The differences between dancers of the past and dancers of the present

[Ballet fan]

So, lately, I've been on a crazy ballet marathon, watching a lot of different dancers, including legends like Margot Fonteyn, Galina Ulanova, Alicia Markova, Maya Plisetskaya, and Anna Pavlova. And the thing that strikes me the most is that these legendary dancers really deserved their status as legendary because they were able to bring sheer magic to what the human body is able to do within the constraints of ballet. Watching Maya Plisetskaya in Mahler's Death of The Rose, Fonteyn in Ondine, Galina Ulanova in Romeo and Juliet, Alicia Markova in Giselle and Anna Pavlova in The Dying Swan is to watch something truly marvelous. These dancers became sonething bigger than themselves on stage and were able to convey the beauty of the art of dance in its purest and most realized form. They didn't rely on technical feats to attract their audiences. Sure, all of those ballerinas had excellent technique but they used it as a means for a bigger and better purpose, and that is to show the human soul through dancing.

I feel that today's dancers, although technically impecable, don't manage to convey that feeling of pure art that great dancers of the past (males also included like Nijinsky, Nureyev, Bruhn, etc.). That is not to say that today's dancers are not expressive and that I don't enjoy their performances. The really good ones are quite expressive and refined in their dancing and their perfromances are a treat, but they still don't get quite up there with the rare quality of being "one of the greats".

I once read a review stating that Tamara Rojo was more believable in Ondine than Margot Fonteyn. I'd have to kindly disagree. Margot used the role to express herself in such an awesome way, that I feel it's been unmatched. That is not to say Tamara isn't lovely in the role. I use this example because it's the one that strikes me the most, although I could remember a lot more.

So, thoughts or opinions on this matter?

[carbro]

Interestingly, the roles you cite many of these ballerinas in are ones made on them by choreographers who knew them well: Fonteyn in Ondine, Pavlova in Dying Swan, Ulanova as Juliet. One presumes the choreographer sees an essential quality in the woman that he can mine for the choreography. That helps a lot!

Larger than life is a rare quality these days. Two New York-based dancers come to mind -- Ashley Bouder of NYCB has it in buckets, and also ABT's Marcelo Gomes. You can get a taste of Gomes as Sexy Rothbart in the Swan Lake video starring Gillian Murphy and Angel Corella. Unfortunately, largely due to the restrictions imposed by the Balanchine Trust, there are few videos of Ashley Bouder on the net and none that I've found that do her justice. She's still relatively young, though, so we can hope that her brilliance will be recorded for many to enjoy in the near and distant future.

[Paul Parish]

THe examples you give are excellent, BF -- in particular, Plisetskaya in "Rose malade" speaks to me, since I saw her dance it here iN berkeley CA and was almost blinded by my own tears. What you say fits the case.

[cubanmiamiboy]

These PRIMAS didn't believe in the "Less is best" mantra back then...Nowadays there's a general "anti-divismo" feeling among the ballet scene, which I firmly believe is taking a lot of excitement out of the whole picture. Is sort of a boring homogenization phenomenon that is killing a big part of the magic. I, for once, don't get it nor do I like it, although I've come to accept it...

[leonid17]

Thanks Ballet fan for starting this thread.

Not everyone experienced or otherwise, recognises greatness in particular dancers and the cognoscenti of ballet, are frequently reluctant in their canonisation of a dancer as they always look to the past for comparison.

I have always believed that there is in the experience of classical ballet works, when given in great performances, a therapeutic and healing power. Dancers of the past were fully aware of this power and its responsibilities. Anna Pavlova was one among many who epitomised such awareness.

What separates great artists of the past from many of the leading dancers of recent years, is that they desired to learn how to surrender themselves completely in becoming a role and from this a powerful conviction of truthfulness in performance was achieved.

Such artists understood the abiding historical moment of a performance in which they create an allegorical experience that deeply reflects, rather than merely imitates the human condition and as such, is instructive at a deeper level of experience which they considered and and were often made to consider as a responsibility.

In story telling, the artist dancer projects a view of human life that resonates at a deep level of experience even when they symbolise a rose, a Californian poppy’s obedience to the sun, symbolise youth as rushing spring waters or give extraordinary experiential meaning to the death of a swan.

The ability of great artists the past to move their audiences was real and they did this in service to their art not their ego. They were often tough off stage about their status, but on stage, there was a deep transformation of a kind that appears to be seen less often than in my younger days of watching ballet.

Carbro importantly points out, “ Interestingly, the roles you cite many of these ballerinas in are ones made on them by choreographers who knew them well: Fonteyn in Ondine, Pavlova in Dying Swan, Ulanova as Juliet. One presumes the choreographer sees an essential quality in the woman that he can mine for the choreography. That helps a lot!"

I think that the tradition of the support and creation of ballerinas is today viewed with distrust by directors who are in general of a lesser calibre than in the past and who see perhaps genuine star ballerinas as an

independent, usurping influence upon their cadre power.

I do not know if you can take this as an example of such insecurity, but, when questioned on the absence of senior dancers in the company's recent visit to London, Fateyev of the Kirov has recently gone so far as to imply that classical ballet is only for the young.

I find this an extraordinary statement having watched Kirov dancers since the beginning of the 1960's and seen some dancers only reach absolute great heights of interpretation and projection in their middle to late thirties and I do not think any academic classical ballet company will survive critical examination if it follows such a path as seems to be the one Mr Fateyev has laid out before them.

I think that Christian is correct when he mentions, "These PRIMAS didn't believe in the "Less is best" mantra back then..." and in some companies, he may be right that they are seeking an "homogenized phenomenon" but NIFOM

thank you very much.

[Mashinka]

I find this an extraordinary statement having watched Kirov dancers since the beginning of the 1960's and seen some dancers only reach absolute great heights of interpretation and projection in their middle to late thirties and I do not think any academic classical ballet company will survive critical examination if it follows such a path as seems to be the one Mr Fateyev has laid out before them.

Agreed. From the interviews I've read with him he appears to be a first class idiot and from what I saw of the recent London season I wouldn't class it as vintage. Hopefully Fateev's tenure will be brief.