Ari

Thank you for posting this, purelyballet. I've edited your post down to an excerpt because we cannot reprint entire articles on this site -- it is a violation of copyright. What we can do is provide a taste of the article and a link that readers can click on in order to read the whole story.

Incidentally, you (and others) might want to check out the Links forum, in which we post links to news stories and reviews of ballet.

Jeff Edwards, for sure. He looked like another Peter Boal -- well, different, but similar in certain ways. He would have graduated to much of the same repertory had he stayed.

In the late 70s there was a very gifted boy named Peter Schetter, who had been a favorite of Stanley Williams. A beautiful dancer, beautiful feet, also an Edwards/Boal type.

Muriel Aasen had her annoying qualities, but she was undoubtedly bursting with talent. She seems to have disappeared completely after leaving NYCB, such a sad waste.

And of course there's Gelsey Kirkland . . .

This is a follow-up to the thread on American Arts Journalism. That thread was inspired by an article by the British arts critic Norman Lebrecht (read it here), who argued that reportage and criticism of the arts in American newspapers is "uniformly respectful, uninquiring, inherently supportive [of major arts institutions]."

As examples, he cited an interview in the New York Times with outgoing Metropolitan Opera head Joseph Volpe which failed to ask whether Volpe was leaving due to age or to the fact that the box office has struggled since 9/11. He also condemned American newspapers' failure to question the appointment of the "visibly ailing" James Levine to "revitalize" the Boston Symphony Orchestra and the absence of inquiry into Lincoln Center's acrimonious, long drawn-out, and frequently altered attempts at renovating its campus.

This makes me wonder: if American newspapers were as vital at reporting and discussing arts issues as Lebrecht would like them to be, what are the ballet issues that would come up? Assume that you are the arts editor of your local paper. You have lots of critics and freelancers to call upon. The other newspapers in your area are doing the same kind of critical inquiry, so if you don't get there first, they will! What issues and ideas would you ask your writers to look into?

Some examples to start off: the situation at SPAC. Who makes the decisions on their board, especially when many board members don't show up for meetings? Why is the state auditing them, and why has it decided, after several weeks of study, to hire an outside auditor? Has SPAC done enough to promote NYCB seasons? Or, a critique of Mikko Nissinen's first year as AD of the Boston Ballet: have the changes he's made been for the better? Has his dismissal of many teachers and coaches, not to mention dancers, harmed the company and school, especially in light of Sarah Lamb's departure and the reasons she gave for it?

I'm not asking for a discussion of the issues themselves, just for suggestions as to what kind of things you'd like to see discussed.

Editing to add: although Lebrecht's criticism was aimed at American newspapers, we needn't be so restrictive in this topic. Please join in, wherever you live!

In an article in La Scena Musicale, the British critic Norman Lebrecht takes aim at American arts journalism.

Every serious British newspaper carries two, three or more pages of arts commentary and criticism which report, reflect and review a razzle of activity in a style which may be ponderous, or provocative, or purely piss-taking.

No American newspaper dares venture past the first of these ps. The tone in US arts coverage is uniformly respectful, uninquiring, inherently supportive. When the boss of Covent Garden takes an early bath, British papers roll out weeks of investigation, gossip and analysis. When the head of the Met decides (or is obliged) to step down, as Joseph Volpe did some weeks ago, he does so in a friendly interview with the New York Times which does not once inquire whether Volpe quit because he's pushing 65 or because his box-office has gone dead since 9/11.

The failure to challenge is a fundamental flaw in US arts journalism. The appointment of a visibly ailing James Levine to 'revitalise' the Boston's Symphony Orchestra was reported uncritically in the Globe. The shenanigans at Lincoln Center, where heads roll periodically and reconstruction plans flounder, are immune to the scrutiny that attends any public project of comparable prominence. As an arts place, Lincoln is off-limits to investigative journalism. Critics are free to diss Philadelphia's new concert hall and the New York Philharmonic's performance under Lorin Maazel, but any inquiry into the workings of these organisations is ruled out by unstated convention.

Lebrecht attributes this timidity to the fact that most American cities have only one newspaper, or only one that covers the arts. In London, by contrast, half a dozen newspapers provide forums for a wide array of opinions. The dance critic of one major paper can trash a new ballet without having to worry that his review might destroy the company's box office for the rest of the season, because he can count on his colleagues at other papers to weigh in with differing viewpoints.

This one-newspaper situation is a fact of life here, and isn't going to change. With that in mind, is there some way around the very real problem that Lebrecht identifies?

One answer could be to have that one dominant newspaper in each town present not one, but several critical voices. (This may not be very realistic, given that it's tough to get these papers to dedicate even one critic to the high arts, but let's leave that aside for the moment.) Or perhaps the whole notion of relying on newspapers is out of date. Is this the time to explore a website devoted to serious original arts news and criticism (written by professionals -- not a Ballet Talk kind of site ). Any other ideas?

It's interesting that Lebrecht says that this article had originally been commissioned by the New York Times, which refused to print it because it would have been "odd" to criticize itself in its own pages!

I was also motivated to read this book as the result of reading this thread, and I'm so glad I did. The author has such a wide sympathy for all kinds of people, and it's beautifully written. I thought the first section was the least interesting -- it was more like a prologue to the second section, which was the heart of the book. The third section ties all the characters together.

I look forward to reading more of Julia Glass.

One thing I know that Balanchine disliked was applause before the music has stopped playing. This bothers me, too. It's as if the audience thinks that once the dancers have stopped moving the ballet is over -- that the music isn't an integral part of the ballet. If nothing else, it's rude to the musicians, treating them as accompanists rather than participants in the work.

And I was fascinated by the Kirstein biographer (perhaps because I've been wondering if there were a biography out there... this is one book I'll definitely run out and buy)

There's a Kirstein biography in the works? More info, please. Who is the author? How far along is the book -- can we expect to see it any time soon?

I certainly don't envy the author his/her task. Imagine everything you'd have to know to write such a book: all about art, literature, dance, music, esthetic theory, in addition to the details of such a long and rich life. But that's what will make it so exciting to read!

The time frame Chesbrough established always looked like a setup to me. One month is much too short a period in which to raise $600,000. But this way he gets to say, "I was fair, I gave you time, and you couldn't raise the money. I was right: the ballet isn't affordable."

Silvy, I don't think it is, or ever was, a practice at NYCB to teach new dancers big solo roles, if by that you mean that it was done to them all. I remember that when Bentley first joined the company Jerome Robbins taught her a role in Dances at a Gathering which, I believe, she never did perform. Evidently Robbins thought she was talented and wanted to see if she could dance a major solo role. Individual choreographers at NYCB have always been free to choose the dancers they want to work with. I think it was nothing more than that.

When Ballo was first premiered, it seemed pleasant but insubstantial, a piece d'occasion (it was made, rather quickly, for opening night of the company's winter season) designed to show off the company's newly promoted ballerina. But as time went on, many regular ballet goers began to find a lot more in it than seemed initially to be there. (This isn't unusual with Balanchine.) And it's held up very well over the years, surviving cast changes and transferring beautifully to other companies. San Francisco Ballet gave a lovely performance here a couple of years ago, and I believe Miami City Ballet recently added it to its repertoire. While the crystal clarity of Ashley's dancing is an almost impossible goal for others to achieve, I've enjoyed performances by other ballerinas, and the danseur and demisolo roles have also proven meaty parts for dancers.

Who remembers the beautiful head of hair Helgi Tomasson had when he danced with NYCB? Now, there was a hunky ballerino. (Still is!)

Oh, yes, Marga, I surely do. But I do wish he'd kept it the original color instead of letting age take its course. He should have followed Eddie Villella's lead in this.

Why would there be a statue of Abe Lincoln at Lincoln Center?  I was always told that it was named for Lincoln Kirstein....

Oh, no. It was named for Abe. Lincoln Kirstein was a dedicated enemy of Lincoln Center, he used the word himself (actually, what he said was, "Lincoln Center is the enemy" of NYCB).

Mia Slavenska.

There's an article about this in Backstage.

Ahem. Darci Kistler?

In Striking a Balance, Antoinette Sibley talks about the effect of seeing Ulanova for the first time. In addition to Ulanova's artistry, Sibley was struck by the fact that she was blonde, the first blonde ballerina she'd seen. It was the first time she'd seen a model of a ballerina type that she could possibly aspire to herself. Sibley, though, was a dark blonde, like Ulanova.

Didn't Ludmilla Semenyaka and Tatiana Terekova become blondes at some point? Among present-day dancers, Anna Polikarpova of Hamburg (ex-Kirov) is definitely yellow blonde.

I don't see any difference in the second tier, either. You're not as far away from the stage up there as you are in the Met or the State Theater. But it is hot up there.

I wish they'd replaced that ugly curtain while they were changing the other features. I'm pretty sure they did some acoustical tinkering, although admittedly I can't hear a difference. The floor underneath the orchestra seats is now uncarpeted (the aisles are still carpeted), and acoustics are the only explanation I can think of to account for that. Besides, they did some acoustical testing a couple of years ago when the Joffrey was here.

The Kennedy Center has always struck me as embarrassingly pretentious, with its "Hall of Nations" and "Hall of States." When I took a tour of the building a couple of months ago, the guide pointed out all the fixtures and artwork that were "gifts" from various nations. I cringed inwardly, imagining the strongarm tactics that procured these "gifts."

Some random thoughts on the weekend's four performances (yes, I saw them all!):

Peter Boal's Prodigal Son was marvellous. Quite a different interpretation than I'm used to. Most Prodigals are rebels from the get-go, but Boal is a good boy who loves his family but yearns for experience beyond the confines of his home. He's a naif, thrilled at the wonders that the drinking companions and the Siren have to reveal, hungry for new worlds, and only gradually disillusioned. This more nuanced portrayal makes his final humiliation all the more moving. I've seen Boal dance this role before, but never has his performance been so fully developed. A great performance.

Rachel Rutherford brought warmth and mystery to the Verdy role in Emeralds. Pascale van Kipnis danced the Paul role well, but isn't as much of an ingenue as the part calls for; there needs to be a contrast between the two ballerinas. Nikolaj Hubbe got something of a raw deal in Washington: his only appearances were in Rubies, a part that doesn't really suit him (but in which he was very enjoyable nonetheless) and Concerto Barocco, a partnering role. Boal got both Apollos. It's understandable that the company would want to show him off — he's a total product of the school and one of the finest dancers in the world, and he has fewer dancing years ahead of him than Hubbe. Still, I would like to have seen more of Hubbe. I love the way he engages with his partner — that's unfortunately rare in ballet today. Savannah Lowery danced the second ballerina role in Rubies on Sunday afternoon and showed an impressive understanding of the part. Teresa Reichlen, by contrast, seemed more comfortable in Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto. Darci Kistler danced the Diamonds adagio on Sunday night surprisingly well, considering her age and injuries, but skipped the Scherzo — an omission which always diminishes the ballet considerably.

While I don't understand why the company hired Joaquin de Luz — they've got plenty of jester types already — I have to give him credit: by Saturday night's Bizet he had toned down his performance considerably, and as a result looked like a human being rather than a cartoon character. There may be hope for him yet.

The first Jewels (of three scheduled) was a rather subdued affair, lacking star performances. No one danced badly, but there was no excitement in Emeralds or Diamonds. Rubies, aided by the presence of the seasoned Woetzel and the eager, appropriately cast Ansanelli, came off best, even if the former is really too old for this sort of hijinx. He danced it well, if without his former explosive technique, but looked distinctly long in the tooth for it, especially next to his dewy young ballerina. Ansanelli here has a role that exactly suits her fearless, headlong approach to dancing. Teresa Reichlen, in the second ballerina role, is obviously gifted but lacks a sense of humor.

The ballerinas in Emeralds and Diamonds just didn't have what it takes to make these roles moving. I was especially disappointed in Jenifer Ringer, who I'd thought would be perfectly cast in the Mimi Paul role. She wasn't bad, but I found her too studied in the solo, and perhaps trying too hard to be sophisticated, which is not what this role is all about. Her role is the "jeune fille" counterpart to the womanly Verdy role. Miranda Weese just isn't woman enough for the latter -- she's all dancer, and nothing but a dancer. I did like Antonio Carmena, who substituted without notice for Arch Higgins in the pas de trois.

As for Maria Kowroski, I found myself getting cross with her. She's had three plum ballerina roles in as many days, and while she's danced them impeccably, she's failed to impose herself on any of them. It's not that I sense vacuousness there, or an inability to project. She may be one of those dancers who are in special need of proper coaching. If so, she's in probably the worst company she could be in.

The new sets? I liked Rubies -- simple, elegant, and chic. Emeralds was horribly green. It was hard to see the dancers in their green costumes against such monolithic greeness. Diamonds seemed to take place in the Blue Grotto, when it should obviously be a ballroom setting, but at least the color was right.

I liked Quinn's conducting, especially in Diamonds, which sounded rich and luscious and grand.

Thursday night: Concerto Barocco, Prodigal Son, Tchaik. Piano Concerto #2.

At the risk of forfeiting my credentials as a Balanchine fanatic, I have to say that Concerto Barocco has never been a favorite of mine. I don't see it as the quintessential Balanchine ballet, as many seem to; in fact, I think it misrepresents most of Balanchine's output. Almost everywhere else, Balanchine takes a piece of music and fits a ballet to it so perfectly that it seems to grow organically out of the music. But it's not mere music visualization (despite the criticisms of some detractors); he creates a new work of art that has a life beyond the music. In Barocco, I don't think that happens. It's music visualization -- beautifully done, to be sure, but nothing more. I have a theory about why this happened. This ballet was made in the 1940s, when there were a lot of Russian emigre musicians active in America. Many Russian musicians tend to emotionalize Bach, playing him as though he were a Romantic composer. I think Balanchine was fed up with this and made this work as a corrective, a way of saying, "This is how to look at Bach." But the effort made him too severe with the music. There's more to Bach than this.

That said, I thought this was a good performance, although it lacked a ballerina. Yvonne Borree isn't a bad dancer, but she's no ballerina. She looked like one of the ensemble who'd been pushed to the front. Both Pascale van Kipnis and Nikolaj Hubbe were more musical and had greater authority than her. Borree is tight in the chest and shoulders, and that makes her arms hang helplessly and robs her of considerable expressive power She also seems to have no imagination or any interest in creating a world of her own -- she's a dutiful time-server.

Prodigal Son came off very well. I'm normally not a Woetzel fan, but he was very good in this. His long bones, hollow cheeks and large, expressive eyes remind me of an etching or woodcut, or (more pertinently) a Russian icon. Kowroski's amazing legs were made for the Siren, but I think she's learning to take responsibility for her roles rather than relying on her physical ability. Still, her final gesture in the pas de deux, when she passes her hand behind her headpiece to signal triumph at seducing the Prodigal, came off flat. She didn't seem to understand what she was doing.

Tchaik. Piano Concerto suffered somewhat from mixed-up casting due to injuries. The two ballerinas should be contrasting types, but Miranda Weese and Ashley Bouder, while not a matched set, are too similar to be effective. It's like having an Aurora and a Lilac Fairy who could easily switch roles (and in fact I see Bouder as more of first ballerina in this ballet than the role she actually danced). Weese, while she danced well, seemed to be somewhere else for the first two movements, but woke up in the third. Charles Askegaard was meant to partner a Wendy Whelan type; he and Weese made an odd couple. The audience liked this ballet a lot.

Once again, I was surprised and impressed by the fact that all the ballets seemed actually to have been rehearsed. I don't meant to be bitchy, just realistic.

Okay, a quick take on tonight --

A good, well-rehearsed and well-danced performance, but -- with one exception -- no real excitement. Fiorato took Serenade too slowly, so it lacked the vigorous sweep it needs. Since I haven't seen Kistler recently, I was pleasantly surprised by how good she looked. Carla Korbes, in the first solo I've seen her do (Dark Angel) made me want to see more of her. Even Borree wasn't bad. But the performance as a whole suffered from the slack tempi .

The unquestionable highlight of the evening was Peter Boal's magnificent, electric Apollo. This is the best performance of the role I've seen him do, and he's been terrific in it before. I don't know if it's his work with Farrell, but everything seems to have fallen in place for him now; he's a young god hungry for life and pulsating with the discovery of his powers. As good as his muses (Ansanelli, Bouder, and Rutherford) were, it was hard for me to take my eyes off of him. Even just sitting on the stool, he had more life in him than most dancers have dancing full out. The audience saw it, too, and gave him well-deserved bravos.

Symphony in C got a crisp, clean performance, but without any memorable individual performances. I'm not sure Jenifer Ringer is suited to the first movement, but it may have something to teach her about the grand ballerina manner. Megan Fairchild made an accomplished debut in the third movement. The audience cheered her partner, de Luz. I wanted to shoot him, but then I loathe salesmanship. I can't really tell you if he danced well. I was too put off by his manner. The audience loved this ballet, and gave it an enthusiastic reception. Andrea Quinn conducted a lively Apollo and Bizet, not too fast.

The house looked well sold, with only a few empty seats here and there (from what I could see). Intermission comments seemed happy. I wish the company had planned a more adventurous repetoire -- all the ballets danced tonight have been seen in Washington in the last few years -- but what's most important is that NYCB is back after 17 years.

This relationship between the ballerina and her cavalier, while it reached its apotheosis in Farrell and her partners, had been present in Balanchine's vision for a long time. I think you can say that, in general, Balanchine liked to see his ballerinas as divinely powerful creatures whom the man (Balanchine's surrogate) could only stand back and helplessly admire, and occasionally give some slight support to in order to let her loose. He often told dancers dancing a pas de deux not to look at each other, I think because he wanted this quality in their relationship.

Renee Zellweger—not at her best. Some of the ladies (Theron, Kidman, Zita-Jones) looked as if they had been poured into their gowns. Renee looked as if she had been stuffed into hers.

I believe Zellweger is currently shooting the sequel to Bridget Jones's Diary, in which she plays a, er, plushly proportioned character.

I think the fact that you (and I) can't imagine any of the original cast members dancing another role in Jewels is more a tribute to Balanchine's uncanny way of personalizing the roles he made for his dancers than anything else. Offhand, I can't think of any Balanchine ballet involving multiple stars in which the original principals switched roles (unless it was male roles that were strictly partnering).

Also, I don't think that, for subsequent dancers, the ability to dance one role necessarily rules out suitability for another. Emploi is not -- or should not be -- a straitjacket. A dancer can have the Romanticism and womanliness for the Verdy role in Emeralds, for instance, as well as the Imperial line and strength for the Farrell role in Diamonds. Which brings up the fact that Jewels is not really a single ballet, but three distinct ones -- although I'm not sure that matters. There have been dancers who initially danced the second ballerina in Tchaik. Piano Concerto and then went on to do the lead, and those are two very different roles.

I was there on Wednesday night. I thought it was an interesting example of a trend that's popular in some, especially European, circles, but I didn't think it was a good ballet. You had to know quite a bit about Nijinksky's life and career in order to understand what was going on -- someone who didn't would be lost. Neumeier obviously made a conscious decision to eschew exposition in favor of "interpretation," but his ideas weren't powerful enough to keep me from finding the lack of realism disconcerting -- why, for instance, Diaghilev looked so young and Romola was a willowy blonde. The ballet never bored me, but never gripped me, either. As mbjerk said, Neumeier used a lot of choreographic cliches, and he put his best ideas in the first act. I found myself thinking that this was a pretty meagre result for a lifetime's obsession with Nijinsky.

Yes, the dancers were very good, which made me wish they had better works to dance.