felursus

Someone posted a comment on "heart-stopping" balances under the "Auroras you have seen" topic. So just for fun - when do "heart-stopping" balances become vulgar? Do they ever? In 1965 when the RB came to NY with 7 ballerinas performing the role (which everyone got to do twice), they seemed to be engaged in a "miss the prince" competition. The "competition" was won by Antoinette Sibley, who gave her hand to the first prince (end of Rose Adagio), performed the promenade, raised her hand and balanced, and balanced, and balanced right up until time for the allongé into arabesque. This feat quite brought down the house. And, of course, Aurora does have several other opportunities for show-stopping feats of balance. The "reconstruction" even has a built-in moment: in the vision scene where Aurora balances in the sea shell. So are extremely long balances something to be applauded or abhorred?????

Wow! And he lived to dance it another day???

The casting of Arthur Mitchell partnering a white woman was deliberately done by Balanchine - as was his pairing with Diana Adams in "Agon". Balanchine loved the contrast. It was the 50s and so caused quite a stir. It wouldn't cause any raised eyebrows today (except amongst members of the Aryan Nation and their fellow travellers, and thank goodness they don't seem to be too keen on ballet). Talking about being PC - what about those little black "slaves" (children) in the POB "Bayadere"??? Is it ok because they were there in the original (were they???) and if so, is it ok only if the co. uses only black children or are white kids in dark makeup ok??? How many black kids are at the POB school? Do we apply the same standards to European comanies as to American companies???????

I think it depends on what you are talking about when you use the word "star". Is a star someone who is truly unique and because of great talent is making a significant contribution to the world of ballet? Is a star someone who is the principal dancer of a company who gets the most roles? A very talented girl from the corps de ballet whom only the ardent ballet goers - and the co. director - have noticed before may give a radiant performance of Aurora. Does this make her a star? Well, for the afternoon or evening, yes, but not in general. I remember seeing Gelsey when she first joined NYCB. I had been living in London and came to NY on a visit and went to see the NYCB. I can't remember the ballet, but the role Gelsey was doing required her to spend some time standing on the side of the stage. I had no idea who she was, and at that point in the ballet she had yet to dance much, but something about her carriage and her head rang bells in my head. I just KNEW that she would be a star. And of course she did become one. In general, I would say that a star is someone who has shown he/she can carry lots of performances and make them special. This goes hand in hand with the old tradition that one Swan Lake does not a principal dancer make. Principal dancers where promoted when it had been demonstrated that they could carry a number of principal roles in a mature manner. Now it seems like directors' darlings get promoted as soon as there is a vacancy in the ranks - or money in the budget. There are lots of dancers who are given lots of performances and have their photos plastered all over billboards, but does this make them a star? Not to me. Some may have the potential to become stars, some are the apple of the artistic director's eye and some just have good publicists and may have found favor with the press. Some give themselves the air of a star and demand special privileges perhaps with the idea that "star" airs maketh a star. (A famous non-ballet example of this is Kathleen Battle, whose clashes with other singers and opera directors are too numerous to count.) Fonteyn was a star because she was the right person in the right place at the right time. In today's environment she would never get the chance. But for her time she really did shine. And during the Fonteyn/Nureyeve era the houses were packed - at elevated prices (in London, at any rate). Since the passing of/or retirement of Fonteyn, Nureyev, Baryshnikov and Makarova I don't think there are any "stars" for whom a huge number of people would be willing to pay inflated prices. They were each unique in their own way - and the 3 Russians because of the unique political atmosphere in which they operated and the work that they accomplished in the West after their defections from the former Soviet Union. It was the political atmosphere that made them "rare" and the influence that each had on ballet in the West that made them greater than dancers who were merely excellent at what they did. Dancers may be "stars" of their own company or "stars" of ballet in their own nation, but to rate that term they should at least be experienced principal dancers in a company of significance. We get all to many touring companies called "Stars of ......" that is made up mostly of soloist-level or young, inexperienced principal dancers. Once upon a time "Stars of...." programs really DID consist of stars. Those days seem to be gone for ever.

Nureyev initially refused to do the Prince role with the RB because he found it too boring - too much work and not enough dancing (only 1 variation). He did perform the Bluebird, however, with Vivyan Lorraine as his chosen partner. I don't know that he ever did it in London, but he did it twice at the Met in 1965.

Thanks for reminding me of Ann Jenner's Songbird Fairy - she was truly remarkable in the role. Also, Monica Mason as the Golden Vine fairy - those pas de chats on pointe!!!! The words to "Vive Henri Quatre" may be found quoted in Tolstoy's "War and Peace". I can't remember most of it - the second line, however, is "Vive ce roi vaillant". Henri IV was the king who converted to Catholicism to take the crown of France. ("Paris is worth a mass" is the quote attributed to him.)

I can point to one place where the "reconstruction", as opposed to the "old" Kirov production, concurs with the RB one: in the Grand pdd there is a point where, in the RB/Reconstruction the prince lifts Aurora and carries her across the stage while she does a developpe en avant croise, this is repeated two more times and then is followed by a supported pirouette. The whole thing is then repeated once more. In the old Kirov production there was an entirely different step.

Well, if we are to be completely color-blind and cast a Black dancer in our hypothetical Jean Harlow or Marily Monroe ballet, what about the opposite: casting a white dancer as the lead in a ballet about (say) African slaves? We have already had an analogous fuss: remember when Jonathan Pryce came to the US to reprise his role as an Asian in "Miss Saigon"? The Asian actors assn. in the US made a hue and cry about it - and this over the usual hue and cry about allowing in a Brit to play a lead on Broadway. Somehow I suspect that if a choreographer decided to do a ballet on an African or Black-oriented theme and chose a white dancer in a lead part (except as, eg. a white slave-owner) there would be lots of outraged letters to the company and the local newspaper. On the subject of makeup - I remember when Grace Bumbry first sang the role of Amneris, daughter of the Egyptian Pharoh with Leontyne Price as Aida (a princess of Ethiopia). Theoretically, at least, an Ethiopian would have darker skin than an Egyptian, however in "real life" Bumbry's skin is darker than Price's. And yes, there was actually an article written at the time over whether Price would make up darker or Bumbry lighter - or both.

Well, one need harken back no further than Macmillan's "Romeo and Juliet". It was created for Seymour and Gable, but the premiere was done by Fonteyn and Nureyev - because of various political and financial pressures. I saw both casts (as well as others). In fact at an exhibit entitled "25 Years of Opera and Ballet at Covent Garden" held at the V&A c. 1970, they showed films of 3 couples performing the balcony pas-de-deux: Fonteyn/Nureyev, Sibley/Dowell and Seymour/Gable so one could compare/contrast interpretations.

The Ashton/Wright production of the late '60s had the Lilac Fairy, accompanied by other fairy "friends", return to "bless" the wedding. I can't remember all the names now - except there was one called "the Rainbow Fairy." It was originally danced by Georgina Parkinson. It makes sense for the fairies to return - after all, they were there to bless the baby Aurora, and the Lilac Fairy saved the day. It's always too bad when she doesn't get to do more than bouree or walk around and wave her arms a bit at the end.

My all-time favorite was Alexander Grant - he was all wounded ego and spitting anger. I loved the monkey attendants in the Messel production, too. I really don't care if the role is done by a man or a woman - as long as it isn't campy. Of the women whom I have seen in the role I liked Monica Mason the best - although Seymour also made a good job of it.

Another hard question, Alexandra! The first year I saw the Royal Ballet, I saw Fonteyn and Beriosova. The NEXT tour, in 1963, - THE production - they had 7 ballerinas performing the role: Fonteyn, Beriosova, Nerina, Sibley, Park, Page and Linden. I adored Beriosova - her Aurora was girlish, totally thrilled to be at a "grownup" party (Act I), a beautifully-danced and remote "vision" (Act II), and a woman in love (Act III). The ONLY Aurora who ever came close was Kolpakova. Since then, I've seen everyone who ever did the role up to 1982 - and then whoever did it in NYC on tour. I guess I saw all the "old" Kirov ballerinas perform the role: Kolpakova, Kurgapkina, Sizova, Komleva, etc. I know someone here is going to say - "well, in that case you MUST have seen ..., and no doubt I did. I saw Vishneva do the "revival" production. My problem is that however beautifully she danced, it didn't quite fit in with the spirit of a revival - nor with the costumes (excessively high extensions causing the costume to flop over her head). I've seen Makarova in several productions with different companies - she was charming but very mannered.

Oh, gosh - I've seen so many I keep getting them confused. Let's see: THE Royal Ballet production - and YES, it was lovely, then the Ashton version of the late 60s with the knee-length tutus for which he added a solo for Florimund in Act II and an "awakening pas de deux"; then the dreadful Dowell production and then the current one; The Nureyev production for the Canadians - which I loathed; the "old" Kirov production and the revival production; the NYCB production; the ABT Messel "revival" and the MacMillan one. Festival Ballet had a production I saw, too, but I can't remember whose it was. I'm sure there are more, but it's late and I can't remember who/where/when. I must have seen many more on tape.

Then I guess Julio Bocca does - have a ball bearing in his foot.

Interestingly, choreographers have tried to control who can dance what and when in their lifetime and reaching into post death. The Balanchine Trust is an obvious example. Another is Jerry Robbins. I was told that when the Royal Ballet were "given" "Dances At A Gathering" a largish number of people were taught the various roles, and more were taught roles as time went on, but Robbins had stipulated that a certain number of the group that had been taught by him had to be in any one cast for the ballet to go on. Eventually, all those dancers got older and retired, so the ballet can no longer be performed by the RB. Does Robbins have a Trust for the staging of his works?

The Nureyev production that the Royal Ballet used to do (and I think Paris Opera still does do) was loaded with bits ripe for a Freudian interpretation. For a start, the mice (or rats) pull off Clara's skirt when they are chasing her around the room. This was, in ballet costume terms, a means to have her change from the dress she wears to the children's party to a filmier underskirt. In practice, the inevitable DID occur, and some mouse (or rat) pulled too hard on the wrong bits, and nearly EVERYTHING came off! When Fritz "breaks" the Nutcracker there's quite a bit of "violence" And then there's the bit where the Nutcracker-turned-soldier turns into the Prince (picture Wayne Sleep becoming Rudolf Nureyev or Anthony Dowell). So the "toy" becomes the grownup prince. But at this stage the child Clara is still just that. Then still further on there is a bit where Clara is confronted with members of her family - including Grandmama and Grandpapa - in a nightmarish sequence before she can "grow up" and become the Sugar Plum Fairy. Oh, and since I haven't seen the production for years I nearly forgot: of course the most Freudian thing of all is that Drosselmeyer becomes the prince. It's such a popular ballet because of the Christmas theme and because of the fact that it uses a lot of chilren and can easily lend itself to being done by a small company that can use students from the local ballet school/company-associated school in many different types of roles. It also lends itself to being choreographed in a way that can accomodate dancers at different levels.

I second Mel. I well remember the toss but am not sure when it disappeared.

I usually try to see certain people in certain roles. There are certain dancers I try to avoid. Sometimes it is impossible. Last season I bought several ABT tickets hoping to see certain dancers, and each time I got Julie Kent instead. I am NOT one of her admirers and usually try to avoid her performances whenever possible. I have a limited budget and so want to see those dancers who I feel will perform the role the best. Sometimes, esp. with NYCB, one gets to see a new face unexpectedly performing a role. Sometimes that can be an eye opener.

I also note that Stretton is only casting principals in principal and even soloist roles, and that the soloists are not being given a chance to do very much. Now this may only hold true for this year, a year in which Stretton is getting to know the company and the strengths and weaknesses of its various dancers, but I think if I were a RB dancer I'd be very nervous.

Several of the regular posters on this list, myself included, worked on the production as volunteers. It was wonderful to meet Leigh and Jeff Salzburg in real space, as opposed to cyberspace. Having served as an ASM for the production it would not be appropriate for me to write a critique, however I would like to respond to some of Jennifer Dunnings comments. As all the regulars on this list must be aware, the production was originally slated to be at the theater at Pace Univ., but the original performance dates had to be cancelled due to the acts of terrorism on Sept. 11th, as Pace is only a few blocks from the WTC and was without electricity or public access for some time after that. Pace, of course, has a proper theater that is used by a number of groups. The Arc Light is a wonderful but very small theater in what was once the chapel of the Church of the Blessed Sacrament on W. 71st St. The stage is correspondingly small, and there are no wings to speak of. (In fact, although I stood off the stage and as far back as I could, I would have been clearly visible to anyone in the audience sitting on the opposite side of the theater.) The dancers had to take great care not to trip over the braces holding up the flats. This made several exits particulary perilous. As the stage was so small, it required a lot of extra rehearsing for the dancers to get their spacing right, and I certainly think that the choreography sometimes suffered from having to be performed in such a confined space. Jeff Salzburg created miracles with his lighting. David Quinn's costumes were exquisite, and Matthew Mohr was the creator of the two inventive set pieces - one for Scherzo Fantastique and one for Midare. Masayo Ishigure was the koto player for Midare. It was a privilege to have worked with Leigh, Jeff, Matthew and all the dancers. Peter Boal was a pure pleasure. As many of you on this list are aware, I once suffered from having to work with Nureyev. It is one of the greatest compliments I can bestow to say that Peter is no...! I shall look forward to next year.

Part of the thinking of the Board in appointing Ross Stretton to be the AD of the RB was that he would make radical changes. That is the right of the AD. If you want to blame someone or some Body for what is to come, then don't blame Stretton - he probably made his personal ideas clear to the Board during the interview process as well as by his track record in Australia. Having said that, there was a lot of grumbling when MacMillan took over the RB. He was accused of having "deserted the ship" by going to Germany in the 60s. Then he brought back to the RB ballerinas such as Lynn Seymour. The fans of Merle Park and Antoinette Sibley were up in arms at the time because of the perception that Sibley and Park were losing roles to Seymour. I think this kind of unrest happens every time there is a change of direction in a company. Fans are very fond of certain traditions and hate change. They feel that somehow they should have been consulted because of their loyalty to the company. Alas, it doesn't work like that. The only way fans can make their feelings known is to vote with their pocketbooks and stay away if they are not happy. They can also try to influence the corporations who support the company. There's nothing like money to make a point.

No, I dont. The closest thing was second generation in companies in the same country: Annette Page and Ronald Hynde have a daughter Louise Hynd who danced in Festival Ballet (Now the ENB). Karen

I, too, listened to the Scottish Parliament webcast. First of all, what the British mean by a switch from "classical" to "contemporary" is what Ballet Rambert did some thirty-odd years ago now. Something similar has been done with a number of European companies. Robert North was trained in the classical idiom before becoming a 'contemporary-style' dancer. One of the points he made was that classically-trained dancers can learn to move in other styles, but dancers trained purely in the contemporary idiom cannot perform ballet. Another point he made - although he was extremely careful not to impute such a plot to the Scottish Ballet Board - was that several German ballet companies were 'converted' to contemporary-style companies and then failed and were completely disbanded. This then left more funds for the opera companies operating in the same theater. He did, however, let on that there are some ballet board members who are also connected with Scottish Opera. The battle for funding is definitely hotting up. One of the reasons - indeed perhaps the main reason that was given for the change - by an official of the Scottish Ballet Board - was that the Scottish Ballet had been rejected a number of times by the Edinburgh Festival. The reason given (at least as explained by the SB board member) was that Scottish Ballet did not 'meet the standards' of the Edinburgh Festival. Does anybody from Britain have any comments on this? I haven't seen Scottish Ballet in over 20 years, and so I can have no insight into this issue at all. Robert North also made some valid economic points: yes, it is more expensive to put on productions of ballets such as "Sleeping Beauty" et al, but they do draw a good-sized audience. When the company put on triple bills - contemporary ballets in the classical idiom - they sold far, far fewer tickets. He pointed out that the savings in production costs would be wiped out by the loss of ticket sales. North also pointed out that there were a number of established contemporary dance groups in Scotland, and that a change in format for Scottish Ballet would mean a) that there would no longer be any classical ballet company in Scotland; B) there would be no "national" company in which a student at the SBS could aspire to dance; c) it would increase the competition amongst contemporary companies and possibly lead to one or two having to close down. The board member took the tack that although the change in format would mean that the general public would need to be "educated" in the contemporary idiom, they would come to appreciate the high standards they (the board) intended to set, and the audience would grow. Having said all that, there is quite a movement in Britain in general, against "elitist" art. The infamous GLC arts grants under "Red Ken" back in the 70s went almost exclusively to contemporary companies of all kinds. Underground art was almost main stream. (Hard to imagine.) Art was considered to be "better" if it originated out of some enormous angst engendered by the common experiences of some particular group of people - as long as they hadn't come from the court of Louis XIV! I see they are at it again.

I'm amused by the series of "how many ballerinas to change a light bulb" jokes. Actually, the answer is "none", because if one ever did try to change a light bulb she'd be fired, or at least severely reprimanded, for nearly causing a strike by the stagehands responsible for electrics. I know this to be true because a stagemanager friend nearly did cause a strike by plugging together the male and female ends of two cables that provided the power for the tape deck that played the pre=recorded music for one ballet - all so as not to have to disturb the stagehands who had already repaired to the local pub.

It wasn't just the Kirov who had a "happy ending" version - the Bolshoi did too. I remember finding it hysterically funny when first I saw it. It completely spoiled the emotion of Act IV. Rothbart seems to have been a weak sort whose magic deserts him when it counts. He doesn't just get a case of a badly dislocated wing, he loses it in the manner of a wing being torn off a roast chicken. (ouch!) Having lost the wing, he dies in agony, and the swans turn back into humans. Nice, Soviet ideological ending. :eek: