Acting and dancing

[dirac]

I'm wondering if anyone has any general remarks to make about the category of dancer usually characterized as a "dancer-actress" or "actor-dancer." (I often see Nora Kaye, Lynn Seymour, and Melissa Hayden characterized as such, to name three.) I never saw any of the above, and I'd be interested to know: what people think distinguishes the great d/a from merely a good one? I've heard it said that in many such dancers their technical abilities as dancers are less distinguished than their dramatic gift. Is this true? does one quality have to suffer at the expense of the other? I offer a couple of quotes:

Gore Vidal on Nora Kaye: "Onstage, Nora was like no one else. As a classical dancer, she was barely in the second rank. As a dancer-actress, there has never been, and perhaps never will be, another like her."

Anna Akhmatova on Galina Ulanova: "As a ballerina, she is no one. She is merely a mime of genius."

[mbjerk]

I would define it as someone whose performance makes you forget to look at technique, body shortcomings or choreographic negligence.

On the male side I nominate Gary Chryst.

It is nice to leave the theater inspired by a mesmerizing performnce versus technical ability or physical perfection (although I love both).

[ORZAK]

Valery Panov was known more for his characterizations. I was in class with him and watched him rehearse - and a very interesting experience it was too.

I have a tape of him and his wife Galina Panov at Wolf Trap Farm Park in which he does both technical "fireworks" and characterization. Basheva

------------------

Approach life as the dancer approaches the barre - with grace and purpose.

[Alexandra]

I've been listening to dancers on this topic for the past ten years, because the Danes, generally, are known as actor-dancers (although there are some notable exceptions ) I think there are some people whose acting is stronger than their technique, but for others, it's not. How's that for helpful?

I didn't see Nora Kaye, but everything I've heard or read is that she was a strong actress, but not a classical dancer -- but she did dance leading roles. Lynn Seymour wasn't a killer technician, perhaps, but I thought she was a lovely dancer, and she acted through her dancing. Fonteyn was also an actress.

Kronstam, the Dane I know best, started out wanting to be an actor and always had an actor's approach, but he also had a top-level technique. It was a matter of approach. His Florimund would be classical, because it was a classical role, the purity of the style was part of the character. But in a character role, a different kind of movement was needed.

I do think, in general parlance, when someone writes "she is a dance actress," they often mean to imply that "and can't turn for squat." But I think that's because there's a tendency to categorize people, and also, we don't want to believe that somebody can do everything. It's much nicer to be able to condescend, and say, "Of course, he could turn, but he can't act, etc."

I think Plisetskaya is an example of someone with a technique of steel, but who was also at least extremely expressive. And Ulanova had a very fine technique (the West didn't see her until she was 50, but she was young once).

It's a good topic. Any other actor-dancers? Of Danish dancers, I'd name Anna Laerkesen (great as Caroline in Lilac Garden), Sorella Englund (for me, the best-ever Madge), an older mime, Gerda Karstens, who took Stanislavsky classes at the Theatre's drama school; Arne Villumsen and Ib Andersen, as well, were both good actors, and excellent dancers. Nikolaj Hubbe was superb in acting roles at a very young age, and another dancer near his age, Alexander Kolpin.

[felursus]

Fonteyn was very interested in the meaning of gesture and the emotion of the situation in which the "character" found herself (even if the ballet were plotless). I had the privilege of working with her once. It was in 1977, the last time "Marguerite and Armand" was done with the original cast. She spent quite a bit of time coaching the boys who were playing Marguerite's admirers (all dressed as Franz Liszt). She gave a bit of character to each boy and told him how she would react to his "advances". She also said that every gesture has a meaning and one should never waste a gesture. She never did!

Lynn Seymour liked to go to the theater and observe how actors moved. When she danced Juliet in the MacMillan production, she used to "roll" on the balcony railing. This, she said, was from something Judy Dench once did. It is interesting to think of dancers getting movement from actors.

[CygneDanois]

Gelsey Kirkland was obsessed with the acting component of her roles, according to her autobiography. She brought in acting coaches to help her, although some believe she carried it too far--witness Robert LaFosse's autobiography wherein he recounts a time when he and another male dancer were to enter as Kitri and had no other part in the ballet. She didn't think they were relating properly to her (they were onstage for maybe a few seconds) and had them analyze their roles, relation to her, et cetera with her acting coach. LaFosse and the other dancer thought it was ridiculous, so two other dancers were brought in to do the parts when Kirkland danced Kitri.

I don't know why some people persist in thinking that Ulanova had no technique. She was trained by Agrippina Vaganova herself! I would think that would be enough to dispel any suspicions that her technique was less than adequate.

------------------

CygneDanois

[ORZAK]

Frederick Franklin was a great actor/dancer. I was present once when he was rehearsing Dr. Coppelius - and then I saw him perform it. I have never seen a better.

How about Gerd Larsen who I believe was the original nurse in MacMillan's Romeo & Juliet. I thought she was superb in that role.

[Drew]

I also thought of Kirkland as I always found her to be a wonderful and truly memorable actress/interpreter. When I looked at La Fosse's book, I found some of his complaints about working with her rather short sighted. That is, in talking about certain rehearsals he went on about how absurd it was that she worked on things the audience would never "see" and then admited that the actual performance was utterly remarkable and unique. It is as if it never occured to him that her working methods and the results she got may have been related. I saw Kirkland's Kitri three times and every second something was happening; even when she was standing on the side of the stage while others were dancing she was "alive" in the role and more interesting to watch than anyone else. I don't doubt that it was difficult for some people to work with her -- and La Fosse has a right to dislike someone personally -- but the difficulty and the artistry were, in this case, clearly part of the same package.

Still, there are dancers who (unlike Kirkland) seem to make their mark in the public's mind PRIMARILY for the distinct dramatic impact they make in roles. Marcea Haydee (sp?) was, in my experience, far more actress than dancer...Lynn Seymour was a very interesting dancer certainly, but the thing that made her "Lynn Seymour" to many fans was her ability to impress a character into her dancing. When I think of dancers of this genre I often think of dancers who are willing to risk their vanity on stage, willing to bloody themselves up as it were... I never saw Seymour's Giselle, but I have read her Act I described as a hardier, more "peasant" Giselle than the delicate, dreamy creatures that one usually sees (at least nowadays). Keith Money's photos of her in The Invitation -- a Macmillan ballet, created for her, in which her character is raped in the course of a garden party -- suggest, too, that she was emotionally fearless on stage. (Others reading this board may have seen her in these roles, and I would be interested in hearing what they have to say.)

One role I did see Seymour dance a couple of times was the role Ashton created for her in A Month in the Country. One of the very memorable qualities of that performance was that even within the context of balletetic stylization she came across as very real, very human. The performance also captured a whole variety of moods -- of loneliness, of passion, of loss...As a dancer, I thought her movements had a textured quality that I don't know how to describe; it was as if one had a sense of the weight of her body as she moved. This was perhaps part of what made her seem so "real."

[This message has been edited by Drew (edited January 19, 2001).]

[CygneDanois]

Drew, as I have never seen Kirkland dance live, and all my information about her comes from books, I very much appreciate your insight.

I have to ask about Seymour's Giselle; do you think that a hardier interpretation would have worked? What I mean is that from my perspective, the whole point of the story is that Giselle is a delicate little thing with a weak heart, and that's why she goes insane and dies so easily. Would Albrecht's betrayal have had the same effect on a stronger person, or does anyone know if Seymour was able to work this into the role? Thanks for any answers.

------------------

CygneDanois

[Drew]

I have also sometimes wondered about how and whether the "hardier," more peasant Giselle works, since all of the great Giselles I have seen have been delicate and dreamy. But I do from time to time read in a critic that "so and so" (i.e. Seymour, but also -- I have a very vague memory -- Spessivitzeva [sp?]) performed it with a somewhat different edge and that the interpretation worked powerfully etc. The description of Seymour that I read indicated that she was more of a deliberate suicide, really plunging the sword etc. I'm guessing, too, (but it is only a guess) that it's not so much that such interpreters dance Giselle as if she were a farm worker out of a Millet painting, as that they give the role a fresher, more earthy and earthly quality. Anyway -- I, too, would love to hear from people who saw Seymour's Giselle...

(The Links section connects to a review of a new production staged by, as well as starring, Sylvie Guillem, that seems to aim at offering a more grounded, dramatic Giselle . ...I, unfortunately, have never seen Guillem in this role...)

[Victoria Leigh]

When I was dancing with Nat'l. Ballet of Canada, Lynn Seymour danced Giselle with the company one season. I was fascinated by her, and loved being on stage every night to watch her, as it was never exactly the same. While she may have been somewhat hardier, or less delicate, she was still extremely vulnerable, and totally believable in the role. I thought she was a very special Giselle, definitely one of my favorites.

[Alexandra]

There is a film of Ulanova's Giselle that I saw long ago, my first year of watching dance, so I can't give you cites and production details. She was a peasant -- not earthy, but innocent, allowing herself to be ugly, the way a country girl who'd never looked in a mirror and had no idea of "beauty" could look. I was riveted by her first act; I don't remember much about the second, but I do remember the mad scene, and she was terrifying. One can argue that ballet is not supposed to be realistic, that one doesn't go mad in "Giselle" the way one would in a contemporary piece, but go mad prettily, as Fracci did (I also liked her), but it certainly was good theater.

I never saw Seymour either, and always wanted to, Drew. To me, she would have been the ideal Giselle (and Sylph. Ashton wanted to do La Sylphide for the Royal in the 1960s but the Danes wouldn't let him have the production) I always thought Sibley-Dowell and Seymour-Wall would have been wonderful in that ballet.)

On dance-acting in general, it occurred to me that during the Ballet Russe era, everyone would have been assumed to be an actor-dancer, and the oddball was the one who could only dance. There would be virtuoso solos for those dancers, and for very young dancers, but 80% of the cast would be dancing and acting.

[Estelle]

Originally posted by Drew:

(The Links section connects to a review of a new production staged by, as well as starring, Sylvie Guillem, that seems to aim at offering a more grounded, dramatic Giselle . ...I, unfortunately, have never seen Guillem in this role...)

There have been some discussions about it on ballet.co.uk (but mostly in French). Most of the people who posted seemed a bit disappointed by that production (especially by the fact that Guillem cut many parts of the traditional variations). Clement Crisp's review in the "Financial times" was very negative. I've only read two reviews in the French press yet: one by Marie-Christine Vernay in "Liberation", which was positive (but Vernay is a critic who generally is interested only in modern dance, and it seems that what she liked most was that it was different from the traditional version, which Vernay seems to loathe), and one by Luc Décygnes, in Le Canard Enchaîné, which was very negative. The fact that Guillem was not exactly modest in her countless recent interviews in the French press probably didn't provoke indulgence...

[liebs]

Other dancer/actresses would have to include Sallie Wilson, a brillant interpreter of Tudor and DeMille at ABT in the early 70s and she was no slouch as a dancer either. I also thought Ruth Mayer and Kathleen Moore of ABT were outstanding actresses.

[Jane Simpson]

I saw Lynn Seymour's debut in Giselle, in 1960 and wrote some notes about it at the time (most of which I'd die rather than make public - I was 18 at the time and determined not to be over-impressed by anybody!)

"She has a round, rather plump face...her hair loosely tied back and her wreath at an unbecoming angle...She looked almost ridiculously young, and this is what made it possible to believe in her mad scene - otherwise one would find it difficult to credit that such a down-to-earth creature could lose her senses over a faithless suitor."

I did condescend to like her second act, with "dancing already sure and lovely".

I think it was quite a long time before she danced the role again and probably changed it a lot in the light of her growing experience. I've always thought, though, that in some ways it was a pity she got to be thought of as a tragedy queen, as I always found her dancing beautiful - she had ravishing feet and a wonderful soft, melting quality. (On a good day, that is.)

[dirac]

I never had the good fortune to see Kirkland, but I did read her books, and while I admired her intensity I could see how her partners might have become a wee bit impatient. Dancing on My Grave had one especially striking passage on one ballet, I forget which, where Kirkland had to dance with a scarf. Apparently Kirkland had trouble finding a dramatic justification for the scarf, and expends several paragraphs on how she cast about for possible motivations, consulted with her coach, etc. It did seem like an awful amount of mental anguish to expend upon what would seem to be a pretty run-of-the-mill prop.

[Manhattnik]

I have no doubts Kirkland must have been a major PITA to work with. But the results, at least for herself, were worth it. I've been spending some time recently at the Dance Research Collection looking at the fragmentary films of her taken, on the sly, by a camera-wielding usher at the New York State Theater (and elsewhere). It's truly an education, and while I saw Kirkland many times back when, I've come away even more astonished by her seamless blend of technique and artistry. I'm going to try to post something in more detail about it soon.

Any ballet fans visiting NYC might consider putting a trip to the Research Collection on their itineraries.

[Giannina]

I haven't seen Alexandra Ferri much lately but I always thought she was a very good actress, most notably in R&J and Manon. As always, when a topic like this surfaces I think first of Makarova, my all time favorite ballerina. She acted with fervor but my reaction to her emoting was, "There's Makarova acting" rather than "There's Giselle".

Giannina

[Yvonne]

All of this talk about Robert LaFosse and Kirkland has made me remember a part in his book where he mentions that to him, Leslie Browne (when they were in R&J together), was a great "actress". According to him, HIS Romeo was not well received.....he felt, by female critics!

I would only agree with him on ONE aspect of the "Kirkland/endless rehearsal issue" - that while rehearsing the "kiss" in La Sonombula over and over and over, it was kind of hard for him to "get into it", with her disheveled appearance (she was in bad shape by then), and those silicone lips.

In spite of what HE thinks, Kirkland is my ideal and she WAS a wonderful actress! I have sometimes wondered what she could have achieved if she had become an actress instead of a dancer. I also agree with the comments earlier about Sallie Wilson and Lynn Seymour.

ORZAK.....I wish you would write a book about your life in ballet...you have seen and worked with so many great dancers! I would be the first in line to buy a copy! (seriously!!) Would you autograph a first edition for me? Please consider it!

[This message has been edited by Yvonne (edited January 21, 2001).]

[Alexandra]

Orzak, following up on Yvonne's comment, forgive me if I've missed it--I have not been reading the board carefully this past month--but with what company(ies) did you dance? It's so interesting that you began so late and yet had a professional career, I think it might be very inspiring as we so frequently get questions from people asking "is it too late for me to start." (Sorry, this is a bit off-topic of dancing and acting.)

[Drew]

I saw Kirkland in Sonnambula at the Met. and thought she was extraordinary -- otherworldly, touched with madness, utterly concentrated and internally focused; her entrance on point appeared to have a supernatural quality of speed and sharpness. My memory of it is somehow of movements both flowing and abrupt. I have, however, never seen Allegra Kent in the role (or anyone else) and another fan who had seen Kent complained, in the strongest terms, that Kirkland got the role "wrong" because at the end there was a pathos in her facial expression -- as if she just barely registered the poet's death. Kent, I gather, danced the role completely impassively (no facial expressions) and the result was quite eerie and, by all reports, amazing. As I remember it, Kirkland, at the end of the ballet -- though scarcely moving a muscle on her face -- did communicate a hint of pathos. Her eyes seemed to glitter as if with unshed tears. Perhaps this was "wrong," but I found the performance just mesmerizing.

Manhattnik -- I would love to hear your impressions of the film fragments of Kirkland at the Dance Collection. (Haven't seen them myself, and don't know when I will have the chance...); and ORZAK -- I, too, would be interested in reading about your career (should you ever choose to write about it).

[This message has been edited by Drew (edited January 21, 2001).]

[cargill]

I saw Lynn Seymour dance Giselle several times, fairly late in her career, during her chunkier days. She was certainly no sylph, but her mad scene was unforgetable. Even all these years later, I can still see her--no histronics as all, just staring straight ahead with her world crumbling. Truly shattering.

As for light sylphy Giselles as opposed to heartier peasanty ones, I remember reading that at the time, many critics were more taken with Elssler's Giselle than with Grisi's, because of the strength of Ellsler's mad scene. Elssler, by all accounts, was not an airy sylph. I think the strength of a ballet like Giselle is that it is open to so many interpretations by different types of dancers. (Though I hope Giselle the Village Slut isn't waiting in the wings.)

[Giannina]

Oh, Mary; you're something else again!!

Giannina

[atm711]

I don't think Gore Vidal should be quoted as an authority on Nora Kaye. (He was once a part of my ballet class about the time of his second novel, and who could take anyone seriously who wore white tennis shorts to ballet class!)

Nora Kaye had an exceptionally strong technique, which greatly enhanced her dramatic abilities. True, she was not of the classic line, but even her Giselle, Swan Lake and Black Swan PDD were worth seeing, but it was her strong technique that added so much to her Hagar---especially when she would spin out a series of swift pirouettes to relieve her tensions. (The impression was that she had spun out a dozen--not so, but that's how one felt.)

[CygneDanois]

Well, now I have to go hunt down every last video of Kirkland I can possibly find and see if I can extract even the tiniest, most vague sense of what she might have been like live. These descriptions of her are just incredible. I, too, when I read her book, had the sense of, "Well, if that's what it took for her to create those splendid effects, she could go right ahead." And I wish I hadn't brought up LaFosse's book!

Gianina, I like Alessandra Ferri, too, even though I've only seen a few videos and one live performance of Pas des Deeses in which she hardly did anything. I have a video of her in Giselle, and while I don't find her acting utterly heartbreaking or earth-shattering, I do find it very believable. She looks as though she really does love Albrecht, and her mad scene is plausible--she doesn't go insane all at once, but by degrees, as though gradually realizing the full weight of what has befallen her, becoming more desperate as she goes along. I'm also enthralled by her Act II, in which she is cold and dead on the outside, but there seems to be a faint heartbeat, a tiny glimmer of love for Albrecht inside, and it is trying desperately to break through the frigid pallor of death. She moves as though she's in a swimming pool, as though death has slowed her down and that little bit of love inside her is trying its very hardest to hang on, and it is a very effective contrast to her easy, carefree movements in Act I.

This gives me the idea that when the Wilis dance forever, it's not necessarily as ghosts free in the wind--it's a struggle for them, possibly even painful, because they can never rest, forever subject to the command of Myrtha with her willow wand.

------------------

CygneDanois