sandik

So glad you got to see Toogood in the Cunningham excerpts -- she's an astonishing dancer and that is her aesthetic home.

These seem to be two different films, but very similar in sections -- not sure what's up here We Sing and We Dance (1992) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmJowrBwOY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M2fCmZc8ow

Anyone in LA that can rearrange their schedule to get to this tomorrow -- go, and tell us about it. The Choreography of Comedy: The Art of Eccentric Dance From the LA Times article "Tony Nicholas, the son of Fayard, is excited to show Nicholas Brothers home movies Monday evening because they are 'something to behold.' He’ll be screening some 'exciting new footage we have discovered that no one has ever seen.'” 'The Choreography of Comedy: The Art of Eccentric Dance' Where: Samuel Goldwyn Theater, 8949 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills When: 7:30 p.m. Monday Tickets: $3-$5 Info: oscars.org

Looking forward to seeing this.

Thanks!

You've seen my wardrobe -- the chance of me being named as a guest editor of a high fashion magazine is pretty slim! So I don't think I'm going to take much time to develop my editorial plan...

No -- the NYT and the Post are it. There are still a few papers where dance is covered by a staff writer, but that is not their primary beat. I've liked what I've read of her work, and I think she's connected to the NY community -- whether she takes on the bigger, dance-historical issues that Macaulay has done is yet to be seen. Fundamentally, I'm glad the paper made a commitment to someone, and to the art form.

There are so many things I'd like to see examined in film about that period in our history. Just limiting it to ballet (ouch!) -- we've got some documentation about ABT and the Joffrey, and a number of works that focus on NYCB and especially about Balanchine, but really nothing that looks in depth at the rest of the world. I'd especially like to see more research dealing with Rebekkah Harkness, the Ford Foundation, the development of the NEA and regional agencies, and other institutions that dealt with funding. I don't think we spend enough time considering where money comes from and how it gets around. One more thing, though, about the Nureyev film -- the footage looking at Bruhn and Nureyev taking barre together was so interesting -- I think it showed us all kinds of things about how ballet can operate and their their fundamental different approaches to the discipline.

This sounds fascinating -- I hope someone from BA goes, and comes back to tell us about it.

Very deep plies as preparation.

It's been a long time since I read this -- thanks for the reminder!

I understand your sense of overload with this, but for me, the Morris doc did jumpstart some thinking about Nureyev and the confluence of elements that led to what we call the Dance Boom in the 1970s. I would love to see more documentary work about that period, and the multiple amazing performers that were a part of it.

I should have gone back further...

And now I'm wondering if Edna would have an opinion about big wings...

Snark!

It looks like we're talking about two different films here. The White Crow is a biopic directed by Ralph Fiennes. It had a fairly large release earlier in the year. Nureyev, directed by Jaqui and David Morris, is more a documentary (commentary by those who knew him, extensive archival footage) with some fictionalized bits. I saw the Morris' film yesterday, and though I was grateful for the archival footage (some of which I hadn't seen), and the thorough and thoughtful discussion of Margot Fonteyn and their affect on each other's career, I agree that big parts of it were hyperbolic. Even though that might be an appropriate characterization of Nureyev, it seemed to substitute adulation for a more nuanced examination of his work.

Thanks for the link. (I had to smile a little at his costume, thinking of Edna Mode in The Incredibles -- "no capes!")

I think this young woman is dancing a Petipa variation in a competition, out of context of the work itself. True, if this were one of Odette's or Odile's variations, we would expect a performance that included the emotional content of the work, but those works are wedded much more closely to their dramatic context. (and even so, people used to dance the Black Swan pas de deux as a stand-alone work titled The Magic Swan -- it still had the fascination of the work in its context, but didn't have the evil intent) While there are sections of the Vision scene where Aurora is actively involved in summoning the prince, for the most part it is the Lilac Fairy and the prince that handle the emotional development of that act -- Aurora is indeed a vision, separate from the other two. While I wouldn't think this dancer would want to take that particular performance and insert it unchanged in a full production, I think, for a competition, this is a good compromise. But your mileage may vary.

Venues are tricky things. In Seattle, the ballet and the opera perform in a multiply remodeled theater -- it started in the 20s as the Civic Auditorium and had a concrete institutional feel to it. It was renovated for the 1962 World's Fair, and though it was a serviceable space, it lacked the kind of social public spaces that we've come to expect in a performing arts facility. It wasn't charmingly old or technically contemporary -- it felt rather industrial. (not to mention the covered area with the box office kiosks that we used to call the carport). So when they started raising money for another, more substantial remodel, there were only a few elements in the old building that folks were really going to miss. I went to the press conference for the project, and every other slide in the PowerPoint presentation was "more women's bathrooms" -- it got applause every time. While they were working on the project, the ballet and the opera performed in an adjacent arena space -- institutional, but serviceable. Nutcracker, however, was performed at an old theater in town, built for the Fanchon-Marco vaudeville circuit, with beautiful plasterwork. The sets (by Maurice Sendak) just shone there. It wouldn't really be a great venue for the company on a regular basis -- transportation/parking is tricky, and it has the same bathroom problems as the old facility, but it was a treat to visit while they were working on the remodel.

In a situation where Nutcracker ticket sales can be a significant part of an annual budget, this seems like a major driver in this decision. "The Atlanta Ballet was given access to more performance dates by the Cobb center, making room for 30 possible performances as opposed to 19, said Jacobus. Significantly, more of those could be weekend performances, which sell more briskly than week-day shows."

Welcome to the neighborhood -- I'm up the coast in Seattle, and am always interested in hearing about the community in LA. Please do let us know what you see, and what you think about it.

I thought about this after posting last night, and have a couple more thoughts. It's certainly legal, in that it's another fee, like the handling and processing fees. You're right to say that if it were a donation, it would have to be treated as such (I don't know that they would issue a separate document for an amount that small, but it would be listed on the general receipt as a donation, and you could use that for tax purposes) But if California's email receipt below is accurate, they are calling it a fee (something added onto the initial ticket price) and so it is not a donation. Alongside the "disclosed mandatory contribution" for galas that abatt talks about above, many companies use that same strategy for subscription tickets at a certain level. We've talked about that phenomenon many times here on BA, so I won't bore folks through repetition, except to say it's a pretty standard practice. Whether we like it or not is a different question.

They may be first, but I sincerely doubt they will be the last.

It is all about the marketing. If you look at most ad campaigns, you'll see some version of a price spread, or another indicator about the lowest entry point ("tickets $X - $XXX" or "tickets starting as low as $X). In the same way that most gasoline is listed at #X.99/gallon, the person selling the item, whether it's fuel or fouettes, wants to give the impression that the lowest price is indeed low. The price of a ticket, even with all the handling, facility, costume/set, mandatory donation fees, still does not cover the cost of the performance. Each one of these fees is carefully calibrated to avoid making you turn away. You're offended, but you're still buying. In Seattle, Ticketmaster is generally held in low repute for what people see as excessive handling fees. They've managed to ameliorate some of this by running a box office at one of their theaters -- if you can get downtown to buy your ticket, rather than buying online, you can get some of the handling fees eliminated. In fact, getting there can be very tricky, but it makes people feel like they have an option. Also in Seattle, many restaurants tried recently to fold the service fee into the bill, rather than leaving tipping to the discretion of the diner. Some restaurants just raised the prices of the actual food, while others added on a separate line for service fee. It was a highly controversial process, with all kinds of results, depending on the restaurant (as you might imagine, fine dining places got less pushback than places that are usually known for low costs) and the strategies that they used to explain this to their customers. People are still sorting through this -- it's a big topic of conversation.

He was the longest running dance critic in San Francisco, writing for the Chron, and many other publications.