Posted 20 September 2007 - 03:02 AM
Posted 20 September 2007 - 03:39 AM
But this time we seem to be getting at something more interesting.
Paul -- in his discussion of Cojocaru -- and Letestus' comments on Guillem, as quoted by volcanohunter, seems to suggest that this kind of extension can be effective and asthetically valid
(a) when it develops naturally out of the dancer's own capacities, style and personality;
(b) when there is musical or choreographical logic to doing so;
and © when it is the product of the dancer's deliberate and intelligent artistic choice, in the service of the role and/or choreography;
This kind of dancing is a far cry from exaggeration "because I can do it" or merely to pump up excitement. It takes a fine eye to appreciate such distinctions. Thanks to all of you for helping to redefine, and to refine, this issue.
There is at least one other circumstance here: When it is at the positive direction of the choreographer or ballet master. Then the dancer is off the hook, and it's a management choice.
Posted 20 September 2007 - 06:45 AM
On the other hand, guest stars like Zakharova can pretty much write their own aesthetic ticket at places like La Scala, I would imagine.
Posted 20 September 2007 - 07:42 AM
Even though most will have speakers, it is worthwhile to watch dancers without the music--I do this on tapes to--so as to try to ascertain the musicality of the dancer. Leonid is surely right about Guillem being one of those dancers that divides audiences into very clear camps; to me, her Aurora looks like something somewhat circus-like, I find it slightly blinding and in a thoroughly non-romantic way.
Posted 20 September 2007 - 08:19 AM
About dancers responding to the wishes of ballet masters as a reason for altering their high extensions: I've often wished I could travel back in time to see the performances Farrell gave with National Ballet of Canada after she left NYCB. What could that Swan Lake, for example, have looked like? All those careful, rigid, polite Canadian dancers surrounding this voluptuous creature with incredible freedom and reach.....Did she try and hold herself back, or did she just let go and show herself, as Balanchine once said, like a "whale in her own ocean?' I wish there was a tape somewhere.....
Posted 20 September 2007 - 08:57 AM
BTW, I'll agree that NBoC dancers back then were careful and polite. The company still had a distinctively English cast (akin to the quasi-English accent called "Canadian dainty"), sadly lost since then (like the dainty). But they were certainly never rigid. Nadia Potts, in particular, was one of the loveliest and most lyrical Swan Queens I ever saw.
Posted 20 September 2007 - 09:05 AM
Posted 20 September 2007 - 09:36 AM
There's discussion (and answers) on this Farrell thread.
Posted 21 September 2007 - 04:17 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
members, guests, anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases: