Jump to content


NYCB after Martins?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Jane Simpson

Jane Simpson

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 939 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 06:58 AM

All the talk about NYCB on other threads made me wonder how people see the future of the company. Say, 5 years after Peter Martins retires, what would you want/expect the company to looke like? Who would be running it - dancer, choreographer, administrator...? Would Martins' own ballets still be danced? What proportion of the rep would be Balanchine? Would there be more imported works, more classics?

#2 Manhattnik

Manhattnik

    Gold Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 07:58 AM

What an interesting, and scary, topic.

Despite what one might think of some of his decisions, Martins has done a commendable job of shepherding and husbanding the company. I'd like to think the board would appoint a director who understands the company's roots, and who won't try to turn it upside down.

If this was a horserace, I'd put my money on Wheeldon right now. If he doesn't get the Royal Ballet instead.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Manhattnik ]

#3 Alla

Alla

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 08:41 AM

The great thing about appointing someone like Wheeldon would be that the company would again have a gifted creator at its heart. Martins has of course made some nice ballets, but it seems to me that he hasn't known how to use his dancers well, to choreograph things that advance them. Already Wheeldon has pushed Ansanelli ahead light years. Also, he really appreciates (and, I think, understands) the style of Balanchine and Robbins; I can see him advancing that, as well.

Would the board ever want to bring Farrell back?

#4 stan

stan

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 09:00 AM

Martins is what, 50 something? That means that, unless he gets bored, he's going to be around at least 10 and maybe 20 or more years, so it's a bit premature to be writing his obit.

#5 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,246 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 10:52 AM

I agree, Stan, but I don't think Jane meant to be writing his obit, or in the hopes that he'd be gone. I think her question is a good one, because I think it's the next director who will really determine the shape of the company.

I'd also agree with Manhattnik that Martins has shepherded the company well, generally speaking; he's kept the shape of the company. In all our talks about internationalization, NYCB hasn't come up as a bad example, and with reason. I think the structure of what Balanchine and Kirstein built is still there. I think they'd recognize it. And I think that is no small accomplishment, given the current ballet world.

So the Next Director will really matter. If that structure has settled a bit oddly and could use some adjustment here and there, it's the next one who will snap it back in place -- or push it further off. (I think if you follow the history of the Royal Ballet, you see this pattern.)

As for the repertory, personally, I'd hate for it to become an omnivore company. I want companies to maintain their identities, and NYCB is Balanchine's baby. Robbins, of course, deserves a place as well. Whether any ballets from the last 18 years will survive? Again that depends on who's next. I definitely hope the trend to doing "the classics" is gone, but I fear it isn't. I'm saddened that a whole generation of dancegoers will have that "Swan Lake" as their model, and I don't want to see City Ballet do "Merry Widow" or "Madame Butterfly," or "Le Corsaire."

The real paradox will be when the company gets a choreographer who is on Balanchine's level, or who catches the public's imagination. That's when Balanchine will begin to disappear, or, at best (given what's happened elsewhere) become the company's Festival choreographer: works carefully (or uncarefully) maintained and dragged out for special occasions. At first once a year, then every five, then..... (Disclaimer: no, that's not what I want to happen; it's a prediction.)

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

#6 Diana L

Diana L

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 11:14 AM

Is it the norm to hand the reigns over to someone who will choreograph for the company?
I like Wheeldon, but I'd like to see the company run by someone who's Balanchine rooted, who didn't come from another company. Suki (who's last name I can't spell) from SAB might be a candidate.

#7 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,246 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 11:22 AM

Diana, I think that's a very good question. NYCB's identity has always been that it's a creative institution rather than a custodial one. (Meaning the new works come from in-house choreographers. With very rare exceptions -- Balanchine's stripped down "Les Sylphides" being one -- the repertory has always been generated in house.

Of course, nothing is written in stone. If the board felt that it was more important to preserve Balanchine's works than keep that tradition, they could certainly put in a conservator, someone who wasn't necessarily a choreographer but whose primary interest was to preserve as much of that choreography as possible, even at the expense of his own career. (My personal Ballet Hero is Hans Beck, a choreographer of no small talent -- he did those solos in Napoli -- who didn't choreograph but, instead, saved 17 of Bournonville's works for 35 years.)

This makes it interesting. For whom would you vote? The choreographer or the conservator? (Not suggesting a change now, to be clear, but, as Jane postulated, when the current director resigns, happily, at a ripe old age.)

#8 LMCtech

LMCtech

    Bronze Circle

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 11:46 AM

The choreographer.

Without new work I think many dancers and companies stagnate. They have to move with the times. I think Wheeldon is very gifted, though very young. In another ten years he probably could run an important company like NYCB very well. In ten years I think he would definitly learn how to preserve as well as create.

#9 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,045 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 01:44 PM

It might not hurt for the administrative/creative functions to be shared or separated. Yes, Balanchine did everything, but that doesn't mean that everyone who follows him can or should. Not all choreographers have a taste or talent for administration, and it seems reasonable to recognize this.

As for the choreographer/conservator question, that might be very difficult to settle, depending on the choreographer. Someone who is working at Balanchine's level is not going to be wildly interested in spending a lot of time curating someone else's stuff, however distinguished, and understandably so. Since we're talking about someone of formidable creative powers here, it is reasonable to think that he (yes, I know, I'm not using the P.C. he/she, but let's get real) will have his own ideas about style and those ideas will differ from Balanchine's in many respects. In the worst-case scenario, you might have a fundamental stylistic conflict, and in such a conflict it's probable that the works whose maker is alive and monitoring their care and feeding have a better chance of survival. At the very least, you'd have to bring someone else in to keep an eye on the Balanchine/Robbins repertory.

Having said that, I don't think we have to worry about a new Balanchine popping up any time soon. But when he does show up, I suspect he'll want to put his own stamp on a company and not spend his time genuflecting to someone else's accomplishments.

#10 liebs

liebs

    Bronze Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 494 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 03:24 PM

In answer to several questions, I don't think that either Farrell or Suki Schorer are logical candidates to replace Martins at some point in the feature. Farrell and Martins are similiar in age and Schorer is probably 10 years older.

Happily, there are many people on staff about Martins age or younger who are looking after the Balanchine and Robbins repertoire. And I think the tradition of highly schooled ballet masters will continue and preserve these works. People like Sean Lavery and Rosemary Dunleavy already play important roles in the artistic administration of the company, so a new "choreographer/artistic director" would not be going it alone.

#11 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,246 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 04:02 PM

I'd like to underscore Liebs' last point, which I think is very important -- that the new director would not be going it alone, because there are people on staff that would continue the company's traditions.

I think, though, that it may be dangerous to assume this. Yes, it's the way it's supposed to work, and I don't think there is any reason at the present time to believe it wouldn't work, but the past decade has seen such upheaval in the ballet world internationally that I don't think it's certain. Two or three different people on the board, who knows? A financial crisis we can't foresee..... There are companies that have been turned upside down and passed from director to director with traditions broken, or no chance of a tradition growing. That's why I thought it was worth spending so much time on the situation in Boston. I think we need to be aware of these things are they're happening. Otherwise, we're left in a desert saying, "when did they cut down all the trees?"

#12 Diana L

Diana L

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 04:09 PM

LMCTech you stated: "Without new work I think many dancers and companies stagnate. They have to move with the times"

I might be getting off subject a bit here, but with NYCB being a company that develops in house choreography I just wonder if that new choreography is strong enough to sustain? Granted, a lot of new ballets are done at NYCB but very few seem to have staying power. I think NYCB would most definitely have someone looking after the Balanchine/Robbins rep. but I don't know that someone new would feel the need to tinker with the huge rep already there.
Is it necessary for NYCB to move with the times? I suppose it depends on whether you're a fan of the new or the old.
Are Wheeldon's works really "new" either?
Sorry if I got off topic, I think it's a good topic but one that is hard to answer because I don't think NYCB has figured out the direction it's going in now.

#13 Manhattnik

Manhattnik

    Gold Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 04:13 PM

As your writings on Bournonville show so well, Alexandra, it's awfully hard to get a ballet "back" once its tradition of being performed is broken. I am glad that NYCB's roots are so strong and deep in this city (Balanchine was very smart indeed to want a school before a company!), but ballet roots are always fragile. I shudder to think of a board that decides it needs to prove that it can dance Giselle as well as anyone!

#14 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,246 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 04:31 PM

Manhattnik, I toyed with the idea of having a thread that said, "Top 10 ways to get NYCB off its moorings," and definitely "Giselle" -- how about the Mats Ek "Giselle?" or should there be a new version -- was one of them. And then I thought, why give anyone a battle plan? (with no disrespect to either board or management of NYCB, but there could always be the Hostile Takeover model that worked so well, so quickly, in Copenhagen :-) )

#15 Manhattnik

Manhattnik

    Gold Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 09 July 2001 - 07:55 PM

Oh, let's cast an NYCB Giselle, shall we?

Giselle: Miranda Weese
Albrecht: Damian Woetzel
Wilfred: Jared Angle
Berthe: Deanna McBrearty
Duke of Courland: Albert Evans
Peasant Pas: Tom Gold and Janie Taylor
Myrtha: Monique Meunier
Moyna: Pascal van Kipnis
Zulma: Jennifer Tinsley

I'm sorry, I just had to....


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):