Hans

In Baltimore last weekend, I drove by the new arts district, Station North, and saw an ad for artist lofts in a converted warehouse called the Copycat Building. Ironic name aside, I thought it might be an interesting place for a ballet school--lots of space, high ceilings, right in the middle of an arts community with constant art exhibitions all around. Baltimore doesn't have much in the way of serious ballet schools, and even one good teacher working alone could make a difference. There are various logistical problems: where the students would change, for example, and where could one put an office? But the thought is intriguing. Rent is stunningly low in Baltimore (although it's most likely on the verge of climbing sharply, as DC becomes too expensive for anyone who doesn't make six figures a year) and it's always had a large and vibrant arts scene. Such a studio would have to be a fairly bare-bones operation, and unfortunately tuition would probably be high even if there was an alternate source of funding. One positive note: the Peabody Conservatory would probably supply a steady stream of pianists. Also intriguing is the idea of having a limited number of students attending class 4-5 days a week from the beginning (I know, I'm dreaming ) to shape into beautiful dancers with all the tiny details so often lacking from today's students, including not just qualities such as épaulement and port de bras, but also knowledge of technical theory and appreciation of arts other than ballet. I think the program would be based on the Vaganova syllabus until the students were comfortable en pointe, and then I would add trickier combinations than one usually sees in a Vaganova class--unusual accents, for example--and I'd like to add a French accent to the petit allegro. This perhaps isn't the best introductory post, but these ideas have been swirling in my head for a little bit, and it's nice to get them out. I promise less school-related posts in the future.

Starr, when you saw the Kirov, did you see the Sergeyev production or the reconstruction of the 1895 original?

As we have had several discussions on the board lately regarding port de bras and épaulement, I'd like to offer a mini online lesson about the upper body geared toward audience members. I'll include technical information, but this will be by no means exhaustive, especially considering that there are plenty of textbooks that do a fine job of describing the various methods' stances as far as the upper body is concerned. What I'd like to do is give balletomanes who do not have classroom experience with ballet a bit of familiarity with basic positions and how a dancer moves between them. PORT DE BRAS Good port de bras begins, of course, with good posture. By the time one is a professional dancer, this should be second nature--lower abdominals pulled in and up; shoulder blades pulled down; ribs, neck, and face relaxed; eyes focused; and most importantly, a "core" of energy running vertically up and down the spine. When making even the tiniest movement of the wrist or elbow, one must feel energy flowing up the spine and out along the entire length of the arm though the fingertips (not to the fingertips, through them). Often, one may see a dancer shift his/her torso slightly to initiate an arm movement; this is a visible manifestation of that energy. Ballet positions are not static, lifeless poses. The energy in the spine and focus of the eyes keeps the dancer "alive" even when not visibly in motion. There are different names for the various positions of the arms depending upon which method or style one uses, and the specific details of each position vary accordingly, but I will write about them in only the most basic terms. A choreographer may add his own particular flourish or idiosyncrasies to each position, so what you see onstage may not match the drawings in a textbook; this does not mean the dancer is incapable of producing "textbook" positions but that s/he has been asked to dance this way by a particular choreographer in a particular ballet. The most basic arm positions are as follows; I will describe them arrondis (rounded) but all of them may also be done allongé (extended): 1. Preparatory Position/Fifth Position en Bas: The arms curve down from the shoulders so that the hands rest either just in front of the thighs or just above the tutu. 2. First Position/Fifth Position en Avant: The arms curve forward from the shoulders so that the hands are approximately in front of the solar plexus. 3. Second Position: The arms are at the same level as first position, but held open to the sides so that each hand is just in front of its respective shoulder. This position tests how well the dancer uses his/her back, as the elbows must not droop and the forearms must be rotated so that the palms face forward. 4. Third Position/En Couronne/Fifth Position en Haut: The arms curve upward from the shoulders so that the elbows are slightly in front of the ears. In addition to these, there are three "intermediate" positions: the arms opened halfway between preparatory and second (often called demi-second), between first and second, and between second and third. In the intermediate position between first and second, the palms may be turned up. To make a position allongé, rotate the forearm so that the palm faces down, and relax the elbow so that it is softened but not bent. EPAULEMENT When one considers that the spine extends through the neck and even up into the back of the skull, it is easy to see how posture and energy affect the way one moves the head. If energy is moving all the way along the spine and the neck is relaxed, the head will almost naturally place itself correctly, without the chin jutting forward or pulled back. In ballet, the head is usually turned, inclined, or both. To incline the head, simply tilt it from one side to the other or front and back. Different methods and styles prefer different degrees of turning and inclination. For example, RAD-trained dancers often turn their heads without inclining them, whereas Vaganova-trained dancers both turn and incline their heads, sometimes to the point of producing a gentle curve in the upper back. Usually the eyes focus in the general direction of the hands (there are exceptions to this, for example at the end of a Bournonville variation where the dancer's arms go down as s/he does a plié in 5th position, then the eyes and head lifts as the arms remain low and the legs straighten) and the head is turned in the direction of whichever leg is front (that is, right or left, although sometimes the head turns in opposition to the legs) and inclined to the level of the arms (low or high). This relationship of head to arms begins to produce the polished look of a fully coordinated body, although true coordination depends upon how the dancer moves between these various positions, which are also coordinated with the movements of the legs. *** One thing I've thought about lately is how dancers use port de bras and épaulement to relate to each other onstage. For example, during the coda of the pas de six from "La Vivandière," the lead female dancer performs a diagonal of turns and jetés (usually garnering quite a bit of applause) at the end of which she turns back to the upstage left corner and gestures to (and looks at) the lead male dancer, who is just beginning his diagonal of grands pirouettes à la seconde as if to say, "If you thought that was good, look at what's coming up next!" Dancers will often use port de bras to direct the audience's eye to a different part of the stage where something important is happening. Port de bras can also be used to exclude, and the Wilis in Giselle are quite good at this. When Hilarion dances his way toward death in the lake in Act II, the Wili corps faces away from him and puts out an arm with the wrist flexed as if to push him along. In the pas de deux between Gulnare and Lankedem in Act I of Le Corsaire, Gulnare makes a number of gestures repudiating Lankedem (notably during her arabesques penchées in the first diagonal of the entrée, before the adagio). In a well-staged production of a story ballet, port de bras and épaulement are used to indicate rank and class differences. At the start of Act I of the Kirov's Swan Lake, it is obvious that all the people onstage are nobility, not just from the way they are dressed (even peasants in ballet get elaborate costumes) but from the way they behave. When two dancers meet, they bow to each other with one foot pointed in front, one arm extended in front and the other to the side, and it's clear from this formal greeting that they are of equal rank. When a gentleman escorts his lady somewhere onstage, he might offer his hand or curved arm, but he does not get overly familiar and put a hand on her waist. To express even more formality, a lady might merely take her partner's allongé forearm instead of the hand, although this is not practical when it comes to pas de deux. *** Another thing that struck me today as I watched the La Scala tape of Giselle (with Alessandra Ferri) is how much less refined the Milanese company's arms and hands are than those at the very best companies. While the shapes were generally correct, they were not terribly exact, but more than that, they didn't convey the same feeling. There wasn't as much weight in the arms--they lacked that aristocratic, light-but-substantial feel that POB and Kirov dancers convey so well. Ferri, on the other hand, was a different story, especially in Act I where she integrated her port de bras into her portrayal of Giselle's character, using certain gestures (slightly trembling hands, for example) to convey fragility and then exaggerating those gestures during the mad scene. Her hands even took on different shapes: fingers splayed as she cringed after bumping into Bathilde, roughly rounded as she delicately plucked petals from an imaginary flower.

Ceeszi, when I went to see the Kirov last weekend, I had an awful time getting to the Kennedy Center, too. I've been attending performances there for as long as I can remember and never had any trouble driving myself, but I circled the KC three times, just as you did, ending up back in VA every time. I blame it on the construction, as it used to be very well marked. However, I think it will all be exceptional when finished.

I'm very surprised re: Ulanova, as in "Days with Ulanova" it appears that she worked obsessively, never missing a day of class.

Tamara Karsavina was criticized for her "sloppy" technique, but according to contemporary reviews, no one commanded the stage better than she did, including Nijinsky.

DefJef, that's a very tricky question for a few reasons, primarily because what we often think of today as Classical ballet is actually neo-classical (having occurred after the Romantic period). We've had discussions about this before (I believe the threads are in the archives) and haven't really come up with a satisfactory solution. The fact that many people call Balanchine neo-classical doesn't help things. If someone would like to attempt to place some ballets on this type of continuum, I would suggest that for the sake of clarity we refer to Petipa ballets as Classical and Balanchine ballets as neo-classical and not bother with anything before the Romantic period (as it's extremely unlikely that any of us have seen, or will see, anything that old anyway, unless of course someone wants to comment on Baroque dance ).

I think the Russians indeed do a great job with port de bras, but they're not the only ones. I'm afraid I don't have enough experience with the Bolshoi to be able to comment on them. Regarding the question of how much uniformity is enough/too much, I think it depends on the ballet. Too much uniformity in Balanchine is bad, but in a more formal classical ballet, considering that the corps will never be perfectly in sync (because that's impossible) I don't think the dancers can be too uniform/synchronized.

If directors are so unhappy with current ballet training, perhaps they ought to start their own company-affiliated schools. That would ensure a steady stream of employable dancers for them. Also, I think teachers are only responding to directors' demands. Directors program seasons consisting of barely any ballet and hold auditions requiring modern/contemporary dance, and then when teachers start training students to be able to dance that material (because there isn't much point in training an unemployable dancer) the directors complain that they aren't good enough at ballet.

That's a good question. From the audience's standpoint, probably not. It's been my experience that dancers have to pay more attention to port de bras in Romantic ballets because the ballets have such a specific aesthetic (one might call it the Lithograph Look, as people often try to imitate the look of Marie Taglioni, Elssler, &c in old lithographs). Ballet masters usually spend a great deal of time perfecting the port de bras and épaulement during rehearsals of such ballets, and if you're not used to the style, it can sometimes get rather tedious to rehearse them. The effect, of course, is worth it. That's not to say port de bras isn't important in Petipa ballets--it is, but people today are usually not trying to move their arms as if it's 1877 when they dance his ballets, which, though they are the foundation of the classical repertoire, have been "updated" and altered ceaselessly over the years. Instead of trying to replicate a period look, it seems to me that dancers and their coaches (at least in the US) usually take more of a textbook approach with Petipa, using arms and heads in a somewhat reserved, "classroom" manner, which they are more used to doing than the Romantic port de bras. It never hurts to be familiar with Romantic port de bras, though, as there is a touch of Romanticism about Petipa's ballets (it was still the 19C after all ) particularly in the drama of the libretti and the "white acts" or "ballets blancs" (for example, the lakeside scenes in Swan Lake, the Kingdom of the Shades from La Bayadère, and the Vision scene from The Sleeping Beauty). And of course, once one gets into more modern ballets (Fokine, Balanchine, and so on) port de bras changes once again, becoming more reserved in some ways, less so in others, involving new positions of the hands and arms, different combinations of épaulement and port de bras, &c. EDIT: I have to expand upon my remarks re: Petipa, as I really didn't do him justice. Certainly the port de bras in Swan Lake is quite stylized, and Aurora's arm movements are quite elaborate, and dancers should be coached on port de bras in Classical ballets as much as they are in the Romantic ones. However, I feel that dancers in the US are more often left to their own devices (to imitate a videotape, for example) when rehearsing Petipa ballets because there's an assumption that the port de bras is not that difficult to do and is very similar to what one does every day in class. This is unfortunate because classical port de bras is actually very rich and beautiful when properly coached. For a good idea of how Aurora and Odette's arms ought to look, watching the Kirov is usually a good start.

Ok, this topic attracts me like a moth to a flame. Carla Fracci springs to mind, as does Alla Sizova. A more recent example includes Karen Uphoff of ABT. In my opinion, port de bras is usually consistent from one performance to another, although it may be more obvious in some ballets than others. For example, Giselle is pretty much all about port de bras and épaulement, whereas the exact angle and curve of an arm may not matter so much in, say, Romeo and Juliet. Part of having good port de bras is the ability to adapt it from one role to another, but if a dancer is accustomed to using his/her head and arms beautifully all the time, it will show regardless of a particular ballet's choreographic idiosyncrasies. As far as whether a dancer can be great without having exceptional port de bras, I would say yes, but someone else might think that the very dancers with whose port de bras I would take issue are actually good at it, that their way of moving is different but not lower quality.

Thanks for the correction, Waelsung; one never does know with the Kirov, does one? And I was sitting rather high up in the second tier, so it was difficult to see. I would like to add that this performance of Giselle provides more proof against the idea that Russian dancers are slow. The tempi for most of the dances were just as speedy as those used by ABT and SFB, and it was all done with perfectly pointed feet, stretched knees, and heels on the floor.

Short answer: they think they do. Long answer: It depends on how much training in modern dance the ballet dancer has had, and also upon what type of modern dance it is. A ballet dancer with a lot of experience doing Limon, for example, will probably not be all that great at Graham, though s/he might be better than one with no modern training at all. The length of time necessary to be proficient in a particular type of modern dance also varies; Graham takes approximately as long as ballet, and the dancers start later in life (sixteen is the youngest age Graham would start seriously training students, although she did have a program for children). I like to think of the Classical (short) tutu as the natural evolution of the Romantic (long) tutu. Over time, as ballet technique developed and tastes changed, they simply shortened the skirt to show the dancers' legs better. However, tutus are not only used in Petipa ballets; Balanchine used them often, and some Forsythe works are costumed in very flat, disc-like tutus. I've even seen a version of the Dying Swan danced in the traditional tutu and pointe shoes but with modern/contemporary twists on the choreography, including turned-in legs and deconstructed port de bras.

I saw the Golub-Fadeyev cast Saturday afternoon, and let me just say that if you haven't seen the Kirov do Giselle, you are really missing out. No other production I've seen includes all the details of this one, and the mime (such as it is) is beautifully done. Golub has lovely technique without (and I feel I can't emphasize this enough) extreme extensions. High extensions, yes. Vulgar, no. Fadeyev, too, did not exaggerate, although he did an extremely impressive and beautiful double rivoltade in Act II. I also have good things to say about Ekaterina Osmolkina, who impressed me last year as Gulnara in Le Corsaire and in the second variation the year before in the Act I pas de trois from Swan Lake. She's one who does have extreme extensions, but she still (somehow) has a light and lovely jump, good control of her pirouettes, and good port de bras. I was less impressed with Victor Shklyarov. Although he has silent landings and perfectly clean double tours, I could have done without the choreography changes that were obviously there to show off his tricks. Alina Somova [NOTE: It was actually Viktoria Terioshkina; see Waelsung's post directly below] as Myrtha was unfortunately the dim spot in this production. Between her weak and floppy movements, almost total lack of a jump, and her determination to get her legs as high as they could possibly go regardless of aesthetics or even good technique, what ought to have been one of the highlights of the ballet was a mess. As always, the real star of this ballet was the corps. In Act I, every one of them had a specific character as a villager, and they handled the mime scenes beautifully. In Act II, they moved as one, including some lovely and very difficult effects.

At New York City Ballet, I observed the tempi being set with the conductor and a pianist at dress rehearsal, and I don't think they vary widely from one principal to another, although of course the conductor and dancer will work together "in the moment" to adjust the timing for small issues and make every little flourish exact. As far as casting and rehearsals, the casts are usually rehearsed separately, although one may have understudies or members of different casts attending a rehearsal to learn their parts better. As chiapuris said, the corps is often coached to look uniform, whereas principal dancers and soloists are allowed more individuality, which is what makes seeing different casts in the same ballet so much fun. (And DefJef, I don't think you've asked a single dumb question yet. )

To clarify re: SAB training, its faculty underwent a radical change. At first, the entire faculty was Russian (and French?) and dancers were not taught the Balanchine style until they became company members. Currently, most of the teachers are American, former NYCB dancers, and the students are taught the Balanchine style from the beginning. Therefore, if one was trained at SAB in the 50's, 60's, and probably the 70's, one had old Russian imperial-style (pre-Vaganova) training, but that is no longer the case. I attended SAB in the late 1990's, so my training there was entirely Balanchine style, and to be quite honest, the Balanchine style does not use much épaulement, at least not nearly as much as the Vaganova method does. (I know that last statement will probably not be popular, but it was my experience. )

I hope I didn't frighten people away from replying--as with everything in ballet, one needn't know every tiny rule about épaulement to have an opinion about how it looks and/or who does it well. I know what's correct from a teacher's point of view, but what does the audience think?

Dirac, I completely agree. The plot of Corsaire isn't any more difficult to comprehend than that of Swan Lake.

For those interested in reading what some of our members have already posted on the subject, please see this thread.

Le Corsaire is silly, which is half the fun!

What on earth would be the point of such a merge?

Bart, unfortunately, my early training was Balanchine, so I learned very little in the way of épaulement until I attended the Kirov Academy toward the end of my training. At that advanced stage, the teachers used a mix of techniques--sometimes we were just told what was correct, and sometimes they went into more detail. Having taught ballet students of all ages, I think the teaching technique must depend on the students, and there is a variety of ways to get them to produce a particular position so that it still has life and doesn't look affected or "placed." Imagery helps, as does telling them where to look (which engages the eyes). Connecting the movements of the head with the arms is extremely important (and difficult to accomplish) and of course the line of the head and neck must flow into the back and shoulders. It's all very detailed, and various styles and methods have different rules for what the head and arms do according to what the legs are doing, not to mention when or how far to incline or turn the head, precisely where the eyes go, the angle and specific shape of the arms in various positions, &c. (I mention the arms because it's impossible to have épaulement without port de bras.) I hardly know how to convey how rich and varied épaulement can be; it is quite different from the bland, simplistic "turn your head toward the leg that's in front." I fear much of the detail is ignored today, even by those who try to implement as much as they can.

As a dancer, I'd say it depends on the ballet and the role, but for the most part, I think we mostly feel what you're seeing. Dancers train so long and so carefully that by the time they are professionals, most of the technique is second nature, and they don't have to think about it at all. Lots of rehearsal time also helps. If you've rehearsed the steps so much that you could do them backward in your sleep, it leaves you free to focus on the more expressive, artistic side.

The Kirov still has most of its épaulement intact, and I'd imagine the Royal Danish Ballet still has a good bit as well. To develop a truly beautiful upper body, one has to learn to coordinate the head, arms, and legs starting very early in the training so it becomes second nature. I don't approve of the practice of training first the legs, then the arms, as it gives a disjointed look to the movement.

Paul, I was actually just reading the section about ballonné (essentially a jumped battement fondu) in Kostrovitskaya's School of Classical Dance, and she mentions that: I think this is directly related to what you've just written, especially considering that pas ballonné à la seconde (not to mention sissonne ouverte) is a precursor to rond de jambe en l'air sauté.