Treefrog

This was possibly the most fabulously interesting ballet program I’ve ever attended. The Joffrey presented three pieces originally commissioned by Serge Diaghilev: ‘Les Noces’, ‘Parade’, and ‘Le Sacre du Printemps’. We saw this afternoon's matinee, the last performance of seven. The music was live, which enlivened and enlarged the performance considerably I knew going in that the dances and music in this program would be very different from the classical fare. Frankly, I did not expect to like them. Not that I am overly charmed by classical story ballets, but in the past I have found Stravinsky’s music too jarring to be pleasurable. Of the three ballets, I was probably looking forward most to “Parade”, if only for the Picasso set and costumes, and because two years ago a picture of Calvin Kitten as the Chinese Conjurer graced the cover of Dance Magazine (when Kitten was named one of the 25 dancers to watch). I did feel reasonably well versed about “Les Noces,” thanks to this recent thread in the Ballets area of the board. Well. Neither the theme nor the music of “Les Noces” was “likeable”, to my mind, but I found the combination visceral and compelling. The music IS jarring, but so is the theme: two young people, scared out of their wits, leaving home for the uncertainty of an arranged marriage. (Dolphingirl’s quip: “So, it’s basically like reality TV?”) The plain brown, uniform costumes, the deadpan expressions, the minimalist movement – all strip this piece down to the rawest of bare emotions. The choreography largely concerns a group of boys and a group of girls, each in turn commiserating with their friend and preparing him or her for the impending marriage. What is important here really is the group, or the juxtaposition of groups, and not particular movements by individuals. This is NOT the piece to see if you are looking for flash, verve, and lots of tricks. (This is true of ‘Printemps’ as well; the family resemblance between Nijinska’s choreography here and Nijinsky’s in ‘Printemps’ is striking.) The dancers in ‘Les Noces’ move from one frozen tableaux to another. Boys and girls are separated until the moment when the bride and groom approach and embrace in mutual consolation; then the groups of boys and girls intermix, and one somehow feels optimistic for the newlyweds’ future. I literally heaved a sigh as the curtain fell, and for a moment I truly wondered if I had been holding my breath the whole time. ‘Parade’ provided the lighthearted, comic relief in between the two heavier themes. The Picasso set and costumes were even better than I anticipated. Kitten reprised the role of the Chinese Conjurer, very successfully. I thought the most interesting of the "acts" was the American Girl, danced by Stacy Joy Keller. This role manages to convey myriad popular images of early 20th century America: gangsters, street fights, working women, high-rises, a culture slightly out of kilter. At least, that’s what I saw in the dance, so to the extent that it was intended Keller succeeded admirably. The horse, of course, stole the show. I don’t know whether it was to the dancers’ credit (David Gombert and Michael Smith) or Picasso’s that the horse’s face (mask) seemed to convey distinct emotions. Once I saw ‘Le Sacre du Printemps’, I understood why there were riots at its premiere. What a shock it must have been! Again, somber, raw, nothing pretty or delicate. No virtuosos; once again, the ensemble is the thing. Weird, turned-in postures that evoke a clumsier, less evolved past. No doubt the original audience wondered the same thing I did: “How is this ballet?” Nevertheless, I found it urgent and compelling, although not as emotionally powerful -- nor as beautiful -- as ‘Les Noces’. This was not a program in which one could single out specific dancers for praise. Indeed, with so many dancers on stage, all largely dressed and wigged alike, it was difficult to discern who was who. Nor was the program to everyone’s liking. I met up with two acquaintances who clearly considered this a wasted afternoon. Unfortunately, this was their first visit to the Joffrey, and from our conversation it was clear that they had had no concept of what the program would comprise. What they got differed hugely from their expectations. One of them, a novice adult ballet student, bemoaned the lack of role models. “Doesn’t the Joffrey have any good male leads?” he asked plaintively. Well, yes, it does. But this wasn’t the program in which to see them. One last note: we were lucky enough to attend a pre-performance talk by the Joffrey’s community outreach director, Carla Graham-White. This talk was part of the company’s initiative to attract and educate younger audiences. (The initiative also includes providing half-price tickets to anyone affiliated with a ballet school, whether as student or bill-payer or staff/faculty.) The talk was very informative, and hopefully forestalled among the fifty or so attendees the kind of disappointment my acquaintances encountered. We were also shown some of the costumes and wigs that the dancers would soon don. Since the talk took place in the orchestra seats, it was also fun to watch as the company ended class and the crew cleaned and set up the stage.

Thanks, Alexandra, that makes perfect sense to me.

I'm so glad I stumbled on this before we see the performance tomorrow! Could someone clarify for me this quote from the article Leigh cites? (Great article, Leigh.) What does this mean? Why not a Russian ballet on pointe?

I'll try. In light of recent discussions elsewhere on the board about kids at the ballet, I'd like opinions on whether this program is suitable for an 11 1/2 year old. I have my doubts.

Thanks, BW. We already have tickets. I might have missed that preview, which is very informative.

This is a tad tangential, but interesting nonetheless. Researchers have discovered recently -- in the past eight years or so -- that there exists a physiological basis to "beauty", or, more properly, attractiveness. It turns out that symmetric individuals are more attractive than asymmetric ones. This is true of humans, who rate individuals with highly symmetric facial features as more attractive than those with less symmetric ones. (I believe the study involved heterosexual subjects rating individuals of the opposite sex.) It is ALSO true of other species! Female swallows, for example, prefer males with symmetric tails. They specifically key in on the tail symmetry: they cease to like males whose tails are made artificially less symmetric, and their little hearts and wings go aflutter when a naturally asymmetric male is made artificially symmetric. I don't know what this has to do with taste in ballet, but I think it's cool. Actually, I did bring it up to address the question of whether there is some intrinsic, objective quality inherent in taste.

This isn't exactly an issue in ballet, but I'm posting on this forum because we've had so many discussions recently about schools and training. This story from today's Chicago Tribune describes a ballet school devoted to "baby" dancers (ages 2-7). What do you all think? While I see a bit of merit in the idea -- get kids interested in the movement and the stories, and the idea of using movement to tell stories -- it all seems over the top. The photos accompanying the print version show a studio bedecked in huge bows -- (and, curiously, mirrors whose bottoms are mounted at waist height for the little dancers.) It does seem like they are selling the "ballerina dream" rather than actual dance training. This seems like a prime example of a studio meeting --or, perhaps, creating -- a demand for the purposes of making money. It does not feel to me like good training. What happens when these happy, tag-playing gigglers enroll at a regular studio a few years down the road? The discipline is going to come as a rude shock!

So, WTTW-Chicago has finally come around. Hubby saw the program manager recently and asked, "What gives?" The PM apparently rolled his eyes (in a "yeah, we messed up and boy, did we hear about it" kind of expression) and said that due to numerous complaints -- from the Joffrey, among others -- they would be running "Men of the ABT" in April. Ballet triumphs over all!

I couldn't agree more with Leigh that the issue is not one of class. I teach at a private school that costs upwards of $15,000 a year, so I think we can agree on the class of the kids who attend. The manners of many of these kids is shocking. (I teach 9-10 year olds.) It is extremely common for them to keep on talking once I have signaled for quiet. In fact, if something occurs to them while I am in the middle of giving instructions, they think nothing of turning and talking to their friends. I have had children get up and walk away while I was speaking to them and their three partners. Just yesterday, after the class was told to return to their seats after clean-up, they all continued milling around. I know they heard the instruction, because several kids accurately repeated it. The astounding thing is, these kids don't know they are being rude! Apparently, they have not been taught the simple rules of etiquette: listen when someone is addressing you, wait your turn, that sort of thing. I agree with Alexandra that the fault lies beyond television (although, Leigh, I like your hypothesis about private vs. public entertainment). I think it has much more to do with a self-centered culture in which the rules always apply to the other guy, not to me. I think the increased pace of life is also to blame. People just aren't used to waiting anymore. Alexandra, I agree whole-heartedly that the family dinner is important. We do honor this tradition, even though it frequently means waiting until class or rehearsal is over around 8:00 (like tonight). Our friends think we're crazy.

I find that pretty disturbing too! :eek:

Mel, I'm surprised at the vehemence of your responses. I can't speak to the original article, but I don't think any of us are advocating putting babies on point and all the other evils you mention. What I'm defending, certainly, is the good neighborhood school. Solid teaching, with a well-defined curriculum and syllabus? Absolutely. Professional-level technique? Overkill. Most of the students do not have the ability or mindset to take advantage of this. In my mind, this school knows its clientele and caters to what it needs. NOT what it demands, because the professional dance teacher should understand the needs better than the parents. Part of the school's function should be to educate the parents about what constitutes safe and effective training. This school should also understand its own limits, and gladly hand off its talented students to more suitable training regimens. Very, very few students are truly pre-pro, by virtue of the fact that so few professional positions exist. Shouldn't the ballet world be putting more emphasis on getting good training to the other 99.5% of the dancers out there?

tour en l'air (def. #2) = "This way folks, tickets please. There's the wolf, he's sleeping now ...madam, please don't disturb him ... "

I think I'm going to have to read the original article. There are too many issues here that are intertwined. I'm with Fendrock here: there is pre-professional training, and there is recreational training. For me, the defining difference is not quality of instruction, but intensity. Let me clarify that: GIVEN the same superlative instructor, one student could be receiving pre-pro training and another recreational training. It depends on the student's abilities, motivations, time commitment, etc. Given a poor instructor, there is neither pre-pro nor recreational training. There is an after-school activity. I'm also curious about the level of instruction the original author was talking about. I think -- but am open to debate -- that in pre-ballet classes it could be perfectly okay to have an instructor whose technique wasn't perfect. As a parent, I'd be looking for other things: someone who could instill a love of movement, musicality, rhythm, discipline. What I don't know is how long in a dancer's training this suffices. At some point, good technique becomes more important. Of course, I would not want great technique without some teaching skills as well.

Hey! We DO got culture here in Chicago! We have this ad adorning a huge billboard right on the major north-south highway that cuts through the middle of town. Can't do much to amend it there, I'm afraid, as much as I love the suggestion. The irony is that it sits right near a left-over Nutcracker billboard, with Calvin Kitten in glorious mid-leap.

Hey, that wasn't me, Carbro, that was Watermill. I'm a biologist. I'm sure I'd LOVE the "Natural History of the Chicken." I don't think our local PBS outlet has aired that, either. We DO get a lot of "Antiques Roadshow", though, just like Scoop. Hey, Scoop, have fun in Hawaii. I liked your quip about suffering for one's art. Vagansmom, thanks hugely for your offer of the tape. I'll contact you privately to arrange details.

oh, one way or another I'll be able to see it. I can get someone to tape it, or could even buy the video. My gripe is that our programming geniuses don't think the local masses will be interested. Or that it's worth providing it in the hopes that someone might accidentally tune in and acquire some culture.

Okay, I've defended this city enough. I've diligently posted about all the Joffrey's performances. I've pretended that dance does exist here. I'm so MAD!!!!!!! Our local PBS outlet, Channel 11-WTTW ("Your Window to the World"), has NO plans to air the Great Performances on the men of the ABT. Not this month, anyway. We are the third largest TV market in the country!!!! (For the rest of you lucky viewers, PBS will be sending this out tomorrow, Feb. 3. Check YOUR local listings...) Don't worry, they will be hearing from me. Hubby works closely with Channel 11 professionally. For cripes sake, hubby used to be the one who scheduled Great Performances for the national PBS ...

I make such a different read of it! Here's a guy who starts out with the question "Who goes to the ballet these days?" and ends up falling in love with the art form. Ferguson's main intent was to study the crowd, and he did a pretty good job of it. He's an astute observer. I think his main point is that people don't go to the ballet to be seen. They go to watch the ballet. Ergo, they don't spend a lot of time, money, or thought on clothing and pretension. This is a compliment, not a putdown. (Parenthetically, that's why he was so put off by the people who did act anti-socially; I think he had come to expect better.) Having discovered that people come to watch the ballet, that's what he did too. He clearly became captivated. How else can one explain this delightful passage: "Long wispy brilliance"? This is a man who was paying attention, who loved what he saw and tried to articulate it for the rest of us. I thought he did rather brilliantly himself.

I am raising this back to the surface since the air date is nearing. Here's a link to the PBS announcement. It has more information on who is dancing and the format of the show. This page has a link for checking air date in your local area.

Ah! Is art in the eye of the beholder? Can high art become middlebrow art, depending on who is viewing it, and/or how that person is interpreting it? Estelle, I would argue that millions of people view "La Jaconde" -- known here in the states as the "Mona Lisa" -- simply because they know it is famous. I really doubt that a significant percentage of them even get to view it long enough or closely enough or thoughtfully enough to really take any of it in. They pass right by hundreds of other equally artistic canvasses. I think it is much the same with Swan Lake. People go to see it because they have heard of it. So, both are arts seen by the masses -- my question is, do the masses appreciate them as art?

I am finding this discussion absolutely fascinating! I was brought up in a highly educated family that valued "high arts" and eschewed "low arts", but one that never discussed "art", and in actual fact, never explored arts much beyond a very occasional foray to the museum, the symphony, or the opera. So, I find myself keying in on the relationship raised by some of you between education and "high art". What kind of education, I wonder, is necessary to appreciate art? And in turn, what is it about art that necessitates that education? My own guess is that one has to be well grounded in the themes and ideas of a particular culture, and familiar with the ways these have been explored previously. I suspect one also has to have to facility --perhaps gained through education -- to recall these ideas, and forge links between them and the "art" one is seeing/experiencing. The corollary, therefore, is that "art" has to suggest/promote/refer to these themes and ideas. Perhaps this is a more long-winded way of repeating Mme. Hermine's "art makes you think more deeply, takes you to a different level." But what about the aesthetic/emotional side of art? Does one need an education to appreciate that? I am accutely aware, of course, that schooling in the particular genre is very useful for seeing things, identifying them, understanding whether they are well-executed, and appreciating how they fit into the whole. How else?

Could it be that the themes of our young but ambitious country don't lend themselves to the more poetic, lyrical lines of ballet? I am thinking of the PBS show on Chicago that aired (part 1 of 3) last night. Such rawness! Chicago sprang up out of nothing -- it went from mostly uninhabited marshland to booming metropolis in 40 years -- due to the raw greed and capitalism of some very ambitious men. I suppose there are some themes to be explored there, but at the least I would see them as modern dance -- very angular and abrupt, at that -- and not ballet. Now, I suppose one could explore the curious juxtaposition in our country that noble community goals -- justice, democracy, freedom from government intrusion -- are supposed to achieved and maintained by individual action. THAT certainly should satisfy the abstract-ballet lovers. My vote, however, for turning a piece of American literature into ballet would be Willa Cather's O Pioneers! It taps the American expansionist dream in an unusual way, with a woman lead. This also lets it explore the relationships between men and women in an emerging society governed by multiple immigrant social codes. Its great theme is The Land -- the sweeping prairies that fed, first, individual settlers and eventually the country.

And when dinner is over, you must pay LeClercq. (Or, I suppose, she could be the assistant in the dance store.)

Gosh, I missed those majorettes ... but not much. ;)

Did anyone else catch the marching band version of Nutcracker in yesterday's Rose Parade? Ugh ... I'm grateful to say that dancers did NOT accompany the band.