Ballet fan

Dancers that everyone loved (including critics) but that you didn'

60 posts in this topic

Somehow I was moved by Darcey Bussell's Agon, which I saw at the 1993 Balanchine Celebration, thimbleful of vodka and all, because it was not othordox Balanchine but was done in a different idiom -- as was as if DB was thinking out loud these very unusual -- for her -- steps. I thought her Emeralds was a bit too willowy and big boned but her Symphony in C 2nd movement quite good.

I remember not much wanting to watch Heather Watts either, not enough freedom and abandonment or original personality.

Kyra Nichols mid-nineties Mozartiana was superb, every step and inflection was there. Nichols rethought the part completely, so I imagine it was a completely different experience than Farrell's performance was. Except for some unauthorized Cuban version, I can't think of anyone who could do Mozartiana again -- perhaps it's a lost ballet. Maybe Carbro has a current NYCB candidate for the role.

With Kistler I remember her timing being odd and off-putting but recently I saw a DVD of scenes from Le Valse, released by American Film Archives with Balanchine Foundation approval, with Tanaquil Le Clercq and Nicholas Magallanes. LeClercq's performance reminded me a bit of how Kistler would do it (which I must have seen).

Of the men I didn't like Peter Boal as much as everyone else did -- I wanted to -- but I found him a bit jittery and nervous and when he stopped, he disappeared -- whereas say when Peter Martins stopped and stood in place he still had a palpable presence, as if treading water, and Ib Andersen, standing still, still had a puckish curiosity about what was going on elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post

Probably for reasons that bart named Bruhn, I was bored, bored, bored by Peter Martins. Did I appreciate his crystalline technique and superb technical partnering? Absolutely. But he never seemed to bring anything of himself to his dancing.

Cynthia Gregory was another one who left me cold. I didn't like the quality of her movement. However, someone recently linked me to her

, and she just took my breath away. I had to wonder whether this was just a superb example of her dancing, or if my judgment has changed.

Off-putting was her frequent partner, Fernando Bujones, who always seemed more than a little too pleased with himself. He was sometimes less than gallant when partnering what might be considered ABT's second-tier ballerinas (I'm thinking of Marianna Tcherkassky).

Somewhere in between was Kyra Nichols in mid career, when so much of her dancing was too obviously calculated to produce a desired effect. I didn't notice it in the young Kyra, and in the post-maternity-leave Kyra I was delighted to expect but not find it.

Nina Ananiashvili was similiar. In mid-career, she seemed to be jetting here, there, all over the place, and the result was rather mechanical readings of her roles. I loved her as a young ballerina and as a more mature ballerina, perhaps aware that she was past the midpoint of her career, she seemed more in-the-moment, less formulaic.

Zakharova has learned to bring more to her performances than just her 180-degree extensions, but for me she still lives in cringe-land. :)

I'm of two minds as far as Nureyev goes. I was as captivated as anyone by his magnetism, but I didn't like his dancing. He once said in an interview that he tried to make it look difficult, so that audiences would appreciate how hard he was working. At that, he succeeded brilliantly, but to me that is not what ballet is supposed to be.

Never having seen her in person but only on video, this may be unfair, but I don't see why Tamara Rojo is so popular. She's a pretty dancer, but a ballerina in a world-class company? Maybe others will explain why she deserves that status.

Kyra Nichols mid-nineties Mozartiana was superb, every step and inflection was there. Nichols rethought the part completely, so I imagine it was a completely different experience than Farrell's performance was. Except for some unauthorized Cuban version, I can't think of anyone who could do Mozartiana again -- perhaps it's a lost ballet. Maybe Carbro has a current NYCB candidate for the role.
We'll disagree on Kyra in Mozartiana. :) I infinitely preferred Kistler in the role -- when she could do it.

I'd love to see Mearns tackle the role. I'd also love to see Bouder in it (and everything else, btw :wink: ). Her Emeralds showed that she can project serenity without sacrificing her strong presence. Of course, as a shorter dancer, she'll probably never get it -- at least not in Martins' NYCB.

Presence is exactly what Maria Riccetto needs in ABT's production. When they last did it, she danced beautifully, with some of the loveliest phrasing I've seen. But it puttered out and rolled off the stage and into the orchestra pit.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm of two minds as far as Nureyev goes. I was as captivated as anyone by his magnetism, but I didn't like his dancing. He once said in an interview that he tried to make it look difficult, so that audiences would appreciate how hard he was working. At that, he succeeded brilliantly, but to me that is not what ballet is supposed to be.

After a certain point of getting familiar with ballet, I don't think any great dancer makes it look difficult or easy for me, just because one knows that it isn't, although paradoxically there is an ease once the euphoria hits, as Villella demonstrates in 'Man Who Dances' despite the even greater pain he was going through than most dancers even at their most strained. As for that remark, I think Nureyev would say anything, so I don't really take it too seriously. To me, he didn't seem to be working any harder than other dancers, just more fantastically. I've noticed over the few years I've been at BT that I don't find dancers profoundly articulate verbally, with Martha Graham being easily the most outstanding exception (she's often been thought to have been a 'lost writer', or whever the phrase was, although 'lost' only because there wasn't time.) We've a thread on this 'verbal articulateness', sure, there are some other exceptions, Melissa Hayden comes to mind, and Villella is as well (extremely), but I don't find many of them to be that striking when describing dance or themselves. It's well-known the many of these off-the-cuff, flip remarks Nureyev indulged in--harmless, but not really serious a lot of them, I think. But yes, you could see Nureyev sweat, I think that's fine for this kind of animal dancer he was. Most of them do sweat, it's surely not all delicate perfume up close.

I never saw Kyra Nichols's Mozartiana, but I realize I've never found her nearly as enchanting as most do. Somebody with a body and talent as unusual as Farrell's would probably be the only one I'd be interested to see, I suppose it could happen even though it hasn't yet. I think I have a harder time seeing someone else do Mozartiana than 'Diamonds', although I haven't ever seen anybody else do that either that excited me.

Share this post


Link to post

Carbro, thanks for the Cynthia Gregory clip--she's not quite 'young-girlish', (maybe a little too horsey and extroverted?) from what I can tell here, to be the Aurora I tend to envision, but it's superb dancing and very musical too. Those devilish balances not as exquisite and feminine as Sizova's, but otherwise, hardly a thing not to admire here.

Share this post


Link to post
Where do I start?

I love Patricia McBride, but wasn't overwhelmed by her "Who Cares?"

Except for "Dying Swan", while I can appreciate her authority, Uliana Lopatkina doesn't reach me in any other way.

I think Louise Nadeau was gorgeous in many, many roles, but I could not bear her acclaimed "Agon" or Aurora.

I heartily disliked Darcey Bussell's "Agon" in the Balanchine Celebration in 1993 (the one on VHS/DVD).

I like almost no film I saw of Nureyev or Fonteyn, and by the time I saw Nureyev live, I wish I didn't.

I found Baryshnikov disengaged in most of his classical roles.

Interesting that you didn't like Nureyev and Fonteyn since they're hailed as two of the greatest dancers of the 20th century. I have Margot's Cinderella and I thought she was quite lovely. I also have her Sleeping Beauty and although she doesn't have high extensions or incredible elevation in her jump, she has such musicality, regal presence and lyricism that it makes her compelling in that role.

I'd love to hear your opinions on this.

:) I feel what you state about Margo is absolutely correct. What is more she matched Ruddi Nureyev's style because there was emotion between them, in life as well as on the stage. Also they were both trained in the Russian style . (Margot was taught by a famous teacher who her mother brought her to see from abroad where they were living. ) What they created on stage was very moving, she had the most expressive dark eyes, and held your attention with a simple gesture.

Sometimes on film you are unable to experience the atmosphere in the theatre. They were treated like Pop Stars with people calling them back for numerous curtain calls, and when they finally got away, the stage door would be surrounded with fans waiting to get a glimpse of them.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh dear, I might have to join Bart in exile, but I never was that enthused by Merrill Ashley.

Her technical prowess was never in doubt, but her presentation just seemed too straight forward for me. I never got that ballerina mystique from her. Her "perfume" was All-American, sporty and unpretentious. I know those can be considered attributes, but not in my ballerinas.

I want evocative mystery and perhaps a bit of otherworldliness here and there, and she just didn't have it for me. Sorry!

I do appreciate her hardworking, thoughtful attitude toward her art though.

Share this post


Link to post
Her "perfume" was All-American, sporty and unpretentious. I know those can be considered attributes, but not in my ballerinas.

Those aren't traditionally what we look for in the ballerina mystique, which obviously didn't originate in the raw U.S. The crepuscular ballerina is a hothouse thing of Old Europe. But I thought this all-Americanism worked well in things like 'Allegro Brillante', and I saw her do this live numerous times; I always thought it was spot on. Otherwise, the absence of 'true ballerina' mystique is truly in evidence in the tape of 'Emeralds', it frankly even seems 'bad'. Somebody recently quoted Croce talking about 'Ballo del Regina', and saying something like, since it was Balanchine, 'who cares if Ballo isn't that great?' And I think that's the ballet made for Merrill, and I do care that it isn't that great, and it does bore me to tears, maybe the only Balanchine piece that does.

Share this post


Link to post
I suppose I have two separate categories in my mind:

'illustrious dancers who leave me cold'

and 'illustrious dancers who drive me up a wall.'

An excellent distinction, volcanohunter, and very useful to this thread.

Perky, as to joining each other in exile -- I suspect that a lot of us will be on that particular boat before this thread is over. Vive la difference! :wink:

As to leaving one cold, I have to agree with carbro re Peter Martins. I admired but did not enjoy. I still have that response when watching him on video.

With Quiggan, I liked Darcey Bussell's Agon, even though I had seen many NYCB casts going back to the original and understood that she was not in the NYCB mold. Bussell's was creamy fluidity, based on great strength, gave the role something I'd never seen before.

Share this post


Link to post
I never was that enthused by Merrill Ashley.

Her technical prowess was never in doubt, but her presentation just seemed too straight forward for me. I never got that ballerina mystique from her. Her "perfume" was All-American, sporty and unpretentious. I know those can be considered attributes, but not in my ballerinas.

Otherwise, the absence of 'true ballerina' mystique is truly in evidence in the tape of 'Emeralds', it frankly even seems 'bad'.

Me three. And goodness knows, Balanchine tried like the devil to awaken at least a lyrical response from her. She was cast in every great adagio role of his: Second Movement Symphony in C, Emeralds, Diamonds, Concerto Barocco, etc., and he even created the dreamy, romantic Ballade for her. And in each, she executed the steps cleanly but missed the feeling entirely. The stiffness of her arms and shoulders ... :wink:

"Sporty" is a great adjective for her, perky. I kept waiting for someone to make a ballet for her where she wore a tweed tutu.

Somebody recently quoted Croce talking about 'Ballo del Regina', and saying something like, since it was Balanchine, 'who cares if Ballo isn't that great?' And I think that's the ballet made for Merrill, and I do care that it isn't that great, and it does bore me to tears, maybe the only Balanchine piece that does.
There are several Balanchine ballets that bore me, but Ballo doesn't even come close. I find it a delight time after time. The other lead he made on Merrill was the above-mentioned Ballade (funny, the similarity of names), which despite sometimes being led by pet ballerinas of mine (Saland, Fugate), on all but one occasion (Whelan) seemed like a potent soporific.

Share this post


Link to post
Somebody recently quoted Croce talking about 'Ballo della Regina', and saying something like, since it was Balanchine, 'who cares if Ballo isn't that great?' And I think that's the ballet made for Merrill, and I do care that it isn't that great, and it does bore me to tears, maybe the only Balanchine piece that does.

Putting that quote in context, Croce was talking about the retention in NYCB’s repertorty of Balanchine ballets that were not classics, but still worth preserving. ‘Ballo’ is anything but dull IMO and I think Ashley is wonderful in the video. It’s in San Francisco Ballet’s repertory too and although I haven’t seen anyone who quite has Ashley’s zip (and her height has a lot to do with it, too) it’s a little gem.

I still have that response when watching him on video.

I’d have to disagree there. Martins performing ‘Chaconne’ is one of the most dazzling pieces of dancing available on video I’ve ever seen. He looks great and the dancing is thrilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Another dancer whose popularity mystifies me (much more than Bussell, actually) is Cuban prima Viengsay Valdes. While I understand that she's somewhat of a polarizing figure (some find her flashiness 'vulgar'), for me it comes down to her technique. While she can turn and balance incredibly well, these seem to be the only two tricks in her bag. Otherwise her technique seems caught in some past era and is not up to current standards for any ballet dancer, prima or otherwise -- sloppy footwork, lack of turnout, no looseness in the hips or legs, and unattractive (in my opinion) port de bras. And yet she's so beloved by the Cuban public and by a number of prominent critics worldwide. What am I missing, I wonder?

Well, she's Cuban, we're Cubans, and we DO love extravagance and passion-(aside from great turns and balances)-perhaps more than a "perfect" style and pure line-(is there any "perfection", I wonder...BTW?). And thinking about it, we do carry our good dose of "vulgarity" with pride and humor. That, in the long run, turns to be kind of spicy and attractive for some others... :cool:

If anything, let's agree to disagree. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Never having seen her in person but only on video, this may be unfair, but I don't see why Tamara Rojo is so popular. She's a pretty dancer, but a ballerina in a world-class company? Maybe others will explain why she deserves that status.

Probably Sarah Crompton read this and tried to explain it on today's Telegraph :thumbsup:

"Tamara Rojo is a dancer with a unique ability to make the liquid art of movement look like sculpted air. Her arms seem to ripple in response to the music, her legs and highly-arched feet carve the space around them, her body falls perfectly into each changing pose.

But all her physical beauty and skill is as nothing to the air of dramatic intelligence that accompanies her every time she walks onto a stage."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre...ROH-review.html

To me she is one of the very few dancers of these days I'd call an "artist".

At the same time I understand Carbro perplexity, because I think that videos often don’t convey enough Tamara's qualities (another, even more evident, case is to me Masha Alexandrova, whose HUGE stage presence and charisma are in great part lost in filmed performances).

Share this post


Link to post

Disagreements over a number of these dancers on this thread suggests just how personal and subjective our evaluation of dancers and their artistry can be. One person's "cold" or ""dull" is another person's "dazzling" or "thrilling." It's the same with "passionate" and "vulgar" and their synonyms.

I have the impression that the majority -- though not all -- of of posts on this thread have to do with "affect" rather than technique per se. Dancing is a theater art. It touches the heart as well as the mind or the eye. We feel as well as see.

We are fortunate to have such a richness of dancers, past and present, to choose among. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Probably Sarah Crompton read this and tried to explain it on today's Telegraph :smilie_mondieu:
Or it could have been one of those bizarre coincidences. Thanks for pointing to her review, whose lead does much to demystify the Rojo phenomenon for me.
...[A]nother, even more evident, case is to me Masha Alexandrova, whose HUGE stage presence and charisma are in great part lost in filmed performances.
Good case in point. An exception, where Alexandrova is concerned, was the video of her with Tsiskaridze in Symphony in C, Third Movement. It was briefly on YouTube before ::cough, cough:: mysteriously disappearing about two years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Disagreements over a number of these dancers on this thread suggests just how personal and subjective our evaluation of dancers and their artistry can be. One person's "cold" or ""dull" is another person's "dazzling" or "thrilling." It's the same with "passionate" and "vulgar" and their synonyms.

I think one's love for a dancer is often very "personal and subjective" and what I enjoy about this thread topic, especially if one sticks to it very strictly (which turns out not to be that easy), is that it isn't about garden variety disagreements. Rather, it's a chance to come out of the closet if you thought Ulanova was a bad actress or Fonteyn an overrated Aurora or Sibley and Dowel a mismatched partnership... NOT the place to debate whether Yvonne Borree is up to the demands of the Balanchine repertory.

At the same time, it's useful to recall that our evaluation of dancers (not just love or aversion, but evaluation) isn't solely personal and subjective -- objections to Makarova's tempos may be a matter of taste to some degree, but her tempos were often super slow and one could have a reasonable argument about what impact that had on the the interpretation of different roles.

You can't make me dislike Makarova --one of my all time favorites--but you can explain to me why her dancing felt artistically unsatisfying to you in some respects and explain it in such a way that I can "see" what you mean regarding tempos and how they may have distorted choreography. And, on the other hand, I can try to explain what is inventive or intriguing about a particular musical choice she made or why I think it worked interpretively. That type of argument is a little different from 'agreeing to disagree' though in the end one may just agree to disagree as a matter of courtesy or respect . . . or getting off the internet.

What comes through in the discussion as well is that some evaluations, like some matters of personal taste, are inflected by particular traditions of training, choreography, and presentation -- also not simply a personal or subjective matter.

Still, when the subject is "dancers that everyone loved but that you didn't," taking the word "everyone" pretty seriously, then the discussion is bound to have more than a dash of purely personal taste mixed in...

Share this post


Link to post
At the same time, it's useful to recall that our evaluation of dancers (not just love or aversion, but evaluation) isn't solely personal and subjective -- objections to Makarova's tempos may be a matter of taste to some degree, but her tempos were often super slow and one could have a reasonable argument about what impact that had on the the interpretation of different roles.

[ ... ]

What comes through in the discussion as well is that some evaluations, like some matters of personal taste, are inflected by particular traditions of training, choreography, and presentation -- also not simply a personal or subjective matter.

Thanks for that reminder, Drew. I realize that I may have come across as having suggested that it's merely or at least mostly a matter of subjectivity and personal taste. There are objective realities, just as there are standards and traditions.

Among the aspects of Ballet Talk I love are the breadth and depth of expertise that our members bring to these topics, the extensive viewing experience, and the ability to put all this into words. Speaking only for myself, this has changed the way I look at and think about ballet, especially academic classical ballet. This is even true of performances and dancers I saw long ago, often without knowing what I was really looking at. That is a great gift.

Share this post


Link to post
Disagreements over a number of these dancers on this thread suggests just how personal and subjective our evaluation of dancers and their artistry can be. One person's "cold" or ""dull" is another person's "dazzling" or "thrilling." It's the same with "passionate" and "vulgar" and their synonyms.

I think one's love for a dancer is often very "personal and subjective" and what I enjoy about this thread topic, especially if one sticks to it very strictly (which turns out not to be that easy), is that it isn't about garden variety disagreements. Rather, it's a chance to come out of the closet if you thought Ulanova was a bad actress or Fonteyn an overrated Aurora or Sibley and Dowel a mismatched partnership... NOT the place to debate whether Yvonne Borree is up to the demands of the Balanchine repertory.

At the same time, it's useful to recall that our evaluation of dancers (not just love or aversion, but evaluation) isn't solely personal and subjective -- objections to Makarova's tempos may be a matter of taste to some degree, but her tempos were often super slow and one could have a reasonable argument about what impact that had on the the interpretation of different roles.

You can't make me dislike Makarova --one of my all time favorites--but you can explain to me why her dancing felt artistically unsatisfying to you in some respects and explain it in such a way that I can "see" what you mean regarding tempos and how they may have distorted choreography. And, on the other hand, I can try to explain what is inventive or intriguing about a particular musical choice she made or why I think it worked interpretively. That type of argument is a little different from 'agreeing to disagree' though in the end one may just agree to disagree as a matter of courtesy or respect . . . or getting off the internet.

What comes through in the discussion as well is that some evaluations, like some matters of personal taste, are inflected by particular traditions of training, choreography, and presentation -- also not simply a personal or subjective matter.

Still, when the subject is "dancers that everyone loved but that you didn't," taking the word "everyone" pretty seriously, then the discussion is bound to have more than a dash of purely personal taste mixed in...

Wonderful post, Drew. Thank you. The distinction between 'love and aversion' and 'evaluation' is worth remembering not only for the purposes of this thread but in many discussions on BT.

Share this post


Link to post
Speaking only for myself, this has changed the way I look at and think about ballet, especially academic classical ballet. This is even true of performances and dancers I saw long ago, often without knowing what I was really looking at. That is a great gift.

Ain't it just so!?!? :smilie_mondieu:

Share this post


Link to post
Never having seen her in person but only on video, this may be unfair, but I don't see why Tamara Rojo is so popular. She's a pretty dancer, but a ballerina in a world-class company? Maybe others will explain why she deserves that status.

Probably Sarah Crompton read this and tried to explain it on today's Telegraph :P

"Tamara Rojo is a dancer with a unique ability to make the liquid art of movement look like sculpted air. Her arms seem to ripple in response to the music, her legs and highly-arched feet carve the space around them, her body falls perfectly into each changing pose.

But all her physical beauty and skill is as nothing to the air of dramatic intelligence that accompanies her every time she walks onto a stage."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre...ROH-review.html

To me she is one of the very few dancers of these days I'd call an "artist".

At the same time I understand Carbro perplexity, because I think that videos often don’t convey enough Tamara's qualities (another, even more evident, case is to me Masha Alexandrova, whose HUGE stage presence and charisma are in great part lost in filmed performances).

Anna,

I have to say I'm with Carbro on this one and I have seen her live several times. What's interesting is that those very qualities which Crompton waxes lyrical over and which makes up her persona or USP as a ballerina, I find overly mannered, precious and insincere, as Bart said one man's meat...

The thing is I find very much that her stage persona is so self-absorbed, so much playing the part of a grand classical ballerina that very little else comes out, almost as if she's so caught up in the experience of having an experience and wants you the audience member to know that "you're part of this experience, dammit!"

The thing is she is a phenomenal technician and I also feel that so often she's aware that this was her initial calling card it's almost as if she's deliberately going overboard on the artist/ballerina persona in order to downplay her very real dancing gifts. Interestingly the one time I really thought "wow" about her was on a video, the one of her guesting at the Mariinsky with Kolb in Swan Lake as part of the White Nights Festival. In act three she just went absolutely to town as Odile, almost as if she was thinking "sod being a ballerina, I'm going to show them how it's done." Not in any of her live performances have I seen her dance with so much abandonment and fearlessness, if she were to dance like that all the time then maybe I would "get" her.

That somewhat precious persona is also why I find Alessandra Ferri alienating as a ballerina, I just don't buy into the experience I'm supposed to be having of watching a "great interpretive" artist. She always reminds me of Joan Sutherland's remonstration against the GPE.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand the appeal of Sylvie Guillem. Yes, she has outstanding technique, but she's got an icy personality and an ego that fills the stage. She also has no acting ability. Whether it's Grand Pas Classique or Don Quixote, she always dancing as herself.

Darci Kistler is another ballerina I don't get. A poor actress and she always has a smile on her face regardless of the role.

Karin von Arnoldingen -- why is she considered a distinguished Balanchine ballerina? I watch her on video and don't understand.

Viviana Durante somehow always left me unmoved, same for Lopatkina who was way too cautious and deliberate in Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto # 2.

Yulia Makhalina also does nothing for me.

Share this post


Link to post

MakarovaFan, I've noticed the same thing about Kistler--in fact, I recall one performance (toward what we all thought was the end of her career, about ten years ago) in which she smiled her way through Bugaku.

Share this post


Link to post
Karin von Arnoldingen -- why is she considered a distinguished Balanchine ballerina? I watch her on video and don't understand.

It's something about HER, I think. I've always loved her, she's warm, exquisitely beautiful, dances beautifully (if not on the very highest level), and she's the thing in 'Davidsbundlertanze' in terms of the greatest depths. But I remember her wonderful in many things, 'Ballet Imperial', the siren in 'Prodigal Son', I even like her in 'Emeralds'. Croce writes about the years Balanchine tried to make her a substitute for Farrell in her absence in the early 70s, but later you'd see the two of them on the stage at the same time, and there was not any sense of competition (I'm not talking about their different gifts, but rather the way they interacted with each other, however slightly). She had a maturity and beauty which made up for not being the most stellar of dancers IMO. Balanchine loved her, of course. She was bright and self-possessed, she knew she wasn't Farrell, and never really tried to be.

Share this post


Link to post
She had a maturity and beauty which made up for not being the most stellar of dancers IMO.
I agree with Patrick on this. Aroldingen -- only one "n" in the name -- danced a great many roles and was possibly closer to the style and physical appearance of dancers in Balanchine's Ballets Russes days or the early NYCB when no one expected a single, canonical Balanchine look. Watching her perform, one tended to focus on what she WAS (an appealing dancer of Balanchine) rather than on what she was not (a "Balanchine dancer.")

Share this post


Link to post
Karin von Aroldingen -- why is she considered a distinguished Balanchine ballerina? I watch her on video and don't understand.

She was Balanchine's closest friend in the company in his last years, which didn't hurt. Her body was athletic, with un-ballerina like chunky muscles from her early training, and she probably would have a hard time getting hired today. She was shown to best advantage in the roles Balanchine custom made for her (I think the tally was one new role a year all through the seventies until Balanchine took sick, a remarkable run) and without her experiments like Variations pour une porte et un soupir probably wouldn't have happened. On video she looks good in Stravinsky Violin Concerto, a role in which Balanchine exploits her unusual qualities brilliantly, and very beautiful as one half of the principal couple in Robert Schumann's Davidsbundlertanze, I think. The Emeralds is bad, though. She was resented by some observers because she took over a lot of Farrell roles during the latter's exile and the consensus, which is probably correct, was that she wasn't much of a replacement, although she worked very hard.

She was bright and self-possessed, she knew she wasn't Farrell, and never really tried to be.

I remember with amusement von Aroldingen telling Robert Tracy that their styles weren't very similar. "I had more elevation. She never had elevation."

Share this post


Link to post