Hans

Spessivtseva. Jiri Kylian or Nacho Duato?

Pas de chat. Full-length Sylvia or pas de deux?

I had been curious about this production, and now I'm still not sure whether to see it or not! (I probably will.)

Barnes. Sylvie Guillem or Svetlana Zakharova?

Mixed bill. Costumes or practice clothes?

Thank you for explaining, dirac. No offense taken.

Leigh, I am in full agreement re: Verdy. She is excellent.

Why not at least give Farrell the position of ballet mistress? Then she could stage and coach works but wouldn't necessarily have to deal with all the schmoozing that comes with the position of AD. She could also teach company class, which is IMO the kind of teaching she is suited for.

It would be wonderful if Farrell would return to NYCB.

Yes, SanderO, there are gay people in every profession, but they aren't generally perceived to be gay because of their profession, whether they really are or not. It is indeed quite a complex issue. I think that once people stop defining what is "masculine" so narrowly and stop using "gay" as a derogatory term, we will be all right. Easier said than done....

Helene's post reminds me that Russian respect for ballet dancers does not go so far as to include a societal acceptance of homosexuality. Papeetepatrick, I think the regional difference is due to DC not ever having had a major ballet company. The Washington Ballet, and previously the National Ballet, were nothing more than chamber companies until Septime Webre came on board. Even now, TWB is very small, WSB has a tiny male dancer population at the upper levels, and Suzanne Farrell's company uses imported dancers. The Kirov Academy is isolated in an inaccessible neighborhood, and although companies often tour to the Kennedy Center, that is very different from having a "home" company regularly performing a familiar repertoire with familiar dancers fed from a school. Thus, a love for and appreciation of ballet has not developed here the way it has in, say, Manhattan, where Lincoln Center is easily accessible by foot in a bustling part of town. (I don't know as much about the development of opera here, but as the Baltimore-Washington area has--and has had for some time--some prestigious music schools, I would think music would have an easier time.) I also think papeetepatrick and Ray make very good points regarding male effeminacy and ballet.

Carbro, you make an excellent point. To me, this thread is for all male ballet dancers, regardless of age, ability, and sexual orientation. I also agree that ballet is looked upon by many people as a pastime or social club for little girls, not a profession for grown women and not males of any age.

I think it is some of both. Generally men of my own generation (mid 20's) and younger seem to find it interesting that I am involved in ballet, although there are the inevitable stupid comments about what one can see beneath the tights, but I know how to handle that sort of remark graciously. It's men who are a little older who are really disparaging, and I wonder if it's perhaps because they grew up in an era in which it was not really ok to be gay. These are also people who work in very conservative office environments, so I suppose that could be a factor too. It's not necessarily exactly what they say as how it's said--referring to the classes I teach as "floating lessons," for example, or implying that I must prefer a particular sexual position because I was a ballet dancer (that's one that comes from all age groups). There is this attitude that ballet is silly and inconsequential, and it is different from the way they talk about other art forms (opera is taken more seriously, for example, and people seem to downright enjoy the national galleries). I hope this isn't getting too far off topic, but I think this is tied to the idea that in this part of the country it is not really ok for gay men to be noticeably gay--there is this idea that if you act more like a straight male, you're somehow a better person. Since ballet is not recognized as a masculine pursuit, male ballet dancers are disparaged as being more feminine and therefore less deserving of respect and admiration.

Hans, you really mean 'other gay men' are disparaging about ballet? Yes, I do. I, too, was quite surprised, especially given how cultured some of these people are. Maybe it's a DC thing, perhaps given that we don't have a major ballet company here.

This is off-topic, but Elena/Yalina Yevteyeva, if I recall correctly, is featured on the "Kirov in London" video dancing the Esmeralda pas de six. She is very good, in my opinion.

I, too, am shocked at the idea that this topic is no longer relevant. Regardless of the quality of Radetsky's writing, there is still sharp disapproval (and, as he puts it, contempt) from many people outside the ballet world. In fact, I am often the target of disparaging remarks from other gay men for being a ballet dancer/teacher, and I am expected to just shrug it off and laugh along with them because if I don't, then suddenly I am getting a bee in my bonnet over "nothing," when in fact such remarks are quite offensive and amount to not just a put-down of me but a dismissal of the entire art form. Boys in ballet also face not just society's disapproval but often that of the schools where they dance--they are the "outsider" invading the "girl's club," and they are frequently not given so much as a proper place to change clothes. (Obviously with that last statement I am not referring to the larger ballet academies, &c.) I do not say all this to discount the fact that at the vocational level, females face many hardships within the ballet world because there are so many of them. The fact is simply that it is not easy to be a ballet dancer, regardless of your gender, but whereas the large number of female dancers does not amount to a societal attitude that can/should be changed, discrimination against male dancers does.

Sorry for coming back to this so late--I have had rather limited internet access lately. Cygnet, I think it's really unfortunate that Dumchenko has not been able to dance Swan Lake or La Bayadère, although I have seen a bit of her Giselle, and it was gorgeous. I also find it interesting that these dancers excel at Juliet in addition to Aurora, as normally I would not relate the two roles. Another very pure Maryinsky-trained ballerina, Galina Ulanova, was also an exceptional Juliet (although I would not necessarily think of her as the same type as Lezhnina) so I will have to get out my video of her and give the role another look. Papeetepatrick, I love your latest comment about Dumchenko, I think it captures her exactly.

Did anyone else attend? I watched Serenade, visited the gift shop and bar during Moves, and rather enjoyed Symphony in C (nice to see Abi Stafford looking so strong). Impressions?

It is a little bit hard to say They start out as developpés, but but each one ends with a retiré action. So one might perhaps say that they are both a battement developpé and a battement retiré/raccourci...perhaps this is a question for the Teachers forum on BTfD. I don't consider Makhalina's extensions on that tape extreme, I am mostly thinking of a few moments during the Act III pas de deux on the DVD of her Swan Lake where she goes a little too far for my taste. One does not, however, generally see her distort the classical line. I completely agree with you about "not waiting for the next big solo because it's all this organic thing." I fast forward through other productions, but this one I watch beginning to end. I also agree re: Dumchenko, she is more of an Odette. What mesmerizes me about her is her unflappably calm technical assurance. She never hesitates, she just dances each step as if it's the most natural thing, and this allows her to have a serene, otherworldly elegance (I'll bet her Nikiya would also be quite special). The trouble with the Maryinsky now as I see it is that for a long time they were training many different types of dancers, all technically strong, but with different strengths and weaknesses, different body types, &c. Now they are training everyone to be Svetlana Zakharova, and they are able to do this because they can hand-select every single student who comes into the Vaganova Academy. Other big schools can do the same, but whereas they focus on every aspect of technique (to take the Paris Opéra Ballet dancers as an example, they can all jump and turn and beat as well as developpé to their ears, &c) the Maryinsky seems to have the single goal of higher extension (and to a lesser extent more pirouettes) with the result that technically weak dancers like Somova are given principal roles. I think one could argue that this trend toward a very high extension has been going on for some time with dancers such as Mezentseva, Asylmuratova, Makhalina, &c (even Lezhnina, toward the end of the Rose Adagio, raises her legs quite high during the écarté, failli, écarté, pas de bourrée, pirouette terminée en attitude sequence) but to me the difference is that these ladies never allowed the leg to go so high as to disturb their torsos or to give us the impression that we were seeing anything indecent, and they did not allow the legs to interfere with their arms. In addition, they could all still do petit allegro very well (Makhalina, for all her high extensions, had a very neat entrechat-six) and their grand allegro jumps floated through the air ("up and over") instead of merely traveling forward on the 180º+ degree angle of their legs. I'm afraid this post is starting to turn into a rant, so I'll stop here. Suffice it to say that the Maryinsky is still, whatever its flaws, my favorite ballet company, and that if I am hard on it, it's because it is not living up to the high standards it previously set.

Well I am by no means an expert, but I do think that aside from the Vikharev reconstruction, the Sergeyev Sleeping Beauty is easily one of the very best productions. There are aspects I do not like, such as the replacement of mime with bland, unimaginative choreography. It is also possible to quibble with Sergeyev's blatant departures from the Stepanov notation in the Bluebird pas de deux, particularly Princess Florine's variation, but overall, it is very strong, and the Maryinsky dancers (at least those of Lezhnina's generation and previously) can all act beautifully, the nobility conveying weight and grandeur without being heavy, and everyone with impeccably neat footwork, generally brilliant beats, and very pure, elegant port de bras. Dancers of that generation also had a notably pure line (Makhalina was sometimes an exception) which frankly I have hardly ever seen in the current Maryinsky dancers--instead of moderation, it's about extremes now. You may also wish to get the Kolpakova DVD; although she is past her prime, you can see the wonderful panorama during the Act II boat scene, although be warned--seeing that makes just about every other treatment of that scene look insipid. Lezhnina on the particular DVD you mention was very young (I have heard as young as seventeen, but I don't know if that's true) and so at times she is a little mechanical, but her beautifully elegant, clear technique and pure style shine through. Sizova is the best Aurora, of course, and I think that if Lezhnina had been allowed to develop at the Maryinsky she would have been very like Sizova. I think that maybe this DVD is the one that has Terekhova as Florine? That performance is another gem. The only one whose performance strikes a false note, for me, is Ruzimatov as Prince Désiré. That is a casting decision I don't think I will ever fully understand.

One major obstacle to a similar experiment with ballet is pointework. One must train, at the bare minimum, three times/week for 90 minutes/class for at least three years to even start pointe.

That is a pretty amazing performance! Evdokimova is so light, with beautiful petit allegro, Thesmar delicate and refined, Fracci with such charm, grace, and beautiful port de bras, and Alonso, as noted, very regal.

Maybe she'd need a red leotard? There is a point at which removing certain elements ends up being more trouble than it's worth; one must still be able to differentiate the characters; that is why I stress that altering this sort of thing must be done with much consideration.

It was indeed a lovely evening. The dancers are beautifully trained with wonderful physiques for ballet, and they all have very secure technique. Their short preparations for surprisingly calm and consistent pirouettes were a standout, as well as their remarkably clean petit allegro and light jumps with silent landings. One criticism is that in Serenade and And Waltz, they looked to me like very well-rehearsed students at an end-of-year concert--dancing beautifully but a bit nervously and without much emotion. They appeared to relax in Duende, which was for me the most enjoyable piece of the evening. I look forward to reading reviews of "Raymonda."

I must politely request that you please read beyond the first three sentences of my post before using the term artistic nihilism, as I am "proposing" no such thing. However, as clarification is apparently necessary, I have written the following: It is not really artistically necessary to reproduce a work the way it would have been performed 100-200 years ago. For one thing, it's impossible to make a modern performance into a facsimile of the original, although one can still perform the work with appropriate voices, style, &c. As far as opera goes, the music must absolutely be respected, and that means playing and singing in the baroque style (whether modern instruments are used or not). As I wrote above, I feel the same way about ballet--the choreography must remain intact, and it must be danced with respect for the period. However, this doesn't mean every ballet must be a precise facsimile of the original production. If that were the case, we would not have Sleeping Beauty at all to judge by the enormous resources the Maryinsky's reconstruction required. It is entirely possible to pare down things like sets, costumes, and supernumeraries, even to reduce (to an extent) the corps de ballet while keeping the "architecture" of the piece intact. It may feel a bit like watching a skeleton to some, but good dancers can give it life. For the record, lest anyone think I, of all people, am somehow opposed to historically accurate productions, I love the Maryinsky's reconstruction of Sleeping Beauty. It puts so many things into perspective and blows away the choreographic "dust" from many of the dances. (Now if only they would dance it in their trademark pure style, it would be ideal. I'm not asking them to don 19th-century pointe shoes and turn in their legs, but the mannerisms that company has started to affect have really got to go.) The reconstruction, which I hope the Maryinsky keeps performing, or at least films, is a great starting point for future productions of the ballet (certain flaws, such as the Bluebird pas de deux, notwithstanding) but that does not mean that every ballet company that wishes to dance Sleeping Beauty should be bound to re-create the same sets and costumes and employ hundreds of supernumeraries to fill out the court. It is a ballet that will always require a large company along the lines of ABT, PNB, &c to produce, but a thoughtful, tasteful production using simpler sets and costumes is no artistic crime, nor is it nihilistic in the least. To summarize, yes, extensively researched productions of ballets including historically accurate sets, &c, are important and should be performed, but it is not wrong, as long as the choreography is kept intact, to alter certain elements that are not necessarily integral to the work.