Jump to content


Gottlieb on ABT and NYCB


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts

Posted 13 July 2001 - 06:31 PM

DianaL posted this on Links, and I'm moving it over here to see what people think of Robert Gottlieb's take on the ABT and NYCB seasons just completed. There's a lot in this to chew on.
[url="http://"http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=4573"]http://www.observer....ory.asp?ID=4573[/url]

#2 Terry

Terry

    Senior Member

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts

Posted 13 July 2001 - 07:07 PM

I personally like his bluntness! And there's a lot I can agree with. :cool:

#3 Diana L

Diana L

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 13 July 2001 - 08:26 PM

I thought he was a bit harsh (but he has never been pro-Martins) but some of his points are IMO correct. Especially the "sink or swim" stance at NYCB and the decline of the Balanchine rep. Both are reasons I didn't go but twice this past season, down from my normal 15-20. I also didn't go to ABT for the reasons he mentioned, they were very predictable and I didn't want to spend the money on performances that I feel I had seen a hundred times (same casts).
Based on that, I'll concentrate on his criticism of City Ballet.
The "new talent" watch. I can't help but to wonder just how calculated some of the last minute replacements were this season, it's either that or Martins has no confidence in soloists as understudies. Again, the point was brought up of how much do these young dancers understand what it is that they're dancing? And those that are thrown into their roles that have been there for a while (I felt he unfairly compared van Kipnis to Nichols, it's IMO a perfect example of why you can't compare dancers) who's coaching them.
I feel like I'm just repeating the article. but I agreed with him. Instead of spending this time and money on pieces and works that are going to disappear, maybe City Ballet needs to cultivate the talent they have their in the dancers and the choreography.

#4 Dale

Dale

    Sapphire Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,992 posts

Posted 14 July 2001 - 12:39 AM

Rather than saying I agree with Gottlieb, I would rather say I understand what he wrote. Diana L. made a good point that Martins doesn't seem to have much confidence in the soloists or understudies, and the "sink or swim" phillosophy going on at NYCB.

I thought Gottlieb's critisism of Van Kipnis was a little harsh. He said that she should have been coached by Kyra Nichols, for whom the part was created. First, we don't know whether she did or not. And secondly, maybe Nichols isn't interested in coaching. I disagree with Gottleib when he says the NYCB doesn't have the dancers, I think they do, they just don't get the proper chances.

Gottlieb's comments on ABT were interesting as well. I've long questioned the policy of five casts for five nights of a ballet. It seems that come hell or high water, every couple is going to dance Giselle, Swan Lake, Don Q., Onegin, Sleeping Beauty etc... But we've discussed here that each of those ballets carries with it different qualities. Some dancers might be versitile enough (I think possible Kent and Nina A. fall into this catagory) to pull it off, but maybe Herrera is more Don Q. and SB than Giselle and Swan Lake. Or Tuttle is right for Giselle but not Swan Lake. In addition, hardly any of the dancers get a second crack at a role. Lets say Irina Dvorovenko performs Swan Lake in NY and discovers something that she would like to elaborate on in a later performance or Kolpokova says after the performance, "Maybe you should do this or that with your arms in this scene..." But Irina is only performing that role once during the Met season. She has to wait until September to get a second performance during a tour of Israel or a third in February when ABT visits, say, Detroit. It's very hard to develope a role like that.

#5 Michael

Michael

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts

Posted 14 July 2001 - 07:50 AM

I don't know if it just made good copy or something, but I don't understand Gottlieb's comment that the companies are "converging." I have no sense of that.

I don't think it's true. But then I didn't see them 20 years ago.

#6 justafan

justafan

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 14 July 2001 - 12:37 PM

It's interesting that one can agree with some of his points, but none of his conclusions.

The female principal ranks are of the highest caliber I've seen in the 15 years or so that I've been a subscriber. Kistler, Whelan, Kowroski, Ringer, Nichols are ballerinas of the highest rank, IMO. Alexopoulus, Somogyi, Weese and Meunier are all superior talents, and I'm never disappointed to see them on the program.

I do agree that the soloists seem to get short shrift -- but that may be a natural result of having so many superior principals. And I agree that he is treating van Kipnis unfairly. What's more, the corps has a number of promising dancers.

His point about lack of rehearsals is shared by many, but that seems to me a NYCB trademark going back to the Balanchine days. Maybe its unavoidable due to the large repetory.

Gottlieb does have a point about the lackluster schedule, however. But again, balancing the needs for new choreography with the Balanchine and Robbins repertory is a difficult act. Most of the new ballets were those that recieved generally good reviews, and hadn't been rotated through the subscription evenings. And sometimes, a ballet needs to have more than one viewing to be truly appreciated. I found that with Appalachia Waltz -- a ballet I enjoyed more on second viewing.

Of course, that doesn't apply to all of these ballets. I remember Burleske, a Martins ballet that premiered on Valentine's Day, getting quite a good review from the Times. I found it almost unwatchable it was so boring, even though I love Kistler in almost anything.

I don't think this in any way adds up to a company in trouble -- particularly when it has such a stable of fine dancers.

[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: justafan ]

#7 rkoretzky

rkoretzky

    Bronze Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 272 posts

Posted 15 July 2001 - 02:29 PM

Everyone is entitled to Robert Gottlieb's opinion I guess. Boy, I feel guilty if I mention that a dancer didn't do well or isn't a favorite of mine. I guess I could never be a critic--you have to be real MEAN.

In all seriousness, it was most interesting to read this article after having just seen 7 consecutive performances of NYCB, and having 2 more weeks to go. I will refrain from comments on ABT, only having seen them once last season and once the season before, but I think I can say a little about NYCB.

Last night I saw a performance of 4Ts in which not one single dancer was in the company during Balanchine's lifetime. I left the theater thinking that Mr. B would have been very pleased with this performance. It was wonderful. Alexander Ritter, so-so in the matinee, was miles better by the evening. The three opening themes were magnificent, particularly Jennifer Tinsley and James Fayette in the third theme. I've never seen Jennifer dance better than she is this season.

We finally saw Polyphonia. Interesting, following 4Ts. I think it is a worthy successor, not only to 4Ts, but to the great Stravinsky works. I think Christopher Wheeldon is paying homage to that tradition and I think he is doing it nobly. And I think that the dancers in both pieces do understand that tradition.

Balanchine has been dead for close to 18 years. I miss him too, and I miss Robbins, and I miss Patricia McBride and Suzanne Farrell and Eddie Vilella and Helgi Tomasson and Kay Mazzo and Merrill Ashley and all the rest....you get the idea. I decided a long time ago that some things weren't going to look the same and I decided to accept that.

I am not a member of the Peter Martins fan club. I scratch my head at some of his decisions. I question casting, promotions, scheduling, and while we're at it--why not have NYCB at SPAC for four weeks the way we did 20 years ago? Or five, or six. or more. Why isn't Rachel a soloist? I was sure she was and made a bet with my daughter. You know who won. Why was 4Ts the curtain raiser last night? Such a complex ballet doesn't work, in my opinions, as an evening opener, particularly at SPAC where stories and pretty costumes are very popular. Well the answers are it isn't my company and I am damn glad that they are here and I accept the company for what it is now.

I think the roster of principal dancers is stronger than it has been in years. I think the men are better every year. I see a lot of promise in the corps. Yes, there have been disappointments. I loved Yvonne Borree as a soloist and feel that as a principal she has gone nowhere. But then I see a Dances at a Gathering the way it was in January and I know it will be all right. I see a phenomenon like Maria Kowroski or the total joy of a Jenifer Ringer, and I know it will be great--it won't be the company that it was 20 years ago but it will be great.

Myabe I'm just a Pollyanna with stars in my eyes, but I love NYCB and I love that they spend their July with me.

#8 Diana L

Diana L

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 15 July 2001 - 05:14 PM

rkoretzky, I think part of what Gottlieb was saying is that all that you love, 4T's, Dances, 4 weeks at SPAC, slowly it seems to be disappearing. I can't say what NYCB looked like past about 10 years ago, but in that time it's changed. I don't only want to see "new" Balanchine during some Celebration and be subjected to new choreography that I'll never see again, but that's me.
For the past 3 seasons we've seen "new" girls like Taylor, Bouder, Kourbes and a few others pushed while it seems some (like Rutherford) are just given a few parts here and there and then they disappear back into the corps. I'm in favor of cultivating new talent but Martins has a lot already there that he's not using.
I think City Ballet is in a transitional mode, they're trying to keep their past and mold there future and we're all going to experience the growing pains.
And in some defense of critics, I don't think they have to "mean" but sometimes too they're voicing their opinions.

#9 rkoretzky

rkoretzky

    Bronze Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 272 posts

Posted 15 July 2001 - 11:02 PM

Yes, DianaL, I got Gottleib's point, I just don't agree with it. The Four Ts that I saw last night is not disappearing--it was a performance that would have made Balanchine proud--at least I think so. It has been a long road back for many of these ballets. For years after Balanchine's death, certain ballets were painful to watch. I haven't seen a Barocco that did justice in a very long time, but I hope that eventually I will.
I can enjoy Dances at a Gathering again without any of the original cast members, but it has taken time. When I saw it in January it was stunningly beautiful. Different in places, but beautiful. I trust that will happen with Barocco too. It has with 4 Ts., with Serenade, with Apollo.

Four weeks at SPAC HAS disappeared for 20 years now. But we have three weeks. I'll take it.

I heartily agree that corps kids with promise are pushed into roles before they are ready, are then injured and disappear. We are seeing Alexandra Ansanelli for the first time this summer sice 1999 I believe. I wish it wouldn't be done, but I also wish my boss at work wasn't a jerk sometimes, and that my kids would keep their rooms clean and that my husband would pay attention when I say something the first time. Well my boss is a great guy most of the time, and I am blessed with a fantastic family, and some things I just cannot control. Among them are the decisions that are made by Peter Martins. So I choose to enjoy the company and have decided to ignore the rest.

and that's what I mean, I suppose, when I say that I am glad I am not a critic. My tongue was in my cheek when I made that comment, but I do think that Gottlieb was harsh and nasty and could have delivered the same message in a somewhat kinder way. And he is far from the only critic who writes this way. I don't enjoy reading it.

#10 Manhattnik

Manhattnik

    Gold Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 16 July 2001 - 06:32 AM

Four weeks at SPAC HAS disappeared for 20 years now. But we have three weeks. I'll take it.

Unfortunately, it's not Martins' fault that City Ballet is only at Saratoga for three weeks, but a Saratoga Performing Arts Center management that couldn't sell ice in the Sahara. I was gratified to see decent-sized crowds on Friday and Saturday night, though, and perhaps the tide is turning.

#11 rkoretzky

rkoretzky

    Bronze Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 272 posts

Posted 16 July 2001 - 06:50 AM

Manhattanik, you are right of course.
The SPAC administration changed at the same time that the season was reduced. SPAC had a marvelous 10 year relationship with NYC Opera that ended several years ago. It is troubling, but I am thrilled to have what we have. I wish for more, but as long as we don't lose further ground, I'll take this happily. And rejoin the Fourth Ring Society.

#12 Dance Fan

Dance Fan

    Member

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 22 July 2001 - 01:03 AM

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, critics most of all, but isn't there some bad blood between Robert Gottlieb and Peter Martins, going back to the days when Gottlieb was on the board of the company. (Hope this doesn't sound too much like gossip!) And could this contretemps be coloring Gottlieb's opinions regarding the company today?

#13 stan

stan

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 22 July 2001 - 09:35 AM

The "bad blood" goes back to the days when Gottlieb was editor of the New Yorker and Arlene Croce was turning on Martins. See, for example, "The Balanchine Show" from 6/7/93 (reprinted in Writing in the Dark, Dancing in the New Yorker) in which she asserts that "Today, the ruin [of NYCB] is all but complete." Martins understandably took offense at this, blamed Gottlieb for allowing the piece to be published, and forced him off the board.

#14 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts

Posted 22 July 2001 - 12:30 PM

Just a word, as a critic, re bad blood. This doesn't mean that Gottlieb (or Croce, or any of the other critics who are perceived as being anti-Martins, or anti-anyone else) writes in revenge.

#15 stan

stan

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 24 July 2001 - 07:43 AM

I entirely agree about Gottlieb (and Croce too for that matter, even though I do think she started losing it toward the end). But I'm not sure this proposition is true as a general matter particularly in other arts, like literature. One periodically sees letters in the Times book review along the lines of: "How could you possibly give my latest book to [so-and-so] when everyone knows he's my sworn enemy." Once many years ago, a friend of mine had the idea that Pavarotti should write his autobiography and her first job was to find a writer. She considered a number of names including Stephen Wadsworth who at the time was a critic for Opera News. (Since then he's gone on to greater things like writing opera libretti.) Ultimately she decided on Bill Wright who wrote a very nice book. When we heard that the Times review was going to done by Wadsworth, we resigned ourselves to a pan which in fact is what we got.


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):