Ray

I love a good April Fool's. Well done (he said, hoping against hope that this isn't true...)!

And in fairness, they also have to take into account the kind of company that they actually are. ABT tours regularly, and its productions have to accommodate that fact. For instance, there are about a bazillion kids in the Garland Dance from NYCB's "Beauty" but only two in ABT's, where they look kind of lonely, frankly. I assume that that difference is at least partly driven by the reality of taking a show on the road: you can find and rehearse two stage-worthy local students wherever you go, but a dozen or more might be a tall order. NYCB, however, has a school full of kids it both wants and needs to get on stage. (Yes, ABT has a school now too -- and it will be interesting to see how that shapes future productions.) Whether one likes it or not, ABT's story ballets are also vehicles to get international stars in front of an American public. They have to be constructed in a way that allows guest principals to bungee in for a performance or two with maximum efficiency. Could it put on the kind of "Let's spend a year going back to the original notation!" Giselle that PNB recently did? Well, symphonies and opera companies also have to act as these kinds of "efficient" venues for stars, but the ensembles/productions in which they appear are usually (yes, with some glaring excpetions in opera) excellent. They've managed to make it work. And wouldn't it be great if ABT did take a year or two to do something so thoughtful and interesting? (Even Cirque du Soleil does that.) It's just sad to see, again and again, both contemporary and classical productions in big, mainstream ballet companies that are so often artistically impoverished: champagne budgets with beer tastes.

Candycane is Balanchine's version of Russian (aka Trepack). Others might be able to speak to the provenance of that name (i.e., was it something the Mariinsky did during B's lifetime, etc.).

From long overexposure, I have a real, visceral aversion to Russian (Candycane), Chinese (Tea), and Arabian (Coffee) in Nutcracker. And Mother Ginger? Don't get me started. And while they're fun to dance, the Mazurka in Swan Lake Act III is always "close your eyes and listen to the music"-worthy

To return to Ballo della Regina, the worst fall I ever saw (probably chronicled in other threads here) was Ricky Weiss in that ballet while performing the brises voles that come near the end of the ballet: he snapped his Achilles and had to crawl off stage (I think of the moment every time I hear that music). Merrill continued, looking freaked out (as did the corps women), but did the steps to their fullest without a partner (something to see!). A hair-rasing performance.

NY Times Arts Beat piece on musicians local 802's plans to protest at Lincoln Center. Dispiriting response from the management of LC: "A spokeswoman, Betsy Vorce, said Lincoln Center had no authority over programs presented by renters of its halls." I know, all venues rent nowadays; it's just disappointing to think of the Joffrey as not being presented by LC, and treated like a college graduation. I always think the venue comes out on top in these situations; the average viewer probably won't make the distinction b/t the venue renting or presenting (the average viewer I bet assumes the latter); they get their money w/limited responsibility/liability (as Vorce's quotation illustrates). NOTE: Please excuse my extreme brain freeze here. This story is about Paul Taylor, not Joffrey!

Alas, while this is only blocks away from where I live, I won't be able to attend. Dance-goers should note that Drexel U has a very active dance program, and the Mandell Theater is a good venue. This is also walking distance from Amtrak 30th Street station, as well as the Bolt and Mega bus stops, for those tempted to attend.

A press release from the Royal Ballet of Flanders hints at a less-than-amicable parting: "Following the board meeting on Monday 23rd January, Ms. Bennetts was offered the artistic leadership of this company for one final season (2012/ 2013) and within the current available budget. Kathryn Bennetts has informed the board of her decision that she will only be available as Artistic Director until the end of her current contract on June 30, 2012." Her tenure at RBF has been marked by controversy; she's mounted new Forsythe works there (which don't always go down well with balletomanes).

That's just pathetic. One wonders if they won't answer--which is bad enough, but typical of the board/artist dynamic--or can't, which is worse.

I know that live music makes a whole lot of difference to a performance. Perhaps it's easy for NYCB audiences to take it for granted b/c it's always there.

I think many composers in the popular genres like Broadway expect their music to be rearranged (I don't know if "covered" is anachronistic for Gershwin or not). I recall a great discussion of this in one of Ned Rohrem's diaries--from what I remember, he reports chiding Stephen Sondheim for not caring more about protecting his orchestrations. Have to dig that up. But yeah, I agree with Helene: I can't really take Stars & Stripes as a piece of music (actually I'm a bit allergic to the pas de deux, too!).

Oh, what an interesting question! My first impulse is to say absolutely yes -- think of the Hershey Kay orchestrations of Gershwin and traditional Western folk music that Balanchine used for Who Cares and Western Symphony. And the orchestrated versions of Purcell with Limon's Moors Pavane. Ah, but in the case of Kay, at least the composer is in on the "freezing"--i.e., it's a score commissioned for the dances which accompany them. But the Limon is a great example--those kinds of adaptations are decidedly out of favor in the music world (from my perspective). Certian others, though, are revered as masterpieces in themselves, such as Webern's orchestration of Bach, which Balanchine uses in Episodes, of course.

Multiple responses indeed. I often think, for example, when watching Balanchine's Concerto Barocco, that that's just not the way musicians play Bach anymore--does it pain them to have to recur to older ways of understanding eighteenth-century music? I imagine this is true for many other pieces, baroque and otherwise, Balanchine and others. Does choreography to music freeze a certain interpretation of the music in time? Readers may find this article from the Guardian (UK) interesting: it reports on the growing "renaissance" of classical music. Is the dance world paying attention?

Perhaps; but I'm a bit more sanguine about the "let the mad genius run wild" idea. More than a few "visionary" directors have run their companies into the ground, going through many EDs and other staffers (the searches for which cost the company money) becuase of their inability to play well with others, or to delegate responsibilities to those who have common sense (if they don't), because they have control issues. I'm all for risk-taking in the studio and on stage; I'm against institutional megolamania (and, yes, that can come from EDs and boards too). If nothing else, it wastes resources and energy that could be spent on art. And that does NOT mean devolving to a "business model." P.S. I really, truly am not speaking of Villella, of whom I know little.

Boards are strange entities--some are so timid to confront or even question an AD's decisions or behavior; others toss 'em out w/out any discernible justification. To speak up for institutions--in the abstract at least--someone has to think about succession when ADs do not, especially if they are associated with the founding of the company. Problems like this are sometimes referred to as part of "founder's syndrome" or founderitis, as described below (quoted from this link) >>Disclaimer: I am NOT saying these apply to Villella<<. "Founder's syndrome manifests in numerous ways. The leader who suffers from founderitis Gives short shrift to planning activities, staff meetings, and administrative policies; Is reluctant to relinquish strategies and procedures that worked in the past, although circumstances may dictate new approaches; Neglects to institute new systems, even though the board has formally requested them; Seeks and accepts little input from others in making decisions; Sees all challenges as hostile and drives away staff and board members perceived as disloyal; and Refuses to delegate authority." Many of these describe most of the people I've worked for! Seriously, though, I think it's worth thinking about the problems on all sides (as Sandik and Jayne are).

This might be from Don Q (someone correct me if I'm wrong [Esmeralda--THANKS, Mme. Hermine!] )--some unusual fouettes from Jennifer Gelfand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okuzv1lIFSA&feature=share

I just saw that this is screening at Sundance: The Queen of Versailles. No clip available, that I can find, but sounds interesting.

Wow--I don't think I've ever seen that; maybe the lead in Ballo Della Regina does a few?

This is totally subjective, of course; a glance at past winners sobered me up fast (Crash? Driving Miss Daisy? yes, they were winners too!); and I was reminded that most films that win are primarily about men. So my sense of "Best Picture" is probably based more my own personal myth than reality. That said, I guess I just expect a Best Picture to have bigger ambitions, somehow; to show us something new or even startling. Hurt Locker (09's winner) comes to mind or Midnight Cowboy ('69); or, if a lighter film, one that captures something significant about the time (Annie Hall in '77). Descendants is sweet, but a bit soft and sentimental for my taste. But I enjoyed it, for sure.

Yes, J. Edgar is flawed on many levels, such as usingPsycho as its template. And Descendants is fine--in fact, what makes it OK is that it lives within its limitations. But that doesn't make it best picture material (whatever that means anymore).

I feel your pain. A list of 10 is bound to have clunkers, but this one is particularly clunky. The Descendants, while fine for what it is, cannot possibly win best picture. And I notice that J. Edgar was completely ignored; I'm sorry, but Leonardo DiCaprio did a far better job than George Clooney.

I'm sure they're not; Swarthmore College (where she teaches) doesn't do that. And she doesn't teach what she lectured on; she's a hard-core classicist. Here's a link to her first book, considered to be very important to the field.

Yes, report to come! What I can say briefly is that I think she felt, as a classicist speaking to an audience of classicists, that she needed to spend a lot of time contextualizing the ballet material. Probably right, but that made it less interesting for me, as of course she was rehearsing very familiar material (but all very solid and sound). More anon. OH--she IS working on a book, tentatively titled Apollo Dancing. Now, THAT is interesting...

I caught part of this on cable recently and although I have the greatest respect for your opinion, Kathleen, I couldn't watch it for very long. I felt sorry for them but it was all rather repellent and I couldn't find any reason to go on watching the poor things. I've sat through more repulsive sights, so I can't really explain this reaction..... Oh, it's definitely uncomfortable to watch those two women disintegrate along with their house, all the while carrying on as if it were a completely reasonable way to live. And although they clearly revel in the Maysles' attention, you have to wonder if it wouldn't be the better part of valor to grant them the privacy they don't seem to want. I agree that it's uncomfortable to watch--somehow more now than even before (I actually can't anymore)--but maybe remembering the historical context helps: what did the Maysles think the documentary needed to do in 1975 that it hadn't done before? This is the same kind of reaction/question I think many of us now have about the work of Diane Arbus, too.

Now THERE'S a ballet story idea! To music by Mahler, of course (because the topic is SO serious)... and we can call the ballet The Correspondent.