Dave Barry on Ballet

[Leigh Witchel]

I think one major cause of the change in cultural attitudes came with something mentioned tangentially on this thread - AIDS.

I also hate to say it, but I think that nervousness about sexuality and just plain old being turned off by dance are more often than not the exact same thing. Ballet companies spend an awful lot of time pushing forward married male dancers in an effort to speak to the impression that any man who dances is marked.

To get very abstract, I think a lot of this highlights the differences between American and European society. Basketball is a competitive sport. We're an individualistic society with a highly competitive streak. Even in art, we're fond of competitions. I think men like sports more because it's quantitative. I've always felt that as a nation, we get very nervous when presented with intangibles.

We have an ambivalent relationship with class and rank as well. We dislike societies where rank is by birth and unchanging, but we like putting certain people on pedestals. And then knocking them off. Ballet's hierarchies aren't native to our society.

I sometimes wonder if Nutcracker proliferation isn't part of the problem. Yes, we've turned it into the Christmas cash-cow that makes companies survive, but it's also become synonymous with ballet, and it's only a small portion of it. When Barry says "It's mincing time" - my guess is he very well might be thinking of the celesta music for the Sugar Plum Fairy's variation. And this is my own prejudice, but I think that third and fourth-tier productions of ballet are valuable as training grounds, but people don't know that ballet has its "Major" and "Minor" leagues. They see a mediocre Nutcracker, and they think that's what ballet is. Stilted, treacly and an inefficient way of telling a story.

P.S. to Paul - this is just the way my cosmogony is arranged, but I'd put Agon and The Four Temperaments up there with Swan Lake and Giselle!

[Mel Johnson]

9/11 had a very strange effect on the idea of "manly men". Here were firemen and policemen, behaving like sensitive men of the Allen variety, only vastly more empowered. They seemed to be displaying a classical idea of "manliness" - virtus. Free range of emotion was permitted, even encouraged. Men were seen hugging other men, and being nurturing. I don't know what it means yet. It's still too much current events, not history yet, but I think it works counter to homophobia, and should actually encourage men being more to the front in appreciating art, but that metamorphosis has not yet happened.

[Paul Parish]

Dear Vagansmom,

yes , I agree with you , TV DOES have a lot to do with it... at every level, it's so shallow. The sports events, though, I'd have to say are probably better covered at the moment than the news, just given the amount of knowledge the audience is assumed to have about the events, and the length of memory. After watching the fall of Trent Lott (I went to college with him, knew him slightly, and lived through his times on the other side politically), I'm convinced the history of baseball is better served these days than political history.

And kfw, well,

a) in Berkeley we see guys in biking shorts and athletic tights all the time..... don't y'all?

and B) the first examples that spring to mind of the differences between the 70's and now are the trashy exploitative sex-fantasy ballets we used to see in the Bay Area -- especially at the Oakland Ballet, where there was stuff shown on stage that I can't describe on this site, it might make Mr. Barry's daughter blush. Well, I'll give you an idea -- in John Pasqualetti's Rite of Spring, the dancers wore nude unitards with large holes cut out of them in strategic places so none of the truly naughty bits were left uncovered, but hte thrashing, bumping and grinding and simulated masturbation was pretty graphic.... I remember seeing a revival of it in about 1985 and thinking "Oh God, this has got to go...."

There was a whole school of "Barbary Coast" choreography -- Ronn Guidi, Pasqualetti, and even Michael Smuin at SFB were all into louche sexiness -- Smuin is a very commercial talent, but he's REALLY talented -- kind of like Bob Fosse.

FOSSE!! Well there you go – “Chicago” is in revival, the movie's out -- and of course, there IS a huge amount of very sexy stuff out there right now, especially on TV -- well, when i think about TV, I wonder how I could have said it's more conservative now, for in the 70's things weren't nearly as raw, shocking, outrageous as it gets on TV now -- quasi-porn, even, on reality shows and dating game shows and Jerry Springer --

In a way, the 70's stuff I was mentioning was still unself-conscious, in an erotic dream. The current sexiness is very knowing, AWAKE, brazen, "I'm out to exploit my body, I know what I'm doing, and I don't care." And none of them can do a fouette. The biggest difference now is that the producers are cutting costs and minimizing the scripting. So there are fewer "artists" involved writing and directing, most of the talent has gone into make-up and plastic surgery and the advance people who set up the "situations" where somebody's boyfriend springs it on her on nationwide TV that he's a REALLY a transvestite and doesn't love the poor girl at all and he's been WARNING her but she just wouldn't listen --

IT's like watching a house burn down -- riveting theater at the time, but what a shame, and for life!

PS Smuin's louche sexiness. Smuin matters to us here. He was suddenly fired in the mid- 80’s (succeeded by his antithesis, the very cool classicist Helgi Tomasson). The mood had changed profoundly after AIDS appeared, and Smuin was suddenly an embarrassment. His whole imaginative world was just way too suggestive and hot. He had many supporters (he is immensely talented) -- It was a HUGE eruption here, front page news for weeks as the board’s proxy fight strung itself out....

[citibob]

Wow! You go away for a few hours and look what happens to the thread!

I was not discussing baseball to berate it. Rather, as Alexandra mentioned, to point out that just because I'm not into it doesn't give me license to write taunting articles about it.

Tutu14: I figure skated as a child, as did my little brother. He also played hockey, eventually. He was BY FAR the best skater on the hockey team, and could out-manouever just about any opponent. No surprise, huh? I wouldn't worry too much about hockey dads; they have a reputation for being more belligerant than parents of just about any other sport (and ballet as well).

The New York Times magazine recently ran an article about male-on-male sexual harassment. The kind of "horsing around" on the job can sometimes take a turn for the worse and become harassing.

Remember that men's ballet costumes --- blouse-like shirts, tights, etc --- are adaptations of what was at one time upper curst men's wear. Over the past few hundred years, we have consistently seen men's fashions appropriated by women, and then become women-only fashions. I think bell bottoms are the most recent version of this phenomenon.

I think Vagansmom hit the nail on the head: ballet is an acquired taste, it takes work to learn and appreciate. That is true of all fine arts.

Alexandra... some of those millions spent on dance education are spent on boy's scholarships. I think many serious schools really are trying hard to get boys and men interested. But really, what can they do (this is an invitation for an Alexandra brainstorm)

Kfw... You seem to have made some tenuous assumptions that, while common, must be examined. Is men attending to one's line really "effeminate" (as a form of recognizing that you really are the art)? And if it really is "effeminite", how on earth do you make the leap to homosexuality? That is in light of the fact that effeminism and homosexuality in men are two separate things. There are macho homosexuals (but they don't stand out because they're just as macho as the next guy), and there are effeminite heterosexuals (but everyone assumes they're gay).

In our society, just doing something zany (such as wearing a reindeer hat with blinking lights on it) can be seen as effeminite. Really, now...

Actually, we do see men in tights on the street, usually jogging in cold weather. We also see men wearing even less. In the summer you see men wearing just shorts (bare legs is less than tights). And then there's the speedo thing... many sports involve men in revealing outfits. Body building is the ultimate in this area and, like ballet, it shares an element of the body as art.

[Alexandra]

Just to slip in a quick comment -- kfw, the construction worker ideal is from women's magazines in the 1970s. There were articles about it -- can a college girl date a construction worker? The opinion was ventured that they were, er, more adept than college boys, etc.

[Treefrog]

Actually, Paul, those lycra-wearing cyclists have to deal with just the same kind of stereotyping and animosity as tights-clad ballet dancers. Just hang out on the bike bulletin boards for a few days, and a post will turn up about how someone wants to take up biking seriously but just can't imagine venturing out in those revealing garments. Serious racers even shave their legs!!!! And bikers don't wear ANYTHING under their shorts.

What are male attitudes toward ballet in other countries, other cultures? We were struck a few years ago, at a water park in Northern Ireland, at the absence of male macho. There was none of the posturing, the horseplay, the maneuvering for alpha status that you see here in the States. I can't help but wonder whether a male in that culture might accept ballet more readily, because he wasn't worrying about what his pals would think. And in any event, his pals might treat him civilly regardless of what they thought.

[vagansmom]

I have a Belgian friend who grew up in a large family filled with boys. They were an average working class family. All the boys (and the girls too) took ballet lessons growing up. The family attended ballets; as I understand it, dance was part of the academic school vocabulary as well.

My friend has young children now, here in the USA. Her son loves to dance and has, for many years, taken ballet and tap lessons. He loves to perform. Last year, when he was 9, he told his mom he didn't want to dance anymore; when she asked why, it was as you might expect, "________(his best friend) laughs at me." She was incensed. She railed against the USA culture where a boy could be made to feel badly about dance. She told me this wouldn't happen in Belgium.

Her son's still dancing. My friend found him an all boy's tap class. But he never ever mentions dance at school anymore.

[Alexandra]

I've read many references in English books, newspapers, and magazines over the years about the "tights in the provinces" problem, that when ballet tours small towns -- where, apparently, people go to the theater to see whatever is playing so they can heckle them -- tights cause a problem for the local populace. (Not saying this happens every time in every town, but there were letters to the editor in Dance and Dancers about it.)

So many good issues have been raised here -- I hope people will go back and read through on the last page to see Mel's post-911 theory, and Leigh's AIDS theory, and Paul's account of the AIDS-innocent sexual choreography -- I'll bet that turned off the general public; it would have out here!

I think citibob made a good point about attention to line being considered effeminate. Attention to anything unathletic is considered effeminate; not gay or straight, as Paul pointed out, just effeminate. I remember during one Olympics our pair skating champs were a truck driver and a waitress -- don't remember the names, but I remember the bios. And Truck Driver met Russian skaters for the first time and was openly envious -- Not fair, he said. We have no exposure to artistry here.

It's great to have affirmative action for boys, but if you're not educating the other boys, the ones who are the donors, audience -- and editors! -- of the future, you're only doing part of the job. (Citibob, the best affirmative action for boys was Alonso's in Cuba: Castro gave her carte blanche at the orphanages and she "recruited" toddlers with ballet bodies.)

[Hans]

Perhaps one reason so many men don't like ballet is that it makes them feel like cretins--they recognize that they are boorish, not beautiful, and to make themselves feel comfortable, they exaggerate the difference between themselves and the people onstage.

The statement that art is viewed differently in Europe is definitely valid. In Prague, for example, it is not at all unusual to go out to the theater for an evening's entertainment, whereas here in the states, it's a Big Deal (probably because one must actually comb one's hair and put on something other than jeans to do so). Part of it is just culture--at the school I attended in Switzerland, there was nearly a 50/50 split between boys and girls among the second-year students, and almost all the guys were straight. None of us that I know of were ever harassed for being dancers; everyone I spoke to thought it was great. I don't mean to insult the US, but people in Europe definitely seemed to be less confined to their televisions and cookie-cutter houses and take much more pride in being an individual rather than going along with the majority like lemmings off a cliff. This doesn't mean they forget their obligations to society--rules about work, cleanliness, &c are very strict in Switzerland and other countries, and people are initially more polite than friendly, but I'll end with this paraphrase from "Choura" by Danilova, which can apply, IMO, to much of European culture: 'Russians are very restrained in private life and unabashed onstage. Americans are just the opposite.'

I think this explains a great deal, and on more than one level.

[Leigh Witchel]

I actually think it's the individualistic streak of American society that makes ballet suspect. I think Americans don't yet understand art as a group or society effort. We understand the solo artist who writes or makes pottery or composes as a means of individual expression, and that falls somehow into the rights of every person. Move from art as a means of "doing your own thing" to a way for a society to express itself and we don't get it.

Parenthetically - I'm sure we all realize we're making comments on societies and national temperaments with a VERY broad brush (especially me ) Of course these characterizations can be argued.

Citibob - a story that's an honest question: I was at a national knitting convention (yes, really.) when I saw a man I knew as an expert knitter; a rather young man with a wife and child. I went up to him to compliment him on his work and when I greeted him, he froze. I have no proof of this, it was only a vibe, but I suddenly thought, "My God, he doesn't want to talk to me because people will think he's gay." Which leads to the question - (which probably ought to be broken off into its own thread - and of course anyone can join in though I directed it at Citibob) How do straight men in ballet feel about stereotyping? Does it affect your relations with your gay colleagues?

[Alexandra]

Bruce E. Fleming has raised many of these questions in a collection of essays called Sex, Art, and Audience, most, if not all of which, I believe, initially appeared in DanceView. I remember his "men in tights" article, in which he postulated that straight men are used to baring their chests -- that's "masculine," it shows off the muscles -- and are comfortable watching men with naked chests, but cannot drop the eye below the waist with any degree of comfort.

I wanted to comment on kfw's point about watching bad ballet, because I think it raises similar issues. kfw wrote:

suspect a lot of guys are just plain bored by dancing, bored by the music, and bored by the pretty sets and costumes. We probably don’t see these guys at the art exhibition or the symphony concert either.

I know men who will happily attend the symphony but balk at ballet. I've had friends who I knew not to take to a local Nutcracker, but I thought might like the Kirov. "It's a decadent art form," one glowered. "Oh, my God!" another said at first intermisison (of the Bolshoi's "Raymonda") "The whole night is going to be like this?!!!!" It wasn't the prettiness -- although that opens up another wormy can; what's wrong with prettiness? Gautier liked it! -- and it wasn't the tights, it was more personal aesthetic, I think. They hated ballet, but were perfectly happy at Pina Bausch or Forsythe.

As for European/American differences, in Denmark there was, until quite recently, no problem getting boys in the classes and men in the theater, and I think part of it was that there were good roles for men. Little boys could see a place for themselves on stage. The "men in tights" issue was a big one backstage. "I didn't need to wear the white tights," older character dancers would say, with obvious scorn of those who did. (That's gone now.)

But one thing that is different there is that the dancers are more integrated into society as a whole, it seems. Alexander Kølpin said he came to ballet because his next door neighbor happened to be Niels Kehlet and he'd talk to him when Kehlet mowed the lawn, asked him what he did, and learned he was a dancer. Among university-educated young men (I obviously don't know all of them!) there is a theater/opera/ballet going habit. I thought Copenhagen was "enlightened" in these matters until an American friend introduced me to her Danish sailor husband. "Alexandra just came back from Copenhagen and watching the ballet!" she said, and he nearly ran. Literally. Shifted from foot to foot, "Oh, I don't know anything about things like that," as though -- to relate to Leigh's story -- I had accused him of something. Of what? Being homosexual? Or simply being one of those awful people who likes art? Or perhaps was merely very uncomfortable that a topic about which he knew nothing had been raised?

[kfw]

Citibob, thank for your reply. If we’re talking about my own taste (I wasn’t), I imagine we can agree that macho and effeminate aren’t the only categories (and I love your idea of consciously being the art). A man isn’t necessarily one or the other. And I’m aware that all gays don’t present alike, thanks. And I’d have to be one very dense ballet fan to presume that every male dancer who cares about line (who doesn’t?) is gay. I simply mean that most men do appreciate beautiful male movement (although they wouldn’t put it that way). But they appreciate another style of it, and it’s a style in conflict with ballet’s. And many do see ballet’s as effeminate. I suppose only education in the form of early exposure could make that reaction rare.

But to return to the question of the sexuality, we keep saying that all male dancers aren’t gay. But of course many are, so that as I tried to say before, given the sexual element of so much ballet, sexual identity does show. Or, given again the differing ideals of beauty, it appears to show (i.e., others make that leap you speak of). The sensuality of the art form heightens the sexual element. Nureyev is a very sexual creature onstage, isn’t/wasn’t he? That very upfront “animal magnetism” attracts women and gay men, but bores or turns off many straight men, who have another ideal of beauty. To my way of thinking, that isn’t good or bad, it just is. Why should they like him? They have other tastes. Better seats for me!

[Garyecht]

I enjoyed Dave Barry’s column. Had I a great sense of humor and the ability to write as well as he, I could have written the same column many years ago when my daughter was that age. I wasn’t offended. I just laughed. Though I consider myself a person who enjoys both watching and attempting to dance ballet, I still don’t like nineteenth century “fairy tale” ballets.

I don’t think ballet has ever been a popular art in the US (perhaps even the world) and will never be popular on a mass level. Ballet has always been aristocratic, and in general aristocratic things don’t appeal to Americans in general. Ballet’s roots are in Europe and when American culture was being formed, European institutions were something to be avoided.

Having said that, like most things, the more you learn about things that are unfamiliar to you, the more you come to appreciate those things. That holds for ballet, baseball, opera, or hip-hop. The problem on a mass level is that people don’t have the time to learn about everything.

[Manhattnik]

I think the whole athletic-grace-vs-balletic-grace thing is a horse that long ago was beaten to death. While it was quite liberating for me to realize a few years ago that I just didn't care anymore who got in the playoffs, how the home team was doing (well, I have a residual fondness for the Yankees), etc., I also think there are few things in the world prettier than a well-turned double play. Maybe it's because Yankee Stadium has always struck me as a cathedral. True cathedrals don't have noisy, obnoxious ads blared at you, but they don't have hotdogs, either, so it all evens out.

I remember back in my college days, a sports writer on my school paper wrote a rather spirited if cliched piece on how athletes were much more exciting and graceful to watch than ballet dancers, and he'd take Earl Monroe (OK, he WAS really graceful) over Nureyev any day. I thought hard about writing a rejoinder, and then decided there was no point.

But I've often noticed that men in this country don't have a problem with admiring male grace and beauty, as long as that grace and beauty was an unintended result of an action with some other goal in mind: putting a ball through a hoop, avoiding getting killed while running past a line on a field, etc. But the "purpose" of sports, well, aside from gymnastics and figure-skating and the like, which aren't real "guy" sports, anyway, isn't to be graceful and beautiful. If Earl Monroe could've sunk all his baskets without taking a single step towards or around any defenders, he would've. If he could've tossed the ball through the net from the locker room, or the jacuzzi, he'd have done that, too. Yes, he was graceful (so was Dave Winfield, and lots of others), but that wasn't primarily what he was about; he'd have been just as big a star if he played "ugly," as long as he "performed" the same.

So why is grace and beauty not admired for its own sake more? What if Earl Monroe had decided one day the hell with that damn ball and just ran around feeling the space and exhilirating in his ability to move through it, and shape it? I can imagine many outcomes, few of them pleasant (although perhaps entertaining in a morbid fashion).

There's nothing wrong with form following function, but there's also nothing wrong with form being the function, either. Unless you're a dolt, I mean columnist, like Dave Berry. I've enjoyed many of his columns in the past, but this one seemed to mostly be filler composed of cheap shots. At least he didn't make jokes, as one Saratoga wit did a few years ago, about ballerinas always "excusing themselves" after meals. i know, let's not go there.

[Ari]

Vagansmom has hit on something when she says (in an earlier post) that older men have a better appreciation of ballet because "most men knew how to dance socially." That's something almost totally gone in today's culture. Nobody learns how to fox-trot any more, and we don't have stars like Astaire, whose choreography was rooted in social dancing.

Ballet has always incorporated elements of social dances — mazurka, czardas, etc. — but when people (not just men) go to the ballet today, they don't recognize a waltz when they hear one, and they can't understand how the choreography (and performances) reflect the music. So all they see is what — to them — is extremely artificial, and completely baffling, movement. There's nothing for them to latch onto. This is probably why the verb "to choreograph" has come to be used in non-dance situations involving something that very well-planned, with no room for spontaneity (such as diplomatic manoevers).

[kfw]

Originally posted by Manhattnik

So why is grace and beauty not admired for its own sake more?

Good question, but I still hold to my distinction -- athletic and balletic grace and beauty are quite different, and if you idealize the former, you might not like the latter.

For NBA fans --- didn't the Celtics bring in a dancer to teach ... I don't remember what it was. I heard about it in the late 80's.

[Manhattnik]

Supposedly Lynn Swann took ballet classes, too, but it certainly wasn't for aesthetic reasons!

[Treefrog]

Let's not forget that, at the ballet, they don't sell beer in the stands, loud belches and belly scratching are frowned upon, the performers never adjust their "packages" (while spitting on the stage), and, most importantly ... there's no outcome upon which to bet!

Wait, wait .... what if we set up bookies in the lobbies? Encouraged side-betting on whether she'd actually nail those 32 fouettés? I once attended a ball game where the guys in front of me were betting on absolutely everything! "Five bucks says the pitcher leaves the ball on the mound when the inning's over."

[Hans]

Perhaps they don't or can't look past the illogical 'fairy' stories to see what the message of the dancing really is. Ballet, especially classical ballet, whose meaning isn't waved about on a banner, requires the people of the audience to use their brains to read between the lines, which is something the few people who aren't English majors do anymore. Maybe that's the tragic flaw of art--the very thing that makes it art as opposed to entertainment is that entertainment has little or no deeper meaning, and art does. This makes art both more interesting and more difficult to watch/listen to/&c. It takes more engagement on the part of the audience, whereas many people find anything requiring them to actually think instead of sleep with their eyes open to be boring. Ballet used to be enormously popular, especially, as we all know, in Russia. It isn't elitist; you don't have to be nobility to practice, attend, or understand it (how many of us are related to kings?) but it does require active mental engagement. The fact that it began in the courts of Europe means nothing--it began there because those people didn't have to worry about how they would live one day to the next, and they had the time and money to cultivate their minds. Far, far more people (especially in the US) are in that position today; education is much more widespread and the standard of living has improved dramatically since the 15th century. However, enormous amounts of cheap entertainment are also much more widely available at a lower financial price and that require less physical effort (and that's just getting to the theater!). So while we are more educated and better off financially today, we have used our advantages not to cultivate ourselves but to make children obese diabetics in front of a glowing box.

This is not to say that all entertainments of court life in Europe weren't frivolous; plenty were. But live theater in any form takes more active participation from the viewer than TV, which doesn't even require applause, or that the audience be awake to 'experience' it.

[Ari]

You know, on re-reading Barry's column, a lot of what he dislikes is the non-dancing aspects of ballet. He gripes about costumes, makeup, plots, and, especially, mime and expressions of emotion, but he rarely mentions the dancing except as it relates to the other things. I don't know which ballet he saw, but I suspect that an evening of two of high quality all-dance ballets (ahem, Balanchine?) would appeal to him much more.

[Farrell Fan]

I think you're right, Ari. What might have been most upsetting is that Dave Barry is the kind of witty guy we'd like to have on our side. It seems to me that the belching couch-potato conjured up here is just as unlikely to read Dave Barry as he is to go to the ballet. As someone said earlier in the thread, there's a lot of self-mockery in this piece, and the ending is absolutely delightful.

[ScottieGDE13]

I've been away for awhile so I was THRILLED to see a thread on this column. My mom (also a dance-lover) ran into my room screaming with laughter and shoving this article in my face. "You HAVE to read this!" she said. I apologize if I comment on something that this thread has already covered... but there are four pages and, frankly, I had to skim!

I agree that it is disappointing to note that Barry, one of the most delightful and hilarious writers that I've read, has not yet learned to appreciate the wonders of ballet. Notice that I say "yet." There are two ways that I have seen American adult males come to love, or at least tolerate, ballet (if they were somehow blessed to grow up in a cultured household... well, they are a rarity and they don't count!) : The first- if they are dating or are romantically interested in a dancer

The second- if their daughter comes to love it.

Let's just all hope that Barry's daughter comes to love ballet as much as we have... then maybe he'll join "our side!"

Scottie

PS- I hope this has turned you on rather than off to Dave Barry's column... I started reading it at the beginning of this school year, and it has brought me many Sunday morning LOLs!

[nlkflint]

I just had to post.

I haven't laughed so hard in days.

I just "stumbled" across the Dave Barry piece on Ballet from December 2002. Living in South Florida I am not sure how I missed it the first time. So I just HAD to go to Ballet Alert and check out the posts. Of course, I found the thread.

I recall reading out loud a similar piece from Jan or Feb about Hoosiers to my husband (from Indiana) and laughing almost as hard. My husband found it amusing (OK not as amusing as I found it but he did find humor in it) and sent it to his dad in Indiana who had a good laugh.

I think Dave Barry has an honest humor, and clearly has not been exposed to ballet enough to really appreciate it. HE ADMITTED IT.

I suspect he went to one of Miami City Ballet's "Ballet for Young People" series." This is how MCB describes it :

Come to Ballet for Young People where you'll: -Enjoy fun activities with the dancers in the lobby before the show; -Watch the dancers spin and jump in their on-stage warm up ; -See world-acclaimed Miami City Ballet perform a fun 20-30 minute ballet that has a younger, lighter theme; -Get dancer autographs

I think someone in Miami needs to invite him to perhaps a story ballet performance and see if he changes his mind.

Although, it he doesn't it could just make matter worse. The Hoosier column I spoke of was actually a second column, about how he offended all the Hoosiers with his first column.............

If you missed the link to the barry column:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/livin...rry/4784265.htm :D