Jump to content


This site uses cookies. By using this site, you agree to accept cookies, unless you've opted out. (US government web page with instructions to opt out: http://www.usa.gov/optout-instructions.shtml)

Farrell's company


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#16 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,271 posts

Posted 06 March 2001 - 10:35 AM

I think I'd quibble that dance has moved forward since Farrell stopped dancing Posted Image

#17 mbjerk

mbjerk

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts

Posted 06 March 2001 - 12:54 PM

Forward does not imply progress, only direction. On that note I would play devil's advocate to your diagnosis, but very half heartedly.

You must admit there are some ballets and choreographers since the eighties (19 not 18) that have produced works to be seen more than once.

#18 cargill

cargill

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 06 March 2001 - 01:25 PM

Back to the question as to what we would like to see Farrell doing (with the understanding, of course, that our opinions count as nothing!), I would like to see her work with established dancers, passing on her roles. She has shown so strongly that she is a wonderful coach, able to bring out the best in a dancer without making her a mannered, Farrell clone. There seems to be a certain individualistic quality missing in some lead dancers today, and anything that helps would be so welcome.

#19 Jack Reed

Jack Reed

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 16 March 2001 - 06:29 PM

Jeannie's not the only one here who thinks staging Bejart is a bit of a waste, compared to Balanchine; but I would say, only a bit. Agreeing with our premise that she's not going to take our advice is pretty easy: I wouldn't say that to her not only on principle, because I feel I owe her too much for what her dancing did for us and for Mr. B, but also because among the three Bejart ballets I've seen, one was pretty good: "Le Sacre du Printemps", which I went to see because I had read somewhere that "You can't do it, but it's the best one," was Balanchine's own opinion of it (He never saw Paul Taylor's setting.).

On the program with it was "Salome", with Patrick Dupond in a black skirt, which was a stretch to take seriously, and years before, I saw the film of "Bolero", which seemed to me defeated by the music. So I don't completely write off staging Bejart, and I may even be ready for "Bolero" again. On stage this time. But I don't expect much as much from him. Still, if he can make one good ballet, maybe he made some others.

(When the women came out for the second part of "Le Sacre", my Balanchine-trained expectations rose, to be disappointed; it seemed to me at the time that Bejart had been more interested in choreographing the men.)

But the idea of a company where dancers can benefit more from what Farrell can give them is important, whether it's her own or another, as Tobias suggested. I'm not sure it matters what the experience of the dancers in it is. What does matter is whether they're open to her teaching. Don't some people learn one way, and that's it, while others are continually learning and developing?

[This message has been edited by Jack Reed (edited March 16, 2001).]


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):