carbro

Balletmama, I was hoping to imply that Monique was womanly as a persona and personality as well as a body. But glad you agree with me!

posted concurrently (almost) with Dale You have a point, Samsara. I think we have come to take Angel's gifts for granted. But the "details" about flaws are equal to the details of you mention. Not all of us were close enough to see him clench his jaw, but there is no question that he seethed on learning of the Rajah's plans for him. He conveyed real passion for his Nikiya, and clearly Alina was happy to dance with him. A problem -- and I recognize it's an unusual problem and a good one to have to complain about -- is that there has lately been an overemphasis on bravura at ABT that often brings art close to the line of being a circus act. When someone (in this case it happened to be Angel) changes the steps in order to "better" show off his extraordinary turns, and then falls short, it violates the expressive arc of the variation/coda. It was a problem of his own making. As for Monique, her dancing -- her movement quality -- is very sensuous, womanly. She always seems to feel the air around her. It is a rare and beautiful quality. It would be nice if she were thinner, and perhaps she will be. I saw no "roll of fat," and I couldn't take my eyes off her. There is room for many types of dancers at ABT, and I think her presence enriches roster.

I noticed a moment in ABT's 2003 version that I hadn't seen before and wanted Doug's (or anyone else's) response. Following the Shades' entrance, after the ecarte pose, the ladies are on the left knee (efface), and they do a little "breathing" bend up. This season, ABT's Shades follow that bend with a lovely little reverence towards the supporting knee. Is that added this year? Is it in the Kirov new/old version? I love it. It is a brief, quiet suspension within a quiet suspension. I was wondering if it was an invention of Makarova's or if she found it somewhere and liked it.

The photo editor probably said, "Golly! I sure couldn't do that!" and impressed, chose a photo that the more educated eye would not.

Having seen both Cojocaru Bayaderes (plus an earlier RB Giselle), and from my vantage point in the theater (Rear Dress, then Front Family Circle), I think the photo misrepresented the effect of her sauts de chat. To my eye, she flew, and the split did not appear overextended. Nor did her knees appear bent back. But then again, it's all a matter of where you're looking and when. Perhaps her harem pants, generally blousy but more fitted around the knee, could have created the illusion of hyperextension. What I did like about her jumps -- when not fully split -- was her attention to holding the back leg higher than the front. Many Russian/Soviet trained dancers have a habit of dragging the back leg, making the entire jump look heavy. In class, Gelsey Kirkland oversplit saut de chat. When wearing a skirt or tutu, you can create the illusion of greater elevation. When the pelvic line is unobstructed, it's another matter. I am less concerned with oversplit saut de chat or grand jete than I am when it occurs in arabesque penchee. I was so relieved on Sunday to see Maria K. refrain from that habit in her Swan. Unbreakable rule in my book: Never extend arabesque beyond 180 degrees while in a tutu -- especially a white tutu.

Bayadere: Cojocaru, Corella, Abrera 2nd chance Everyone seemed more attuned to the artistic possibilities of this work the second time around. Alina's Shades Act was unquestionably otherworldly. Stella was meaner. Much discussion whether her beautifully soft lyricism prevents her from being fully effective as Gamzatti. See what I mean about leaving out steps to make room for one 8-count pirouette? In his variation, Angel (looking a bit tired) fell out and had way too much time to fill getting to the corner to start his manege. D'Jampe dance was led by Monique and Carmen. Monique was luscious, if disgracefully underutilized. Which brings up this question: I recall the D'Jampe dancers doing a beautiful port de bras carrying their scarves in an arc from a deep cambre over one side, over their heads to a deep cambre on the other side. Was this done? :confused: Because now they trace a much smaller arc from slightly to one side, in front of their heads, to slightly on the other side. Better the other way. I'm hungry for more Cojocaru.

Never, ever do I use my o.g.s during his (whoever he is) variation, because being able to appreciate how much space he covers is part of the hoped-for thrill. Others will surely tell me that his air turns did not finish in a perfect fifth. First movement of Serenade, the glasses are always down, too. During Alonso's few late Giselles in New York, I always, always trained in on her feet during the Act II entrechats. Gosh, they were so incredibly fast and neat, and hard enough to see magnified 7 times, they'd have been a total blur from the Family Circle otherwise. When I know a ballet well, it's pretty easy to gauge the quiet moments to transition between direct vision and aided vision, as it were. I like being able to see the corps as a whole, but I also like to know who's who beyond the front row. If I do a fourth Bayadere this season, I'll probably think, to hell with the stage design, I want to see this one and that one. Oh, and that one.

Has anyone else noticed that the credits to donors for specific dancers, instead of appearing below the cast portion of the program, has increased prominence now, appearing directly beneath each dancer's headshot in the stagebill? Rats! Now I have to figure out a way to get the bucks to sponsor Jose. This I want! ;) Really, really badly. Oh, and GWTW, isn't it interesting that there is no clothing (not even ck underwear) in ABT's tv ad? But I think the craftspersons who pulled it together deserve more than jeans.

Actually, the final moments of this production are quite lovely -- Odette bouree-ing backwards offstage into a shaft of light, drawing the other swans with her. I had bought the ticket in anticipation of seeing the since-injured Jenifer Ringer, and decided to keep it in order to reevaluate the production and to report to a distant fan of Maria's on her performance. . . . which was really beautiful. She has tempered her tendency to plunge into the 180-plus degree penchee, and "slipped" only once, holding her line within the bounds appropriate to a white-tutu role. The line of that body is e n d l e s s, and line is all to Swan. She did have a sloppy moment in the 3rd Act Variation, losing control of her arms in the pique manege. Otherwise, lovely. Unfortunately, Maria's Prince, Philip Neal, was a cipher, dancing nicely enough, but giving her no emotion to play against. I cannot fairly evaluate the other dancers. Martins' original choreography -- a step beyond the Nureyev "cram-as-many-steps into-a-phrase-as-you-can" style of choreography -- is as nails on a blackboard to me. I will, however, list them: ROTHBART: Fayette; QUEEN: Natanya; JESTER: Hendrickson; BENNO: Millepied; PAS DE TROIS: Riggins, van Kipnis; PAS DE QUATRE: Ansanelli, Mandradjieff, 2 Staffords; HUNGARIAN: Rutherford, Fowler; RUSSIAN: Taylor, Marcovici; SPANISH: Ash, Beskow, Hanna, Seth; NEAPOLITAN: Edge, Carmena; PRINCESSES: Abergel, Bar, Hankes, Hanson, Keenan, McBrearty; SMALL SWANS: Barak, Fairchild, Mandradjieff, Walker.

That would be a treat! But why not Nikiya?

Good News: Cojocaru is a ravishing Nikiya. She looks Kirov -- strong attack, long angular limbs -- but has the softer lyricism and the dramatic immersion of the RB. After having seen her last year in London, I was surprised at how small she looked among the ABT dancers. Her Nikiya was passionate and vulnerable. Supple, musical, with a beautiful line, she was very exciting. In the scarf dance, she alternated the pirouettes -- something I haven't seen seen (that I recall) since Marianna Tcherkassky did the role. Also reminiscent of Marianna were her traveling turns -- piques and chaines were incredibly fast and straight as an arrow. Wonderful. Such an exciting youngster -- I hope to be able to follow her progress over the years. For quibbles, see also "Bad News," below. What is there to say about Angel that hasn't been said? His virtuosity and musicality were all we've come to expect from him. However, for quibbles, see also "Bad News," below. Together, I liked the partnership. Some audience members found them a bit cool, but I didn't get that. Stella Abrera, a very pretty dancer, carried off Gamzatti with all due haughty bitchiness. For quibbles, see also "Bad News," below. Shades: A little extra applause for Erica Cornejo's second variation, sensitively phrased and not overly bouncy. Also to Maria Riccetto who was able to keep the movement flowing through the killer third variation, even if she slightly cheated the sissones into the ecarte developes. In the first variation, Renata Pavam reminded me of Cheryl Yeager, though her line lacks the polished classicism of Cheryl's. Golden Idol by Joaquin deLuz had some eccentric phrasing, but made it work on his terms with the requisite, quirky brilliance. I was glad to see Sarawanee Tanatanit as Aya. Though a mime role, her appearance here seems to indicate Powers that Be share my admiration of her and want this new corps member to accumulate a range of performing experiences. It was also good to see Misty Copeland in several roles: Lead D'Jampe, pas d'action, flower girl, as well as a shade. Neutral news: The Shades (corps) were okay. This company has done this better. There was some shakiness in the ecarte pose, the second shade took several phrases to fall into sync with her sisters, and I missed the poetry that I've come to expect from them here. Bad news: Like so many of her generation, Alina goes for maximum extension. She is able to get the leg against the shoulder with only a slight distortion of line, and I couldn't help but think how much more effective her dancing would be if she'd be willing to lower that leg two or three inches. A couple times, the effort of stretching the leg to that level caused her supporting leg to tremble quite visibly. In his variation and the coda, Angel deleted steps in order to cram in some extra turns. The result resembled a brilliant turner doing a classroom exercise. The structural balance of the choreography was skewed. These were the least forgivable flaws of the evening. I was told that Ethan did the same on Friday, suggesting that this has management's approval. I sincerely doubt that it has Makarova's approval, though. Then again, she was known to adjust choreography on occasion . . . . Stella had a small, unfortunate misstep at the end of her variation. I was unable to tell whether it might have been due to a slick spot onthe floor, but it appeared that her knee went out from under her. (Oh, yeah, and in his variation, after the double-assemble manege, already in the final pose on one knee, Angel lurched forward, breaking his fall with his hand.) On balance, I'd grade the principals "A-" and the corps "B."

I also enjoyed the Thursday night program. I disagree with Calliope -- compared to her usual coolness, thought Paloma was very responsive to (and happy to be with) Jose in the Diana & Acteon. Both were in top form. I find this pas to be all flash, little substance, and would like to see these dancers -- Jose particularly -- in something meatier. In Offenbach, it was wonderful seeing Monique, for so long City Ballet's best kept secret. Her natural regality, dramatic instinct . . . I'm hoping she finally finds at ABT the opportunities she deserves. Sorry you (and other early leavers) missed Within You Without You, if only for Herman Cornejo's performance in the role Ethan Steifel originated (song, Within You and Without You). As beautiful as Ethan was in this challenging choreography, I was stunned by Herman's performance. I kept asking myself if I could believe what I was seeing, as he seemed to be dancing in zero-gravity. He is a dancer not to be missed.

No. Haven't SEEN it on tv, because I turn my attention elsewhere during commercials, but a couple of times I heard the tag-line telling me I've just missed it. :confused: :rolleyes: I think NY1 is the station I missed it on. That channel is available only to Time-Warner cable subscribers in the five boroughs, but it must be playing elsewhere, too. Grateful to have the link here (thanks much, Watermill!) although I had trouble pulling it up on the first try.

Alignment being the least of what seems to get lost in the transition from SAB to NYCB. :rolleyes: What happens to all that spirit, that joy, that unbounded enthusiasm (i.e. morale) of the students once they go pro? As to the production itself, the biggest blunder of this production (ugly designs aside) is that Martins has plopped the Balanchine single-act version whole into the midst of his (Martins') own choreographic mire. If Mr. B had wanted it to be presented that way, he'd have done it. It is recontextualizing (badly) a work that needs no context other than its own, and distorts the purpose of the original -- the purpose being a commentary, not a mere retelling. I have no doubt that Martins intended his retention of the Balanchine as an homage to his mentor, but with homages like this, who needs trashings?:eek:

Welcome back, Manhattnik. See more, write more. Please!

And it is for this reason that I wonder why so many people insist on seeing dance from as close to the stage as possible. I think the ideal way to see a ballet is from afar and above, enabling a view of the whole stage (and choreographic design -- particularly in "white" acts) and armed with a pair of opera glasses. I rarely use the opera glasses for a new work, but once I know when (if) the quieter moments occur, I might scan faces. I don't think the usual mid-orchestra "critics's seats" -- assigned by theater management, right? -- are well positioned for a fair overview of the stage action.

I am first attracted to the upper body -- port de bras and epaulement. I see the legs and feet, of course, but not with the kind of detail that many of my friends do. One friend used to complain about certain dancers' facial expressions, insisting that the face was the dancers' most important feature. My argument was that a dancer spends ten years training the body to be an expressive instrument (one hopes that expression is part of the mix, anyway), and most people are seated too far away to see much more than whether or not the performer is smiling. Some great dancers have the ability to direct your attention to the features they wish to display. Years ago, an international ballerina, working in less than perfect condition and enduring the disruption of a last-minute substitute partner, had me mesmerized by her supple pointe work, as she seemed to know that other aspects of her dancing -- at least for that performance -- were not up to her usual standard.

Having grown up in a small New Jersey suburb during the '50s and '60s, I recognized Alexandra's description of Jantelov as a slightly -- very slightly -- exaggerated expression of the kind of social pressure to conform that pervaded my own formative years. Fit in, at all costs. If you don't fit the mold, you are a total freak. And if you don't like it, there's something wrong with you, but let's ignore that. I don't think it is unique to Denmark or even Scandinavia. I think it appears in varying degrees wherever small-town mores inform the local zeitgest. When asked where I'm from, my usual reply is, "I'm a cultural refugee from New Jersey."

Cabriole, those are marks of great teachers in any discipline. I am thinking of a college bio prof who would periodically pause in mid-thought to exclaim, "Aren't you fascinated??? Just think, this process is happening a million times right now in your body!!!" I was more than fascinated. I was positively (intellectually) seduced. And, never before particularly interested in science, I was dumbfounded by my own response, I might add.

I think it also depends on exactly what they're teaching. A star who happened to be a natural turner might not notice that someone's preparation -- to be helpful -- is just a bit off. On the other hand, s/he could possibly be the one to find the key that unlocks a dancer's grasp of a role in a coaching session. And vice versa, of course.

It might be an issue if the costumes were inappropriate to the work. I think the costumes are both appropriate and handsome -- perhaps the best feature of the Harrison. I doubt that the upcoming Raymonda will have dancers clad in Calvin Klein ready-to-wear. Of course, if Mr. Klein is commissioned to design the costumes, that might be another matter, as LaCroix did the Gaite, and as Mizrachi has done with some Mark Morris pieces.

Touche!

First, Callliope, congratulations on your acceptance to Yale Graduate School! Good for you! Maybe you can get a grant or fellowship from Calvin Klein;) . For years, Phillip Morris has been a conspicuous supporter of a wide range of "highbrow" arts organizations, with a particular concentration in dance. The message was an obvious effort to share their ill-gotten wealth in a way that enhanced the corporate virtue quotient. They were high-profile arts patrons from at least the '70s. I guess now their wealth is supporting the legal, instead of the artistic, community. I'm pained to see Watermill suffer so. Wigs are credited, costumes are credited, shoes are credited. Is Sleeping Beauty -- with its pointe shoes, slippers, heels and boots -- a commercial for Freed's? Don't you think a young dancer who sees the credit in a program will be more likely to want to dance in Freeds if her favorite ballerina does? There is absolutely no difference between what Freeds does and what Calvin Klein is doing -- it is merely the demographic range of their consumer base. And I guess that leads us back to the issue of commercialism. Which prompts the question of whether we want ballet to be seen as "elitist," or whether we want to see its audience grow.

Was anyone else at that unforgettable "Sing-along" matinee at City Ballet in the 80's when the program -- Vienna Waltzes and Who Cares? -- seemed designed to encourage audience participation? And, sorry to report, they complied. Or at least the people around me did.

Citibob and Ari, we may be blurring the issue of sponsorship in the not-for-profit sector and the beneficiaries' final product. Does Movado lay a quid pro quo to ABT, "We'll be a major supporter of the season, we think you need a new Swan Lake and we want Kevin McKenzie to choreograph it"? No. I think the policy is set by the artistic staff in consultation with the Board (for only the broadest matters). If a choreographer mounts a piece and wants the dancers in jeans and tees, and Calvin Klein (the corporation) is willing to donate same, I say the corporation is entitled to a public expression of the company's gratitude and recognition of its contribution. This is not new. It's exactly equivalent to the portraits of sponsors that populate 15th-century frescoes on the walls of Italian churches -- art that we now venerate. In the early 1940s, Nelson Rockefeller (together with the US State Department) sent Balanchine and American Ballet Caravan on a tour of Latin America. His wisdom, resourcefulness and the willingness of the government to support the venture led to the creation of Concerto Barocco and Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto. Today the expense of such an undertaking would be prohibitive, probably even for a third-generation Rockefeller, and the government is less enthusiastic about cultural exchanges like this. Movado, Philip Morris and Revlon, etc., are merely the Renaissance popes, Medicis, Sforzas, etc., of the 21st century, but with a whole lot less artistic say over the final product than the earlier patrons. I am not defending commercialization as desirable, but merely recognizing it as necessary to maintain vital artistic activity in the absence of broadbased public support on the European model.