Leigh Witchel

I have no information on this, but I'm guessing from the rest of casting that either Leanne Benjamin or Edward Watson is unable to dance.

Yup - they started delivering it to me unbidden. Not wanting to waste the paper, I called them and asked them to stop. I would have warmed to the paper much more had it not been for the editorial section of the paper - frankly I would not subscribe even if asked for that reason. It is a shame, because the arts coverage was decent.

My review of Program 5 with Pithoprakta is up at Danceview Times, for a different point of view. Of the rest of the festival, Program 6 was my favorite, with Sweet Fields, In The Night and Esplanade, by far the one with the most substantive choreography. Brief comments - Program 4 - I'm one of the few people who didn't really care for Richard Siegel's work (embarrassing enough for me as we took class together reasonably often in the early 90s). I probably would have liked it a good deal more if I hadn't seen so many "popular" works in the Festival. By the time this one rolled around I was really getting tired of "accessible" choreography and a little tired of the audience that liked that best. Of the other pieces I thought the Beijing company's work was interesting to see a sample of contemporary dance from China. Their dancers are pretty obviously culled from their ballet academies with the same extreme facility, and it colors the dances. Lots of phenomenal extensions, not much weight. It may be just me, but I found the lace costumes rather Frederick's of Hollywood. A Texan eating barbecue in New York City probably would have understand how I felt watching Houston Ballet doing Tschai Pas. It was nice, but they do it wrong. To give an example of why I say wrong rather than differently, they don't do the final dives as dives, but just as jumps where the woman is caught safely perpendicular. That's not different; that's wrong. Also, to do it "differently" you need to have a substitute style, rather than the absence of the original style. This was pretty generic. Both Connor Walsh and Sarah Webb are very nice dancers, and the whole thing was done on a very placed axis, so it no longer looked much like Balanchine. The men's steps are often ad libitum, but Walsh changed just about everything in the coda, probably because the spacing was too tight. On Friday night the Jerome Robbins Foundation gave $100,000 each to Twyla Tharp and SF Ballet (maybe next time give the money to people who need it a little more urgently?) and City Center, and after the round of self-congratulations the dancing began. Sweet Fields is a work with a great deal of atmosphere, well danced by Aspen Ballet. It's to Shaker hymns, which made me miss Doris Humphrey's Shakers, a more literal and historic work. When they saw the final tempestuous pas de deux, the audience was convinced that In The Night was a comedy, even though Lorena Feijoo and Pierre-Francois Vilanoba did not play it for laughs. They laughed all the way to the end. I thought Feijoo and Vilanoba nailed the ambiguity of the pas de deux close to perfectly. Yuan Yuan Tan danced from the neck down in the first pas de deux, Sofiane Syle is much as she's always been in the second. Esplanade was a perfect way to end the festival - great choreography that's also "accessible" dance. I'm used to seeing Michael Trusnovec in this now and miss any opportunity to see him dance (I think Rob Kleinendorst did his part.) Michelle Fields brought elegance to the role Lisa Viola had made cute. I am not sure I would go to all six shows again - I think I enjoyed it paradoxically less because I was overstuffed!

I have at least three from my Fall for Dance programs, that include Buy-one-Get-one offers for Morphoses and Lar Lubovitch and discounts for the rest of the season. If you can make use of them, please PM me!

4T's is now over 60 years old, so it's evolved a lot over time - the version Villella will identify with is probably an earlier one than most of have seen. As far as I know, the one are of major change is the finale, but there may be some others. The biggest change that doesn't involve the steps is that it did not start as a "black and white" ballet. There were elaborate costumes by Kurt Seligmann - a sculptor. Balanchine loathed them as he felt they hid the dancers and choreography. Anecdotally, there are stories of him in the wing with scissors, beckoning over a dancer to snip off a ping-pong ball or bandage. The music is one of the most accessible of all modern ballet scores - a set of variations for piano and strings by Paul Hindemith. Balanchine commissioned the score, but there is some question as to whether Hindemith composed fresh, or resuscitated something he had already been working on. Melancholic - the most notable in my viewing were Jeff Edwards and Peter Boal. I think of it as a poet's role, and Romantic with a capital R. Sanguinic - a pas de deux (actually one that's quite classical in structure with entrees and small variations) - but it's the woman's section. She's Diana - a conqueror. Merrill Ashley was the one I recall, and she can be seen on the commercial video. Daniel Duell referred to the famous lifts that circumnavigate the stage as "twice around the park." Phlegmatic - Todd Bolender originated this role, but by the time I saw it, it had become "exotic." I believe Adam Luders is on the commercial video. I love it when the 4 ladies come out like bored fashion models at the end of the world. Choleric - This is a "big girl's" role and it needs fire and magic, like the close of a ritual. When I saw MCB do this about a decade ago, there were slight textual differences between their version and NYCB's - nothing worth really watching for. The finale contains two famous sections, the "Devil's Dance" for the five women that should be very fast, and when the entire cast reassembles, which is done on an unspoken count of 29 - and sometimes the right side of the stage is off the left. It's a great ballet - one of my favorites. Enjoy!

Which reminds me - the ballet piece that's been new to me so far was Wheeldon's Rush done by OBT (Alison Roper and Arthur Sultanov) Several people I talked to thought it outre, I liked it - I am generally happier with retro Wheeldon than effortfully New and Now Wheeldon. I also thought the dancers looked very nice in the work. I'll see this program tonight, printcess and report back. I'm reporting on Program 5 for DVT and then I see program 6. It has been a LOT of dance.

My review of Program 1 is up at Danceview Times, so I won't repeat myself. Though the major stuff (ABT, Paul Taylor, Merce) is a draw, I'm not really going to for it - in most cases it's better seen in their regular season and the extra dollars are worth the improved experience. The reason I'm going to all the programs is to see the stuff that might otherwise not be on my radar. So far, I've preferred the "ethnic" dance I've seen to the contemporary that's been on offer. I really enjoyed Pichet Klunchun's choreography (Khon, Thai classical dance - Program 1) and Madhavi Mughal's Odissi work (Program 3). Her niece, Arushi, danced with her and was a real beauty - perhaps I thought so because her line and proportions would be perfect for ballet! The musicians for Mughal's work were marvelous - an Indian friend carped mildly because she felt the music was Kathak (Northern in style) rather than Odissi. Mughal did her work in two parts - the first a solo and then her niece joined her for the duet. I didn't have a problem with the length, but I'm learning that to most western eyes Indian dance solos are too long and can be pared down. The duets have more geometric interest - and frankly we "get" the fast Indian dances and the solos seem too self-involved. I haven't been very happy with the contemporary pieces. Aszure Barton's work (Program 3) eludes me entirely. I just didn't find it very well made. Hofesh Schecter's work, also on Program 3, was very loud, very filled with testosterone and very much like a long music video. From Program 2, I didn't think much of Crystal Pite's theater dance work for Louise Lacavaliere (my opinion pretty much matched Gia Kourlas in the NY Times) and I just didn't think the tap piece was at a level to be shown in New York. I know other Ballet Talkers were there, what did you think?

To answer in two words, Russian Seasons.

McKenzie's Nutcracker is . . . an experience. I'm not sure I can explain it any better without resorting to pithy anglo-saxonisms. There are unicorns.

I'm slightly more hesitant because ABT has never been a choreographer's company and they're going to have to change some things in the way they work to use Ratmansky to his fullest. At the same time, there are things that ABT could hand him off the bat that would be good for all concerned without ABT having to change their culture. How about - Swan Lake Nutcracker or Sleeping Beauty? If Ratmansky could fix any one of those his tenure would be a good thing.

Deja vu . . . Has the contract been signed this time?

Thanks for the kind words. I'd just like people to realize if they go to read those pieces that they are more than a decade old. It was strange enough to read the Agon article as part of this process - it was written around that time and frankly though the subject is important and it's long I don't consider it an example of my best writing. It was one of the first articles I ever wrote and I've done better since.

Alas, anyone can be closed-minded. I'm just curious - does anyone else think that the proximity of discipline may have had something to do with it? Is it easier for a sportswriter to approach opera with an open mind than a rock critic because there isn't a turf issue? Taking this back to dance, I have seen things like this between ballet and modern - even more so between different styles of ballet!

Another funny counterpoint to Barton's carping about the audience is the happy man shaking Castaignede's hand and talking about what an excellent rugby player he was. Typical opera house snob. To expand on what I said earlier about Castaignede using prior experiences to understand the current one; what's interesting is that Barton does the same thing - take her prior experiences to relate to what's happening to her currently - only instead of helping her to translate, it blocks her. I wonder if she had written on anything else - sports for instance, rather than a different form of music, if she would have had less difficulty. She seemed so invested in her position. It reminds me of how much work it took to learn to love Ashton's choreography.

To show that the Guardian can do a better job at this - http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/video/20...gby.castaignede Castaignede, a former rugby player and now a sports columnist for the Guardian is a good deal more open. It's interesting to watch him because he links what he sees to his own experience a rugby player - something obvious for anyone new to something but honestly still surprising to me whenever I see it because of where the new experiences come from.

An excerpt of the article I wrote in 1997 on Agon (the section on the pas de deux) is in this anthology.

That's correct Figurante. Michael was a coryphee, and I think that rank has been eliminated - it was an odd titling, as Miami used it to indicate a rank below corps de ballet rather than between corps and soloist. Hurwitz was an apprentice. In both cases it was a promotion. I've seen Michael's dancing since his days at SAB as well. We're friends, so I'm biased, but I think he has beautiful line.

He's joined the Broadway cast of Billy Eliot.

Well, I did it, and unsurprisingly, I had a lot more specific things to say about the aesthetics of ballet than I did about the aesthetics of Indian dance. What was surprising was how pertinent those things happened to be even so. The issues and questions in Indian dance mirror uncannily those we discuss here all the time - classical v. contemporary, fusion v. purity, genres v. no labels. It was fascinating to see them discussed without having a dog in the fight for a change. The perspective was refreshing!

I checked with SFB to see if there was an official response - the company did confirm that she is not returning, but doesn't know her future plans.

Hey folks - oddly enough I've been invited to participate in a panel on Indian Dance as part of the Erasing Borders Festival There are some very interesting concerts in the evening as well, the final one curated by a wonderful Indian dancer (and friend/mentor who introduced me to Indian Dance) Rajika Puri The information on the festival is here - http://www.iaac.us/IAAC_dance_festival/dance_festival.htm

I can't speak for Gary, but I'm pretty sure he means trained in America. A good example would be the difference between the Delgado sisters in Miami, who were trained in the US, and Carlos Guerra, who was trained in Cuba. It's the same issue at the Royal - or for that matter at Ballet Nacional de Cuba. Style is in the training - which loops back to the earlier discussion.

Jamie's on the left.

It's really a sweet article. You'd think I'd be an early adopter on same sex marriages considering that I am busy knitting socks as wedding gifts for my friends Randy and Jim who are tying the knot in SF at the end of the month. (Actually, if anything could make me anti-same-sex marriage it's the prospect of yet more socks to knit . . .) But no - I saw the thread title and thought, "Jamie's getting MARRIED?" I worked with him briefly on a very funny project, helping my friend Matt clean an ersatz Fosse number at Wigstock '99 where Jamie and dancers from Mark Morris and Cunningham et al. were backup dancers for Girlina. "Jamie's getting MARRIED??? To who????" Then I read the article. Oh!

Well, NYCB was founded on a different artistic precept, but certainly not to counteract Ballet Theatre. Ballet Theater came about in 1940; The first incarnation of NYCB was several years before that and NYCB itself was formed in 1948. Back to the original question - I think ABT likes to consider itself more than a vehicle for stars - it certainly likes to advertise itself as "America's ballet company." And as long as it does so, we have the right to measure them by their artistic output. If the company doesn't want to produce great choreography, fine, you can't wish a great choreographer into being. But for the company to make third-rate productions of the classics the backbone of its repertory and then bill itself as America's ballet company? Sorry. There's no excuse. I'll cut ABT far more slack when they clean up their classics.