Margot Fonteyn!

[Ari]

Daniil, it would help the discussion if you could tell us why you think that technique has improved so much from "the old days." Do you mean that dancers are doing more of everything -- more pirouettes, higher jumps and extensions? Is it that you think execution of steps is cleaner? Are you talking about both men and women, or more of men?

[Helene]

Daniil, you are in a no-win situation here: the only way to tell whether you've changed your aesthetic over time is for it to be many years in the future, with you looking back and making the comparison.

Having watched your videos, your clear style and technique and understated (i.e., not overly emotional) presentation match your aesthetic. Not many young dancers have the ability to do this.

[Alymer]

[Danill wrote: Of course Nureyev was on stage "Like an animal"

I saw a great many of Nureyev's performances over a great many years and I really don't recognise this often quoted description. When he was young he certainly had a big, soft, pantherine jump which showed to particular advantage in Corsaire. But there was nothing animal-like in his performances of the classics or indeed in any of his other roles that I can recall off the top of my head.

I would certainly agree that the Vienna Swan Lake is not a particularly flattering or even accurate record of either Fonteyn or Nureyev - in particular his "Jaqueline Onassis-style" make-up and bouffant hair makes me wince.l And I think that the point about close up filming of acting designed for a big stage is very valid. And the production did look a great deal better - even more logical - on the big stage in Vienna.

Going back to the original point, I wonder if nowadays ballets are generally cast on the basis of the dancer being technically competent rather than being best suited in character, personality or physique to a role. I'm reminded of two anecdotes. The first, which Monica Mason tells against herself was when she went to Ashton and asked to be given the role of Odette Odile. "I'm sure I could do it", she said. "I'm sure you could", replied Ashton, "but who would want to see it".

The other was a dancer who has now left the Royal Ballet to make a career in his native country who ventured his opinion to an interviewer that the only difference between his roles as the Jester in Cinderella and Puck in The Dream was that the latter required a "cheeky grin". He could do the steps certainly, but nothing more.

[Cygnet]

Compare the way Natalia Makarova or Maya Plisetskaya use their arms in Swan Lake -- now THOSE are wings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But Fonteyn wasn't trying and failing to use her arms like Plisetskaya or whoever - she believed strongly that Odette was not a swan, she was a woman, and would have no reason to have arms looking like wings! I don't think I've ever seen this video, and maybe her arms weren't at their most expresssive - but it's not for this reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've seen the Vienna Opera Ballet Fonteyn/Nureyev SL tape several times. I wouldn't compare Fonteyn, Plisetskaya or Makarova's interpretations of Odette/Odile because 2/3 of this trio were Soviet products. Both Makarova and Plisetskaya were exemplars of their respective company's different styles and temperament. For example, when I saw Margot and Rudy's Romeo tape, her acting and lyricism was, IMO very subdued. Whereas Makarova's Juliet was the Mt. Everest of passion and lyricism. Margot was the last in the line of what I would call the Imperial ballerinas. For me, she was the missing link between two eras.

Natasha's approach to SL was always "think out of the box." Whenever she did SL you couldn't tell what she was going to do from one performance to the next. You couldn't pin down her interpretation. The evolution never ended. Margot's Odette wasn't more feminine than theirs' but it was, at that stage of her life, old school simplicity. Does anyone know of any tapes made in the early-mid '50s of Margot in SL before Nurevev? If there's one that exists, it would be a good gauge of her Odette in her true salad years. Perhaps then I could make a better comparison with the Vienna tape, and Maya and Natasha. Maya and Natasha were over the top dramatic, Maya's being the most physical interpretation of the three. For me, Maya's wings beat the wind the strongest! Re Odile: I cut my teeth on live performances of ABT, Bolshoi and Kirov SLs as a kid. Compared to Maya and Natasha, and the 80s & 90s generation of O/Os, Margot's was bland, IMO.

[Mme. Hermine]

there is that film of part of act 2 circa 1959, released with firebird and ondine:

Swan lake. Act II excerpts (Valse, pas de deux, pas de quatre, rondo, and coda) / choreography, Frederick Ashton and Nikolai Sergeev after Ivanov and Petipa ; sets and costumes, Leslie Hurry ; cast, Margot Fonteyn (Odette) ; Michael Somes (Prince Siegfried) ; Bryan Ashbridge (Benno) ; Leslie Edwards (Von Rothbart) ; Ann Howard, Mavis Osborn, Clover Roope, and Antoinette Sibley (Cygnets) ; and corps de ballet.

[Guest nycdog]

Is there any film of Fonteyn available which would give a reasonable person an idea of WHY this woman was the greatest female dancer of the 20th century?

The late Washington Post critic Paul Hume (the original Glenn Gould fan) said of her performances as Aurora in 'The Sleeping Beauty,' in the title role in 'Giselle,' and in 'Swan Lake' in the dual roles of Odette-Odile, "a force of indescribable power, beauty and effect. To watch her was to see the music live on stage in the person of a single dancer."1

I understand Fonteyn was 5 foot 4 inches tall and weighed 115 pounds! I wonder if any dancer so little would be able to capture the imagination of the public today?

1) "Legend of Modern Ballet Margot Fonteyn Dies at 71," Bart Barnes, The Washington Post, Washington, D.C.: Feb 22, 1991. pg. d.05

[bart]

Natasha's approach to SL was always "think out of the box."  Whenever she did SL you couldn't tell what she was going to do from one performance to the next.  You couldn't pin down her interpretation.  The evolution never ended.  Margot's Odette wasn't more feminine than theirs' but it was, at that stage of her life, old school simplicity.

This is fascinating. All these informed opinions, nudging and assisting the rest of us to fashion and rethink our own opinions.

I have a question based the way cygnet and a few others have expessed their thoughts on the various ballerina styles. Cygnet's language suggests a high degree of intentionallity in Makarova's style -- and a slightly more passive role, representing a school or even an era, for Fonteyn.

Here's the question. Based on what you know and/or have observed, what are the most important factors that influence a dancer's interpetation of the great classical roles over time: the dancer's own ideas/intent? sustained coaching? exposure to a company style over a long period of time (Alexandra's point)? a shrewd judgment of what "works" with the audience? something else? Maybe it is factors like these that have changed in the past generation.

I would be interested in Daniil's thoughts about this, since he is now beginning a lifelong process of defining his own sense of style in particular roles.

An aside re old videos: nowadays most of us are more or less comfortable in front of a camera (at least the TV reality shows suggest this). We've been filmed, snapped, and (many of us) interviewed, and we've seen people we know in the same position.

In the past, however, it's possible that the presence of huge, cumbersome cameras and the special lighting needed to make the process work may have been perceived as much more intrusive by the dancers, with the effect of disorienting and even distorting their work. Tallchief on Bell Telephone Hour always looked like someone stunned and caught in the headlights of an onrushing car: she always appears nervous and ill at ease. Bruhn and Eglevsky, far from coming across as the greata danseurs nobles that the were, sometimes give the impression of not quite knowing where to move next. There's hesitation before major steps, lifts, jumps, etc., that I doubt very much occurred on stage without the cameras.

[Helene]

Is there any film of Fonteyn available which would give a reasonable person an idea of WHY this woman was the greatest female dancer of the 20th century? 

I've never seen Fonteyn live, and from the films I've seen, I've never "gotten" her. I've been told my several Fonteyn lovers that there is no film that captures even a quarter of the qualities that made her appealing. (Although, there may be archival films that hadn't been available that may give a better sense of her dancing.)

As a fan of figure skating, this is especially believable, as there are skaters who are so different -- both better and worse -- on videotape than live, and others who are similar live and on video. There is something about the quality of movement, speed, and acceleration of some dancers and skaters that isn't capturable on video or film and must be seen live and in three dimensions.

I'm afraid Fonteyn may have been a case of "you just had to be there."

[Mme. Hermine]

actually if they seem uncomfortable, i think it's more because they were probably dancing in restricted spaces and had to restrain themselves; those studios were more often than not rather small.

In the past, however, it's possible that the presence of huge, cumbersome cameras and the special lighting needed to make the process work may have been perceived as much more intrusive by the dancers, with the effect of disorienting and even distorting their work.  Tallchief on Bell Telephone Hour always looked like someone stunned and caught in the headlights of an onrushing car:  she always appears nervous and ill at ease.  Bruhn and Eglevsky, far from coming across as the greata danseurs nobles that the were, sometimes give the impression of not quite knowing where to move next.  There's hesitation before major steps, lifts, jumps, etc., that I doubt very much occurred on stage without the cameras.

[bart]

Helene, your expertise in ice skating competition seems relevant to this question of the increase in technical ability and difficulty.

How far, technically, have figure skaters advanced since the days of (say) Peggy Fleming. And what has happened to artistry as a result?

[Guest nycdog]

Helene:

"I'm afraid Fonteyn may have been a case of "you just had to be there"

I'm happy you wrote this because I've been thinking the same thing!

Fonteyn must have had an enormous spirit.

(By the way, as a small child I did see her do Sleeping Beauty (?) with Nureyev at City Center in Manhattan I don't remember a thing except being very bored.)

[bart]

actually if they seem uncomfortable, i think it's more because they were probably dancing in restricted spaces and had to restrain themselves; those studios were more often than not rather small.

Paul, good point which I hadn't thought of. I still suspect, however, that the presence of those huge, cumbersome and immobile or clumsily moving machines must have had an effect on the marking difficulties the dancers seem to be having. These were artists who lived "on the stage" in a way that might seem inconceivable to younger dancers. Whatever you think of the dancing in videos of the last 10 years, it seems to me that younger dancers take to the camera with great east. Improved camera work and direction help a lot, of course.

Edited April 9, 2005 by bart

[Alexandra]

One thing on videos. I remember when videos or a TV show first came out -- when the dancers will still dancing and one could compare what one had seen on stage with what one saw on the small screen -- I was continually stunned by the differences. Dancers who were technically pure but had little else to offer looked like gods. Dancers who couldn't act--i.e., on stage they looked like blocks of wood -- often in close up, on film, looked interesting. Dancers with some sort of tic -- Farrell's bouncing wrists, Nureyev's horrible breathing -- became the Tic; that's all you could see, while often, in the theater, you wouldn't notice unless you were in the front row or watched a dance performance looking only at the performer's face, or wrists, through opera glasses. There was also the phenomenon of ballets that looed sloppy or underrehearsed in live performance suddenly transformed for the video. AND there's the opposite effect (especially with the Royal, I think) of dancers who, in bootleg films, are beautifully unself-conscious turn into We Must Do Our Duty dancers for the movie. So there are lots of things going on.

On the early TV films I know one one example (Kronstam and Simone on the "Firestone" tape) that the floor had been waxed and, Simone told me in an interview for my book (and before the video had been released) that "We were afraid to do anything because the floor was so slippery."

Re Fonteyn, my own video journey with her was that I'd seen her at the end of her career, when she was overacting a bit to compensate for the loss of technique, but she still had an authority -- command of the stage -- that no one dancing at that time in the West had, and I saw all the ballerinas dancing in the mid and late '70s. She wasn't a bravura dancer, but that doesn't mean she wasn't a virtuosa. She represented a school that cared about epaulement and fast footwork, not high extensions; Ashton wanted a 90-degree arabesque.

When I first saw her on video I was very disapponted. I'd looked forward to seeing her younger, and found her very bland. It wasn't until I developed Danish eyes (i.e., I'd been watching performances and classes in Copenhagen off and on for a number of years) that I could watch what she was doing instead of matching her to what I was used to seeing, if that makes sense, and when I did that, I got her. Now when I go back and look at the same videos that I thought "dull" I don't know what I was thinking. (The Danes at the time I was watching them were still children of Volkova, too, and it was Volkova who coached Fonteyn in the classics, so I knew, rather than guessed, that the style was not what they would call overstretched or overextended.) Now, that's a lot of work to go through to appreciate a dancer and I'm not recommending it, and everyone's going to compare what they see on video to different images from what they see onstage, but that's one journey.

When I asked people about Fonteyn, here are two comments I remember, both from older critics who'd seen most of her career. "She's the only dancer I've ever seen for whom I'm never worried when she dances." (Meaning the person was never worried that Fonteyn would make a mistake, or fall.) "Her dancing was as pure as cool, clear water." Most people cite her warmth; some were bothered, in theory, by her near constant smile, while others thought that it was perfect for her.

[Jane Simpson]

How wise Pavlova was, to stay away from movie cameras almost entirely - otherwise we could be having this discussion about her, too.

(By the way, if Fonteyn was 5'4" she was more than 2 inches taller than Alina Cojocaru, who seems to be doing all right in attracting the public!)

[Alexandra]

Pavlova? She couldn't dance! She didn't have any TURNOUT!!! Why, she wouldn't be taken into any corps de ballet in the world today. (I remember reading that over and over and over in the mid-1970s and '80s until I could have screamed.)

[carbro]

One more itty-bitty, teeny-tiny detail:

Bell Telephone Hour and Ed Sullivan were done live -- no chance for retakes. Today almost all commercially available videos are recorded in more than one take. The dancers generally have the security of knowing that any mishaps can be edited out. And because of the blessings (for us) of better technology, improved cinematography (at least potentially) and the sizable commercial market through home video, dancers can be assured that they have more than just a small number chances to have their dancing images preserved for posterity.

[richard53dog]

Is there any film of Fonteyn available which would give a reasonable person an idea of WHY this woman was the greatest female dancer of the 20th century? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nycdog,

I'm just so uncomfortable with sweeping statements like this. The "greatest whatever of the 20th century" or as I've heard on some opera boads, "the greatest tenor of ALL time".

And this is in spite of Fonteyn being my first ballerina and one that is very special to me to this day.

Just for my OWN comfort level, let me offer a suggestion of why "Fonteyn was such a wonderful dancer" (see, I'm fudging).

This is maybe an odd choice, but it's the opening of Ondine from the Czinner film which also includes Swan Lake Act 2 (or some of it anyway) and Firebird.

I think that the scene of Fonteyn as Ondine dancing and playing with her shadow is just beautiful

A fellow "dog",

richard53dog

[Marga]

I understand Fonteyn was 5 foot 4 inches tall and weighed 115 pounds! I wonder if any dancer so little would be able to capture the imagination of the public today? 

I don't know where your info on Fonteyn's weight comes from, but one thing I remember clearly from my youth is how tiny-waisted and slim-hipped she was. There were pictures of her then where she appeared astonishingly slim, so I would venture her weight to be closer to 100 pounds when she was in her prime.

As for anyone "so little" (I am 5'4" and weighed 115 when I danced, and I always thought of myself as being of medium height and weight, never in a million years as "little" in any gradation) being able to capture the imagination, I can't even comprehend the question. To generalize that all dancers under 5'4" cannot capture the imagination of today's public dismisses an awful lot of stunning ballerinas, including Natalia Makarova, Gelsey Kirkland, Lucia Lacarra, Alina Cojacaru, Tamara Rojo, Daniela Severian, Rut Miro, Jennifer Gelfand, Tina LeBlanc, Pollyanna Ribeiro, Paloma Herrerra, etc. etc. etc.

I saw Fonteyn dance, too, and in my early years of ballet watching she was my favorite dancer. To me, she was a supremely beautiful example of what every ballerina should be. Her dancing was mesmerizing, her form exquisite to see on stage. Her interpretations of her roles, her acting, compellingly vivid, even now in retrospect, and after having seen hundreds of ballerinas since my childhood years.

One thing disturbs me in this discussion and that is the lack of respect shown by some posters for this ballet legend. I understand that in today's culture, where reality shows let us all judge the attributes of those who put themselves on display as contestants for large monetary prizes, there is a tendency to think that everyone is up for grabs, even long dead presidents and world leaders, as candidates for criticism and speculation.

Civil discussion is fine, but disrespect is not. If you weren't there to see for yourself, then I don't think you have the right to be snooty.

[Guest nycdog]

"At 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighing 114 pounds, Miss Fonteyn had a light and supple physique, ideally proportioned for a ballet dancer."1

Marga,

This quote is from Fonteyn's Washington Post obituary. I must confess to having rounded the weight up to 115 in the message I posted!

I was surprised to learn that Fonteyn was 5’4”. I just assumed she was taller it goes to show that height doesn’t matter, Fonteyn was a giant.

1. Legend of Modern Ballet Margot Fonteyn Dies at 71; [FINAL Edition], Bart Barnes. The Washington Post, Washington, D.C.: Feb 22, 1991. pg. d.05

[canbelto]

Civil discussion is fine, but disrespect is not. If you weren't there to see for yourself, then I don't think you have the right to be snooty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dont think anyone is being snotty. I only think it's snotty to assume that by chance, because I was born after Fonteyn stopped dancing, that I must know next-to-nothing about ballet and that I should thus shut up. Standards are standards. In some ways Fonteyn was excellent (her sense of line, her steadiness, her personality.) In other VIDEOS (such as the Vienna Swan Lake video) her talents are not very well-displayed. They pale in comparison to her other videos.

[Dale]

Let's be civil, please.

We seem to be having yet another one of these discussions where people who (as Canbelto put it) weren't alive when Fonteyn was dancing feel like they are being kept out of some exclusive club and the people who have longer histories feel as if they have been told they are old "living in the past" dinosaurs.

I hope we can learn from each other.

[Marga]

Civil discussion is fine, but disrespect is not. If you weren't there to see for yourself, then I don't think you have the right to be snooty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dont think anyone is being snotty. I only think it's snotty to assume that by chance, because I was born after Fonteyn stopped dancing, that I must know next-to-nothing about ballet and that I should thus shut up.

Oh dear, I didn't say "snotty"! I would never say that! And I wasn't even thinking of you, canbelto, nor do I feel that anyone here knows "next to nothing" about ballet -- quite to the contrary! And I would never think anyone should "shut up", nor would I use those words.

[richard53dog]

We seem to be having yet another one of these discussions where people who (as Canbelto put it) weren't alive when Fonteyn was dancing feel like they are being kept out of some exclusive club and the people who have longer histories feel as if they have been told they are old "living in the past" dinosaurs. 

I hope we can learn from each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dale,

Although I'm almost old enough to be one, I HATE the dinosaur mentality.

Let me share something that makes me never lose sight of perspective.

When I was in my late teens, and just starting with theater, ballet , and opera performances (it was great as a teenager to jump on a bus and ride into NYC) me and my friends used to hang out with much older people. There was this lady who was then 60 (I thought this was ancient, although at this point it's not so terribly far off for me now). She could say that she had seen Caruso, although her real memories went back only as far as 1925 when she was 15.

So we would take about this performer and that performer and one of my circle would say "Oh, you've seen everything that was worth seeing"

And she said "Sure I've seen lots and lots and have plenty of memories, but think of all the things you'll see when I'm gone. Performance isn't static, it changes and evolves all the time"

I've never forgotten it, 35 years later it still puts a great perspective on things

Richard

[Helene]

How far, technically, have figure skaters advanced since the days of (say) Peggy Fleming.  And what has happened to artistry as a result?

Fleming skated when double axel was the hardest jump for women, and IIRC, Dorothy Hamill didn't perform triples. (Or if she did, the easier triples.) Denise Biellman was the first woman to perform a triple Lutz, a little less than a decade after Hamill won her Olympic gold.

If you compare competitive programs from the 70's and prior to the "Triple Era" that began generally in the 80's and the "Quad Era" from the 90's, they were full of a lot more of the elements that make figure skating expressive or "artistic": footwork, small jumps (singles and halfs), turns and twizzles in both directions, and changes of edges linking the jumps. The triples and quads, as well as the big triple throws and to a lesser extent, the twist lifts, require a lot more preparation and speed than the doubles and singles. As a result, much of the transitional work was lost in cross-overs and jumps preparations were simplified. Code of Points, the new scoring system, is trying to reward and incent skaters to add these back in. Among the Men, this is really starting to take.

Another issue through the 90's is that the best "artistic" skaters were not competitive at the Worlds level because of school figures. It was the rare skater like Fleming who combined both and excelled at the World level. The ballet equivalent would be that if a dancer couldn't pass "barre," s/he wouldn't be allowed to dance "center."

In classical dance with a traditional structure, the technical preparation needed to do a 180 degree extension vs. a 90 degree extension, or six vs. three pirouettes, doesn't have the same relative visual impact on a program. The dancer still has to do the small steps up to big jumps or extension; I've rarely seen, for example, a dancer run across the stage to get enough speed to hurl herself into a partnerless penchee, which is the type of preparation required to do a quad jump. (Once or twice this was part of the choreography.) The place were this is most evident is when, like in Balanchine's Nutcracker pas de deux, the woman runs and jumps up and on the man's shoulder. On the other hand, in more contemporary choreography, where there aren't very many steps, there's more a run and jump and thrust and hurl into lifts and jumps.

One similarity, is the balance between the big "tricks" and the small, intricate work. As jumps get higher and more complex, they can overwhelm the smaller work that can be so effective artistically, both in ballet and skating.

That said, I think that Yuka Sato and Shizuka Arakawa have, at their best, artistry equivalent to Peggy Fleming and Janet Lynn. I don't know if anyone will ever match John Curry, because I can't morph Jeffrey Buttle and Johnny Weir

[Solor]

I LOVE STARTING GREAT DISCUSSIONS

I SHALL START MORE!