Michael

Did she ever do Slaughter on 10th Avenue? That was redisigned and rechoreographed so many times that the two shots could be of her in a version that, with The Hoofer.

Deborah what did you think of Morgan and Angle? Strong debuts for both, I thought, a lovely performance. A friend mentioned, and I have to repeat, that extraordinary moment in the grand pas when she leaned up against him, on pointe, in allongee, and both of them just spread their arms, and reversed their epaulement outward to embrace the theater -- how radiant; the lines just extending to the ends of the world, on that magnificent music. Also her petite allegro in both Act I and II was superlative. I'd be interested to see how she does 2d time out this weekend. Among the supporting cast, as you say, Finley was a revelation and also Scheller in the Courage variation. The orchestra was abominable with Karoui leading it. I don't know what's gotten into them, they were great in Midsummer but seem to be deteriorating steadily during this run of Beauty.

In making things come out right, and in restoring order to the realms, Lilac is associated with the theme of Apollonian Reason in this ballet, countering Carabosse and whatever she represents. And in that she's helps bring about the Sun King apotheosis at the end of the ballet I think she's thematically right there. The association of reason and Christian Charity is also in in tune with that strand of renewed thematic classicism sometimes called the Romanticism of the 1840s (to distinguish it from the Victor Hugo era ten years earlier) that one sees in late George Sand, via Saint Simon -- though the application of the Sun King-Apollonian reason motif in the political context of the absolutism of the Court of the Tsars in the late 19th century Russia, at the time of the revival of the ballet there, would certainly have shocked Sand, St. Simon and anyone else to their way of thinking in France circa 1850. Re virtuosity being a built in thrill in the Black Swan and here -- you are right -- they are not out of place if done effortlessly and if they don't become the focus of the show. But no one will accuse Peck of lack of virtuosity: she has it to burn and had it last night. And no one will accuse contemporary ballet of being anything but obsessed with athletic virtuosity. We err on the side of excess these days; a performance by a virtuosic dancer that tones it down is only too welcome chez moi.

It's true that she didn't hold the balances for a long time - though long enough and they seemed secure -- But their subordination to the whole was in fact what I liked! Each balance was about the same length - not true of other casts. And no-where did you get the sense that the pas was about the balances. Dramatically the entire sequence accompanied the drum roll as it should in intensity; suspense and interest built. But the way she danced that pas was about the overall conception of the ballet and the action and not about balancing per se. She was modest. How refreshing. Certainly she will grow more free as she dances this further - but maybe she won't in fact have that same ingenuous and radiant quality she had last night; who can say? She held the stage that's for sure, held it in the palm of her hand. As I watched I was not thinking about the steps at all. And again how refreshing, what a bloody relief. The rest of the cast seemed more focused and energized last night than I had seen them, and maybe some of the credit is also due to Mr. Sill in the pit and his tempi. There were still some sour notes in the horns; and still some marked passages of lack of coordination between the pit and the stage, as if the orchestra and dancers were on two parallel but out of contact courses; but the overall sonority of the orchestra had improved. I loved Troy Schumacher leading the jesters - as a friend remarked: it's nice that when he did this at the Dancers Choice someone watched. I thought Huxley and Pereira were beautifully matched - Bluebird and not a Blue Pigeon. Abbi Stafford is dancing the hell out of the Ruby variation. MP

I completely disagree about Taylor - I thought it her as good a Lilac as I can remember - radiating goodness and benevolent power -- a kind of anlogue of the Sun King: compassionate reason and power incarnate; Benevolence and Charity incarnate -- The grace and eloquence of her mime, it's economy and those porte de bras throughout were just beautiful. Tiler Peck was marvlous and chiefly for reasons also beyond technique (which she has plenty of too) - just the grace and drama of her performance -- her Beauty on stage and that of her dancing. Highest praise, because it's almost irreducible. In general lthe cast was superlative - the best single performance of this ballet I remember in several revivals, probably since back whien Jenny Ringer danced the lead maybe five or seven years ago. And re Peck's balances -- though I hate the fact that, in so analyzing and discussing it, one is emphasizing exactly those kind of considerations that distract from the aesthetics of the dance as a whole -- I note that Peck is the only Aurora, including Bouder, who struck a really high attitude rear (working leg well above the waist with the knee raised) and that she held that high position for each and every balance -- Everyone else has been holding their working leg about halfway to the floor and letting it drop lower with each succeeding balance. Peck did not cheat or compromise on that and didn't overemphasize it either. And the way she danced it, the balances were incidental, they were not (Thank God!) the central purpose and meaning of that adagio; you did not last night (as with the others) have to carry on a distracting little mental dialogue as you watched, e.g., "Oh, there she bobbled . . . Oh that one was not as long as the first one . . . " etc.. In fact Peck's entire performance was one where everything was properly subordinated to the whole. She is by type and nature a perfect Aurora for this production - which cannot be said of any of the others.

It seems to me that, with expanding the orchestra pit and moving it forward, there may also be a problem with the dancers at times being able to hear the orchestra distinctly on the stage - particularly when they are far up-stage. This is just a supposition based upon what I am seeing. Dancers are beginning variations markedly before the orchestra: the conductor seeming to take his cue from the dancers, and not the other way around. Now perhaps he's cueing them with his baton - but there are repeated out-of-sync moments, right at the beginning of passages. This is besides the lack of sonority that PappeePatrick remarks on. MP

If there's one criticism I would make of all the ballerinas who are dancing the title role, it's to stop acting particularly with their facial expressions. Or at the very least to tone them way, way down. If you look a the old Fonteyn film, she stays relatively neutral or at least relatively even - always dignified and tasteful. There are a few basic expressions; a few expressive moments; and the transitions between them are not long-distance (phsyiognomically speaking - if that's a word). The progress of Aurora from Princess/Ingenue to Crowned Queen is built into the steps; it's in the choreography and should be danced, not "expressed" so much in the face and in little Junior High school flirtatious mannerisms in Act I. "Oh Mom and Dad aren't I so happy. They're like so cute!"). We don't need to see City Ballet's ballerinas channeling Julie Kent, Aurora as the prettiest girl at the Senior Prom. Fonteyn's Rose Adagio is immortal. But in the 50 to 60 years since then, this pas d'action has often degenerated to vulgar shtick; without the most toned down handling, it can look like a cheap ice skating stunt. Everyone's best scene this week has been The Vision: both because they keep it simple -- although maybe even here they are all a bit too mournful in their expressions and make too much eye contact with the Prince (some would argue that any eye contact at all here is inappropriate), but also because Peter's blocking for this act is the best of everything in this production. I wonder whether or why people think -- apart from the thrill of seeing favorite dancers tackle this iconic role -- this company should be doing this? Surely the ballet world had enough Sleeping Beauties without seeing one by a company which doesn't do things like this very well in the first place.

It's important for the company to be able to provide performance slots to the graduating dancers from SAB. If you can't give them jobs, there's no reason for top prospects to go to the school: you won't attract them. The company will wither eventually if you can't provide those positions. In order to keep everyone who apparently wanted to stay, and also to provide apprenticeships this year, the company would actually have needed to grow.

The pas in Nutcracker is an odd one to judge a dancer on. It's very "posey"and formal; proceeds from pose to pose without a lot of developing kinetic tension in between. The hardest thing in it is that moment when the ballerina dives into a turning arabesque on point without support, and the partner rushes in late to catch her by the wrists -- everyone I've seen in the company has been very very very cautious with that this season - cautious to the point where you don't really recognize the step. I suppose Balanchine, in making that pas so stiff and formal, was reproducing the pas he remembered from the Imperial Theater of his training -- but for something to judge adagio dancing by, it's not a very useful standard of comparison in a repertory that includes everything from Diamonds, to Agon, to Barocco, Scotch Symphony, etc...

But the film is so damn long that it will be great to get it someday on DVD so that you can get up and sit down, and start and stop it at leisure. Personally I couldn't sit all the way through it but went twice and saw it in halves. Maybe we could have done without the shots of the cafeteria meals, etc.. MP

You're right, few even repeat performances right now for dancers who went into roles last season. Hopefully that will change around xmas week when we usually start to get 2 x performances a day several days, not only Sat. and Sun.. Come to think of it, the practice of Nutcracker Family Benefit debuts was probably connected with the Janet Levin Dancer Designee (award) they were giving each season, it may have originated with that, when a promising dancer (male and female?) in the corps got an asterisk by the name in the program, sort of being anointed as a possible soloist (I can remember Morgan, T. Peck, Abi Stafford, Sterling Hyltin, T. Angle and others getting this) but we don't see that in the program right now either. MP

Interesting that, for the family benefit performance this Saturday (Hyltin, Garcia, Scheller) the Co. has abandoned the practice of giving rising dancers debut performances as Sugarplum, Cavalier and Dewdrop. They've been using the benefit that way since I can't remember when (last year it was Pereira and Morgan, if I remember right) - a big change here in company practice during Nutcracker season.

I found the new auditorium dismaying. The glamour is gone, the place looks and feels like a fancy movie theater. The loss of the two front rows and the concomitant enlargement of the orchestra pit throw Philip Johnson's design proportions off completely; the semi-circle of the audience is broken and with the absence of carpeting the impression of red and gold and of an urgent audience is altered. I disagree with P. Martins speech, that opera and ballet begin with music: not true visually. Both art forms begin with the stage. It's a fundamental mistake to make one so aware of the damn orchestra. (And now will NYCB actually get one that plays to such a level: this isn't going to be the Kirov in the pit). My impression of the renovation is that NYC Opera has finally succeeded in dragging NYCB down to its level, that of a regional company. The house no longer makes the impression of a world class venue: like I said, a movie theater instead. A great regional hall, now nothing more. This could have been Cleveland or Seattle. The costume jewelry 1960's magnificence of the original Kirstein/Johnson conception has been lost.

It's interesting that Lopukhov, an advocate of pure dance, here advocates a kind of criticism based upon the fundamentals of pure dancing as understood by the professionals. But what of the theatrical viability of a production? I would argue that, for example, in assessing the merits of a performance of Giselle (on the one hand, or even The Four Temperaments for that matter) it matters at least as much that the performances forcefully convey the character and meaning of the work as that it is danced "in proper fifth positions" or some such criterion. And here it's not the dancing master whose opinion is privileged so much as the people of the theater. Ideally you want a foundation in both. Of course Lopukhov is to be understood in his context of arguing for pure dance in an age when its artistic gravity had to be established - his statement goes to that above all, it comes from that direction. But in my experience, professional dancers or former dancers do not necessarily make good critics. They tend, in fact, to make poor ones, being too interested in whether the position is correct, they have a tendency not to see the forest for the trees.

Jane, have you been able to learn what the Danish critics are saying about it? Not speaking Danish, I'd love to know what Eric Aschengreen and the others are actually saying on that broadcast. MP

I will have to go back and re-read some - but my impression of Levi-Strauss is that above all, he treated so-called Primitive Societies as having the same weight and intellectual mass as so-called mature civilizations for purposes of comparison, as not in fact belonging to a kind of patronized sub-group designated as primitive in comparison to us, the colonial superiors who belonged to another class of society. Not sure if this is implicit or explicit in his work: but in addition to the poetry and intellectual insights as to structure and institutions and whatall -- what a contribution to the field. The basic viewpoint that the so-called West, and China, and India represent mature civilizations only to be compared with each other: while tribal societies form another class entirely: that the former are the subject for history and sociology while the latter is the subject of anthropology -- is indefensible. But still alas common if not dominant in the structure of academic and popular discourse.

I wasn't judging her on the quality of that performance - in fact she danced well. It's on her suitability for the role, given her physical type - i.e., I think she's basically demi-caractere and Medora, in my view, calls for a more Princess-type of dancer. I base this on her features -- little turned up nose and pixy expression, and her basic dance features - middle height, big jump. She's more of a Giselle than a Medora. Disagree please, it's just my opinion - but at least understand what I say. MP

I didn't think she was particularly well adapted to the role of Medora in Corsaire when the Bolshoi brought it to DC last June -- though they in general brought such a B Team company with them in the corps and soloists that it would be hard to judge definitively. She would have been more of a natural Gulnare. I think her quite musical, in the sense of responding to rhythm and dancing to rhythms spontaneously; but her emploi is demi-caractere, I consider, which she is however capable of breaking out of very interestingly. She has pixie-like features, a big jump, the village girl in Giselle was natural to her, as is Kitri. Interestingly, her placement is almost American-Balanchine-neoclassical: her shoulders and arms (a little scrawny by the way) are held very athletically and naturally, girl in the Gym in manner, even slightly turned in at times - certainly not pulled down, with the chest up in a big Russian ballerina manner. But she breaks out of this basically neutral placement in extraordinarily spacious and free flowing movement. She has wonderful balance, is totally centered, turns beautifully as well as possessing great elevation, but above all has complete integrity as an artist. I am impressed that whatever she does on stage, she is totally committed to it dramatically. Her Sylph was lovely and very thought out, it seemed to me that in her facial expressions and gestures she had carefully studied the Lis Jeppesen interpretation. Medora was a role made on Zacharova, I believe? Not the same emploi as Osipova.

Two very good ones are: Fracci and Bruhn (Berlin Opera) on Deusche Grammophon (on the one hand) and Nureyev and Seymour (Bavarian State Opera) on Kultur. Particularly, and not what you might think at first glance, look at Lynn Seymour's portrayal of the heroine as a star struck, simple, naive and totally in love village maiden. The modern trend has been to emphasize the dance qualities in Giselle (as in multiple high soubresauts, etc., etc.) but Seymour is the gold standard in characterization.

The revival at NYCB a few years back had little sense of menace. It looked uncomfortably like "The Mickey Mouse Club" at times. The first part of the new film, shown at a NYCB gala - the bi-racial pas de deux - appeared rather trite to say the least: breathy shots from a camera on a boom of Rachel Rutherford and Craig Hall embracing and gazing deeply into each other's eyes on the High Line. I had to believe Robbins intended something much more immediate and visceral.

A friend who knew Robbins well had a funny thing to say, after watching the first, breathy excerpt shown at the Gala a couple of years back: My comment: "Robbins would be rolling over in his grave if he saw this." Friend: "Jerry Rolling over? No. He'd be coming back!"

Your reaction to On the Dnieper is thoughtful and specific and your description of the movement is so very accurate - This is just a difference of opinion but I had just the opposite response to the designs and the use of the social groups vis-a-vis the principals - in this ballet I just loved it. The moving fences and the arrangements of the blossoming spring trees, first in a kind of crepuscular light and finally in the moonlight, evoked for me successively a village, the homes within it, an alley, finally the edge of town and the fields beyond (when the fences cut the stage on a diagonal, from front right to rear on the bias). The differing heights of the fences gave me a sense of architecture. The colors of the blossoms seemed real to me, apples and peaches, in the moonlight scenes. I was sitting quite far back in the orchestra - Row X. I felt I'd never seen the sometimes awkwardly deep and big dramatic space on the Met stage used more originally and dynamically. Think of the frame and compression, and yet the breadth of space it provided, for that brilliant running, tapping, fast dance variation of Hallberg's towards the end. My thought about the groups being present is that thematically, the ballet's theme is just the exploration of the tense relationship between individual happiness and desire and the imperatives, habits, sometimes sympathies of the social group as a whole and the families within it. The group is, as you say, always present in this ballet, looking on and taking part by turns. The grief, despair, tragedy and happiness of each unit, individuals and couples, creates a problem for the others: parents, villagers, spurned lovers and the village at large - this is the stuff of the ballet, in a specific way that Ratmansky's Russian Seasons could only hint at at NYCB. Maybe this is a particularly traditional Russian theme? Think of Les Noces of which there may be echoes here in the betrothal ceremony scene. And in Russian history, one thing in the 20th century (among others) is the pointed (political, philosophical and historical) confrontation between the claims of society and those of the individual. I particularly liked, in the blocking, the way that a group of dancers, sometimes the parents, sometimes the principals, often turned their backs to the audience in a row at the front of the stage and focused their attention on the action upstage beyond them - and you in the audience would watch this through their screen; this emphasized the fact that we were looking on at an event that concerned them, a little closed world -- Not the usual grin at the audience and flick the wrist fest at ABT to be sure. In my view this ballet must be seen and I'll go back to see it again as much as I can. MP

An even more depressing thing is seeing the "mediocre" presented as The Classic or, in this case, a Comic Book version of a classical work treated by those in cultural power with the gravity with which they would treate a great work; to see the Classic Comic discussed with hushed voiced respect and palmy accents. An even more extreme argument is that the Comic Book is today's equivalent of the Classic or of High Art - the Roy Lichtenstein, and to some degree the Andy Warhold and Robert Rauschenberg argument - though Rauschenberg and Warhol went in for pastiche and irony. Pop culture has become High Culture. I don't think, though, that Martins consciously tried to make the Classic Comic Book version of R + J (though that's what he did). He's just got no taste. MP

"[A] lively and bright evening of dances," beautifully composed, should be a beautiful thing. I am biased, of course, having conducted the interview, but I think it's an ideal project in the range of things he can do. I think for instance of the Prokofiev piece he staged for City Center. Ballets built upon a series of thematically linked entrances have been a distinct and powerful arm of the repertory historically from the beginning. Divertisements also could be called "lively and bright [series] of dances." I look forward to seeing what he does with it. Carnaval of the Animals was one of his more successful pieces here; I wish they'd revive it. Taking that bit of dialogue about "this not being Manon" from his interview out of its context distorts the meaning a little: I think we should probably be pleased he's not doing the equivalent of Manon 2. The point about the new project not being "plot or character driven" (paraphrase) is, in the context of the interview, a segue to further discussion of how he feels about narrative ballets and in particular to details about The Nightingale and the Rose. MP

Re what Hubbe has been schooled to see in NY: It's often been the practice at City Ballet in recent years for the two demi-soloists, or side women, in the 1st movement to be taller than the principal ballerina. Teresa Reichlen for example, or Dana Hansen, often had these demi roles. Just what the types are for Bizet is problematic. Casting the First Movement is the key to the ballet - It falls flat without Ballerina Presence and Authority in the opening section -- She's the "Hostess with the Mostess" -- but you can't categorize this role according to classical emploi. City Ballet apparently can't cast 1st movement right now, it's been non-authoritative since Jennie Somogyi's injury several years ago, nor was she quite ideal for the part.