Ari

What a lucky thing they didn't have a compulsory retirement age when de Valois was around.

The moment in Phlegmatic in The Four Temperaments when the dancers retract their outstretched arms and then move them to one side while they tilt their heads. No matter how many times I see it, it always thrills me.

Marc, I wasn't doubting Jeannie's report in any way, merely observing that I thought Goriacheva better suited to the third movement.

I can't speak for what ABT's dancers thought, but the audience (at least the balletomane audience) was irritated by the company's obsession with signing guest stars during the 70s. Yes, they attracted some stars of genuine quality and value like Makarova and Baryshnikov, but they also went after people who were Names rather than artists, and they've had a consistent problem differentiating qualities that make a dancer a short-term wonder from genuine excellence. I remember attending a non-ABT gala at which some unknown European dancer tore the house down with spectacular tricks, and the woman sitting next to me remarked, "You realize that ABT is running backstage now to sign him up." This was a period when the company had no conception of itself as an artistic entity, no sense of its own style. I think things have improved quite a bit since then. Although it's still pretty much the Ballet From Nowhere, it's a more cohesive Nowhere . And since other companies with a history of real stylistic distinction are looking pretty bland these days, perhaps ABT has improved as much as it can. I, too, would rather see Cojocaru and Vishneva than Kent, McKerrow, Tuttle, and I think Alexandra's remark about their homegrown ballerinas is well taken. But I don't want them to give up trying to develop their own stars, either. I think the question they have to ask themselves is, Will this dancer we're thinking of engaging as a guest fit in with what we want our company to be, and can our dancers learn from her/him? If so, fine. I don't think there's any danger of their being overrun with guests.

I saw the Bolshoi's Nuts on Thursday and Friday evenings, and agree with most of what's been said here. I thought that, by Grigorovich's standards, this was a very subdued production—I could sense him restraining himself. I could almost feel him aching to insert some Tarzan passages for the men or outrageously cheesey divertissements, but remembering that this was meant to be a traditional version. Adults playing children never works for me, and when you have grown women trying to be little boys, all attempts at suspending disbelief go out the window. Grigorovich tells the story so poorly (or, more likely, is so uninterested in telling it at all) that it's impossible to differentiate Fritz (also played by a girl) from the other kids. Marie herself was just barely distinctive. In this version, Drosselmeier (the program billed Alexey Loparevich on Thursday and Vladimir Moiseev on Friday, but they looked like the same dancer to me—and he was fine ) seems to give the nutcracker to both children, which makes us not quite as shocked as usual when Fritz breaks it. Moreover, Drosselmeier comes on carrying the nutcracker, unwrapped, in his arms—and it's another young woman, in an orange costume. So, at the end of the first act, when the orange woman suddenly becomes a red-clad man, it's, well, confusing. I wonder if people seeing the ballet for the first time will understand it. And after the snow scene, the stage is suddenly populated by strangely costumed people who are not explained. When you return for Act Two, you discover that they're the divertissement dancers (whoever or whatever they're supposed to be—the place where Marie and the Nutcracker Prince go is not spelled out). Well, the program does call them "the dolls revived in Marie's fantastic dream," but I didn't notice that until just now. These are just some examples of Grigovorovich's poor dramatic sense, but I'll spare you the others. He's messed with the divertissements, too, of course. As in Baryshnikov's version, they're all duets, which is monotonous. The Arabian dance is now Indian, a ludicrous contrast to the music. The Waltz of the Flowers is absurdly stodgy and undancey. No Sugar Plum Fairy, of course; their pas de deux goes to Marie and the Prince. I saw Goriacheva and Elena Andrienko. The latter was okay although her legs shook badly after the pas de deux; I liked Goriacheva quite a bit (but, Jeannie, first movement Bizet? I would have said third), she had a soft, gracious quality to match her lovely dancing. Dmitry Gudanov, partnering Andrienko, had the kind of attractive danseur noble manner that you don't always see these days, even if his dancing didn't quite equal it. The designs, by Grigorovich favorite Simon Virsaladze, were drab and didn't quite fill the stage, making me suspect that this was a downscale touring version. I would really, really like to see the Bolshoi in something untouched by Grigorovich. :rolleyes:

Calliope, Reynolds's donation to the Smithsonian had been earmarked for a "Hall of Fame" for female achievers, but her idea of the kind of people she wanted to honor was Oprah Winfrey. The museum decided that that was not what it is about, so they declined the offer — an example of good institutional governance, IMO. If they had agreed to take the money, then I think we would have had cause to worry about who was calling the shots. Her gift to the Kennedy Center is unrestricted, btw.

kfw, I have a copy of the program you mention and while I can't pinpoint the exact year, it's obviously from the fifties. Allegra Kent is in it and Tanaquil Le Clerq is not, even in production shots (which is odd, since she was the original Dew Drop), so I'm guessing that it's from 1958 or 59.

Hi Marianna, and welcome! We're all looking forward to your reports on the Almaty State Ballet and the rest of the ballet scene in Kazakhstan. By the way, you didn't mention Almaty's greatest gift to the ballet world — Altinayi Assylmuratova, former ballerina of the Kirov, now the head of the Vaganova Academy. About attaching pictures: when you are in the "Post Reply" window, you will see a box that says "Attach file." Use the Browse button to find the photo on your hard drive, and select it. When you post, the photo will be attached.

I think this is the article that dirac read: http://www.playbill.com/cgi-bin/plb/news?c...how&code=114336

This sounds a lot like the "ballet summit conference" held in Toronto last summer. It was sponsored by the National Ballet of Canada. Some of the same directors listed in the DanceEast press release were present. The difference is that this "retreat" includes the directors of many smallish companies, while the Toronto conference was limited to world-class (or near world-class) troupes.

I'm surprised to see the two of you talking about Croce's Olympian tone, Leigh and Alexandra. While it's true that she sounds omniscient when writing about ballets or history or companies — and the best writers will always sound Olympian because they express themselves so well — one of the things that first attracted me to Croce's writing was that her response to performances was always personal. That is, I never forgot that this was one person's reaction to what she saw. Her writing was more conversational in tone than that of her colleagues; she would say things like, "Ms. Watts, in a red unitard sheared off at the top, looked like a thermometer," or "ABT has rolled out its dum-dum version of La Fille Mal Gardée" (not the Ashton version, the one before). One of the things I learned from her, in fact, was to trust my own reactions to ballets and performances. And how to combine that with the knowledge I gained from reading and experience in watching ballet.

Kistler's "autobiography" is really a children's book about her career. It's sold at the NYCB gift bar.

It's probably not a question of their not writing, but of their not getting published (Accocella excepted).

About Homans's degree — the Spring 2002 issue of the SAB newsletter says that she is "completing a doctorate at NYU in modern European history, focusing on the history of the origins of classical ballet in France." So apparently she hasn't finished the dissertation yet.

I've always thought that The Wizard of Oz would make a marvellous ballet. It's like a fairy tale: simple plot but with deep and universal themes (the search for a cure, the longing for home, the children 's notion that adults are all-powerful when they're just as vulnerable as they are), and the story is so well known that no one would have trouble following it. (It also has obvious box office potential, enough to make it a springtime Nutcracker.) Trouble is, I'd insist that the company staging it gets the rights to the songs from the movie, so that they could have them arranged into a full-length ballet by a composer, and I doubt that the copyright holders would be willing to agree to that. Dance-wise, it has potential both for classical set pieces (for Dorothy and Glinda the Good Fairy) and character (Lion, Scarecrow, Tin Man, Wizard). The Munchkins would obviously be danced by children from the company's school (see what I mean by the Nutcracker comparison?). As for casting, Dorothy is a classical ingenue, a Margaret Tracey type (perhaps Megan Fairchild), Glinda is a warm, beautiful classical ballerina (Maria Alexandrova of the Bolshoi would be perfect), and the Wicked Witch of the West is a female Carabosse (now that Maya Plisetskaya is dancing again, could she be lured into a cameo?). Perhaps Herman Cornejo could dance the Wizard, who should be small.

The Concert comes immediately to my mind, as does Fancy Free. Robbins had a real gift for comedy in dance; it's a pity that he seems to have lost his sense of humor after that. And Balanchine's Harlequinade. And, of course, Coppelia, in all versions.

Simon Callow wrote a marvellous book called Being an Actor, which is unfortunately out of print but can be found in libraries and used book stores. In it, he takes us through the various stages in an actor's life—The Agent, Getting the Job, First Readthrough, Rehearsals, etc., including the all-important Unemployment. Here is an excerpt from his chapter on The Audience: It's a book that worth searching for, if you're interested in acting and the theater.

Isn't there a lesbian couple in Nijinska's Les Biches?

Darcey Bussell did dance Agon when she guested briefly with NYCB in the early '90s. I don't remember which role she danced. I can see her in both ballerina roles, although the pas de deux immediately springs to mind.

Hi R [Koretzky], About Balanchine avoiding Beethoven, he never made a ballet to Beethoven's music. He felt strongly that ballets should only be made to "musique dansant"—dancey music. He thundered against John Cranko's using the Brahms Second Piano Concerto for a ballet, saying that you should be able to put people in jail for doing that. I assume he felt the same way about Beethoven. Robert Irving evidently agreed (he and Balanchine shared many musical tastes, which is why they worked together so well) and once said in an interview, about Balanchine, "He's never made the mistake of choreographing to Beethoven." I think their objection was that Beethoven's music is too intense, too thunderous (even when it's quiet), and seems to be coming from deep inside. Ballet is objective (in contrast to much of modern dance), and I think Balanchine felt that it works best with music that is objective, too. In any event, I thought that the ballet that Tomasson imposed on the First Piano Concerto was a brightly objective piece sitting uneasily on music that was a private musing.

Okayokayokay. The second program (I saw it Saturday night) disappointed me. Serenade was well danced, and I especially liked Julie Diana (waltz) and Sarah Van Patten (Dark Angel), but the two Tomasson pieces were tough going. I didn't understand Chi-Lin. Was there a story? It seems like it, to judge from the dancers being identified as various characters (unicorn, dragon, etc.), but there was no explanatory note in the program and the action onstage wasn't clear. Prism was also new to me, and I must say it really annoyed me. I just do not see the point of ersatz Balanchine. It's never as good as the real thing, and it actually misrepresents Balanchine's esthetic by applying a formula, which the Master himself never did. In the first place, he always steered clear of Beethoven, and in the second, if he'd been forced to choreograph to the first piano concerto, he would have made something deeper and more cohesive than what Tomasson gave us. Using different dancers for each of the three movements was a bad idea, since the music stands together as a unified piece (as do most concertos). Tomasson missed its darker elements, too—it was all too peppy and cheerful. I'd much rather have seen the first program again . . . for the third time! It was that good.

I was there—a very enjoyable evening. Excellent program which showed off the dancers' classical style, which overall I thought very good. I was left feeling that I'd like to see more of the company, which is always a good sign. Ballo della Regina was carefully and rather genteelly danced; I would have liked more oomph. However, the third soloist (I don't know her name), displayed the amplitude and attack of the Balanchine dancer. Lorena Feijoo was the ballerina, and if she didn't quite define the steps in Merrill Ashley's glittering, razor-sharp fashion, well, who can? She tackled what must be for her a difficult new style very well, although she still has a ways to go. In one passage, for instance, she had to run to the side of the stage, jump up on pointe, and run to her partner. Feijoo jumped to put a period to the first running sequence instead of doing it as the capital letter beginning the next, whereas Balanchine dancing is all about forward momentum—emphasize the upward. I wish she'd dressed her hair more classically than the fussy do with bangs, which made her look like a French soubrette. Her partner, Zachary Hench, was very impressive, offering strong support in the partnering sequences and solid dancing in the solos. Seeing Dances at a Gathering performed by a company other than NYCB was an intriguing experience. And refreshing, as I haven't seen NYCB's version since the eighties, because the ballet had become so ossified there that I found it unwatchable. SFB restored the freshness. For the company, it's a wonderful opportunity to highlight their strong roster of principals and soloists. Most interesting to me was that the character of the ten roles remain essentially what they've always been at NYCB, despite the stories about Robbins reassigning dances to different dancers. The mauve girl is the lyrical one, and Julie Diana looked a great deal like Kay Mazzo (the original) without the defects that marred Mazzo's performances. Her obvious youth, however, gave the role an ingenue character that was quite different from what I'm used to seeing at NYCB (the nature of the ten roles remained pretty consistent throughout the cast changes). Yuan Yuan Tan was pink, and while she danced beautifully, she is definitely not the soubrette that Patty McBride was. These differences in the two main female roles disconcerted me, but they probably wouldn't bother someone who was seeing the ballet for the first time. Feijoo was perfectly cast as the green lady, the experienced one who takes things in good-humored stride. And here, her hairdo fit right in. Among the men, Gonzalo Garcia (brown) and Vadim Solomakha (green) were standouts. Garcia has Helgi Tomasson's old role, and presumably Tomasson rehearsed him. He has picked up on some of Tomasson's body language, but has not yet figured out a way to make something of his big opening solo. In Tomasson's performances, which are some of my most cherished ballet memories (I never saw Villella), he started out slowly, touching the ground, then began moving a little, increased the movement, became more excited about consuming the big open space, and finished in an exhilerating whirlwind of dancing. He seemed to be making up the dancing as he went along. I felt nothing of this in Garcia's performance, splendidly danced though it was. And at the end, when he has to touch the ground once again, he made much too much of it, a Significant Moment that was out of place in a ballet that only hints at meaning. Closing the program, Mark Morris's Sandpaper Ballet (I have no idea what the title refers to), was a bit of a disappointment, although it is of course head and shoulders above most new choreography. It was better than Gong, Morris's last work for ABT (now being performed also by the Royal Ballet), but didn't reach the heavenly heights of Drink to Me Only With Thine Eyes. A big work for 25 dancers, it treated the ensemble too much as a block-like unit and broke it off too jerkily, with some of the tick-tock quality that bothered me in Gong. And the uniform costumes—identically styled green unitards for the men and leotards with skirts for the women, all of which included gloves and dyed shoes with only the dancers' heads to break the monotony—were hard on the eyes, and made me feel like I was watching a horde of elves cavorting. But, leaving the theater, I saw some people dancing in imitation of the ballet, which is always a good sign. All in all, I thought this was the most satisfying evening of ballet the KC has given us since the Kirov last winter. I'm looking forward to the second program.

I know about the Graham dance, citibob. I've even seen it. But that's modern dance, not ballet. I don't see any reason it can't be used again.

Copland's Appalachian Spring. Songs by Berlin, Porter and Rodgers (separate ballets).

Also, I remember a radio interview with Merrill Ashley in which she said she never apprenticed, but was taken right into the company.