dancers anyhow," several generations' worth? And his question about the causes of current complaints about the company seems so broadly phrased as to encompass a number of questions at once. Some longtime fans obviously do mind an inattention to choreographic detail. Many newer dancegoers obviously can't see what they're missing. Greater personalities would no doubt please both, but not mitigate the concerns of the former. As I read it, the way he's asked the question, without distinguishing and without proffering an opinion, implies that in his eyes beauty and personality could make up for diluted choreography.

Link to comment

I found the article very offensive and off-putting. Ballet is an art, a skill, and while facial beauty can help a ballerina reach the top, it's certainly not a prerequisite for being a great dancer, and it can't make up for artistic deficiencies. For me, the physical beauty that is important is the proportions of the body and the carriage and extension exhibited.

I'm downright puzzled about Rockwell's list of 'past beauties.' While many of them had a classically beautiful face, I think that they were no more beautiful than the current ladies at NYCB. In addition, there have been fantastic Balanchine ballerinas who do not have a classically beautiful face--Merrill Ashley jumps to mind.

Link to comment

Well, his argument was pretty muddled and what's more, I disagree. The headline and the first few paragraphs seem to be talking about physical beauty. Many of the dancers at City Ballet are as facially beautiful as many of those in the past, such as Farrell, imho.

Then he diverges and talks of personality. He's on stronger ground there. To some degree, I would echo the sentiment of nycdog5734 is part and parcel of the times. (Tennis is a good analogy. Both dance and tennis are on the downside of a boom.) Yet, I can't help but consider how ABT dancers are so well known individually. How much of that is selection (cultivation?) and how much is that promotion? I know that individual promotion is against the code at NYCB but that worked best in the day when Balanchine was the undisputed star. In any case, I think dancers like Whelan, Kowrowski and Bouder have personality to spare -- certainly as much personality as anyone across the plaza. If the company wanted to promote them as individuals, they could do so easily.

Rockwell's argument might have been about body type -- although he doesn't say so directly. And that might be more to the point. More than in the past, the company does seem to be hewing more closely to the very thin and flexible dancer of which Whelan is the avatar. (My brother, a subscriber to SFB, pointed this out to me the other night when accompanying me to the ballet. ) Whether or not that type is beautiful is in the eye of the beholder, of course.

Link to comment

This is a very strange article. It meanders around a number of topics (the nature of stardom, personal beauty, personality, the company's preservation of the Balanchine style, casting policies) without developing any of them. All it says is that Rockwell is bored by current NYCB ballerinas.

It reads to me like he had to churn out a Sunday piece and hadn't a clue what to write, so he sat down and just let it flow. I hope this isn't representative of what we're in for in the next (however many?) years.

Link to comment

I add my voice to the chorus of gratitude for two big articles on dance in the Sunday Times.

When I read this article, I sighed heavily. I feel much as Ari does, and I'm sorry. I was hoping to be able to respond to Rockwell's next piece with huzzahs, but no such luck.

I agree with kfw: the article seems confused. Rockwell seems to be conflating looks with theatrical charisma. It's not by definition sexism to comment on the looks of performers -- they are on stage for us to look at, after all-- but to focus on women, which to a large extent Rockwell does, is troubling. I think you can make the case for old time glamour and star quality in other ways.

Drew, I was slightly appalled by some of the comments in the Alonso piece, as well. Not a good day for women in the arts pages of the Times. The young ones aren't pretty enough, and the older ones who try to retain their looks are Norma Desmond.

Like Tomatonose, I was also puzzled by Rockwell's list, which contains names of dancers who were not conventional beauties of the type he seems to be praising.

No, Moira Shearer would not have won the lead in "The Red Shoes" if she had not photographed so well. However, if she had not been a ranking ballerina of England's leading company, capable of dancing the role convincingly, she wouldn't have been cast, either. Michael Powell was determined to hire someone who could dance the part of a rising star as well as look and act it, and he was fortunate enough to find the right woman.

Link to comment
Well, his argument was pretty muddled and what's more, I disagree. The headline and the first few paragraphs seem to be talking about physical beauty. Many of the dancers at City Ballet are as facially beautiful as many of those in the past, such as Farrell, imho. Then he diverges and talks of personality.

I agree with justafan's (and Drew's) point here. When Rockwell does bring up an interesting point, he backs it up so thinly. And I really hope Rockwell is not depending solely on Teachout's and Gottlieb's books regarding Balanchine (it's a nice start, but the chief dance critic of the NY Times should read Taper's and Mason's books on Balanchine).

I personally think there are many beautiful women in NYCB today and in all levels of the company, from (to name just a tiny few) Weese, to Rutherford, to Bar.

:excl: While the lack of mainstream popularlity would seemingly tie ballet and tennis together. The reasons they are in a downward period are different. And I don't think it is a lack of personality. Borg didn't have a great personality, what he did have was a great rivalry. And the tennis players aren't any younger now than they were in the 70s. McEnroe (a once and a lifetime personality, like a Farrell or Nureyev, his failed talk show not withstanding) was 20 years old when he won the U.S. Open for the first time -- the same age as (since they were mentioned) Hewitt and Safin when they won the U.S. Open for the first time.

Anyway, regarding publicizing dancers as personalities, it is a bit of a chicken and egg thing. It's hard to get dancers into mainstream media because nobody knows them and nobody knows them because they aren't covered by mainstream media. During the ballet boom (and significantly during Balanchine's run at NYCB) ballerinas were always featured in fashion magazines. Not so true anymore (save a few here and there). I don't know whether it was due to a persistent pr person or what.

But I guess it is good Rockwell is thinking about these things at all and that there were two big pieces in the Times on Sunday.

Link to comment

I've tended to think that the lack of big-name ballet stars that reach across the boundaries of the dance world and into the general public's consciousness is due mostly to the cultural and political climate that exists now--- which is very different from that which existed during the years of the "dance boom". I don't think it has anything to do with the facial beauty of individual dancers! How can Rockwell actually believe that if NYCB made a choice to "cultivate" beauty from within, they would produce more captivating stars?? If there was a lineup of the principal dancers from the 1960s and 70s next to those of today, I would challenge anyone to say honestly that one group had more striking physical beauty (or character, or personality, or intruige) than the other.

Link to comment

Wow, I've just read his piece and I'm stunned. I can't wait to read the letters to the editor on this one.

That said, I do understand the allure of a beautiful face on a dancer but what about Jennifer Ringer or Alexandra Ansanelli, Likolani Brown, Saskia Beskow...to name only a few. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. I will admit that I find a dancer's face to be an important part of the whole - as an audience member and certainly no dance critic. Me thinks Mr. Rockwell has put his foot in his mouth on this one.

Link to comment
I've tended to think that the lack of big-name ballet stars that reach across the boundaries of the dance world and into the general public's consciousness is due mostly to the cultural and political climate that exists now--- which is very different from that which existed during the years of the "dance boom".  I don't think it has anything to do with the facial beauty of individual dancers! 

That was what came to my mind when reading his "Think of Rudolph Nureyev. Think of Mikhail Baryshnikov": the fact that they were Soviet Union defectors probably was as important for their fame as their facial beauty... On the whole, I find his arguments a bit confused.

Link to comment

I too found the article confusing, especially this line:

----------

But some of the company's biggest female stars now are spectacular dancers without being spectacular beauties. Is it merely sexist to lament that the current roster is not "a company of beautiful girl dancers?"

Dancers dance, singers sing. Opera has long been a haven for oversize or physically unimposing people of both sexes. Dancers, too, have historically hardly all had movie-star good looks.

---------------

Why start the premise of the article by saying how the NYCB dancers arent as "beautiful" anymore and then admit that historically many dancers didnt have movie star good looks? What the hell was Mr. Rockwell's point??? :excl:

To me, personal beauty of a ballerina often comes from within. Great ballerinas will transcend facial beauty. I'll never forget the first time I saw Gillian Murphy dance. I was like "Little Orphan Annie puts on a tutu!" Her red hair and freckles and blue eyes flew in the face of every ballerina stereotype. Within minutes, I thought she was the most beautiful woman in the world, just from the firecracker way she kicked her legs. On the other hand, if a dancer does little for me, I dont care how gorgeous she is facially.

Link to comment

Could someone please write on article on how The NY Times dance reviewers are just not as good looking as they once were? :excl: Then perhaps Rockwell will realize what an irrelevant argument he has made.

The beautiful women are still there at City Ballet. What might be missing is the glamour. I'm thinking of those pictures of Toumanova and Danilova in the 30's and 40's, they looked like screen goddesses. And I remember reading somewhere of Balanchine and several of his ballerina's going out for dinner or something in the 60's and everyone of those ballerina's was dressed to the nines, fur coats, chic hats, and so on. I can't imagine any ballerina looking like that nowadays. It's just a different time and that sort of glamour is now the exception rather than the rule. It's not the dancers fault and it's not the company's fault for not "cultivating" them.

There is so much there at NYCB to write about, I just wish he had chosen a more relevant and interesting topic.

Link to comment

That's very true, OF. This month's Vogue has an article on the latest set of "Society Swans" and almost everyone of them is described as wearing jeans. That's just how people, including the most glamorous, dress today.

I think this article is a case of the critic getting older rather than the dancers younger (or less glamorous).

Another point - Although I don't think it's Mr. Rockwell's role to be the guardian of NYCB dancers' healthy body image, at least two of the dancers on Mr. Rockwell's list of beautiful dancers had plastic surgery done and both of them regretted this in their autobiographies.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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