Treefrog

By "print more", you mean raise taxes? A legitimate strategy. But you have to give your target some ammunition to appease the constituency when they start moaning about sending more hard-earned dollars to "the government".

So, let's say there's a new reality TV show. It's called "The Arts Lobby", and it works like this: contestants hangs around the lobby of the Senate and House Office Buildings, watching for Members of Congress to buttonhole. Their job is to successfully convince these pursestring holders to pony up for the arts. Want to audition? Tell us your spiel. Why is arts funding good for America? Convince us why we should divert precious funds from schools, starving kids, the elderly, the military, and other public needs.

We went Saturday evening (and will return next Sunday). I've been planning to write -- time got away from me. Ballet-a-holic listed the pieces in the order in which they were presented. I think it was a good order. "Les Patineurs" is easy to "get", a very pleasant, pleasing ballet. The movements really do mimic skating. I was especially taken with a small detail: the dancers sway their heads from side to side as they enter and exit, evoking the body's reaction to the push-and-glide of skating. We saw lots of jetés entrelacés, which looked a lot like skating jumps. And lots of arabesques. I was especially impressed by the unity of the dancing in the ensemble parts. The extensions on those arabesques was uniform throughout (or, occasionally, proportional, with the women a tad higher than the men, but all the women the same and all the men the same). It looked as though the piece had been carefully coached and rehearsed. We saw Calvin Kitten as the Boy in Blue. If ever a part suited a dancer, this is it. His pirouettes á la seconde were fabulous. I did not care for his mannerisms, though, which seem a bit too coy or cute. The set, by the way, was lovely -- a gazebo-like fence defined the skating rink, and overhead arched a canopy of tangled bare branches, from which hung an assortment of paper lanterns. Very gay and delightful, but elegant too, in a simple way. Dolphingirl and I split on the Monotones: she preferred I (green) and I preferred II (white). I wonder how much of it had to do with the fact that we each liked the one whose music we already knew? After our previous discussion of these ballets, I tried to watch the dancers' lines and bodies to see how well they matched. Alas, I could not reach an informed judgment. They seemed fine to me. I was interested in how the trios would split into a-pair-and-a-single every so often. I also liked the way the dancing is so closely spaced, and how the beauty relies on the line and the shape of the dancers' bodies, and their interactions, rather than on big motions. It -- they -- are very contained ballets. I found them immensely satisfying. A small quibble (or perhaps not so small) -- I really do not like the Joffrey's lighting designer. He is terribly fond of patchy, blotchy lighting. It showed up again in Monotones, and I did not care for the way the dancers faces moved in and out of shadow. "Wedding Bouquet" was weird. Really. As the curtain fell, we both turned to each other and said simultaneously, "That was weird!" Not that I think it was danced badly, it just was not my cup of tea. I'd like to see it on the same program as "Lilac Garden", except I didn't like that one either, so I probably wouldn't actually go see it. I think the problem with it is that there was little real emotional connection among the characters. Maybe that was the point? Willy Shive's Groom was debonair, but had the program notes not told me he had had dalliances with nearly all the women present I certainly wouldn't have divined it from their interactions. I did, however, like the bride's (Emily Patterson) cheerfully naive ignorance of her bridegroom's past and present transgressions. Maia Wilkins played the mad Julia to the hilt -- stroking her unkempt hair (I'm told this was a play on Giselle, but the allusion passed me by as I'm not familiar with that ballet), and staring fixedly and vacantly into space. Deborah Dawn was hilarious as the inebriated Josephine. Fabrice Calmels also caught my eye -- hard for him NOT to do, as at six-foot-something he stands literally head-and-shoulders above the rest of the company. His dancing was very solid, very pleasing, and in a way, very light. We had not known what to expect of the narration. That part was cool! The rhythmicity and repetition of phrases was enthralling -- like singing, but without pitch.

Sigh... it sounds as if one more aspect of American culture has jumped the pond. I'm sorry to say that this kind of letter is quite standard here. Of course, I can't judge the tone of your particular letter, but the practices you cite are common. Fundraising wisdom here holds that 1) donors give more if you cite a specific need (pointe shoes, rather than the generic "costs of keeping the company alive"), and 2) donors will respond if you offer a "premium", as they are called here. Some of this is self-fulfilling prophecy. If donors get used to receiving a t-shirt, a mug, or a tote bag (common premiums), they start to feel denied if they aren't offered one! What they don't realize in most cases is that they are buying these items, and their donation is accordingly reduced. At least, that's the formal view of our taxation authorities. I was taken aback recently when we sent an unsolicited donation to our local modern dance company, and received out of the blue a package with all the "gifts" appropriate to our "giving level". Frankly, I would rather they just spent the money on themselves (although younger daughter did seize on the tote bag and declared it would make an awesome dance bag ...) As for aggressive and unpleasant solicitations, the ones I hate most are when the letter thanking me for my largish donation comes attached to a plea for more!

Given the, um, mixed reviews ABT has been getting in DC, I was tickled to find this review gracing the ad for their upcoming Chicago run: You have to read it with just the right emphasis to see why this is so funny!

Thank you, Juliet, for asking the question that has been on my mind. What on earth IS happening? These reviews make me feel relieved that I didn't spend top dollar for tickets to their March run of Swan Lake in Chicago. I'd been second-guessing that decision from the moment the ticket guy pressed "enter". No longer.

Even here in Chicago, home of "The Company"'s company, it's only showing in three theaters -- and one of those is really about 45 minutes away, in the suburbs.

I don't think Dan Brown was sincerely trying to advance new theories. But the way they are presented in the book -- "facts" that are explained by world-renowned academics -- might fool the less discerning reader.

This is old hat to many of you, but inasmuch as I just finished this book last week, this article in the Chicago Tribune could not have been more timely. In it, historians debunk the theories Dan Brown advances, and point out that the book is shelved as fiction. They seem to be reputable experts without bones to pick, except of the sort that academics love to gnaw when their areas of expertise are breached and mangled.

Joffrey did The Green Table four or five years ago.

I can't complain about the Army exposing its recruits to decent art in the barracks. Perhaps the USO can be convinced to send some ballet on tour to the troops. When discussing public funding, it is worth thinking about the relationships between gender and activity. Most of the people holding the purse strings in America are male. Most males have been exposed to sports from birth -- they've watched, cheered for, played. Most males have never seen a ballet, let alone -- horrors! -- participated in the activity. No wonder one is deemed integral to the common culture, and the other isn't. (For the record, the private school our daughter attends DOES require social dance class (ballroom and swing) in freshman PE. It's not quite the same thing, but it's a start.) As for the relationship between NEA cuts and abysmal PBS programming: my husband, who works in TV, doesn't see a direct relationship. He thinks the decline at PBS has more to do with other factors: its mandate to serve the entire populace at a time when cable channels have perfected niche programming, and reductions in corporate funding for major art series. (My own contention is that there is just a general stupidity at PBS about what constitutes quality. Leigh's comment about expertise, whether it be for military or arts, is well-taken; I question whether the PBS programmers actually do have much expertise.) The relationship my husband does see comes because NEA and PBS are NOT linked: he thinks NEA may be reluctant to put substantial money into one-shot programs that have no guarantee of being aired. Instead, they prefer to be conservative, as Leigh says, and fund the major arts purveyors (companies and orchestras) that have substantial likelihood of an ongoing audience.

Oh, Alexandra, I knew I could count on you! There really is so much tied up together here. In plugging the arts, do you fish where the fishing is good, or move to a new spot and try new bait? Is it a stereotype that ballet appeals mostly to women, or an unfortunate truth? The Joffrey needs to fill the seats. Apparently they feel they've tapped out the arts cognoscenti and need to reach out to a wider audience. Plugging the art form on its merits isn't going to reel in the bodies. I mean, really, how many people reading the Sunday paper would sit up and say, "GOSH!! Monotones I and II! That sounds like an exciting ballet. Let's get tickets!" SLIGHTLY more topically, the ads could show a dozen roses with a slash through them and the copy, "Give your honey a different Bouquet this Valentine's Day." (Can one copyright ad copy? If so, I claim copyright.) But that still wouldn't sell the merits of the ballet. So, here's a challenge. How would YOU structure the ad campaign for this program? Who are you trying to entice? How will you hook them?

Since the topic of advertising came up tangentially in the thread on NEA funding, I thought this was a good time to say that, yet again, the Joffrey's new publicity person has more than earned her salary. Her previous campaign, for Romeo and Juliet, involved a blood-spattered pair of pointe shoes and the words, "Love. Passion. Murder. Nightly." The current newspaper ad pictures an upright football being steadied by one finger, and a pointe-shoe-clad foot (nicely arched, I might add) about to kick it. The copy reads: "How to SCORE on Valentine's Day! Take her to the ballet!" The ad advertises the company's Feb. 11-22 run, an Ashton Anniversary program featuring Les Patineurs, Monotones I and II, and A Wedding Bouquet. I'm sure some curmudgeons will lament the fact that it doesn't stress enough about what the ballet IS, but I think it's brilliant.

Wasn't that disconcerting? A newbie replacing Maia Wilkins?

My parents -- who were official government guests at the time -- had a similar experience with the bug in their hotel room. After days of complaining to the front desk about the lack of hot water, to no avail, they finally addressed their complaint to the bug. "You would think," my father said loudly in the direction of the lamp, "that such a technologically advanced country wouldn't have such trouble producing reliable hot water." In the morning they had lovely showers ...

And I would be happy not to read that a dancer is someone's muse just because he made a couple of passes at her!

This from my husband, who runs the American Center for Children and Media:

Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune that discusses the divide between Art (or Culture) and popularity. Can the twain meet? (Note: this article does not mention ballet at all, but the general topic is one that has been raised on this board with regard to ballet. Perhaps this article will stimulate more thoughts.)

Goodness, I'm glad you mentioned it! Please do ask questions, and even take a stab at giving an answer or a comment. We all were newbies here once, and some of us that sound very knowledgeable got that way from participating in these discussions. This is a very friendly board; no one will criticize what you say. Welcome!

Thanks for kicking this back to the top. I'd forgotten to report my final decision: Murphy/Stiefel. Thank you all. :yes:

I don't know about that particular vignette, but from what I've heard many of the scenes are based on things that really happened in the company at some point. (Of course, this is just hearsay, I don't have any firsthand knowledge.)

We have multiple threads open on this movie (at least three). On this other thread Glebb says he got this information directly from one of the producers. Sounds reliable to me!

What an interesting topic! Leigh, you offer so many good thoughts. I do not know enough about ballet-going history to comment on whether ballet is getting relegated to the "kiddie corner". But I have some thoughts to add to yours on what constitutes good programming for kids. (First, though, it might be useful to reach some agreement/consensus about what age we are considering as "kids". Under 14? Under 12? Under 10?) My husband works with producers of childrens' television to improve the quality of what is offered. He is fond of saying that what matters most is that the producers respect their audience. I think it is much the same for ballet. As Alexandra says, I suspect that kids get taken to story ballets rather than more abstract offerings for two reasons. First and foremost, their parents have heard of Nutcracker and Swan Lake. Second, they suppose that kids will "understand" a story ballet better. In part, this reasoning does mesh with child development: kids cannot understand abstractions until their early teens. However ... at young ages, kids cannot sustain interest for long periods of time. And, frankly, how a kid is supposed to make sense of either Nutcracker or Swan Lake is beyond me. It makes much more sense to me to program for beauty, whimsy, humor, rhythm, or any of a number of rather abstract concepts. The kids don't have to understand them, they just have to enjoy. As a side note, many of the most successful endeavors aimed at children, from Sesame Street to much good children's music, works on many levels. Adults usually enjoy it too.

One of the interesting "non-plots" of the movie is how "Blue Snake" entered the (fictional) repertory of the company. What I mean is that when the project is introduced it is met with skepticism bordering on derision. The audience is kind of left wondering why the AD takes on this particular work, which the dancers and ballet masters suspect from the outset is a dog. (I've heard that, in real life, it was a pet of Neve Campbell's, something she'd always wanted to see produced. So, this is a point in the film where the documentary aspect blurs with the dramatic aspect.)

My husband called the Joffrey this morning to make our donation. He said the pleasant voice at the other end said, "Hello, this is _________ " (insert distinctive first name of Joffrey dancer). He wondered if it was THE _________, but was too polite to ask. He settled for saying no, he didn't need to hear the list of benefits, we just wanted to give a little something back to the company that enriches our lives so much.