Rubies

Murphy's thesis statement is "Helgi Tomasson has the gift not only of intuiting which young dancers might grow into surpassing artists. He knows how to help them flower." To me (and maybe not to others) "young dancers" alludes to the inexperienced dancers, not principals. I also wished that she actually had some documentation that it was Tomasson himself that was guiding the artistic development. She has no interviews or documentation; only her observations of watching the dancers onstage. This growth may be due in part to company class instructors, ballet masters and mistresses, or specific choreographers. Interestingly, Murphy does not mention the obvious artistic growth shown by Katita Waldo, Kristin Long, or Tina LeBlanc when they returned from maternity leave (this was documented in numerous articles).

If Murphy's point is that Tomasson's helps growing artists flourish artistically, I think she should have pointed out younger dancers! She focused on the principals and maybe one or two new soloists. What about long-term corps dancers or dancers that have moved up through the ranks while developing their own style? Most of the dancers that Murphy singles out are and have been principals for their entire careers at SFB: Muriel Maffre, Tina LeBlanc, Lorena Feijoo, Yuri Possokhov, etc. Kristin Long moved quickly up the ladder; I would have liked to hear more about her, Katita Waldo, or Julie Diana. Even Gonzalo Garcia was talked about in the present tense rather than describing his growing artistry through the years. While I understand that one can grow artisically while remaining in one position (ie. principal), it would have given more weight and credit to Tomasson's ability if Murphy had focused on dancers who have been with the company for their entire or majority of their careers.

I think it's Paciolan.

Nope. That's Muriel Maffre on the bus sides. Feijoo is in the ads for Don Q.

What do you mean by out of proportion? Do you mean there are too many younger dancers from the school? Julia Adam had a baby last year. At the end of her maternity leave, she felt that she wanted to pursue choreography and not perform. Roman Rykine was offered a great opportunity at Boston and took it. Elyse Bourne, one of the ballet mistresses, left to pursue work with the Balanchine Trust. I wouldn't call this a mass exodous, but each year companies have turnover. Otherwise, how would new or transitioning professionals and dancers ever get jobs?

How do you find her amazing technically? She doesn't have any strength or stamina. When she performed Odette/Odile in Swan Lake, Tomasson omitted the fouette turns for her because she couldn't complete them. The first (and only?) year she performed Giselle, he eventually took out the hop section because, again, she wasn't strong enough to do them. I believe this is why she did not reprise the role last season. Yes, she is hyperextended like no one else, but this gives her major problems turning. Instead of pirouetting over her toe, she goes around it, sort of like a top. It seems that she never developed the muscles to control her hyperextension. For me, I enjoy watching dancers who work to achieve greatness, not rest on their laurels.

FYI: the costumes in Sandpaper are really quite interesting. The top ("white") section is a blue sky with white clouds and the green is supposed to look like grass.... so when everyone has their arms at their sides, you see a field of grass and clouds!