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)

90 degree arabesque


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,275 posts

Posted 19 February 2002 - 12:59 PM

There were complaints in New York (and, I think, London) as well in Washington about the high extensions and arabesques of the new generation of Kirov dancers. Like most things in ballet, there are at least two poles of opinion on this. One is: the 90-degree arabesque is not only part of the choregraphy, the whole ballet is about harmony and moderation. Therefore, extreme technique is out of place here. If Petipa had wanted virtuosity from Aurora, he would have given her fouettes. The second position is: ballet evolves. Dancers of each generation push it to the max. This is nothing new.

What do you think?

#2 Xena

Xena

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts

Posted 19 February 2002 - 03:15 PM

I think a lot of people including dancers have forgotten what the stories of ballet are really about. I have seen Sleeping Beauty danced by the Royal Ballet and I have always thought that Aurora symbolises perfect beauty and grace. Therefore a perfect 90 degree arabesque to me symbolises that moment of pure perfect beauty a lot more than perhaps an arabseque waivering somewhere between the hips and the shoulder.
So as ballet will undoubtedly evolve, I hope the original meaning of the ballet itself and the characters within it will never be forgotten.
Jeanette

#3 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,952 posts

Posted 19 February 2002 - 03:32 PM

I'm going to be wishy-washy and say that both views are correct, to a point. Ballet does evolve; to cling too closely to past practice would make dancing look stale and quaint.

Having said that, there's no reason for every arabesque to be converted to 180 degrees; and I can't really define where it's right and where it's not, except to say, as Justice Stewart said of obscenity, that I know when I see it. I realize this is not helpful.

#4 cargill

cargill

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 19 February 2002 - 03:56 PM

I think it is a question of style and costume. People wearing tutus should not expose their rear ends, especially if they are long floppy tutus that hike over their heads like lampshades. There is a place in Liebeslieder, first section, where a few dancers insist on lifting their leg as high as possible and exposing their underwear, which totally breaks the mood of the piece--later, when they are wearing ballet skirts, they can show off. As for technique changing, it has to be appropriate--no one really wants to see Giselle whack away at fouettes, though the technique has changed since it was choreographed. But the changes Petipa made in the 2nd act seem fine (of course, that is what I am used to.) But the exaggerated developes in the vision seen of Sleeping Beauty that we saw from the Kirov seemed completely to destroy the mood of the piece, and distorted the upper body. I think the exaggerated extensions should be kept to ballets costumed in tights.

#5 Paul Parish

Paul Parish

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,925 posts

Posted 23 February 2002 - 09:52 PM

I agree, costume has a lot to do with it -- and also who the dancer is suppoosed to be.

If it's a representation of an idea -- like the spirit of fire, or, say, the phlegmatic temperament, that's quite different from some creature that has a mother and father and maybe a boyfriend....

Aurora's a fairy-tale creature, but she's also a human being -- and her dances are not about extensions but about her aplomb and charm and high spirits -- they're as much about her upper body as they are about the legs, more about upper chakras -- the heart and crown.... and to a very high degree they're about the supporting leg rather than the working leg.... Who else do we notice their supporting leg so much?

Her head positions are crucial.In her role, the eyes are very important, she SEES people... Phlegmatic doesn't see anybody).

Aurora, Kitri, most Petipa heroines, the whole upper body should seem to be rising freely and easily above whatever is happening down below.... generally speaking toe hops and other very bright quick steps should happen very easily, as with quick pas de chats, only a slight bend at the knee -- dagger-like feet, but hte knees bent no more than coupe, so the shape in the air ihas a large diamond at the bottom and the upper body is beautifully undisturbed....

HHMMMMM.... I can see I could get addicted to this site.....

#6 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,275 posts

Posted 23 February 2002 - 09:58 PM

I hope so! I could get addicted to your posts smile.gif

I love your point about noticing the supporting leg and the eyes. Cynthia Harvey, who danced with the Royal Ballet and worked with Ashton on Aurora, said in an interview (with a bit of surprise) that the one correction Ashton gave her was "use your eyes more," and then he talked about how Fonteyn used her eyes in this role.

My idea of Aurora is quick and bright as well, which is why it matters to me that the dancer is properly cast. To me, Aurora is not the Swan Queen -- another outmoded notion, I'm sure smile.gif

I also agree with the comments about costume. Watching Zakharova kick, I kept thinking, it's as though she's dancing in a unitard. Ballerinas used to rehearse in rehearsal skirts/tutus. I wonder if that's gone? I also liked Xena's comment very much about dancers not thinking about the role in context -- I don't blame them. I think that's up to the coach to tell them, if the dancer doesn't figure it out on her own.

#7 Juliet

Juliet

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts

Posted 23 February 2002 - 10:55 PM

No, they have rehearsal tutus.

It is purely a question of misguided aesthetics..... Aurora as one of the girls in Fancy Free......

I love high extensions. Aurora doesn't need them. I was happy to see that as the Kirov administration is not reining this sort of thing in, they are at least managing to tack the tutus on this tour....

#8 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,275 posts

Posted 23 February 2002 - 10:58 PM

I think "Aurora doesn't need them" says it all. I wonder if part of the aesthetic misguidance has to do with touring? It happened in the 1960s and 1970s, too. On tour, a dancer may feel s/he has to do all his/her "tricks" every night, or the audiences, who only have a chance to see the company once, will think there's no virtuosity, or the dancers are below par. Again, I think the company should have the courage to say, "No, this is what we do, and we're not going to change." If they have to, give interviews explaining how pure they are smile.gif

#9 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,275 posts

Posted 23 February 2002 - 11:42 PM

I hope I don't need to add -- although I will -- that those of the high kick persuasion are equally welcome to post smile.gif

#10 Mme. Hermine

Mme. Hermine

    Emeralds Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,792 posts

Posted 24 February 2002 - 08:16 AM

as regards the 1890 sleeping beauty, however, i felt that the very high arabesques and extensions were out of place, though i don't necessarily feel that they're out of place somewhere else. if the idea was to present it as much as possible as it was presented when it premiered, then the dancers, because they didn't moderate or re-think somewhat what they were doing, at least for those performances, looked out of place to me.

#11 Paul Parish

Paul Parish

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,925 posts

Posted 25 February 2002 - 12:37 AM

y'all are so interesting!!!

And so reasonable......


Probably no-one will disagree with me that part of the fun in the finale of Theme and Variations those ROckette kick-soutenu-kick steps the ballerina gets -- I've got Gelsey on video, and it's fabulous, the energy in those, it's irrepressible -- and well, I've never seen it at City Ballet in the chiffon skirts they wear, but part of the fun is seeing the tutus get kicked. It puts me in mind of my grandmother, who every now and then liked driving over slowdown bumps at considerable speed.... my kind of girl......

#12 Paul Parish

Paul Parish

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,925 posts

Posted 25 February 2002 - 01:27 AM

May I edit what I just wrote?

I'm sorry, my thoughts are tumbling over themelves -- does this happen to you?

Probably no-one will disagree with me that part of the fun in the finale of Theme and Variations is those ROckette kick-soutenu-kick steps the ballerina does -- I've got Gelsey on video, fabulous, the energy in those, it's irrepressible --

THough I've never seen it at City Ballet in the chiffon skirts they wear, still, part of the fun in ABT's version is seeing the tutus get kicked at this point -- it takes the ballet over the top, makes it a smash -- and THAT depends on the ballerina's personality.

In SanFrancisco Balet's version, which I know well, they wear tutus. I can still see Elizabeth Loscavio hauling off and kicking there -- it was almost stripper energy -- but by that point we were all delirious with joy anyway and WHO CARED?

Which brings me to the point I most wanted to make about Lucia Lacarra: it's not her extensions I object to -- it's the unrelenting one-note seductiveness, the lack of spontaneity and playfulness in her dancing. She's wonderful in many roles, but not everything.

The dancer I'd most contrast her with is Loscavio, who in her great roles had a power much bigger than herself, Athena-energy, so when the spirit moved her she danced as if she'd just sprung forth from he mind of Zeus.... she was was fearless, and this energy carried her, she was completely there in the moment... She wasn't safe, she danced nearer her edge than the most advanced modern dancers...

She DID make choices, she prepared -- actually Eric Hoisington once told me he didn't know HOW she managed to get so prepared.... she certainly wasn't reckless, I saw her wipe out on double step-ups in rehearsal and replace them in performance with double soutenus (thus "updating" Theme and Variations to later Balanchine practice of finishing a line of chaine turns -- I wonder who authorized that? Maybe it's actually done that way at City Ballet now?)

But at other times -- in WHo Cares?, in her solo, I've seen her forget the steps and make some up till she remembered what came next, and they were CLEVER--


It puts me in mind of my grandmother, who every now and then liked driving over slowdown bumps at considerable speed.... my kind of girl......

#13 Leigh Witchel

Leigh Witchel

    Editorial Advisor

  • Editorial Advisor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 25 February 2002 - 01:50 AM

I think some of it is an issue of training - even with Guillem in the Paris Opera Ballet, the thing that struck me most about the company style of arabesque during their '96 visit to New York was their arabesque went out, not up. The point was to make the longest possible perpendicular line, it seemed, and a leg above 90 degrees shortens that line. (For reference, I'm thinking about Guerin in La Bayadere) The NYCB arabesque is a different animal - it's about the looseness of the hip joint.

#14 Dale

Dale

    Emeralds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,078 posts

Posted 25 February 2002 - 03:21 AM

Paul, NYCB doesn't wear chiffon skirts in the Theme and Variations section of Tchiakovsky Suite No. 3. They wear tutus. The chiffon skirts are worn during the first three movements.

#15 leibling

leibling

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 25 February 2002 - 10:29 AM

Not having fantastic extensions myself, I am definately in favor of the 90 degree arabesque! biggrin.gif Really, though, it is how it is done that is important. I've seen dancers with perfectly satisfying lines at 90 degrees, or even slightly less- where you look at them and see the epitome of classical position and even breath in this static position. Then, the cranked arabesque with the leg over the head but the upper body contorted and uncomfortable to look at- what is the point?


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):