Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

l'histoire

Member
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About l'histoire

  • Rank
    Member

Registration Profile Information

  • Connection to/interest in ballet** (Please describe. Examples: fan, teacher, dancer, writer, avid balletgoer)
    fan
  • City**
    San Francisco
  • State (US only)**, Country (Outside US only)**
    CA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Again, no. What really defined a samurai, beside his flat-out birth right of class, which is admittedly hard to depict in ballet? The sword on his hip. Don't remember Villalla wearing one when he performed this with McBride. I do remember the flowered bikini. The ballet loses nothing without its psuedo-shunga trappings. "Tea" also can stand on its own without its pseudo-Asian, frankly racist & ultimately stupid caricatures of Asian art. Such things make me sad, because I imagine if Balanchine had ever had serious exposure to East Asian performance traditions, he probably would've fou
  2. Uh, no. At least on the issue of 'cultural appropriation.' The idea that this piece, costumes & all, somehow represents 'Asian' culture (which is a laughable idea in & of itself) if it's performed by Asian dancers is utterly absurd. Bugaku is Balanchine imagining Asia (Japan). Period. Doesn't matter who's performing it, it is still appropriation to the max (I have perhaps misremembered, but I seem to recall seeing something about the premier of the ballet & the Japanese ambassador being offended & leaving early? I can't blame the man if it's true). I'd love to see the ballet in
  3. As the occasional resident "Hi hey hello, I'm a fan but I do this as a profession [I am a professional historian & my first book was on mid-century Chinese opera]" person in these conversations, I really would love to see Bugaku staged as a leotard ballet. I have said so to well-respected, long-standing members of this board. I don't think there's any reason to revive it in its current form (original form?) as pretty as the tutus are (and they are pretty. Last time I was at the V&A - a number of years ago - I got to see Susanne Farrell's Bugaku tutu, and it was gorgeous). It would be a
  4. Of course many facets of identity are culturally constructed. The IDEA of what a man or woman SHOULD be (you know, "gender") is a cultural construct, which is what I was saying (and I'm not saying you have to pick one or the other, though in functional point of fact, in many places you actually DO have to pick). I wasn't debating the fact that people can feel "in between" (to say the least); I was objecting to the idea that gender - as a construct - is somehow inherent in human existence or linked to what genitals you're born with (it's not). The reason people feel that "people with penises s
  5. First of all, gender is not "an identity," it's a cultural construct. Second, a "dan" is a ROLE, it has nothing to do with the sex or gender of the performer. You can have a dan who has identified as male since birth (like Mei Lanfang), or a dan who has identified as female since birth (like a great many dan in the modern era). Women were, from the 18th century on (until the 20th century), BANNED from Chinese stages, so you had no choice BUT to have men playing "women's" roles until the mid-20th century (when women started playing dan roles again). Yes, Mei Lanfang was one of the "great
  6. Realize I'm several weeks late, but no, I still don't understand what Balanchine's obsession with Farrell with was "bizarre." Bizarre in what way? Balanchine had fallen in love with young ballerinas before, that was nothing new; he'd done a lot of choreography for them, too. Farrell wasn't the first. I'd just like to know why the Farrell/Balanchine affair was "bizarre," when his others - with LeClerq, Tallchief, etc - weren't.
  7. This is all assuming he WANTED (or felt like he could) write about all that (or "as told to" all that). I agree it's a shame he never published anything, but perhaps it's the historian in me - we simply can't expect such riches from our sources. OTOH, if his archive is safely with Columbia, suffice to say, scholars will pull out of it things Mitchell never would've dreamed of speaking about. The autobiographical archive is fetishized in the field of history & generally overvalued, though it is of course valuable.
  8. Why "bizarre"? There's a reason the documentary made of her is called Elusive Muse - I actually think that captures Balanchine's presentation of Dulcinea in Don Q to a 't,' from what I've seen/read of the ballet. I can appreciate the fact that Balanchine's Don Q wasn't the bravura-fest that most versions of the ballet are (even if I think its potential of being revived handily are slim to none).
  9. I feel this way about the Peony Pavilion (a famous Chinese opera, which is a supreme & beloved achievement as a work of literature & as excerpts in traditional Chinese opera), which the National Ballet of China made into a ballet. As highly stylized as Chinese opera is, it's still not ballet (and I've been horrified by what parts of the ballet I've seen, insofar as "telling the story") - it is a glorious piece of literature that is "undanceable."
  10. I'm an East Asian specialist, and have never read Don Quixote in its entirety, though I think we were forced to read excerpts in HS. Regardless, I appreciate you highlighting that Balanchine had his particular twist/emphasis, just as Petipa has his .... Much like many of the sprawling works I read, it seems well-nigh impossible to distill the "entirety" into an evening's ballet, so you have to pick some angle. One reason I'm such a Balanchine devotee: one doesn't have to have these conversations watching Concerto Barocco or Serenade.
  11. I'm not surprised. Here's a quote from one of the critics I study, re: 16th century drama, which is often incredibly long, dense, and stupidly complex (seriously, the "origin" play I l study has 34 acts. Thirty four. That's a lot! We're talking 18 hours at a minimum to get through the whole thing!): I mean, isn't Don Q read against Balanchine's maxim that "there are no mothers-in-law in ballet"? Don Q (the novel) wasn't MEANT to be a ballet (I have the same issue with things like Mayerling - you're seriously making a ballet about THAT? Well, godspeed ...). I appreciate that Mr B. gave
  12. I mean, I've always gotten the impression this is one reason the ballet was/is disliked: people walk in expecting one thing, and get something totally different. I study various 20th century adaptations of one play, which was originally written in the late 16th century; the primary "adaptation" (which has generally been wildly popular) that has been passed down since then could probably be said to be like Petipa's "distillation" of the original Don Q novel. That 16th century play is also radically different from its late 14th century source material. This is just how things work - cultural wor
  13. Drew, I sincerely hope I didn't offend you. I absolutely understand the value of looking at things that aren't looked at often - I've literally made my career on things (plays, in this case, which are sometimes not so different than ballets) that haven't ever been seen, or published, or written about since the early 1950s. They're not necessarily great, but they are valuable (but, as I said upthread, I can make more sense of *some* of their value because I have scripts, which are not all equivalent to ballet - how do you make sense of a ballet without dancers in front of you doing it, or at th
  14. I've never read a review of the ballet as anything other than a curiosity (you know, the sort of thing academics might enjoy ...). I personally think Farrell revived it because (a) she's the only one that can and (b) it's a personally important ballet to her, which is fair enough to me. I'm glad she got to coach some people in the role of Dulcinea, just like I'm glad she got to coach some people in Meditations. Of course, all the reviews find beautiful parts in it, but does anyone speak of it as a viable, revivable production? I haven't seen one review that even gestures towards that as a poss
  15. IIRC, one of the constant features of the reviews of Farrell's revival of Don Q was that "hey it's nice to see the genius not at his best, in an emotionally important moment" (someone upthread I believe described it as a "time capsule" - it does seem so, when looking for the transcendent). But, I think of Acocella's review of it from the New Yorker ("Backstory," 25 July 2005), where she is discussing the solo we are all raving over & how Farrell ("She") differed from her ("they") dancers: Anyways, as a cultural historian who has to spend a lot of time reading *really not good* cul
×
×
  • Create New...