felursus

I THINK it was choreographed to show that American dancers could do glitzy movements as well as the Russians. There is even a "catch" in it (only the last time I saw it done somehow this moment is glossed over). My most singular memory of it was sitting in the orchestra of the City Center right next to a friend who babysat for Melissa Hayden's (then) young son. He piped up in a very loud voice: "That's my mother up there in pink, and that's Jacques in blue," just as though the only way you could tell them apart was by the color of their costumes. There were not a few guffaws in the audience.

Unfortunately, I think that a lot of what companies put on depends on either where the money is coming from (i.e. did someone/some organization give money to the company just to put on a particular ballet or a ballet by a particular choreographer, etc.?) vs. what will sell tickets in that particular locale. Now if a company has a good sponsor who will pay for a new, modern piece and if the people making up the program are smart, they can have their cake and eat it by scheduling the new piece with something that is bound to be wildly popular. If they are even better endowed, they can afford to put on a whole program of new, untried works - especially of the work is "cheap" to put on (i.e. no scenery and simple costumes and music that is out of copywrite and doesn't call for extra musicians or unusual instruments). One of the problems with companies that depend heavily on ticket sales to meet their budget is that the need for popular draw is going to limit what they can afford to put on, and a strict catering to local taste limits the company from fulfilling its need to educate the public. Ergo, lots of companies live for the year on the profits of their production of "The Nutcracker". Other classical, full-length ballets are also likely draws, and the costs can (and ususally are) kept down by renting or sharing productions. On the other hand, a public fed only a steady diet of "Nutcrackers", "Beautys" and "Swan Lakes" isn't being given the opportunity to broaden its taste and find out what more contemporary choreography can do. Unless people are exposed to contemporary works, they can't learn to appreciate them, and the dancers don't get the opportunity to stretch their wings. :eek:

Wednesday evening's performance marked the last performance in a full-length ballet as a regular member of ABT by Amanda McKerrow. (Yes, Alexandra, this was confirmed to me in person by Amanda and by her husband, John Gardner. McKerrow is still negotiating with ABT about possible guest appearances.) While Amanda still has one more performance with ABT (at the Sat. Matinee), the audience marked the occasion with rapturous applause after the Act II pdd and after the Black Swan. There was a flower throw of colorful carnations. (For those of you who have never been to the Met, getting flowers over the very large orchestra pit is a feat in itself.) The company members could be seen hanging out backstage and applauding when the tabs (curtains) were paged to allow the soloists to come in front of it for their bows. Whoever did the scheduling was kind enough to schedule John Gardner as the Creature-from-the-Blue-Lagoon-Rothbart, so that he could take part in his wife's last full-length performance (it was also HIS last performance with ABT). Noticed in the audience were Cheryl Yeager, Sir Anthony Dowell and Anna-Marie Holmes. As it was an "occasion", I won't rehash here my feelings about the production or write a critique of the dancers - except to say that McKerrow danced beautifully. The rest of the cast were Ethan Stiefel, partnering McKerrow, Marcelo Gomes (replacing an injured Maxim Belotserkovsky - pulled achilles tendon) as the "human-form" Rothbart, and Anna Liceica, Anne Milewski and Joaquin de Luz (dancing on an injury), in the pas de trois. Stiefel presented McKerrow well and was the complete gentleman during the curtain calls. McKerrow is NOT retiring. She and her husband have strong connections with Washington Ballet and plan to guest elsewhere - after a vacation.

I think it was clear from the statements he made to the press that Babcock did NOT respect the goals/priorities that Anna-Marie Holmes, the recently departed BB AD, had set. He made it clear that HE was the boss and that he was going to set things up the way he wanted. Interesting that things seem to have collapsed on him with the sudden departure of Gielgud, (I would have LOVED to have been a fly on the wall during their meetings), and the non-rehiring of some of the best dancers in the BB, (one wonders who really wanted them gone - it may have been Gielgud who didn't want to retain them, but it certainly was Babcock who was delighted to see them gone - otherwise at least some of them would have been retained as was the case of the "on the fence" people). One is almost afraid to look at a Boston newspaper in case a new disaster breaks out.

Alexandra, I think the question you ask about who is in charge of a ballet company: the CEO or the AD is timely. I note that in the cases of ABT and NYCB the CEOs manage the money and the ADs manage the artistic sides of things. Obviously there has to be a good working relationship between the two for things to work smoothly: eg. the AD has to have a clear idea of what monies are available for what types of projects. But the CEO should keep his/her nose out of what technique is taught at the ballet school, the national origin of the dancers in the company (barring legal issues, of course), the origin of whatever ballets are chosen by the AD, etc. It is disloyal and beyond the scope of a CEOs area of expertise to make adverse comments about the ADs choices - EVEN if s/he wishes the AD had made different choices AS LONG AS the AD has stuck within the budget and is promoting the company well by bringing in an audience. Jeffrey Babcock, in his interview with Maureen Dezell that was published in the Boston Globe in January, 2000, did many of these things, and he appears to have involved himself in the other issues subsequently. My problem with him is that he not only interfered in the realm of the AD but he does not appear to really have a good, fundamental understanding of and/or appreciation for ballet. I don't think he knows anything about the history of the art form, and I don't think he cares. I think he thought he could just run the BB like a business. As a musician (as he purports to be) he should know better.

I'm going to throw out a question here: what OTHER productions of Swan Lake (aside from the one under discussion and the Royal Ballet's late 60s Carl Toms-designed production - and soon lost from that presumably for reasons of timing) have had a prologue wherein one sees the transformation of Princess Odette into a swan?

I wonder - somewhere in the BU statement they say that they sought Babcock out - not the reverse - so does anyone know if there is anyone on the BB board who is also connected with BU? Babcock's contract with BB was due to expire in the autumn in any case, and from friends connected with another music school I knew he had been looking elsewhere. I would guess that he was "helped" to another position. This brings up a few other points: if you look at his bio he was running the Maryland School for the Arts for just over a year at a time they were expanding and constructing a new building. One wonders at his precipitous departure - and for a BALLET company - something about which he knew little. Then there is also an interesting question of his involvement with the New World Symphony (Miami). If you go to their web site, they do list some of the original founders (besides Michael Tilson Thomas). No where is Babcock mentioned - yet he touts himself as being important to their foundation. Verrrrry interesting..... I wonder if BU really examined his credentials. Babcock certainly has left a disaster behind him at the Boston Ballet. And one other thing: the BB press release implies that Babcock was responsible for saving the satellite school. My "reliable source" in Boston tells me that he had nothing at all to do with getting the money to save the school - au contraire, he was ready to let it close. It was someone else who persuaded a benefactor to make the donation that was needed underwrite the necessary repairs required at that school. Far from creating a company that would be one of the world's best (per his stated aim), he has managed to dismantle the structure of the company leaving it without an AD, a CEO and without many excellent dancers. As an aside: does anyone know what has happened to the dancers' discrimination lawsuit? :confused:

To answer Diana's point first: a soloist may be required to perform in the corps, as a soloist or take on a principal role. As a result, the soloist may have a HARDER time and may be required to dance even more. This was a comment made to me by Angel Corella on the day he heard he had been promoted to principal. He was in the middle of a run of evenings of multiple ballets and was in the corps for one, was a soloist in another and a lead in a third. It gets tiring and makes a dancer at risk for injury. Corella said that he mostly felt relief at his promotion because he couldn't be required to dance in the corps any longer. In terms of what makes a good corps de ballet, I think it has to do with good training in the same style (thus companies whose graduates tend to have come from the same school have a leg up), where they are well-rehearsed and not driven to the point of exhaustion all the time, and where they have developed a good feeling for each other - enabling them to almost breathe as one. The Royal Ballet girls had that quality in the late 60s. At that time I would say they could do the vision scene from Bayadere better than the Kirov ever did. By the mid 70s they had lost that quality. I had the impression that during the McMillan era more emphasis was placed on the men and as a result the women suffered somewhat. I think the problem with many US companies is that the corps members have all been trained differently and come from a wider range of ethnic backgrounds than in Britain or France or Russia. The NYCB corps is made up of girls who all want to stand out and be noticed. They aren't really "corps oriented." I think the same holds true for ABT. I don't mean to imply that people in the POB or the RB don't want to be noticed and get promoted, but they probably get more "brownie points" for being good members of the corps. Here, if you stick out because you're good - better than the rest - you get promoted. In some places they might not get rewarded for sticking out too much - it would imply that they aren't doing their job properly.

Alexandra, I agree 100% with you about "Fille". I really love that ballet and never tire of seeing it. I only wish I could get to DC. I was fortunate enough to have seen the original cast: Nadia Nerina, David Blair, Alexander Grant, Stanley Holden and Leslie Edwards (I can't remember who the rooster was). I just adore the Elssler pdd and admire any Lise who can manage not to suffer acrophobia in that 1-hand lift at the end. I usually cry at the end of the ballet: it's so well constructed, the story is so enjoyable, there are so many little moments, details that are in it. It's just perfect.

Oh, I had thought the jewelry was a thing of the past, Drew. When the Kirov was in NY two years ago it had disappeared. I guess we should remember the story of how Nijinsky and his classmates helped to look for the diamond that had torn off the skirt of the costume worn by Maria Petipa...I guess it's just an old tradition. I still find it disconcerting though.

I find that one of the problems today is that some directors (and at the moment I have Kevin McKenzie in mind) like to mix dancers around, so that they do not have one, consistent partner. They may have the same partner for one particular ballet, and a different one for another ballet, or they may even be scheduled to dance a particular ballet with several different partners. This prevents the type of partnership that with Fonteyn/Nureyev and Sibley/Dowell from developing. For example, for a couple of years it looked as though Susan Jaffe and Jose Manuel Careno were developing an extremely good rapport and were on their way towards becoming a memorable couple. This year they are hardly dancing together at all. It COULD be that this was their choice, but somehow I doubt it. Memorable partnerships need time and encouragement to develop. If you watch iceskating competitions, you hear comments all the time (when speaking of the couples events) along the lines of: "Well, they've only been together for two years, and it's quite amazing that they've developed this level of rapport. By the Olympics, they should be serious contenders." It takes time to develop the "second sense" to know what your partner is going to do at any particular moment and to develop the innate trust that frees the dancers to take the risks that are necessary for a truly great performance.

Sylvia, I'm glad you enjoyed "The Dream" so much. It always was one of my favourite Ashton ballets. Since you commented on the atmosphere, did you notice how the moon moves as the night progresses? I always thought is so brilliant of the lighting designer to think of that. There are so many little touches that make this ballet simply perfect - IMHO. I'm sorry you didn't care all that much for 'Song'. It's another ballet I adore. It was originally choreographed for the Stuttgart Ballet by Cranko. I think he had originally wanted to do it for the RB, but it was turned down at that time. It has been many years since I saw the ballet, and I would dearly like to be in London to see it now. I have no way of knowing how well it is being performed these days. I know that whenever I saw it I left feeling totally emotionally drained - as though sitting in the audience I had performed some great task. I'm not sure whether it's the ballet or the music that does it (I know most of the German text, so I guess that helps) or the ballet, because for me now the two are irrevocably intertwined.

I second all the complaints heard so far and would add two of my own: 1) wearing of personal jewelry on stage (the Russians used to do this all the time. One would notice pendants, crosses, etc. virtually hitting dancers in the face) 2) dancers who do not perform in the spirit of the original choreography or the production and have to show off their super-high extensions all the time (eg. 180 degree arabesques penchees in the grand pdd from Act III of Sleeping Beauty in the reconstructed Maryinsky version causing the longer-style tutus to flop over the dancers' heads). By the way, Diana L., in reference to your complaint about claw-like hands, I had a friend who joined the NYCB in the 60s. When she first joined she was told to bring a ball to class and to keep it in the free hand while at the barre. After a while she was told to discard the ball but to keep her fingers in the same position. Eventually, she was allowed to be more 'natural', but to maintain the idea that the audience should be able to see all 5 fingers. I guess that this was what Balanchine wanted at the time. It seems to have perpetuated itself. Unfortunately - IMHO!

Both ABT and a former RB production of Swan Lake also have a prologue...or does one only count how many intervals there are? The interval question in a production may be at least partially dependent on time factors. I remember speaking to one of the RB conductors and asking why the last act was played so quickly. Really no time at all for the dancers to breathe. He said that it was because a show is considered (by the unions) to be 3 1/2 hours from 1/2 hour before the curtain time. If, given a start time of 7:30, the show did not end before the stroke of 10:30, then the musicians would have to be paid overtime, and this would kill the budget...ergo the high-speed final act. It's better for all concerned if production designers and choreographers consider these factors when planning the production in the first place. Anyway, LOTs of productions of Beauty are done with only 2 intervals. I've seen a Swan Lake with only 1.

Thank you, Wendy, for the report of the Gala. Wish I could have been there. Sob! A few notes: the Ashton awakening pdd from "Beauty" was choreographed for a production in the late 60s. It was the production in which the tutus were knee length (except Fonteyn's - she took a pair of scissors to her skirt). That pdd was one of the few moments I really liked, and I always wished they had retained it afterwards. I was at that "Thais" premiere and remember the fact of the encore well. As for the "Enigma Variations" incident, I think the conductor to whom Dowell was referring was most probably Sir Adrian Boult. If I remember my facts correctly I believe Sir Adrian personally knew Elgar. I do know that he did conduct "The Enigma Variations" for the Royal Ballet at one time, because one of my fellow notation students did a project on "non-verbal communication", and sat in the orchestra pit notating Boult's expressions and gestures whilst conducting!

I never thought of it that way before, Drew, but it's a very good point. Actually there are a number of corresponding points (I didn't want to say "similarities") between the two ballets - perhaps intentional contrast. Giselle falls apart when she finds out that Albrecht isn't what she thought he was. Swanhilda is suspicious and goes to investigate. I THINK that if Coppelia had been a real girl, Swanhilda would have thought of a way to get even. Instead, she rescues Franz from his folly. If you think about superstitious, Hungarian peasants, she was a very brave girl indeed.

Arthur Mitchell was awarded an honorary Doctor of Fine Arts degree by Yale University at its 300th commencement today, May 21, 2001 for his achievements in dance. Part of the bio of him that appeared in the Yale program reads: "Through dance, Mr. Mitchell has become an international emissary for the United States, leading his company to forty countries in the last thirty-two years. Most recently, the company performed, gave masterclasses, and participated in other outreach activities in Beijing and Shanghai, China." The program also listed the other awards Mr. Mitchell has received: the Heinz Award for accomplishments in Arts and Humanities; induction into the Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney Hall of Fame at the National Museum of Design (1999); National Medal of Arts and the SAB Lifetime Achievement Award (1995); New York Landmark Conservancy "Living Landmark" Award and the Kennedy Center Honors (1993).

I'm going to mention Ann Jenner of the Royal Ballet. She was a wonderful comedic actress and shone in works such as Coppelia and La Fille. She was also a very fine dancer. I used to love the expression on her face when she, while pretending to be the yet-immobile doll, would peer at Coppelius while he was busy consulting his book of spells.

I saw Jackie Kennedy many times at the ballet in New York - and at several different companies, too. Her love of ballet was quite genuine. Alexandra - it's not ballet, but Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the interviewee at a recent Met Opera broadcast. She's a big fan of opera. She revealed that both she and Scalia had actually been onstage as extras with the Washington Opera. Two other famous ballet fans are the Newmans (Paul and Joanne). Due to a crush in the orchestra bar area, I came within inches of Paul's gorgeous blue eyes on one occasion. Back to the Kennedys: I think that Jack wanted to be viewed as an intellectual, sophisticated and cultured individual - a contrast to the rough-and-tumble Irish image some had of him. Jackie had the genuine interest and knowledge of the arts. She used it to further the image of the Kennedy presidency as well as to further the image of the US as a nation of high cultural standards - and yes, as a weapon of the cold war.

If you could get someone to go to the box office for you, they also have Dress Circle Boxes for the same price as the center of the Balcony. You are one tier lower down. The payoff is that the seats are on the side. HOWEVER, if you can get seats in the ones furthest from the stage you really don't miss much. Sometimes the boxes don't sell out at all. I bought one for a Giselle last weekend. They gave me the second box from the back in the 4th seat. Now this is not great, because the boxes have a curve to them, but when I got there, there was no one else in my box, so I could arrange the seats as I chose. They usually sell Seat 4 to a single person first, because that way they can sell either a pair or three seats together. The box seats are only available from the box office. I kind of doubt that Merry Widow is going to be a big sellout. You can probably pick up something when you get here, but if you are nervous and feel you MUST have something in advance, I'd go for the Balcony - as long as you have a good pair of binoculars.

So far, I've never walked out of a full length ballet, but I HAVE sat out a middle ballet of a triple or quadruple bill. I do have a list of ballets I never want to see again. Obviously, if they are full length ballets I just don't buy a ticket. If they appear as part of a mixed bill, the foyer is a great option. When I worked at Covent Garden and standing was free, I only stayed for the parts/casts I was interested in. Sometimes I go in just to watch one variation. Now that I don't have that luxury, I have to be more picky about what I buy tickets for. Standing room at ABT is now $20, so one wouldn't spend that money just to see some corps kid get her big chance at a small role.

There are at least two bios of Beriosova. I have them, but can't access them at this time in order to give you the information. Beriosova, interestingly, spent her childhood in New York, where she was brought because of WWII. She was born in Sept. 1932 in Kaunas, Lithuania (? my geography is vague). She spent her early childhood in France, (thus the fluent French), but when the war started, her family managed to get on the last boat out of Italy to the US. In an article about her, someone mentioned that she had played baseball while in school her. Somehow the mind boggles. When she was 14, she was taken to England by her father and joined the Metropolitan Ballet. After a while she was invited to join the Sadler's Wells Ballet. The rest is history. I think her "signature" role was Odette. If she was 'on' she could be a wonderful Odile as well. She was also a beautiful, sweet and elegant Aurora. Surprisingly, she also danced Clara in the Nureyev 'Nutcracker' - very charmingly. Beriosova opened the Royal Ballet season at the Met in Cinderella in 1969. It was a performance made famous by the fact that the coach, which Cinderella gets into upstage center and which then circles the stage to downstage center before the curtain closes, tipped over with her inside. Those performances of Cinderella at Covent Garden in the early circa 1973 marked her short-lived return to dancing full-length ballets after about a two-year hiatus due to health problems. I was there - working as an usherette. I had to take two nights off in order to see the complete performances, and I arranged for the fans to use the sinks in the usherette changing room to keep the daffodils fresh. After those performances, she only was cast in one other full-length (besides the Tsarina role in 'Anastasia') - in Giselle, and then she only completed Act I, as she sustained a foot injury. Lynn Seymour performed Act II - unrehearsed - with Donald Macleary. Macleary, by the way, was one of the world's greatest partners. Seymour said that he was the only one with whom she would have dared perform Giselle Act II unrehearsed. Beriosova retired to young. The last stage role she performed, I think, was Lady Capulet (and I think she only did it once). She died about a year ago of cancer. Somewhere I have two pairs of Beriosova's shoes. I have loads of autographs.

My all-time favorite 2nd Act Giselle was Makarova because she was able to convey that Giselle is a spirit - because of her apparent weightlessness and near ability to "fly". I have liked many people in the first act for different reasons, but just to be a little "different" I shall mention one of my favorites whom not too many people on this list will have seen: Beriosova. She made Giselle a delightful, innocent young girl who falls apart completely when she realizes that she has been betrayed. She did a few things I haven't seen anyone else do - for example, she did the arabesque penchees in Giselle's solo on pointe. She also had a delightful moment when she would dust the chair Bathilde was to sit on with her skirt. Alas, I don't think it was ever filmed (even illicitly).

Well, Luka, but Giselle has gone mad, so whatever the convention of the day was in terms of how a lady should behave in public, madness makes all bets off. I guess a lady out in public with her hair awry would be deemed to have either gone mad or to have had something terrible happen to her. In the nineteenth century young girls wore their hair down until they came of marriageable age. Putting one's hair up was a sign of maturity and of being of an age where a girl could expect men to show an interest in her. MY gripe with Giselle's hair coming down is all the work that Berthe seems to have to do to help some dancers get all the pins out. Clearly the dancer has to do some work while she's offstage to make the whole thing look natural. Having Berthe act as a hair "undresser" looks messy. The neatest way is to take out most of the pins while the dancer is offstage before the finale. A strong thread can tie the necklace to a ribbon holding the hair, so that it comes off leaving the hair loose when the necklace is pulled off. You have to experiment to see what works best for your hair type. Obviously you have to give the IMPRESSION that Giselle's hairdo is unchanged up until she becomes distraught. :rolleyes:

I like it better when he stays on stage. Many versions have him dragging Hilarion over and saying: "Look what you've done!" while Hilarion points out that it was ALBRECHT'S fault that Giselle is dead. I'm of two minds whether the next thing should be either him weeping over Giselle's body as the curtain falls or Berthe pushing him away and Wilfred taking him off at that point. I think what happens has to be a function of how Albrecht is played earlier on. If he's played as a cad and then runs off, there is no convincing reason why he has become so remorseful between Acts I & II. It makes me envision an Act II in which Albrecht fails to show up at all! I think I've said in other posts on the "Giselle" topic that I think Albrecht IS a cad and MAY have had a girl in lots of the local villages. I think the point then becomes that THIS time he is forced to face the enormity of the results of his actions, and he is completely shocked. It is almost as though this is the first time that he has seen one of the peasants as creatures capable of having feelings.