Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Ari

Senior Member
  • Posts

    888
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ari

  1. Alexandra, your description of McBride's dancing at that point in her career is (unfortunately) quite accurate, but it was certainly not representative of the company as a whole. McBride's dancing—and this is just a personal opinion, folks, and those of you who disagree are free to post your contrary impressions—started to become wilder and more exaggerated in the late seventies and got progressively worse until she retired. (That was a stretch of about 15 years.) I think she realized that her technique was not as supreme as it once had been, and she tried to compensate by overemphasizing performance or personality values. A crude way to describe it would be "playing to the audience." She had difficulty working with a partner because she wasn't willing to share responsibility for the performance, and she milked her bows. It was all very unPattylike. I prefer to remember her as she was before—a ballerina who dominated the stage by dint of her great technical command, fearlessness, musicality, and radiance.

  2. I don't think Marnee Morris can be classed as a soubrette, Marga. She was quite tall and usually got the "Amazon" roles, in one case literally—she was the quintessential Hippolyta!

  3. Isn't the timing of this announcement rather unusual? The two companies are performing side by side for the next several weeks, and NYCB still has three weeks of performances after that at Saratoga. Perhaps it was ABT's way of dealing with persistent rumors, but confirming the news just makes it easier to talk and write about. Taken alongside Meunier's demotion, the whole thing has a rather unpleasant scent.

  4. Thanks, Dale, for the link.

    Goodness, that "garland" photo certainly looks like Jardin Animé, doesn't it? Or the Garland Waltz without the men? Can it be that the great master recycled his choreographic ideas from ballet to ballet?

    It makes me think of Arlene Croce's remark, after seeing some never-before-presented-in-the West Petipa: "The Petipa legacy is a puzzle—the more we see of it, the less there is."

  5. I agree with the other posters who said that Homans's argument is nothing new and that she offers less support for her thesis than other writers have. Like these other writers, she doesn't go one step further and take into account the realities of running a ballet company, especially a large, internationally-ranked one.

    She calls for more dancers who worked with Balanchine to take over rehearsals. Of the ten people listed in the program as assistant ballet masters and teachers (in addition to Martins), only one, Russell Kaiser, did not work with Balanchine (and I don't believe he rehearses Balanchine ballets anyway). Homans ignores a couple of important considerations in the choice of such people. One is that the head of the company, be it Peter Martins or anyone else, must be the ultimate authority on the company's style, and he cannot have people working with him who have strong contrary ideas, or who—pace Farrell fans—have personalities strong enough to encourage a following that might threaten this authority. In addition, Balanchine, like any artist, was always changing elements of his style, and a member of the NYCB of 1952 is going to remember ballets being danced very differently from a member from 1962, or 1972. Martins has, understandably, chosen to preserve the style that he remembers (circa 1967-1983), and has gathered other dancers from that era to help him. Even if Homans prefers an earlier style (and I doubt she remembers it—she was, I believe, a student at SAB in the 1980s), earlier generations of NYCB dancers are retiring and dying out. Villella himself is in his sixties.

    What I do think is a problem at NYCB is the fact that the company's real energy these days is directed towards new repertory while the existing repertory, Robbins as well as Balanchine, is not treated as very important. Result: a certain ho-hum attitude that comes across in performance. If the dancers believed that doing well in a Balanchine ballet would get them promoted, we'd see a change in a hurry. The breakdown of the casting hierarchy in the Balanchine rep, something that Calliope mentioned a couple of months ago, is part and parcel of this neglect. (For those who don't remember this thread, Calliope mentioned that roles—even corps roles— that used to take dancers years to get are now given away to newcomers. There's no sense that it's a privilege, an achievement, to be in the ensemble of Concerto Barocco or Theme & Variations, as opposed to lowly Swan Lake or everybody's-in-it Stars & Stripes.)

    Another problem, which the company has always had, is the pressure involved in doing seven performances a week and fifty or so ballets a season. When Martins first took over, he reduced the number of ballets performed, but it's long since been back up to fifty. I don't know why he did this, but it pretty much prevents any ballet from being as carefully rehearsed as it should be, whoever the coaches are.

  6. I agree with the other posters who said that Homans's argument is nothing new and that she offers less support for her thesis than other writers have. Like these other writers, she doesn't go one step further and take into account the realities of running a ballet company, especially a large, internationally-ranked one.

    She calls for more dancers who worked with Balanchine to take over rehearsals. Of the ten people listed in the program as assistant ballet masters and teachers (in addition to Martins), only one, Russell Kaiser, did not work with Balanchine (and I don't believe he rehearses Balanchine ballets anyway). Homans ignores a couple of important considerations in the choice of such people. One is that the head of the company, be it Peter Martins or anyone else, must be the ultimate authority on the company's style, and he cannot have people working with him who have strong contrary ideas, or who—pace Farrell fans—have personalities strong enough to encourage a following that might threaten this authority. In addition, Balanchine, like any artist, was always changing elements of his style, and a member of the NYCB of 1952 is going to remember ballets being danced very differently from a member from 1962, or 1972. Martins has, understandably, chosen to preserve the style that he remembers (circa 1967-1983), and has gathered other dancers from that era to help him. Even if Homans prefers an earlier style (and I doubt she remembers it—she was, I believe, a student at SAB in the 1980s), earlier generations of NYCB dancers are retiring and dying out. Villella himself is in his sixties.

    What I do think is a problem at NYCB is the fact that the company's real energy these days is directed towards new repertory while the existing repertory, Robbins as well as Balanchine, is not treated as very important. Result: a certain ho-hum attitude that comes across in performance. If the dancers believed that doing well in a Balanchine ballet would get them promoted, we'd see a change in a hurry. The breakdown of the casting hierarchy in the Balanchine rep, something that Calliope mentioned a couple of months ago, is part and parcel of this neglect. (For those who don't remember this thread, Calliope mentioned that roles—even corps roles— that used to take dancers years to get are now given away to newcomers. There's no sense that it's a privilege, an achievement, to be in the ensemble of Concerto Barocco or Theme & Variations, as opposed to lowly Swan Lake or everybody's-in-it Stars & Stripes.)

    Another problem, which the company has always had, is the pressure involved in doing seven performances a week and fifty or so ballets a season. When Martins first took over, he reduced the number of ballets performed, but it's long since been back up to fifty. I don't know why he did this, but it pretty much prevents any ballet from being as carefully rehearsed as it should be, whoever the coaches are.

  7. The reigning Glamorpuss du Monde has got to be Sylvie Guillem. I've never seen her dance, but all the descriptions I've read make her sound like a rather terrifying siren.

  8. Reading Ballet Alert, we get to learn of dancers we've never heard of before. The frustrating part is knowing that we'll never be able to see what others rave about! So, which of all the 20th century ballerinas listed above do you most regret not having seen? I'm assuming that you'd have gotten to see them at the height of their powers.

    The poll structure limits me to six choices, so I've had to leave out some very worthy candidates. But don't let that stop you. If your favorite isn't listed, tell us who she is and why you miss not having seen her. And even if you vote for one of the listed choices, tell us why. That's the fun part. :)

    My own choice isn't on the list: Tanaquil le Clerq. I chose her for several reasons. First, I've always been fascinated by the photos I've seen of her—she looks so elegant and witty. Second, the accounts of her dancing I've read have suggested that she had quite an individual character, unlike most dancers. Third, she had a big influence on Balanchine's ballerina style, and echoes of her dancing can, according to certain writers, still be seen in NYCB women today. And finally, there's the irresistible appeal of her tragic story. None of us will ever know what she would have been like in her maturity, but I would love to have been able to imagine, based on having seen her in her youth.

    So, whom do you pick?

  9. Reading Ballet Alert, we get to learn about lots of dancers we'd never heard of before. Of all the 20th century ballerinas you've heard about but never seen, which do you regret not having seen the most?

    The poll structure limits me to six choices, but if there's another ballerina (of the 20th century) whom you wish you'd been able to see, please name her. And even if you vote for someone on the list, the real fun of these polls is sharing our thoughts, so please tell the rest of us why you voted as you did.

    My own choice is someone who's not on the list: Tanaquil Le Clerq. I've always been fascinated by the photographs I've seen of her—she looks so elegant and witty. The descriptions of her dancing are tantalizing. While she only danced professionally for about a decade, she seems to have influenced Balanchine's style a great deal, and the impact she made on him can apparently be seen in the way NYCB women dance today. And then, the romantic appeal of her tragic story is irresistible. I'd love to be able to remember how she danced and speculate how she might have matured, had not fate stepped in.

  10. Originally posted by Ed:

    The problem is a lack of individual style, based partially on the loss of national styles of interpretation.

    I think the problems are different in opera and ballet, because star singers have always traveled from one company to another, while dancers traditionally stayed with their own company (except mega-stars like Elssler, etc.). It's only in recent years that the itinerant dancer has become common, and that has brought with it the bland, all-purpose, sensation-based style that others have noted.

    I don't think, however, that the issue can be framed in national terms. There's nothing wrong with a a Russian dancing with the Royal Danish Ballet or a Romanian dancing with the Royal, as long as they assimilate the company's style. The bigger danger is companies losing their style, the Royal being the most heartbreaking example. Of the world's other major companies, NYCB and POB have pretty much retained their distinctive styles, the Kirov and Bolshoi only partly so. The Danes are in the same situation as the Royal (although their longer history may offer hope that they'll bounce back, as Alexandra suggested in a previous thread), and ABT never had a style to begin with. In fact, you might describe the current world situation as the infestation of the ABT style.

    As for dancers losing individual style, that is something that has been happening gradually for many years. People were complaining about it when I first started watching ballet, so I don't have the perspective necessary to suggest any answers. But I wonder if it has anything to do with the institutionalization of ballet schools and the fact that most dancers with major companies are now the product of one or another of them. This is a good thing to the extent that it provides first-rate training for larger numbers of students. Perhaps, though, the old method of individualized training with a topnotch teacher who focused completely on a talented dancer and imparted some of his or her own style produced soloists who had a more fully realized sense of their own unique qualities.

  11. Originally posted by at:

    Ballet is an alien art form, still.  It is off-putting to many in this country, and they prefer to reinforce the stereotypes and ideas they already have.

    This wasn't true in the 70s, during the "dance boom." I think people sensed then that ballet was a vital art form and that this was where it was all happening, as we said back then. Nowadays, people (quite rightly) perceive the opposite. Hence the distaste and derision.

    The "ballet is unfair because it discriminates against those of us without perfect bodies" feeling is always going to be there, because it's true. It only becomes an evil in the minds of nonballetomanes when there seems to be no reason to dance, or watch, ballet.

  12. Originally posted by at:

    Ballet is an alien art form, still.  It is off-putting to many in this country, and they prefer to reinforce the stereotypes and ideas they already have.

    This wasn't true in the 70s, during the "dance boom." I think people sensed then that ballet was a vital art form and that this was where it was all happening, as we said back then. Nowadays, people (quite rightly) perceive the opposite. Hence the distaste and derision.

    The "ballet is unfair because it discriminates against those of us without perfect bodies" feeling is always going to be there, because it's true. It only becomes an evil in the minds of nonballetomanes when there seems to be no reason to dance, or watch, ballet.

  13. Back in the city for the first time since January, I was happy to have such a good program to go to: Reunions (David Allan), Tchaikovsky Pas, In G Major, and Vienna Waltzes.

    Reunions, which I think I was seeing for the first time (many of these Diamond ballets melt into each other in my mind) seemed to me poorly constructed. Six dancers, five of whom are soloists? Allan should have structured it without the supernumerary girl. It's not as though the men and women were paired off in the same way each time they danced together. (This seems to be a trend. I suppose it's meant to be "modern.") I couldn't discern any reason for the different pairings or any relationships among the dancers. The cast was excellent, and Lindy Mandrajieff (sp?) made me sorry I didn't see more of her.

    I was looking forward to seeing Jennie Somogyi in Tchaikovsky Pas—a chance for her to tackle one of the top ballerina roles she deserves but doesn't seem to get as often as she should. The disappointment I felt, overall, is perhaps attributable to the fact that she has such few opportunities to dance these ballets. Her muscular physique, her shoulders in particular, isn't right for lyrical adagios such as this, but other ballerinas have had similar problems and have conquered them, with the right coaching and sufficient performances. Somogyi has shown that she is eager to learn and ready to work, but will she get the help she needs? At this performance, the adagio seemed perfunctory, necessary in order to get to the meatier solos and coda. This is where both dancers shone, although Somogyi, much to my disappointment, went along with the modern trend of doing a sequence of straight fouettés in the coda instead of the fouetté/pas de bouree piqué sequence that Balanchine choreographed. The difference is huge. The original choreography has a delicate piquancy and exquisite musicality that makes you tingle in delight, and fouettés just look like fouettés.

    Damien Woetzel has never been a favorite of mine. The problem, I think, is that he's really a caractere or demi-caractere (what is the difference?) dancer who desperately wants to be a danseur noble. Edward Villella, on whom the role was made, was a caractere/demi-caractere dancer, but Woetzel sees the need to put on that artificial tray tray clahseek manner of his that always irritates me.

    Maria Kowroski, with her endless legs, long long line and silky high extension, is natural casting for In G Major. She will look better when she feels confident enough to relax into the sultry glamor the ballet calls for. Philip Neal partnered her very well but looked too flatly American for the Mediterranean beach boy of the ballet. Perhaps Robert Lyon would be more appropriate. I still enjoy this ballet even though I know that MacMillan's Fin du Jour is musically more faithful to the score and brainier in conception. Between the two, I honor the MacMillan in my mind, but I'd rather watch the Robbins.

    Vienna Waltzes looked great, a performance to set beside any I saw in Balanchine's day. I was glad to see Monique Meunier and Kyra Nichols, even if their performances on this occasion were pallid, and happy that I got one last chance to see Helene Alexopoulos, who is retiring on Saturday. (Note to the administration of POB: Alexopoulos is, by my reckoning, 42, and Nichols 44.) I especially liked Jenifer Ringer in Voices of Spring. Without stinting on the energy, her dancing has a serene, airy quality that suits this section better than Patricia McBride's more vigorous approach. Ringer is spritely, rather than sprightly. :) Kathleen Tracy is a natural for the comic section. Her long, humorous face, which has always reminded me of Imogene Coca's, and her tongue-in-cheek drollness were perfect here. I love the final section, so MGM in the 30s, although I've never adjusted to the dancers' sudden about-face (literally) in which they turn from their partners and the glamorous make-believe world towards the audience.

    One note: the performance included only one intermission. While I was glad for the extra time this gave me outside the theater, I felt it trivialized the first three ballets, suggesting that they were all miniatures that wouldn't stand up on their own. This was true of the first ballet but not the others.

  14. This thread comes at a convenient moment. :( I've just learned of a book by Alice Patelson called Portrait of a Dancer, Memories of Balanchine. Is anyone familiar with it? Patelson was an NYCB corps member in the 60s. The book was published in 1995 by a vanity press—Vantage— so it's not surprising that it has a very low profile.

  15. This thread comes at a convenient moment. :D I've just learned of a book by Alice Patelson called Portrait of a Dancer, Memories of Balanchine. Is anyone familiar with it? Patelson was an NYCB corps member in the 60s. The book was published in 1995 by a vanity press—Vantage— so it's not surprising that it has a very low profile.

  16. I'm not sure whether to address O'Toole's remarks in the context of theater or ballet, but here goes.

    What O'Toole says about institutionalization is only partly true in the theater. Yes, the Royal Shakespeare Company has been looked down on (and, in Britain, derided and scorned) for some time now, owing to mediocre productions. Personally, I've found the company's offerings to be ordinarily humdrum, sometimes downright dreary, with the occasional spark of originality. However, the National can usually be relied on to produce fresh, interesting work, and it is just as much an institution as the RSC. Here in Washington, our theater productions are almost all the work of nonprofit companies as opposed to independent commercial ventures. I don't know how many of them qualify as institutions, but I'd say the Shakespeare Theater does, and its productions usually display a high level of imagination and execution. Is the difference, then, in the way an institution is managed?

    In ballet, creativity is almost always up to a choreographer or company director. Today, serious, creative ballet occurs almost entirely in institutions, due to both financial and artistic necessity. But once you've got an institution, you have to fund it primarily through ticket sales, and the temptation is to cater to the lowest common denominator of taste in order to move the most tickets. Full-length ballets with recognizable titles sell best, but not all choreographers are interested in making these (especially new ones, who might understandably be frightened by the task). IMO, the decline in the presentation of mixed bills is the biggest obstacle to the development of new choreographers. Companies even seem reluctant to sneak a short new ballet into an evening composed primarily of a shortish "full-length" ballet. Why not add a 20-minute work, either new or classic, to the Nutcracker bill? It would help people realize that ballet can be many things beyond what they expect.

    The limited amount of rehearsal time available is also a barrier to creativity. It takes a lot of work for dancers and choreographers or ballet masters to achieve the right style, the proper understanding of the work they're rehearsing, and the budgets simply don't allow them this time. O'Toole spoke of being willing to work for nothing in order to get the chance to act great roles, but should artists have to starve in order to be able to be creative? We seem to have tacitly agreed that we will pay performers to do their thing, but we're only going to pay them so much. Even the best-paid dancers earn far less than their status as top professionals merits. If we compensated them fairly, the costs would be prohibitive.

    Most of the great choreographers worked in an institutional setting. But there have been others who worked outside it (Massine, Nijinsky, Tudor before ABT, Balanchine between Diaghilev and NYCB), and because there was no institution to carry on their work after they died or left the company, their ballets have been lost. The question is whether budding choreographers are best served by making their ballets for an institution or whether a more informal setting would benefit everyone involved—and then whether an institution's artistic director would know when the time is right to "promote" the choreographer to the big stage.

    Obviously there are lots of issues here.

  17. I chose Nijinsky as the choreographer whose work I'd most like to see in its original form—that is, the actual original performances. Of all the choreographers listed, he is the one whose work has been the least well preserved (if it can even be said to have been preserved at all), and I'd like to see for myself what all the fuss (both negative and positive) has been about.

  18. As Paul mentioned, Swan Lake is dark, and it's the most popular ballet of all.

    The examples that have been given so far have all been of narrative ballets, but many non-narrative ballets are dark. Think of Balanchine's La Valse (which, like Swan Lake, owes its popularity to—yes, a great score, but also to its luxuriating in tragedy), Davidsbündlertänze, Symphony in Three Movements (a dark ballet despite the energetic prancing of the corps), Pavane, Kammermusik #2, Metamorphosis (from what I've read of it), Variations for a Door and a Sigh, Meditation, Gaspard de la Nuit; portions of Ivesiana, Stravinsky Violin Concerto (the two pas de deux), Duo Concertante, Tchaikovsky Suite 3, as well as the narrative ballets Prodigal Son, Orpheus, La Sonnambula, and Don Quixote. And a lot of Robbins: Opus 19/The Dreamer, The Age of Anxiety, Dybbuk Variations, In Memory Of, In the Night, Ives Songs, Les Noces, and the narrative The Cage.

    All of these ballets were created in the classical idiom, with no borrowings from modern dance. So I disagree with Leigh about classicism being almost never dark.

  19. While I enjoy the Trocks, too, I'm with Leigh in having reservations about taking them seriously, although for a different reason. There are a lot of men in the performing arts taking women's roles these days—male actors playing Cleopatra, male singers impersonating Ethel Merman—and doing it all even more seriously than the Trocks. As a woman, it angers me that men aren't satisfied with dominating most of the world as it is—they want it all. Under this greedy model, women would cease to exist in the arts, let alone be able to increase their already limited participation. Ballet is the one art form I can think of that is female-dominated, at least on stage. I would hate to see men shoulder their way in there, too.

×
×
  • Create New...