gatto97

It's too bad there isn't more available video of Farrell during her Balanchine years. Speaking of which, I just received "A Stravinsky Portrait" and there is about 5 minutes of Balanchine working with Farrell, D'Amboise and Gloria Gorwin in Apollo. Throughout the film, Stravinsky is conducting a German Orchestra, which will be recording the score that the NYCB dances to. Snippets of this ballet rehearsal are shown in Balanchine and the actual taped performance was shown in Ellusive Muse. Anyway, what is interesting about the clip is that Stravinsky conducted the Terpsichore Variation tempo much faster than Balanchine had ever heard it before. We see Farrell attempting to trace her steps at this new tempo and her getting out of breath, goofing off a bit and then getting a bit frustrated. At one point we hear her saying something about "all the variations being this fast" and seeing her roll her eyes. Sort of bratty - which I found funny. There is also this close up of Balanchine intently watching Farrell dance - a stare that brought those stories about his "obsession" to life. It's one thing to read about it -quite another to see it. There is a video of Farrell and Donn in Nijinsky - clown of the Gods. I'm attempting to borrow a copy for "personal use" - lets see how much red tape gets in the way. As far as R&J, I contacted Hardy and VaiMusic and was given the name of someone who may be able to sell me a copy in the U.S. However, the region of the DVD is not compatible with most U.S. systems. The search contintues. Thanks everyone!

I recently came across a video of Bejart's Romeo and Juliet with Jorge Donn & Suzanne Farrell. Those of you familiar with the Farrell DVD Elusive Muse have seen bits of this footage. It appears the video/DVD is only available through hardyclassic.it - only released in Italy. http://www.hardyclassic.it/searchresult.as...20e%20Giulietta Vaimusic - which recently released the D'Amboise DVD, has begun to carry some hardyclassic CD's and DVD's (all opera), but do not carry the Bejart. Has anyone on Ballet Talk come accross this DVD - was it available for purchase in the U.S.? Thanks.

My impression from studying Balanchine and his relationship with Farrell is that Diamonds was his staging of the Absolute ballerina. In 1967, I believe Farrell was only 20, still a young girl with little life experience off stage. For this reason, I love her performances from this era as I have seen on tape. Not only was she absolutely beautiful, but I loved the extension and energy in every movement. In her later performances that I have seen, they appear more calculated on her part. On one side you have a young girl experimenting and on the other, a fully formed woman who knows what her body can do. (An aside - For my 20th century music history class during undergrad, I composed a paper on the Balanchine-Stravinsky relationship and neo-classicism, therefore spent much time at NYPL viewing many NYCB videos in the archive. Being a Farrell-atic, I was most interested in footage with her dancing. Unfortunately, I did not watch any Jewels performances during those visits.) Back to Farrell - Balanchine had a short history of molding Farrell. IIRC, in her book, she stated she had horrible Bourree, thus Balanchine made Dulcinea into a "Bourree Girl". After Don Q she had "beautiful bourree". He created choreography that would enhance a weakness in her technique, and on some level I now believe he created Diamonds not for the dancer Farrell was in 1967, but for the dancer she would become at the apex of her career. Of course, he never suspected Suzanne's life experience would involve marrying anyone but himself and leaving NYCB for 6 years. Any composer or choreographer can change their own works as they see fit. Copland edited the Clarinet Concerto after Benny Goodman's suggestions (it is rumor whether or not the original edition was too difficult for Goodman to pull of technically). Some have questioned Balanchine's choices over the years, (cutting Apollo birth scene for instance), but most of his choices were to tailor an old work for a new dancer. I understand he removed some jetes in Barocco 1st mvt. after Farrell started dancing the first violin role. Not sure if this is rumor or fact as I have not seen a full performance of the LeClercq/Adams performance. But, I think there is a difference between Balanchine changing or tailoring his own work to better suit a new cast and the natural progression that comes with time, when people forget/die and memories fade. Once the original cast of a ballet is gone, a piece of the mystery has disappeared too. Obviously, I can't speak for Balanchine, but it is my feeling that if a movement within a ballet held great significance for him, he would not cut it out to fit a dancer. But the question is, what moves where significant and which moves weren't? Is it the pose or how you get to the pose - the movement in space from place to place. For me, Balanchine Ballets are the latter, the how you get there and that's what I believe he loved most in Farrell - she never wasted a moment, even while "posing" there was life. I guess the above doesn't answer your last question, but I will say that within the classical style, very few choreographers have tailor made works for their dancers like Balanchine did. And that is why I feel staging some of his ballets is a more difficult task than staging a classic. Also, having a video record of many original casts illuminates how even within his own company, his choreography gets sloppy if not carefully monitored. It's not just the steps, its the life in the ballet. [Edited to fix the quotes]

I'm sure you're well aware I wasn't saying it was not allowed to criticize performances. I just happen to think one's criticism gets more interesting when one realizes that dancers usually have spent a hell of a lot more time on the piece than we did. Fair enough. I have studied dance, but not at the professional level. I'm a classically trained clarinetist, so I know something about artists spending "a hell of a lot more time on a piece" than the average listener, if we can cross relate my experience to the art of ballet. Let us take a piece composed for a specific musician, perhaps even a collaboration between composer and musician. There will be inflections within the work that reflect the relationship and character of the musician. Behind the scenes interactions may work their way into the score and are a part of the life of the work. Once the music is sent to press, each subsequent musician will have their own interpretation without knowledge of the history behind the composition. Although we may have a recording, a true musician wont copy but try to bring their own perspective into the work. So, I suppose saying something is wrong is like declaring black and white with no grey. However, I believe we lose a bit of authenticity along the way as memories fade and a composition travels through generations. New styles and techniques evolve, along with different interpretations. Of course, add to that ones approach to music - german, french or americanized styles. It's quite complicated. As a musician, I don't find that movement of Tchaik traditionally romantic. I'd classify it more as stately and somber. Almost like a cloudy summer day with a peak or two of sunshine. The bassoon is very grounding in those triplet figures, but Letetstu was ... over emoting is the best I can do to describe it. And to clarify my previous post, as a viewer I felt her approach to the role was wrong. She didn't live up to my idea of the music. (Your idea of the music may differ. ) This does not mean I have any poor feelings about her technique, but I do believe that it would take any dancer years to grow into the role in Diamonds. From several posts about the original reviews on Diamonds, it appears it took Farrell years to grow into the role herself. Does that make Farrell a horrible dancer? Hardly. I believe it means that Diamonds pas has many layers that take years to explore, and perhaps Letetstu's future performances will explore different facets of the choreography and musical interpretation. Not that she isn't capable, but that it takes more than a few weeks or even months to live and breath this role. Some may even say the fault lies not in the dancer, but in the choreography of this pas. To each his own opinion. As the viewer, I did not buy her performance. Some might, but I can only speak for myself. ETA: I do plan on watching the re-air this weekend. My post was based on my first impressions.

I sent them the correction on the feedback form, but it could be centuries before anyone looks at it, if they view it at all. They did correct the search function - enter D'Amboise and then hit DVD. Unfortunately, it is still not yet available for purchase. Thanks for the heads up - I can't wait to see Faun and Apollo!

This performance was my first viewing of Jewels as a whole, including my first viewing of Rubies. I briefly commented in the other Jewels thread that I felt Rubies was the most complete performance of the three, although I felt they were doing an imitation of the Balanchine Stravinsky style rather than understanding it in their bones. Emeralds on the whole dragged. I lost my NYCB DIA tape years ago, but recall that I wasn't fond of Emeralds then either. Having seen clips of Verdy in other roles, I can imagine the nuance of her performance as "the bracelet girl". I know, horrible name. I do feel that the POB port de bras is superior to any I've seen at NYCB, and that Balanchine's choreography reflected Verdy's superb port, which was an unusual quality at NYCB. The dancer in POB performance had wonderfully fluid arms, and I did enjoy her performance far more than my recollection of Merrill Ashley. The walking section seemed a bit off, as if the dancer was walking heel toe instead of stepping on demi - it made it seem heavy as opposed to floating amongst the clouds. Members who have seen multiple performances of Emeralds may be able to shed some light. Rubies. I liked it. The 20 plus minutes flew by as opposed to Emeralds. Again, I was imagining how Villela looked in the role, using clips from his Tchaik Pas de Duex that I have seen. The "gang running" section seemed off - I was expecting something different from pictures and descriptions I have read. I can't comment on interpretation of Rubies as I have nothing to compare it to, however I believe the success of this section of Jewels is less dependant upon the original cast. The choreography is so strong that at the least, the first time viewer can get an impression of the Balanchine-Stravinsky style. Diamonds. Loved the corps. Very crisp and neat. The weakness for me was in the pas. This role was just too tailored for Farrell. As I replied in the other Jewels thread, I feel it was a role Balanchine created for Farrell to grow into, therefor it is almost impossible for a dancer to pull off after a few performances. As others have stated in this thread, Farrell was not very successful in this role in her early 20's. She was still a princess, not yet a queen. The Queen arrived in 1975, and is evident in the DIA performance. The dancer in the POB was wrong...well, I guess anyone who isn't Farrell is wrong. I thought her gaze was too romantic and almost weak. Those, "I am so in love with you" glances at her partner were out of character for the dance. Also, some of the steps looked off, most notably at the end of the pas those walking forward while leaning backward (reminds me a bit of that part in Tzigane). The POB dancer didn't take huge steps and was relying too much on her partner for balance. Her leg should have been straighter as she stepped onto pointe and the steps larger. Farrell, by contrast could probably have performed that part unsupported, which was part of her genius. And also, the theme of the pas. This is a strong woman - the ideal woman, with strength and balance and stamina that trumps all other dancers in the ballet (all three sections). The dancer last night didn't understand. Lastly, ditto the drop to the knee - it was too fast and the kiss on the hand too ardent.

As someone who has been unfortunate to never have seen the original NYCB cast of Jewels (aside from Farrell on tape), I viewed all three sections as bare bones structure. Emeralds seemed to drag and I was disappointed. Rubies translated best for me as a whole, as the bare bones representation of the Balanchine-Stravinsky style. I've never seen Rubies before and am not familiar with the dancing style of the original cast members, which helped in my perception of POB Rubies. I can see where they were doing an "imitation" of a style rather than fully understanding the nuances. This is preffered to just not getting it at all, as in the Diamonds Pas. The corps in Diamonds was great and IMO had much cleaner arms than the NYCB corps - this was true throughout the broadcast. Onto the Pas - just another example of Balanchine's tailoring of a role to such an extent that it is impossible to find another to fill Farrell's pointe shoes. By the time of the Dance in America tapings, Farrell had rejoined the company with much more life and dance experience under her belt. Also, wasn't D'Amboise the original partner in 67? Diamonds was a role for Farrell to grow into, as opposed to Don Q or Meditation, which were representations of who Farrell was then, still a young girl. Where I can see the latter two roles going stale over time, I can only imagine Diamonds got better as Farrell matured into Balanchine's vision of the absolute Ballerina. This being said, how does another dancer fill this role? In my opinion, you can't fill the role - you grow into it over time.

Unfortunately the problem with all aspects of ART in our CAPITALIST society is the damn Union. Thats why so many of my fellow musicians have quit...and the death of culture is sure to follow. It could work if someone just gave a damn about art - not their own pocket book. And...musicians in their mid twenties are not some HS youth orchestra...trust me...I was in Philly Youth 10 years ago...I know all about the difference between HS 13-22 youth group compared to a conservatory level grad program. I've played in both...and yes, both have their problems - mostly due to the lack of mismanagment by faculty (not the music director but some talentless bumpkin above him) Unfortunately it is this sort of injustice that has led to the abandonment of art by many of my peers. I wish Suzanne Farrell luck...but in about 50 years...if the virus that is American Culture ala Britany Spears and other loosely clad "talent" continues to spread worldwide...all the beauty of true art will be nothing more than a relic. Thats why I've quit music all together and will become a chemical engineer...its all about the money. At least now I could afford tickets to the BSO...if I gave a damn.

Hearing about the use of taped music upsets me greatly - mostly because I am a musician and secondly because her company is funded by the Kennedy Center - home of the NSO! Isn't there a way they could hire recent graduates (who haven't quite made the transition to pro musician like myself), who don't have many financial obligation...on an intern basis...and form a small travelling orchestra. Sure, it will cost a bit more, but by hiring eager, hungry young musicians ... with support of the NSO...the ballet wins, the musicians win, the dancers win...and the audience wins. Damn...if only I was rich enough to be in management.

Not trying to get too off topic ... but PBS ticks me off. Perhaps I should start a new thread: "The current state of PBS - a result of the dumbing down of America?"

Thank you to everyone for the information!

Hi Farrell Fan, Glad to know I am on the right track with my assesment of Ms. Farrell's dancing. I envy you were able to follow her career as it happened. Being 26, I feel I have missed out on the great renaissance which occured between the 50's and 70's...extending from dance to the concert hall. Interesting you should mention the cut footage from Ellusive Muse. As stated previously, I had first viewed the film on PBS in 1997 - even recording it, though I lost the tape during one of my many moves. Not having seen the film in over 3 years, I purchased the DVD this past spring and was confused by some footage I didn't recall. Most notably when Suzanne talks about the night of the Don Q premiere...when she and Balanchine went to DnD's for coffee and doughnuts. Also, some footage at the beginning of the film ... mostly dancing from Meditation, appeared to have been cut in 1997. What was PBS thinking - they give Bluegrass at the POPs a full 2 hours! I don't know about anyone else, but I was extremely disappointed with the lack of extra's on the DVD. I personally would have loved to see full performances of all her featured dancing...especially Meditation and Apollo. I hope more footage of her dancing will be released commercially during the centennial.

Being relatively new to ballet, my first initiation into "good" dancing was through PBS airing Suzanne Farrell Ellusive Muse back in 1997. After that I immersed myself in all things Balanchine and Farrell. In some ways I loved the 60's Farrell I've seen via tape...that baby faced chubbiness - very much the face of a cherub, but with moves so bewitching. She embodies the young girl who doesn't realize the enormous sexual and sensual power she posesses. By the time of her return in the mid 70's, her face shows her experience - and though still beautiful, she is clearly a woman who owns and controls her power. Perhaps thats the difference between the two Farrell's...in the 60's she was abandonment for abandonments sake...experimentation for its own sake...a period of trial and error. And though Farrell continued to challange herself throughout her career, she definately had her bag of tricks by the mid 70's. And for those who don't believe film can capture the power of visual performance...I say it depends on the performer. As a classically trained clarinetist, most audio recordings lack excitement to my ear...but a few musical geniuses ala Harold Wright or Doriot Dwyer, capture on tape the thrill and unexpected eliment of a live performance. I have a recording of BSO Daphnis & Chloe from the 1950's that would make you pee in your pants - its so exciting! I believe the same is true for ballet...and probably more so for the dancers out there - once in a great while you can capture magic on tape. This tangent does have a point...sorry guys. Getting back to Farrell, one of the most exciting excerpts of her dancing that I've seen is from Dancing for Mr. B. A tape I had purchased a few years back when I first became obsessed, I was more floored by Tallchief's firebird in practice cloths (though those 20 seconds are still gorgeous - her bouree's float) than anything else. Recently I rewatched the tape and there was Suzanne. The way she turns, leans on her left leg and raises - higher and higher...her right leg in developpe and then I saw her genius...when her leg couldn't get any higher her right arm is still extending - opening itself...the movement doesn't stop - steping over PM into that Pirouette, then Arabesque penchee...all so smooth. And that upside down lift, where she is facing the ceiling in a split...nothing but her arm is still completing the movement. Having seen a couple other (inadequet) performances of Terpsichore, and being able to compare one of them from a tape (Balanchine Celebration)...no other dancer could connect movement like Suzanne could. My overall point is - I cherish the few tapes of Ms. Farrells dancing that are available to me and in many ways I find them more fulfilling than most live performances I see today. Actually, I watch other dancers perform her roles (Meditation, Chaccone) and I imagine her movements in my minds eye...seeing what she would have done in what others don't do.

Hello everyone! I live about an hour from NYC and plan to take a trip to the NYPL's performing arts collection. This question is for anyone familiar with viewing items from the collection - #1 Do you need a NYPL library card to view the collection? #2 How much of the collection is available for viewing? I am interested in all things Balanchine and many things Suzanne Farrell. I have accessed the NYPL database online and know of its extensive collection, but I am afraid to take a trip and find only a few items available for viewing. Any feedback from experienced visitors to this library will be appreciated!