Signatures & Legacies

[4mrdncr]

Last October I saw a performance of "Other Dances" and, as usual, attempted to match the current execution of the steps with my memories (not having seen it danced since its originators performed it), and was suddenly struck by how much Mischa and Natasha "lived" in those steps. For the first time, I saw the steps as the living embodiment of their original creator/interpretors. No matter who performed them, it was Mischa and Natasha--THEIR technique, THEIR personalities--visible in each movement. Many times one sees other dancers perform a work and remembers the originals dancing it; one of the reasons Jacques D'Amboise so eloquently noted current performers have to work harder or be greater to supersede (paraphrasing) "the memories of those who came before." That is not what I mean. I am NOT remembering originators dancing a work, I am seeing them VISIBLE WITHIN the steps that were created on/for them. This is perfection in choreography: to so completely understand a dancer's abilities, that they are incorporated into the steps themselves, and a gift of immortality to an ephemeral art and artist.

Can any of you think of other examples--where the STEPS THEMSELVES embody the choreographer's and original dancer's technique/artistry/sensibilities? My most recent encounter with this phenomenon, was watching Angel Corella do "Clear". No matter who else performed the lead, and many excellent dancers have, what I saw was a gift from one artist (the choreographer) to another (the dancer); a symbiosis of form and technique and ultimately artistry that perfectly illustrated a singular talent.

The other parts in "Clear" were more interchangeable; all perfectly executed by the various casts, but not "living embodiments" of a single technique or artist--though I thought I could see Julie Kent's long endless line missing somehow from Xiomara Reyes' performance, which must mean that Kent was inherent in those steps as well. Or was it just my memory?

[Alexandra]

I know exactly what you mean. Some that I remember -- Baryshnikov in "Push Comes to Shove" and (in modern dance) Judiith Jamison in "Cry." When she danced that, it was movement spun out of her body -- living it, as you say. When others took over the role, you could see that it was steps.

I think it's because the role is made on a dancer's specific physique, technical abilities, and personality -- and s/he works with the choreographer in a completely symbiotic way. It IS more than just "no one could dance X like Y," but actually seeing the outline of the dancer (for me) like a ghost or shadow around the role.

I haven't seen "Clear" so can't comment on that point, but I hope others will.

[Leigh Witchel]

Recent examples; Jenifer Ringer took the lead in Wheeldon's Mercurial Manoeuvres in 2000 after Miranda Weese got injured. Even not seeing Weese in the part, you could see the role was made on her, even in the way the head was angled. She moves a certain way and it had become the text of the choreography.

When my friend Matt left Merce Cunningham's company he taught his part in Biped to Jonah Bokaer. I saw it several years years afterwards and had the odd experience of seeing Bokaer reproduce with uncanny fidelity how Matt danced (it was in how he held his arms). He didn't dance that way in other ballets, but Matt taught him Biped, so in that work, he danced like Matt.

[Jane Simpson]

The two examples that come to my mind are both by Ashton - the Awakening pas de deux which he added to the end of Act 2 of Sleeping Beauty is a perfect portrait of Sibley and Dowell; and Armand is Nureyev (even more than Marguerite is Fonteyn).

[bart]

This is a wonderful topic that requires, obviously, incredible eye and lots of ballet experience.

But I have a question: in what way does this phenomonon differ from the experience many of us have, when we watch the same ballet performed by several company principals (often in the course of single week)?

Frequently, one dancer seems a "natural" in the movements-to-music required by the role. Yet all have been prepared by the same coach (usually not the choreographer). Apparently nothing has been ajusted to his or her particular body type or gifts. They role certainly has not been created (or re-recreated) on him or her.)

Is this a version of the same phenomenon you are discussing?

[4mrdncr]

No. I do not mean "how" one dancer or another does a role, or performs a work. I am talking about the STEPS THEMSELVES inherently illustrating a dancer's personal technique or character. So that, even years later, you don't have to "remember" a dancer doing the role, because in essence you still see them before you in the steps being performed. This is what I meant by a 'gift of immortality': even when our old brains have forgotten and memories dimmed, the original dancer will still be visible in the steps performed. Like Mischa and Natasha were in the "Other Dances" I saw (25 years after I saw them do it), and last Oct/Nov when I saw Angel Corella do "Clear" again after seeing others perform it. No matter who performed the steps, it was Corella's technique, musicality, and shear verve visible within each movement. That synergy symbiosis or whatever is a wonderful gift from a choreographer to a dancer. And I am sure it something many dancers hope to achieve when new works are created.

[Helene]

It's a rare Farrell role in which I don't see the "Farrell bones," with the exception of Movements for Orchestra, in which there is a lot of Adams. That doesn't mean I don't/didn't see Nichols or Calegari or Watts as well, but the Farrell was always part of the essence.

Before the relatively recent re-releases of film of Adams, Tallchief, and Leclerq, I spent performance after performance of Balanchine ballets trying to discern what Adams', Tallchief's, Verdy's, and Leclerq's dancing was like, and I learned that I had to watch carefully, not just assume that the dancer at the premiere was the inspiration or the dancer on whom the role had been primarily choreographed. Until I learned this, I always wondered why Hayden complained about not being Balanchine's muse, because she was, for example, the original Titania, but the role was envisioned for Adams, not her.

[Farrell Fan]

No. I do not mean "how" one dancer or another does a role, or performs a work. I am talking about the STEPS THEMSELVES inherently illustrating a dancer's personal technique or character. So that, even years later, you don't have to "remember" a dancer doing the role, because in essence you still see them before you in the steps being performed. This is what I meant by a 'gift of immortality': even when our old brains have forgotten and memories dimmed, the original dancer will still be visible in the steps performed. Like Mischa and Natasha were in the "Other Dances" I saw (25 years after I saw them do it), and last Oct/Nov when I saw Angel Corella do "Clear" again after seeing others perform it. No matter who performed the steps, it was Corella's technique, musicality, and shear verve visible within each movement. That synergy symbiosis or whatever is a wonderful gift from a choreographer to a dancer. And I am sure it something many dancers hope to achieve when new works are created.

I agree with your post, but I wonder about Farrell and Martins, who performed "Other Dances" starting in 1976. I gather you didn't see them do it, but if you had, I wonder if Mischa and Natasha were still visible in the choreography. I think perhaps they were.

[leonid17]

incorporated into the steps themselves, and a gift of immortality to an ephemeral art and artist.

Can any of you think of other examples--where the STEPS THEMSELVES embody the choreographer's and original dancer's technique/artistry/sensibilities? My most recent encounter with this phenomenon, was watching Angel Corella do "Clear". No matter who else performed the lead, and many excellent dancers have, what I saw was a gift from one artist (the choreographer) to another (the dancer); a symbiosis of form and technique and ultimately artistry that perfectly illustrated a singular talent.

The other parts in "Clear" were more interchangeable; all perfectly executed by the various casts, but not "living embodiments" of a single technique or artist--though I thought I could see Julie Kent's long endless line missing somehow from Xiomara Reyes' performance, which must mean that Kent was inherent in those steps as well. Or was it just my memory?

Is there a better example than Anna Pavlova in 'The Swan' if you have seen the films her interpretation stays with you always and you just know that no other dancer could have originated this solo. Antoinette Sibley as Titania, Dame Margot Fonteyn as Marguerite or Daphnis, Maya Plisetskaya as Carmen, Nadia Nerina as Lise etc

[carbro]

Rarely do I see anyone dance a Balanchine-made Patricia McBride role without seeing Patty. Even beyond the trademark run with feet out in front, there's something of Patty that supercedes whoever is giving us her own take on the role and imbuing it with her unique soul (one hopes) through her unique body. Especially in Divertimento from Le Baiser de la Fee -- mega-Pattyness.

I'll probably come back with more, but this one just leapt out (slightly bent back leg) at me.