Michael

On rethinking this, I think coaching and direction, and receptivity to that direction, are as important as having the chance to dance. Look at Paloma Herrera, for instance, who is famously unreceptive to correction. She's amazing, she does things no one else can do (balances, for example) but she's really stopped developing far short of her potential. With all of that technical athleticism, beauty, charisma, and grace, what couldn't she do if she was determined to keep gaining? If a dancer, when made principal, thinks, "O.K., I'm famous, the audience loves me and I'm being paid the big bucks, so why should I do anything different," that's fatal. Thus, what a dancer needs to keep developing, in addition to the chance to use it, is the right direction, and even more, the determination and humility to keep working at it just as seriously as they did when they were fifteen years old in class. [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited July 09, 2000).]

The recent worst, for me, was sitting next to an englishman in the front row of the orchestra for Dvorovenko's Swan Lake, and the guy had a fancy little camera with one of those self focusing lenses, and he literally shot five roles of film during the performance. Every time Irina would do anything, "whirr-sha-dup," "whirr-sha-dup," "whirr-sha-dup" -- It was continuous. I mean, in one variation he would shoot ten shots. Of course, ingrained New Yorker that I am, I suffered in silence. Groaning and fantasizing about tearing him limb from limb, or stamping on that camera. Finally, at the curtain calls, when ABT's ushers all crowded down to shout and throw roses, they spotted him doing the same thing for the bows and told him, "no cameras, please." And he still didn't stop. Shameless guy. [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited June 28, 2000).] [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited June 28, 2000).]

Oh Paris would be just fine, Estelle. I'll settle for Paris. By the way, was that Natacha Grilles who performed that very brief series of pirouettes, in the pas de deux near the beginning? -- whoever she was, she was amazing. It was just something brief, but the woman pirouetted three or four times, with one arm very high, and her working leg frozen in an attitude-like pose (grande pirouette, actually, I think). But what was very special was how she powered each pirouette purely with the releve motion with which she began each turn. She held the rest of her body perfectly motionless, in a beautiful line. There was no fouette motion at all with the working leg. The turn was instead generated fully from the action of her supporting foot - and it was amazing. Whoever she was, Brava.

Re Perpetuum - Which I was lucky enough to see that same evening (and through your good offices of providing me with the information to negotiate my way through getting tickets in Paris -- thanks Estelle) it's clearly a "tongue in cheek" piece, something of a jest by the choreographer and company, and can be an interesting part of the repertory as a counterpoint to more serious works. I would think a program consisting of this and something heavier, and not necessarily contemporary even, would be a good one. I thought the end or mock ending, with the curtain call being structurally indistiguishable from the end of the piece, as the entire cast comes right to the foot of the stage, so that the foot-lights dramatically illuminate them from their very feet, very striking. This then wasn't the real end, as they did it all over again. I thought the strength of the ballet was the obvious fun the company had with it.

All you say is true Leigh -- getting lots of opportunity to dance is not the only variable -- there are many others in a dancer's development. But, all other things being equal, getting enough of a chance is very necessary, don't you think? You can almost see someone grow performance to performance. It's certainly been true of Ringer and of Jennie Somogyi this year. It was true of Weese last year. I don't think that Ringer would have developed technically as much as she has this spring, and alo developed that confidence and command which is now so evident, if she hadn't been dancing so very much and, in particular, dancing Weese's roles, especially Sleeping Beauty. Do you remember the question about who would be the main beneficiary of Weese's absence (we didn't mean it the way it sounds)? Somogyi has certainly danced more, and now in particular she's also dancing more of Meunier's roles - the Chairman Dances (silly, insipid ballet) tonight, for instance. (And she also picked up for Ansanelli's absence last night by debuting as the novice in the Cage). But it's Ringer who is really picking up Miranda Weese's place. Perhaps without that injury she would never have had the opportunity to dance those fleet allegro parts - what do you think? And dancing them, she seems to have become much more of an allegro dancer. [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited June 22, 2000).]

A strong argument can be made that what makes a great ballerina great, is how the woman continues to develop after she's made a principal. How she'll continue to grow throughout her career. From this point of view, comparing the opportunities to dance now available for Jennifer Ringer and for Irina Dovorovenko, who've both been made principals at their respective companies this spring, it's thus hard not to envy Ringer. Looking at NYCB's schedule, Ringer danced Appalachian Waltz the 20th; Donizetti Variations the 21st; will dance Opus 19 the Dreamer the 22d; Appalachian Waltz the 23d; and will also dance principal roles at the 24th matinee and on the 25th. By way of comparison, how many big roles has Irina Dvorovenko gotten to dance since Swan Lake on the 14th? And how many Swan Lakes will she have the chance to perform this year? I would think that it's very hard to ask a dancer to develop a strong and definite characterization, and a finished interpretation of a particular role, if she only gets to dance it once a year. The ABT system of importing outside stars for the big performances may sell tickets, but it's inherently damaging to the opportunities of full time company members to develop. Those who want to see more of Irina D. better hope they don't bring in Vishneyva, in addition to Nina A., for a selected ten star cameos next year. A company that grows its own is ultimately far more likely to grow you a real star.

All three programs are well worth seeing - the programming is extremely good, weighted heavily towards Balanchine, and towards Mr. B's more classical-looking incarnation at that, although you've also got Agon and the 4 Temperaments. The Robbins Ballet, Dances at a Gathering, is also very beautiful, try to sit close up if you can for that one. You could choose any of these three programs and not go wrong. It would be rare for them to pack an evening with three or four such meaty pieces in NY. They are really putting themselves out for this. I wish I could go.

This has definitely been Belotserkofsky's season to emerge from the shadows quite as much as Dvorovenko's -- or even more, since he started so much more in the shade. Besides the wonderful qualities you mention Eric, he is a noble partner for any ballerina and very strong in supporting his partners in lifts. Did you notice how beautifully he lifted Dvorovenko straight up, as high as possible, with his arms fully extended over his head (I don't know the name for this lift) twice in Swan Lake -- it was one of the high points (no pun intended) of that ballet. It's particularly good to see him paired with Irina because he is so often paired with absolutely impossible partners. In La Sylphide his Sylph as Yan Chen. Enough said. She was clueless, which was not so much a problem in Act I, where there is a good blueprint and everyone knows what to do. But in Act II, where the principal couple is more emotionally on their own, he had to create a dialogue with no one to speak to. An impossible task. Thus, my joy at seeing him paired with Irina.

Of course, the old wisdom about palace coups is that if you're going to attack the king at all you absolutely have kill him.

Re Malakhov -- Last year someone at one of the big publications, in a review, referred to him (paraphrase) as something like, "He of the noble countenance and hayseed expression." [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited May 11, 2000).]

Another resemblance between the two works is that in both of them Wheeldon has used a lot of off-balance dancing for the woman principal in the central pas de deux (Faye Arthurs in Scenes de Ballet and Jennifer Ringer in the new piece) -- the two pdds reminded me a lot of each other, with the woman either draped over the arm of her partner or spun on point well off balance. Those pasages are very lyrical, old-world feminine, romantic, and a little Ginger Rogers-ish. [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited May 08, 2000).]

"Circus atmosphere" espcially for the acrobatic steps by the men, describes ABT's audience well. [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited March 06, 2000).]

I totally agree. And it's even more ridiculous since no one can now roll back the clock on at least 75 years of what was created and conceived of as modernism on the ballet stage. I doubt that the movement was fully Russian in origin and I don't want to get into a debate on details, but Balanchine, Kandinsky, Arpichenko, etc. -- all of this occurs together and partly as an effort at modernity. With Kandinsky and Balanchine, the link of being exiles in France in the pre ww2 period is also striking. Thus Roca's and McKenzie's argument is anachronistic enough to be compared to someone now arguing that abstraction in the visual arts has all been a dead-end mistake, and that we must now return to the Pre Raphealites as the only true artistic heritage in modern painting.

Roca's article, and the quotes attributed to Jaffe and Kent in it, just seem to be so much puffery for the new ABT Swan Lake. Evidently it's not enough for the advocates of the new production that it simply be good and worth seeing, it must also in their view herald the demise of "Balanchinism" and mark the inherent superiority of narrative ballets in general. How ridiculous.

Well, the Napeolonic era, with its celebration of neoclassical style (flowing Greek draperies on the women, lyres as legs for the furniture, etc.) didn't end until at least 1815. And even though the Bourbon restoration would not have tolerated the figure of "liberty" leading the people, the artistic prestige of neoclassical forms survived the Bourbon restoration in French arts generally. And even political neoclassicism (i.e., figures of liberty) are again popular and tolerated under the House of Orleans (post 1830) and the Second Empire. But after 1789 the arts could never again be the preserve of a small class in France (or in Britain, for that matter, where the change occurred two centuries earlier, in Elizabethan times) -- never again could artistic prestige be determined from the top and particularly by the tastes of the Court alone. After the deluge we are squarely into an era when art of any kind must cater to a much more popular and mixed public taste. And also, not insignificantly I think, when art must pay its own way and not depend simply on the patronage of the Court (although noble patronage continues to be of importance, competing with other forms of financial support). Contrast this with Russia, where absolutism (and serfdom and other things) persist under the Metternichian settlement of the Congress of Vienna until nearly the twentieth century.

Alexandra -- I put it badly, but by using the term "aesthetic theory" I didn't mean to imply that emploi was some "idiot critic's" concept superimposed upon the ballet. Let me now put my foot further into my mouth. What I wanted to say was that, not only have you convinced me that this is the way that great ballet masters thought about and trained their dancers and created their ballets, and not only is this therefore at the heart of the classical idiom -- but that I also think there really is a physical harmony of characters and types, a Kantian "thing in itself," at the bottom of this typology. (I use the term loosely -- don't take "typology" as another "idiot critic's" distinction). Musical harmony, by analogy, exists because you can combine several specific tones and they sound good to our ears - consonant, not disonant ... on the ballet stage, certain mixtures of character or of physical types in the classical dance also just work, just appear more satisfying and beautiful to us. A tall noble man supporting a smaller woman in pdd rather than the reverse, to give a very crude example. Thus, I think that Ballet masters worked this way, and it became part of their idiom, not by historical accident, but because it actually expresses something our culture finds more harmonious to the eye. Of course it's also much more complex than that, not least of all because dramatic situations and possibilities, and traditional stories and character roles also entered into it very early. That is, we not only felt that a tall man looked better supporting a smaller woman, but that a tall man more looked like a king, etc. I'm out of my depth. Thanks Alexandra and Marc and others for getting me to swim a little more in these waters though. [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited February 28, 2000).]

I think emploi may still be relevant for two reasons. First because choreographers creating these pieces thought in this way and understanding what they were doing now should make it possible now faithfully to recreate their ballets. And second because, although I started out reading this thread very skeptically, I now think Alexandra is right, there is (or there may be) some kind of harmony in mixing combinations of dancers/roles/types with each other on stage, name it as you may, which works in performance context after performance context. It will never be as precise and objectively verifiable as musical harmony, it may be more akin to color theory for painters, but there seems to be something to this. But like any other aesthetic theory, you just shouldn't be too rigid about it.

Watching Rachel Rutherford develop has been one of the delights of ths winter season. Not only in La Valse, but in Divertimento No. 15 early in January, and in pas de trois or pas de quatre variations in Swan Lake. You have to love how Peter Martins and Rosemary Dunleavy have brought her forward this season and every time she's had the chance, she has shown that she can dance with anyone in the company. A beautiful girl with a spirit like clear water.

Re emploi, I want to make an observation about the terms being used here and how 20th century ballet develoments appear to have affected them. Originally, it appears to me from reading what has been written above that emploi was used to refer to casting a very limited variety of classical types -- i.e., the prince, the lover, the fool, etc. -- as well as a limited number of well known roles, such as the Lilac Fairy, the Bluebird, Odette/Odile. (The original group of roles appears to me to be derived from early 19th century German romanticism - Goethe, Schiller, E.T.A. Hoffman, but that is another thread). However, 20th century developments in ballet then inevitably confuse this. First, there is the profusion of ballets and roles. With character roles such Apollo, the Prodigal Son, or the Firebird introduced into the mix, there many more characters. Instead of just a few solid types, there are numberless roles and of course more disagreement as to just what the proper type of dancer is for many of them. Then consider what happens when abstraction enters the picture. For once ballets tend towards the abstract, there cease to be identifiable characters as such, and of course it becomes still more difficult to speak of "emploi" in the original sense. To speak about the same idea (proper casting for each role) you will then inevitably have to talk either about casting in terms of very specific roles (thus, the two leading women in Concerto Barocco - Diana Adams or Tannquil LeClerq - will look and dance like this or that) or you will have to attempt a new verbal synthesis by dividing abstract classical roles into types of dancers generally and trying to reconstruct a theory of emploi around these aesthetic ideas. But given these difficulties, it is not surprising if artistic directors today have abandoned the use of this concept for a more flexible role-specific verbal analysis.

With respect to women dancers, and it is not really to do with character so much as with type of dancing, but is there a similar problem with being classed as either an adagio or an allegro dancer and being in trouble if you fall in between? What would you call someone who was purely neither one but good at both?

I must add my bravo too. You made me feel I saw it.

That part of Jennifer Dunning's review which criticized her phrasing as too "staccato" was also ridiculous. Her phrasing was beautifully musical. There is a famous musical passage in Act I where a pas de deux is danced to the melody of a single violin, with a second violin or perhaps a viola joining in and adding color. Dancing to this, she flowed through her two arabesques, one to each side, concluding each with a small flourish (or further extension) of the foot which framed the step perfectly on the melody. As someone once said about Farrell, "the music was coming from her." Altogether, this was one of those performances which only gets better as one remembers it. [This message has been edited by Michael1 (edited February 03, 2000).]

Leigh and All Others-- Based on your postscript, I went back and reread the entire line of postings from your original review onward, and I think that after five days perspective your review and thoughts about last Saturday's performance are even more "spot on" and insightful than they seemed at first. "Little court with no furniture somewhere in the provinces" is perfect, it describes the scene to perfection. You were right about Adam Henrickson's performance. You were also right about Monique Meunier's performances last spring (by the way, why haven't we seen her all Fall and Winter now, except for two or three divertissements in the Nutcracker, early in the fall season at that -- why didn't she replace Weese and/or Kowroski when they got sick this last week?) And your main point is completely valid. Seeing Wendy Whelan dance Odette/Odile last night (1/19, replacing Kowroski by last minute program change, presumably Maria was sick like half of the company) really underlined your point for me. Technical expertise aside, it was a performance without an animating idea, without a characterization except for the idea, apparently, that Odette should beat her arms like a bird and crane her neck every so often. Your original point about thinking how well Schandorff must have been coached thus seems to me to have been simply another way of saying how fine a characterization animated her performance and how wonderfully she sustained this idea. Finally, I am new to this site and neglected to introduce myself when I started a few days ago and really I'm not sure what the correct cyber-etiquette is, since I've never posted anything on the internet before. (What should one say or do on joining a new site like this one? Should one do it even if it makes one more self-conscious?) But, as to what checking up a person should do on his or her review or opinion before posting it, I wonder if one of the virtues of this semi-anonymous e-conversation with the world isn't precisely that, while written and concrete, it has also the spontaneity and tentativeness of conversation and can be changed, corrected, modified, in response to the views of others and new information. I think what I like about this is the fact that I'm not in my mind simply broadcasting narcissistic opinions -- I want response, to see my ideas and subjective impressions "bounced around" with those of others. Thanks. Michael1. (I don't know why I chose to put the silly #1 after my name, but I suppose I'm stuck with it now.)

Silja Schandorff was an absolute revelation yesterday, particularly in Act 1 --- she entered dancing with frantic energy, she really seemed to be The Swan, her characterization absorbing her technique, or surpassing it might be the word, or perhaps subsuming it -- in other words, she was not just dancing steps, the whole became much greater than the parts. The best single dance performance I've seen at NYCB this fall and winter. My only criticism would be that perhaps she had too little left for Act 2 -- did a previous comment say that she was more comfortable as Odette than as Odile? In any event, this ballet should move to an emotional climax at the end, and I thought Act 2 fell a little flat. But perhaps it was just weariness in the viewer, it's always so hard to say. Switching topics somewhat, Jennie Somogyi also deserves a rave for her variation in the pas de trois. She was also very, very fine last week in Episodes, partnered by Albert Evans. She really must be made a principal dancer.