Leigh Witchel

Another welcome, GNicholls. It's great to see a new face. There are a few Toronto posters - watch the NBoC forum. I used to go up to see them regularly; it's a little more complicated for me to do so now. Also, check out the perceptive reviews of the company by Denise Sum at Danceview Times.

Don't forget that Tennant's shoes were made of nothing more than cardboard, satin and glue. They break down quickly. It's quite possible that Tennant wanted shoes of different hardness and support in each act. Many dancers want a hard shoe for Act I in Giselle, which has hops on pointe and for the ghostly footwork of Act II, a shoe they'd consider (appropriately enough) nearly "dead."

This is a danger and I can think of more than a few times it's happened. Sorella Englund's interpretation of Madge in "La Sylphide" has started to include intimations at the close that Madge was once a Sylph. I don't know that there's any justification within the ballet or the source legends for this (Alexandra?) and it works to give Englund richness to her role but it's private subtext that is starting to become the text. That shouldn't stop Englund from doing it, but someone does need to say "That's not the ballet; that's just how she does it." At City Ballet Marika Anderson got a shot at Carabosse and did her borderline psychotic - which I actually thought worked for her (and a lot of people disliked intensely.) Were I the stager, I'd let her do it that way, but would never let her teach it to anyone. When the choreographer is gone, you can try to insist on fidelity to the text. Sooner or later the work is going to calcify - or the culture underneath the work will move enough that fidelity to the text is no longer actually fidelity to the text, because different eyes are looking at it. Constant adaptation introduces the risk of corruption and bad versions - it means that the stager needs to know not just the steps, but the intention of the ballet, and needs to be as much of an artist as the choreographer - but I think it's the only way for a work of genius to last as a work of genius.

I don't agree, but I think we're talking about two different things. You're talking about dancers regarding steps as optional, and I'm talking about staging. I think every stager has to accept the responsibility of standing in for the choreographer and changing steps when necessary to suit the current cast. It's not the first choice - it's what you do when the staging isn't working. The stager should be acting as advocate for the work, and that does include making tweaks to give the work the effect it was intended to have originally - which might not be possible as originally written.

I remember seeing this in action when I was studying in the mid-80s. My teacher (Gabriella Darvash) would generally add to the difficulty of variations in the traditional ballets she set. The viewpoint was "we can do more, so we should do more." It sounded logical, and it takes a lot of historical knowledge to realize that sometimes we could do more, sometimes we couldn't, but more than anything, we just did things differently. It's fascinating to be old enough to notice a difference between how dancers dance now and how they danced a quarter century ago.

When Stiefel came out at the gala A Whiter Shade of Pale, my "Ballet Wife" leaned over and whispered, "It's Siegfried and Roy! Where are the white tigers?" It was all I could do not to burst out laughing, and not steal it for my article.

I've never quite understood how and why "have a different musicality" morphed into "are not musical."

It's not mentioned in The Post, but what made Glover's comments newsworthy was not the quote, but that it was delivered unprompted as the opening of a performance. The curtain opened, Glover came out, tapped with his back to us for perhaps a minute or so and then said what I quoted. I think he expected the audience to find it funny, but there was no reaction. It was said with no prelude or explanation, which might explain the audience's silence. Rather than funny, it seemed like a very tense, strange moment.

Honestly, it's not as if black dancers don't show up at auditions, or are in the schools. They are.

No surprise, this is a touchy issue. At NYCB, the absence I really sense is of Asian dancers, particularly women. One was made an apprentice last year; it made the scarcity even more obvious. When I've talked to black friends, they've occasionally said in as many words at times that ballet was for white people. So to rephrase the question in a positive manner, how do we convince people that ballet is for anyone?

This is just awful; I'm so sorry my city gave Osipova such a poor welcome. But I have to say, the Osipova of my imagination would have pulled out a gun (with very pretty mother-of-pearl inlay, of course), karate-chopped them, handcuffed them, had them arrested, convicted and they'd be halfway to Siberia by now. In my imagination, Osipova is half Mathilde Kchessinska, half Foxy Brown.

Having been on both sides of this fence, I think there's little an artist takes from individual reviews except a range of opinions, often contradictory and maybe a useful detail or two. As stated, they're a conversation with the reader and audience. We don't know the goals or the process of an artist - we only know what we saw last night. Read it if that's what you want to know; don't read it to get artistic advice. As a corollary, if you would rather engage in a dialogue with the artist, pick up the phone or send an email. Don't write a review.

I may have forgotten someone, but I think it was in fact Judith Fugate - in Gabriella Darvash's production for her NYC school. I was in it, harvesting grapes in Act I and I'd watch Act II with Judy - and just as much a student, Moira Dorsey, as Myrtha. To this day no one can came close to how I recall her jump.

A factor here also is assignments. I don't know how The Times doles out who writes what, but they are the paper of record and tacit silence isn't an option. I always felt for Jennifer Dunning (even when she was reviewing me) because it didn't look like she had a choice in attending or writing, even if she had nothing good or new to say. That's what falls to third-stringers.

I usually eat after the theater rather than before, and the choices are a little more restricted. Two favorites are: Cafe Fiorello - where you have a good chance of bumping into a dancer or two. (Besides the antipasto salads, try the paper-thin crust pizza) Whym - down a few blocks at 58th & 9th. Calm, lounge-y atmosphere, spacious design, friendly staff and reliable food. My favorite after Lincoln Center joint.

This is one of those times, though, when one's first reaction is, "They weren't principals?"

Another source to check is Barbara Milberg Fisher's "In Balanchine's Company." She talks about the tours to Europe, and was on the tour where LeClercq was stricken. You'll get more information and details.

She's not pulling that out of thin air. Many years ago, Tere O'Connor did a piece where the unhappy characters were the ones who did classical ballet. It's a shorthand for some choreographers for rigidity and closed-mindedness.

Bel is coming to The Joyce in NYC on September 18, bringing a bio-dance on Cedric Andrieux, of Cunningham and Lyon Opera Ballet.

Both are fascinating - As you also suspect, I bet the Faulkner was written with line breaks at the capitalization that got omitted either by error here or for lack of space in print. I wish I had read the Lifar to get a sense of the validity of Nabokov's criticisms. It's written with the vehemence of someone who is writing about contemporary, not historical, figures - and that's enlightening.

They have not made a formal announcement yet. One would assume it has to be very soon, as they have to deal with subscription sales.

Yes, I think it's all semantics. When I saw him in '03 in London doing Bayadere, he was clean and handsome, but having a rough time with both Daria Pavlenko and Zenaida Yanowsky. In fairness, I don't know how much rehearsal he had. At the '04 Ashton Festival partnering Bussell in the Awakening pas de deux, he was much, much better. At ABT he's looked good. Not a pyrotechnician, always clean, always good partnering. But let's try and drag the topic back to the upcoming season. Is there anything you're planning to attend (or avoid?)

Even with the exceptions and examples, I think there's a point here. To me, what makes a ballet influenced by Balanchine goes deeper than speed, footwork and leotards. Here are some other ideas of what makes something Balanchinean to throw around (or disagree with) Balanchine was symphonic in his approach to music. Balanchine used form as metaphor. Balanchine was highly influenced by German expressionism as well as the danse d'ecole. Balanchine tended to choreograph primarily for the lower body. Balanchine's partnering tends to be very formal with few overhead lifts. (He's pre-soviet. Tschaikovsky pas de deux was done seemingly in response to a visit by the Bolshoi.) There are of course more. Who's been influenced by these factors?

I'm glad for the overlap - I like getting a fuller picture of SFB as a ballet company; it was enlightening to see Swan Lake and get a sense of how the company did in it. And I love Giselle. It will be interesting to see it in tandem (I hope) with PNB's Giselle in June.

Well, I've penciled in second weekend of reps 1-2 and second weekend of reps 3-4. It's a very nice season.