Ari

Howell Raines, who took over the helm of the New York Times's culture section a year or two ago and immediately provoked controversy, resigned from the paper today, in the fallout over the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal. When Raines was promoted to culture editor, he announced his intention of focusing less on the high arts are more on popular culture. It should be interesting to see who succeeds him and how the new editor will approach the job.

I think the parts of Hillary's book that most people are interested in have nothing to do with politics.

When I think of my childhood reading, the first name that comes to mind is Dr. Seuss. The only other books I can remember from early childhood are the Madeleine series and the Bobbsey Twins, which were succeeded by Nancy Drew. I also loved Dorothy Canfield's Understood Betsy (and still have my copy!), the Beezus & Ramona series, the Happy Hollisters, Hans Brinker, the Pippi Longstocking series, The Wolves of Willoughby Chase, Harriet the Spy, The Peterkin Papers, The Witch of Blackbird Pond, A Wrinkle in Time, and Noel Streatfield's theater books. I didn't read much non-fiction, but one book I loved was Gods, Graves, and Scholars by C.W. Ceram, about the pioneering archeologists.

As a teen, I was passionately devoted to The Catcher in the Rye. I thought it had been written about myself.

I read Jane Eyre at ten and loved it, but Jane Austen was too sedate for me at that age. I had to wait four years until we read it in school to become a convert. Something similar happened with Dickens. When I was in sixth grade, we had a student teacher who foisted portions of David Copperfield on us, and we all hated it. Years later, in college, I loved it. Our summer reading list after seventh grade included The Warden, and that began a lifelong love of Trollope.

Originally posted by Ed Waffle

But it is impossible to get away from television. It is too much a part of the culture to avoid. I hate its ubiquity and the way its stupid catch phrases have become a subsitute for a common language, at least in the United States. But the assumption is that everyone watches TV, everyone watches the Simpsons and everyone who reads the New York Times knows the Comic Book Guy.

This is true of all aspects of popular culture, including pop music and mainstream films. I'm at a similar disadvantage, Ed, because I don't follow this kind of stuff either. Actually, I think it's more insulting to assume that everyone likes rock music; it offends me more than dumb TV. I saw Movin' Out last weekend and found the Billy Joel songs to be unbearable caterwauling — and he's far from the worst out there. And it irritates me that the actors who are lionized by the media are often just good-looking celebrities with a hunger for fame, not serious artists. But it's a fact that more people are familiar with crummy pop culture than even good pop culture, and when you're trying to communicate, it's effective.

Originally posted by Alexandra

We . . . could not get through "The Ambassadors."   We tried.  We really did try.  And he finally gave up -- he loved James -- and said, "Okay, you're right.  You're too young.  You've got to promise that you'll read it when you're 40.")

Oh, Alexandra, I can't tell you how many times I've tried to read The Ambassadors. Like you and your classmates, I really did try. But I couldn't get past the first page, even when I'd passed 40. The last time I actually made it to the second page, but that's as far as I got.

I find James's earlier novels and novellas easier reading than his dense later works. The Americans, The Europeans, The Aspern Papers, Washington Square, are all manageable and even interesting. The turning point was Portrait of a Lady, I think. It's a great novel, I've read it twice, but I can't seem to get past it.

I'm surprised you all hated Wharton. I read The Age of Innocence and (my favorite) The House of Mirth when I was in my teens and loved them. Ethan Frome is pretty dull, though, and they often seem to inflict it on students, probably because it's short.

I attended the Saturday evening performance and had many of the same reactions as those who have already posted. A few comments:

Dancing Chopiniana without costumes, scenery, and an attempt at Romantic style strips the ballet of everything that's important to it. Fokine was evoking the pre-Petipa Romantic ballet, which demands careful coaching in the appropriate style. This is difficult for all dancers nowadays, but the SAB esthetic is so far from Romanticism, and it was so obvious that no attempt had been made even to suggest the style, that I wonder why they bothered. Without an attempt at the style — and it requires costumes, if not scenery, to bring it fully to life — the ballet looked empty. The performance reminded me of something a pianist friend once said about the difference between playing Chopin and Bach: with Chopin, the pianist has to bring to the performance her own interpretation, because simply playing it straight makes it sound like there's nothing there. With Bach, on the other hand, "the more music you put in, the more you get." Something similar could be said for ballet. Dancing Chopiniana as though it were Concerto Barocco makes neither the ballet nor the students look good. I can only wonder why Balanchine staged it for NYCB.

As with others here, the highlight of the program for me was Flower Festival. Wonderfully coached by Nikolaj Hubbe, the dancers looked not like they were doing an isolated party piece but as though they'd just stepped out of a full-scale ballet. They had life. Arron Scott is in the Danish tradition of shortish men who are essentially demi-caractère dancers rather than that of the danseurs who condescend to kick up their heels in order to show off their throroughbred technique. More power to him. I'm not sure there's room for a man of his talents at NYCB just now, but some company is going to be very lucky to get him.

One nitpicky thing: while I enjoyed Jermel Johnson's wonderful elevation in the opening solo in the Ballabile from Napoli very much, I was taken aback by his mustache. It really looked very unclassical. Perhaps it's defensible in a ballet like Napoli, but it bothered me.

Watching the third act of Martins's Sleeping Beauty made me long to see the company do this again — it's been three years! Maybe the Balanchine focus of next year's seasons will offer the ballet that Balanchine remembered so fondly from his years at the Maryinsky. We can hope.

Originally posted by Alexandra

I think what separates DTH from other companies with their resources is that Mitchell has an international standard, an international-level eye.  Maybe he can't reach it, but he knows what it is, and the dancers do, too.

What puzzles me about DTH is that the company was, if not of international standard, at least a classical company of much higher achievement in the 1970s. It started to decline in the 80s, and has — at least from my infrequent viewings — continued that decline ever since. I wonder if the absence of Karel Shook, who died about ten (?) years ago, has something to do with it.

Originally posted by Bobbi

I'm not against a good story ballet, but it's the direction NYCB is taking that disturbs me.

Which direction is that, Bobbi?

Originally posted by Bobbi

Balanchine's whole aesthetic was in the opposite direction from the story ballet.  His ballets were based on the musical impulse.  Now, we have someone in charge of the New York City Ballet rep who is turning back the clock to an era where the story mattered more than the music. . . . But it seems that only twenty years after Balanchine's death we have NYCB turning into NYCB Theater.  What a slap in the face to everything he stood for -- and in the House That Balanchine Built too.  I find it so very, very sad.

Bobbi, I don't think Balanchine was hostile to story ballets at all. He made a number of big ones himself (Nutcracker, Midsummer, Don Q, Coppelia, Harlequinade); it's just that he preferred to work in the non-narrative mode. And, in the fifties at least, he encouraged other choreographers to create the kinds of ballets they felt comfortable with. While he didn't believe in a "something for everyone" repertory of the ABT variety, he did want a repertory with some balance.

Personally, I'm grateful for the chance to see something — ANYTHING — other than the numbingly hip slick ultramodern ear- and eye-hurting fiascos that NYCB churns out so regularly.

As one who edits for a living, my experience has been that, since the mid-nineties at least, publishers have been decreasingly concerned with line and sense editing and increasingly concerned with maximizing profits. Human resources constitute most publishers' biggest expense, and the temptation to cut staff and refocus the remaining editors' work from ensuring quality to churning it out as efficiently as possible has been overwhelming, at least in the portion of the industry in which I work (professional publishing).

The disappearance of small publishers, whether independent or under the wing of a benign parent, and the merger & acquisition mania among publishers, has played a large part in this. My own company is an example. The office I work in was originally a small, independent publisher that focused on certain special interest areas and concentrated on giving its customers exactly what they wanted. The subscribers knew that they could rely on these publications to be accurate, well written, comprehensive, and trustworthy, and it was the editors who ensured this. Five years ago the company was bought by a large publisher whose concern is profit, profit, and profit. There is great pressure to avoid spending too much time on silly things like editing. We're told to make one of only two decisions when a new manuscript comes in: is it publishable or not? If not (and this decision is discouraged), you must send it back to the author with comments, but we are instructed not to spend too much time telling the author how to do his job. If the author isn't coming through, we should drop him.

You mention your experience in typesetting and printing, Ed. Now that computers have replaced the old methods, I think there's less of a sense that we're dealing with words and more that we're producing widgets.

The Internet has something to answer for, too. Casual communication (like e-mail and message boards ) has accustomed us to carelessness in spelling and grammar. When I was growing up, I expected that anything in print was grammatically and stylistically correct; I learned spelling by looking at a misspelled word and realizing that it looked different from the way I was used to seeing it. Nowadays, kids don't have any foundations on which to rely. Just last night I passed a distinguished repertory theater (that specializes in Shakespeare, for cripe's sake) and saw a prominent typo on one of their billboards. This carelessness implies that words, that expression, that writing don't matter.

I think I'll creak my way over to the rocking chair right now . . .

Originally posted by KayDenmark

The website informs me that this was, in fact, the 1964 version, which is why it was danced in the old-fashioned tutus.

While I'm delighted that Ballet Imperial is being staged as it should be, I was under the impression that the Balanchine Trust insists on staging the ballets as they existed at the time of Balanchine's death. Does anyone know?

Originally posted by Michael

What is the casting history of the female principal's role, the one Dale refers to as the Queen (the one danced by Whelan Friday night)?

The original ballerina was Marie-Jeanne, a small, strong, speedy dancer. When the ballet was revived in 1972, the role was taken by Patricia McBride, who was very well suited to it. It was later danced by other short, powerful ballerinas such as Melissa Hayden and Violette Verdy, and looks best on smallish women, I think, although tall ballerinas (Farrell, Ashley, Whelan) have also danced it well. I'd love to see Jennie Somogyi do it; it's the perfect role for her.

In fairness to Gottlieb, he has seen POB much more than once. He seems to go to Paris pretty often, and has reviewed the company before.

Originally posted by Alexandra

There's always the problem, too, with a less than ideal production, that the audience will think that this is the standard "Swan Lake."

Which of today's major companies performs the "standard" Swan Lake? For that matter, is there anything such as a "standard SL?"

The issue may be the extent to which the students are being used. Most companies use students to fill out a large corps, to substitute for injured professionals, and to audition for a contract — that is, it gives the directors a chance to see how a talented student copes with dancing real choreography, being onstage, and working with others. But there is no doubt that the students are subordinate to the pros.

It may be — I don't know the details, so can only guess — that PBT plans to use a group of students as regular members of the corps, learning all the ballets and being "on call" for anything that comes up. If the company can do that, I don't blame the professionals for worrying about their own future with the company, since management can obviously get away with using students much more cheaply. I don't know the union situation at PBT, but if they have one this would obviously be a union matter.

From the company's perspective, I would think they'd have to be concerned about their status as a professional company if they continue to use students as regular members of the ensemble. I don't know how companies are classified as pro or non-pro . . . does anyone know? Is it a formal classification?

So, didn't anyone see Alina Cojocaru in Bayadere on Saturday night? Spill, please.

originally posted by citibob

There is a difference between CORPORATE PATRONAGE and PRODUCT PLACEMENT, although both of them are a form of COMMERCIALISM.

The issue here is that product placement could pose a serious threat to the artistic independence -- and therefore integrity -- of the ballet.

You've hit the nail on the head, citibob. And, as you noted earlier, commercialism is pervasive in our daily lives. This is probably necessary to a free-market economy. But we don't want to encounter it when we seek the refuge of high art.

Carbro, the difference between a company's crediting Freed's in its program and the Klein affair is that ballet companies pay for the pointe shoes they use (although they probably get a volume discount ). And shoes are much more expensive than blue jeans — buying its own denim wouldn't have bankrupted ABT. What I'd really like to know about the Klein/ABT thing is how it all came about. Did ABT go shopping for a "sponsor" for the Harrison ballet, thinking to credit it in the same way it does its dancers ("Paloma Herrara's performances are sponsored by xxxx")? That's basically harmless, although as an insidious form of commercialism it makes me uncomfortable. Or did Klein say, "I'll give you money if you credit me in the programs and wear my product"? That's product placement, and it's an intrusion into the creative work of the company, which IMO should be inviolate.

I really don't think we can say that NYCB has had purer principles than ABT: greater LUCK, yes, in getting money throughout the years.

I wasn't referring just to their fundraising, vagansmom, but to the overall ethos of the company (which informs fundraising among many other elements of the company's dealings). This is very different from ABT's, and always has been. And we can't say that NYCB has had greater luck than ABT is fundraising, because we don't know what goes on behind the scenes. What we do know is that the company has never lowered itself to serve as part of some commercial organization's advertising.

Using Manolo Blahnik shoes in a ballet is not the same thing. Ballet companies have struck deals with makers of commercial clothing and props for years, giving them credit in the program in return for free products. But I can't recall a manufacturer/designer actually underwriting the cost of performing the ballet containing their products before. What's the difference between "sponsoring" a particular ballet and just giving the same money to the company without a requirement for specific program credit? It's the fine line that Watermill mentions. The specter of an institution of high art succumbing to crass marketplace mores is dispiriting and makes me question the artistic validity and value of the work at issue. That's where a responsible board, executive director, and artistic director must step in. Their decision reveals much about the company.

I should say that there are certain facts we don't know about the ABT situation. Would the company have performed the ballet if Klein hadn't forked over the money? Was he given similar credit in the program for the City Center performances? We don't know precisely how this all came about.

I well know the practical necessities can lead to a blurring of good taste in advertising. But who's going to stand up to the marketing weasels and show some leadership, draw the line? Obviously, I'm laying some blame at McKenzie's feet but there should be some upper management, some board members who disdain this creeping commercialism. Someone upstairs has to have standards, no?

I quite agree with you, Watermill. In pointing out that this coziness with brazen commercialism has been characteristic of ABT in the past, I meant only to underline the fact that the company has always (well, as long as I've known it) lacked the kind of integrity that would allow one to take it seriously as an organization devoted to art. This is in contrast to New York City Ballet. This isn't the place for a rant on the subject, but this integrity is one reason I think that NYCB is so important in American culture and in worldwide ballet culture. Whether or not you like their esthetic, Balanchine and Kirstein were men of fierce principle, and their company has carried on their ideals. It is possible to survive as a nonprofit artistic endeavor without selling one's soul to the devil of commercialism.

McKenzie is following in the ABT tradition, Watermill. Some years ago, when Pavlova perfume came out (is it still on the market?), ABT had people in the lobby of the Met hawking the fragrance. There are probably other examples. Anyone remember them?

I asked a friend who collects DVDs (not ballet) from other regions, and she said that multi-region DVD players are easily available and not too expensive — the highest price she's ever heard of has been $250 US. There are a number of Web sites that sell them, and if you live in a big city or one with a lot of immigrants from "other region" countries, it should be easy to find one there (that is, not in the chain stores or mainstream electronics stores but in small shops in ethnic enclaves). My friend lives in San Francisco and got hers in Chinatown. For what it's worth, she likes the Sampo brand, and recommends that if you are able to shop around locally that you bring a DVD from another region with you to try it out.

I attended the same performance as rkoretzky — in fact we were sitting together until she decided to move to the first row to avoid the column. I'd seen MCB's Jewels two years ago at the Kennedy Center, where it so overwhelmed me that I went twice. Saturday's performance was just as glowing and satisfying. Having seen Jewels performed by NYCB (many times), the Kirov, and POB, I have to say that if I had to choose one company to watch dance this ballet, it would be MCB. No, they don't have the perfect bodies and refined technique of the other, world-class, companies, but they have what is more important: a thorough understanding of the Balanchine style and of the differences among the three ballets, and an obvious love of dancing them. (This was something that struck me a couple of years ago when watching various companies, MCB included, in the Kennedy Center's Balanchine Festival: how all the dancers looked overjoyed to be able to dance these ballets. This is something I've never seen at NYCB.)

Much of the beauty of MCB's Emeralds comes from the company's style, which is more relaxed than any of the majors. Perhaps it's not having to compete at the very top level that enables them simply to enjoy the dancing and luxuriate in the movement, or maybe it's being away from the tension of major urban centers, or — in contrast to the Kirov — not having the anxiety of trying to prove that they're up to the challenge. Mary Carmen Catoya had just the right maturity and glow for the Verdy role, and Deanna Seay caught the youth and delicacy of the Paul part. I was disappointed not to see Yann Trividic, but his replacement, Ruslan something (sorry, don't have my program with me) was fine. The same could not be said for the other principal man, who had no line and was thoroughly earthbound.

Rubies, too, had the right look — not brittle or harsh, as it can appear in some companies' productions, but a deep, fiery glow that brought out the wit in the choreography. Jennifer Kronenberg is taller than most ballerinas who dance the McBride part, and her long legs seemed to get in the way during the adagio, but otherwise she danced it well.

Diamonds is my least favorite of the three ballets, and is in fact one of my least favorite Balanchines of all time. Rkoretzky has mentioned the fact that the grandeur of the Tchaikovsky score doesn't come across in a recording — it sounds like bombast. Iliana Lopez's performance looked somewhat effortfull, too, but the corps and demis, as always with this company, were compulsively watchable.

This is a great company, and Jewels has practically become its signature piece. It's worth a trip to see it.

Thumpinhippo posted a review of Wild Zebra that appeared in an Australian newspaper last month. We don't allow entire articles to be reprinted here as that would violate the newspaper's copyright, so I've deleted it. But here are some excerpts:

Once upon a time, a Chinese choreographer had a dream as he travelled by train in his homeland. Inexplicably, it was a dream about wild zebras and it inspired him to make a ballet populated by African animals for a group of dancers from Shanghai, with narration by an Australian for English-speaking audiences.

Working in a style that mixes the classical ballet China inherited from its old political cousin, the Soviet Union, and its own brand of folk dance works, Zhang Jigang also hints at relationships with the circus, cabaret and American marching bands in his full-length dance drama, Wild Zebra.

Unfortunately the choreography captures some of the least appealing aspects of epic Soviet ballets, including long mime sequences and melodramatic action in mini-climaxes so numerous that the opening night audience, responding with polite applause to much lowering and raising of the curtain, didn't seem to realise Wild Zebra was over until the cast stepped forward to take a bow. At which point, they clapped enthusiastically.

rg, my information on the Sibley SB comes from an interview with Sibley that dates from the early 1980s. She talks about wanting her children to be able to see how she danced, and mentions this telecast as one performance of hers that she was particularly happy with. She was very upset to learn that the tape had been erased.

That's all I know about it. The interview may have been in Dance News, but I'm not sure.

Welcome to Ballet Talk, ballerina idol!

The BBC televised a Royal Ballet SB with Sibley as Aurora some time in the 1960s or early 70s, but at some point it erased the tape ( :eek: ). There may be some, er, "unofficial" copies in private hands, but nothing commercially available beyond what rg has listed.