pherank

Thanks for this link, JR. If I had been smart, I would have made notes as I read through the book, but once I had finished and a few weeks had passed, my heart just wasn't in it. Homans' book is rather a mish-mash of styles and subject matter - making it difficult to find things later. Now I've come to the conclusion that Homans' would have been better off planning a book of discreet essays that are all related rather than try to thread the various subjects together. A book titled "Mr. B: George Balanchine's 20th Century" can be expected to cover an enormous range of subject matter, OK sure, but I didn't come away feeling like the 20th century part was well represented. Why his 20th Century, and not something like, "George Balanchine: A Life In Dance"? I'm still pondering that one. So can such a large-scale subject as "Balanchine's 20th Century" be tackled successfully? It can, and has been in other biographies, but not yet in dance writing. There are quite a few great biographies out there of course, but I'm reminded of Barbara Tuchman's "Stilwell and the American Experience In China, 1911‐45." That book is a completely engrossing account of the life, and personality, of American General Joseph Stilwell, that just happens to also include all manner of things about the US-China relationship up through WWII, and manages to not lose the reader or ever become a snooze. The book deservedly won the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1972. It is extraordinary that such a messy, complex subject could be kept under control for 532 pages, but it was done. Kudos to Mindy Aloff for mentioning the following: "Alas, the book lacks thorough copy-editing and fact-checking. It misuses such words as scion, ferreted, languishing, dispossessed, perdition, staunch. It makes Orval Faubus the governor of the wrong state; has Francis Gary Powers’s U-2 spy plane shot down over Cuba rather than over the Soviet Union; misspells the names of Harald Kreutzberg, Hershy Kay, and Yul Brynner; misidentifies Marie Rambert; misidentifies the ballet training of star André Eglevsky; calls the famous operetta Song of Norway--starring Alexandra Danilova and the entire Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo--“Songs of Norway”; has Balanchine choosing “a princess” from his dancers during a rehearsal for Orpheus when there is no princess in that ballet (Was she thinking of Firebird?); gets wrong the reason why Allegra Kent’s surname was changed from “Cohen”; speaks about the “skeleton,” rather than the exoskeleton, of a butterfly; insinuates without evidence that Kirstein’s Harvard friend and early donor to SAB, Edward Warburg, might have been sleeping with his psychiatrist; says that Isamu Noguchi’s austere sculptural set pieces for the 1948 Orpheus recalls Nijinsky’s Le Sacre du Printemps (which had an elaborate series of wildly colorful painted drops by Nicholas Roerich); has an elaborate color-coding of plaids and velvets as costumes for the finale of Union Jack when the finale dresses the entire cast in navy blue and white uniforms; gives Boston-native Lincoln Kirstein an “émigré past; ascribes the wrong year to the Gershwin ballet Who Cares? (it was 1970, not 1969); quotes Balanchine’s famous throwaway comment “It’s all in the programs” (i.e., in the casting) as “It’s all in the dances,” when asked to speak about how personal matters might have related to his ballets; confuses the conductor Robert Irving with the conductor Hugo Fiorato in a picture caption; and on and on. Some of the memories by the interviewees have aroused controversy on the part of subjects who are still alive. Among the book’s disputed reports that are stated as fact is the questionable portrayal of the concerns and actions of NYCB’s General Counsel and Board member Randal Craft when the company was faced with the potential loss of rights to perform Balanchine’s ballets following his death; Craft described these in a 2015 public lecture that is not mentioned." I can't claim to have noticed each every one of these problem spots, but I did run into various grammar and syntax 'oddities', and noticed her re-working of Balanchine-isms to suit herself, which essentially creates misinformation. Homans does tend to present her statements as if they are the unvarnished truth, but then doesn't provide any real evidence to back up her assertions. There's a certain purity to many of the older Balanchine books that I now appreciate all the more. 😉

Yeah, we just don't know what the internal chemistry is going to be like. No doubt there will be some surprises, both good and bad.

It's all about "butts in seats" though for the story ballets, and the audience expects to see someone of star quality who brings people into the theater. The dance aficionados like seeing a young dancer get a chance, and Tomassan was good about allowing a certain number of Corps dancers get lead roles - it was part of SFB policy to let choreographers create on anyone in the company. This year, Jasmine Jimison is the lucky one, but I think she's earned her star turn.

As Helene mentioned, it does depend on the company, but at SFB principals and soloists had some input under Tomasson - no one had to dance a role that they didn't feel comfortable with. Yuan Yuan Tan surprised us this season by accepting a Juliet role, even though Juliet and Cinderella-type roles are not really her thing any more. But she's ending her career soon so probably wanted one last memory of that ballet. When Sofiane Sylve was still at SFB she avoided roles like Giselle and Juliet that she just didn't see herself in, and didn't dance. And Sofiane could have danced anything she was interested in. Powell is a promising young soloist, but I think she may be more interested in new contemporary works - just an impression I get from her. But Powell is definitely one of the better character actors at SFB - she excels at the comedy roles. Generally though, it's tough to get leads at a big company like SFB - there could be 8 or more dancers interested in a role and maybe only 4 or 5 slots available. Right now there are 10 principal women (and that's after the retirement of Van Patten) and 8 soloists to choose from, plus any promising Corps dancers looking for their breakout role.

I'm surprised that Swan Lake is getting a repeat - not my idea of cutting edge programing, first off. TR should have brought Khan's Giselle to SFB. Do people agree with the choice of Next@90 favorites? MADCAP I understand, but the other two? What about something like Queen’s Daughter? Nice to see Midsummer returning, and Ochoa getting another chance - I actually enjoyed her piece from the last festival (the silly plastic horns not so much).

I never learned much about St. Germain, so I don't know if she just wasn't a good fit, or if she simply decided the job was more trouble than it was worth. 😉

I'm not exactly surprised here, Lauren Parrott had been giving signals on social media - all through the pandemic period - that she might not stay. This may be a mutual decision. Sheehan is one of many dancers that ran into injury issues and then seemed to go into a funk. She's a smart young woman, and powered through her college studies during the pandemic period. She seemed to like the sciences especially, so I can imagine her going into medicine or physical therapy.

Josette, you may be correct - I think it was usually in April that the announcement was made. But the pandemic certainly messed with all that. Today's SFB e-mail mentions, "Soloist Jasmine Jimison will make her debut in the title role on opening night, April 21 at 8 pm, marking the first time in the production's 29-year history that a soloist has opened the show in a principal role." Yeah, Jasmine.

It's not me, I promise!

Well, I did manage to watch The Fablemans. But being a Steven Spielberg film, I had various issues with how it was directed, and would not have voted it "Best Picture" myself. But I guess no one else did either. 😉 I'm just starting Tár... EDIT: Oh that's right - I actually did see Top Gun: Maverick. Funny that I would forget that one. I'm curious if the military finds such films a useful recruitment tool. Including such a film in the Best Picture nominations at least demonstrates some degree of transparency from Hollywood - it's not about inspiration, or originality, it's about money and propaganda that works on junior high school students.

Dance Educator Claire Sheridan and Nikisha Fogo discuss the Juliet role, and Sheridan gives a short synopsis of Tomasson's Romeo & Juliet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dvA9i6kJn4

For me, the rat/mouse references are a red herring - I just don't learn much of anything for all the mentions. Many people are given nicknames within their family or circle of friends, but nicknames rarely 'explain' the person to the world. If anything they tend to be overly reductive. The book might have worked better as a set of discrete essays, but Homans obviously felt the need to try to make it an all-encompassing work. A bridge too far?

A comparison of sorts... Bernard Taper: In most of his academic subjects--French, arithmetic, Russian grammar, and literature--he did poorly also, excelling only in the classes in music and religion. On top of that, he did not get along with the other students. He had a trait, when nervous, of sniffing perceptibly, a twitch of his upper lip that showed his front teeth; his classmates promptly nicknamed him "Rat." [end of paragraph] Elizabeth Kendall: How did the older borders react to the newest small recruit making a show of haughty indifference? It might have been they who rechristened him 'Georges'--a French name for the smallest, unhappiest among them. They also called him "Rat," because of compulsive sniffing that showed his front teeth (a habit that never left him). But Georgi/Georges could do nothing about the bullying: he had to fall into the school routine and learn by imitating. [end of paragraph] Jennifer Homans: The other students called him "rat" because he was small--the youngest in the boy's hall--but also because he developed around this time his characteristic sniffing tic, like a rat seeking or busily foraging for shiny tokens in the trash. It was a tic that would endure for most of his life, the first of many masks he would hide behind and a sign of his nerves and appetite for traveling unnoticed through the worlds he found himself in, collecting scraps and gems to be stored in his mind and later extracted for use in art. Neither Taper nor Kendall bring up the subject of Balanchine's nervous tic again - they plainly didn't see it as an important aspect of his life story. Homans, on the other hand, peppers the book with other examples of Balanchine referring to himself as "mouse" or "Mighty Mouse". Perhaps that was his way of dealing with the humiliation of being dubbed "rat" by his cohorts.The experience may well have stuck with him throughout his life. But I don't recall Homans discussing the possible psychological issues at work. Only Kendall directly calls out the Mariinsky boys' treatment of Balanchine as "bullying". Homans really delights in the rodent metaphor, and takes it and runs with it, so we hear more references to "mouse" (not so much "rat") as the book goes on. Besides the fact that Homans uses the school incident to fuel her own imaginings, I just found it annoying that the rodent metaphor doesn't serve a real useful purpose in the book. Balanchine wasn't really a rodent, he was a human being, so I'm not sure this metaphor can really be said to illuminate something about the psychology of a particular man. Like Taper and Kendall, I don't see Balanchine's nervous tic as central to his artistic or social life, or a technique for "foraging for shiny tokens ".

I can recommend Homans book - but not until after people read Bernard Taper's "Balanchine: A Biography" and Francis Mason's "I Remember Balanchine" to get a general sense of things. And I still recommend reading Elizabeth Kendall's book to get a better sense of the context of Balanchine, Danilova, Ivanova and Geva's early years and life at the Mariinsky School. And Kendall's book is great for descriptions of Balanchine's earliest work. Homans does spend time talking about various poets/literary figures and philosophers that had a large influence on Balanchine's thinking and aesthetics. And of course Sergei Diaghilev gets some attention, although I think he remains an elusive character in this rendering. Various ballets are discussed at length, such as Concerto Barocco and Agon. She may not have the last word on those ballets, but it's worth thinking about their construction and intentions. I often got the feeling that Homans assumes the reader has been through all the usual Balanchine books and so she's just refreshing our memories about the "facts" and myths to then concentrate on her own reaction to the information. Portions of the book read like proto-essays, and in some ways these are the more interesting sections. We have Homans' musing on muscle-memory, eternity and time with regards to dance, the developing and shaping of the dancer's body, the relationship between dance and music, and more. These things relate to Balanchine's ambitions and aesthetics so I don't quibble with their inclusion, it's just the way in which Homans flits from one subject to another (often within a larger discussion on other matters) that tends to exhaust this reader. Homans always has an opinion, and that opinion naturally has a particular bias. She's fond of insinuation, and that imparts a more informal, conversational tone to some of the content. She often takes sides. She loves sharing her musings, but I'm not sure that makes this the 'go to' book on Balanchine after all. Portions of the book read like proto-essays, and in some ways these are the more interesting sections. Homans' musing on muscle-memory, for example, was engrossing. This is a biography used as departure point for Homans' musings on myriad ballet and societal-related subjects. It's certainly possible that Homans was not entirely comfortable playing historian (and attempting to remain neutral with regards to her subject) and so quickly segues towards editorial commentary whenever possible.

"Karin was as ruthless about dancing as any of the wives" "...and when she got pregnant a few months later, she told no one and (by her own accord) worked herself physically to the bone in hope of losing the baby" "Her relationship with Balanchine revolved around dancing, yes, but also around cooking and food--and plenty of alcohol--and around money and sex. She was acquisitive ad nervous about money, couldn't get enough, and Balanchine indulged her every whim: Parisian fashions, jewelry, fine wines, restaurants, and elegant hotels. That was part of their arrangement...." "...he also took to hiding rolls of cash in the closet of his apartment, where she wouldn't find them; cash was a gift he bestowed on many dancers..." "But she could also be maudlin, pouty and stubborn. She--they--drank a lot, and she even occasionally showed up for rehearsals and performances with alcohol under her breath" Not really a good look. But all people have issues and weaknesses that they are dealing with - it's all in the telling. This brings me to one of Homans' stylistic affectations: dancers and staff of the NYCB are often referred to by their first names in these 'recollections', whereas others - Stravinsky, Kirstein, Baum, Karinska, etc. are mostly kept on a last name basis. Balanchine is referred to in various ways throughout the book - George, Georgi, Balanchine, Mr. B - which is totally screwy. Vera Zorina gets to be called "Zorina", which is one of Homans' many inconsistencies. As most of the people being referred to by first name are female, it is problematic. And for me, it isn't something a historian should do. Using a first name to represent someone has implications in our society (and I'm sure in others as well). The tendency to refer to female public figures by their first names, but men always by their surnames, is something much discussed by feminisits and others, so I won't go into that here. I'm more concerned about inconsistencies in Homans' writing - why have book sections devoted to discussing "Karin" and then go back to referring to her as "von Aroldingen" elsewhere? Is the subject better, more accurately served by switching to the familiar? Is she made more personable if negative (or positive) comments are being delivered? It was this type of stylistic oddity that kept me thinking that Homans never really had an overarching plan for this book - it was a mass of individual writings being stitched together. The best historians have a strong, consistent voice, and they manage to successfully inhabit that narrative voice throughout the work so that reader is never confused about direction and intention. With Homans, I found too many points confusing when the narrative style would shift - to little benefit that I could see.

Looks like Madison Keesler is in tonight's episode of FBI: International. How neat is that? Naturally she plays a dancer. The depictions of ballet are overly precious, as per usual. Their cinematographer plainly didn't know how to shoot moving figures and so overly contains the movements within a small space. But for Madison, it's a start. https://www.instagram.com/p/CqsvdsOAcYM/

I'm very sorry to hear about your health issues, Altongrimes (but know all about those things myself). Here's wishing you a successful recovery and return to form.

I agree with a lot of your assessment. I felt that many people didn't come off particularly well in Homans' treatment, but it isn't essential that the author like everything about the subject matter. I do have my suspicions about the 'early years' material being mostly a rehash of other's research, e.g. Elizabeth Kendall, who, with the help of Vera Sergeevna, went through the available St. Petersburg archives (as well as archives in Finland and Georgia) to retrieve information on Balanchine's early years. Homans certainly had the benefit of other people's research into the Balanchivadze family members, the Mariisnky School and such. I remember Danilova not even being mentioned much (and her autobiography is an essential source, imo), and Tamara Geva comes off badly, but Homans does herself no favors in that the Geva section is oddly written. It's one of a number of points where Homans' writing style changes as if on a whim. I do think Homans put a lot of effort into the Lincoln Kirstein content, and that was engrossing.

He mentioned more than once in interviews that he was "not a bunhead" and struggled with the idea of being a ballet dancer. I don't think that's how he saw himself, but it seems like he's come to terms things - working as a ballet dancer, or electrician, or kindergarten teacher, etc. doesn't have to define one as a person.

The idea is certainly not new to Homans, and Balanchine himself used the phrase "ballet is woman". I can tell you that the many books on Balanchine (first-hand recollections and others) point to a similar idea. Balanchine's real life dealings with women are one thing, and his artistic aims are another. "Love of woman" as a spiritual idea seems evident in many of his ballets - it's never an earthy love. I was planning on writing a comparison of some of Homans writing with that of other biographers but haven't gotten around to making that happen yet. She has her particular way of talking about things, and she can draw some annoying conclusions that I don't necessarily agree with. But that's often the case with biographies.

I would have been less surprised if Cauthorn had decided to leave the Ballet world - he thought about that for some time. So it is surprising that he decided to go to another company. Presumably this will be a change to an 'exotic' location that will provide him with new and different experiences. I didn't know Cauthorn or André had much connection to Cathy Marston, but maybe she did create upon them at some point at SFB. Marston danced in Switzerland, and has Swiss citizenship as well as British, so there's her connection to Ballett Zürich. Dores André has always been a workhorse for SFB - it will be equally hard to lose her to another company. I know that she's been spending more time in Spain, being involved in dance education. So maybe she just needed to be closer to home.

The SFB season is a killer. Tomasson finally figured out it was better to put the new choreography festival at the beginning of the season, rather than the end, so that the dancers were relatively fresh while performing the festival. The company tends to be very 'beat up' by the end of the season. And then they take a few weeks off before short tours begin. It's definitely not ideal, but unless the schedule can be renegotiated with the SF Opera, or they find another suitable performance space for a portion of the year, nothing will change.

YY is doing her "final lap", as it were. I thought she might try and reach 50 years of age as a performer, but I'm sure the pressure is on for her to step aside and make room for the young ones. She was such a big part of the Tomasson era, so her leaving will really feel like a door closing on old times.

San Francisco Ballet's first Japanese principal ballerina stars in "Cinderella" (KRON4 report): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF56tAnjfp0

Talking Dance | Ellen Rose Hummel & Lizzy Powell on Stepsisters in Christopher Wheeldon's Cinderella https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPGEOHcJUl4