Hans

I think that when one is a student it is perhaps better to err on the side of over-dancing in class as long as you still focus on your technique. Professionals have to conserve their energy for rehearsals and performances, so class for them is more to help them maintain their technique.

omshanti and GoCoyote, you are both exactly right! And Bart, I agree with you, and the opposite is true as well.

Dyed blond hair tends to look overly shiny under stage lights, but my problem with light hair (being blond myself) is that without large, strong features blonds don't "read" very well onstage. Otherwise, I'm with Helene. ABT has more than sufficient male talent in its top ranks (Carreno, anyone?). I'd be more concerned with the lack of men at NYCB.

Actually, I was Balanchine-trained for 11 years, and Russian-trained for only one! But although the Kirov Academy had a profound influence on me, I'm afraid I'm not a worthy representative of the Soviet school, and I make only the smallest claims as far as my knowledge of the Vaganova syllabus goes. I'm not offended, Paul--in fact, I'm flattered!--just trying to make a "full disclosure!" VRSfanatic would be able to authoritatively state the Vaganova point of view for anyone who's interested. I actually see the divide (based on my limited knowledge) as between Russian (not necessarily Soviet) schooling and pretty much everyone else, as I have not encountered a similar attitude from either American (Balanchine and otherwise), RBS, RAD, or French (both POB-trained and otherwise) teachers. I don't have experience with Bournonville. The European styles and techniques generally pay more attention to the issue of balance, but the same forceful willpower and detailed analysis, both in terms of what goes into being on and controlling one's balance, and the ability to assess what is going wrong in a balance and how to fix it while remaining on (demi-)pointe are just not there. Furthermore, I think it is important to keep in mind that people of Suzanne Farrell's generation (as well as many people currently dancing with NYCB), though they may have attended SAB, had many years of training that did not involve the Balanchine style. They therefore most likely knew how to be "on" their legs before Balanchine's company classes and choreography required them to be judiciously "off" them.

From a ballet teacher standpoint, I think it may be impossible to have both knees perfectly straight in 5th, but that's not the point. The point is to try to get both knees straight because the effort makes you stronger. This goes for many things in ballet technique--perfection is impossible, but it's the trying that gets you closer. A correct 5th position is indeed beautiful and one can tell many things about a dancer from seeing it, but I advise caution--there is too much emphasis, IMO, on perfect positions these days and not enough emphasis on quality of movement. It's a fine balance dancers must strike--not enough emphasis on correct positions and the technique is sloppy; too much and the movement is stilted and unexpressive. I've seen quite a few students who can produce lovely poses but can't move between them, and this is a serious gap in their training. Another issue with which teachers must contend is the popularity of the over-crossed 5th. It is every bit as much of a technical flaw as an under-crossed 5th in that it reveals a lack of ability to achieve precision with the legs and feet, and as it is more difficult to put the heels down during jumps and relevés, it opens the door to tendonitis and shin splints.

I realize that what I'm about to say is more of a regional concern than a national one and that the KC has its eye on the nation rather than just DC, but I would like to see some concern for the Washington Ballet. It has an interesting (though neglected) choreographic history, and it is not Balanchine-based, which already sets it apart from a good many companies. A stronger connection with the Kennedy Center would give it more credibility in the eyes of the local dance aficionados, which could lead to longer seasons, and eventually we might have a good (or, dare I say, national-quality) ballet company that is unique to DC and not reliant upon an imported style and repertoire. Of course, what is best for the local ballet community may not be best for the bottom line, but at the moment it feels as if there's a high-profile stadium in town in which the Mets and Yankees play, but not the Nationals.

I think there are also those who over-dance because of bad coaching. From what I hear, the members of ABT Studio Co. (for example) don't exactly languish in a vacuum of inattention. Perhaps dancers (& others in the field) feel that in order to reach today's audience, impatient and used to over-the-top spectacle as it is, they must emphasize every tiny detail.

I interpreted sandik's comment another way--that soloists would not like to do corps work, and might not be very good at it, considering that they aren't really used to having to stay in line or dance exactly the same way as 31 other people.

To clarify, when I stated that Karsavina's training was based on the French model, I was merely echoing what she wrote in "Theatre Street."

Oh, I don't doubt it re: Farrell, but I'm also convinced that instead of the tiny tubes of fluid that most people have in their inner ears that help them balance, Farrell has gyroscopes! She was truly a master of knowing exactly where her balance was and just how "off" she had to be in order to create the effect she was going for, and that is rare indeed*. I also think we're in agreement about getting one's balance back after losing it. For this reason, a natural balancer may be completely thrown if s/he has an off moment or night whereas someone who has had to work at it would know exactly what s/he has to do to get back on. *Note that I said "couldn't," not "didn't on purpose."

I don't know...I wouldn't consider someone who couldn't consistently be on his/her leg to be much of a dancer. I've also thought for some time now that there are diverging viewpoints on this as far as training goes. Russians (not just Vaganova-trained) seem to have a take-charge attitude regarding balance--they will be on, and if they're not, they'll fight to the death to get there. Western-trained dancers tend to think more along the lines of "if it happens, it happens"--you're either on or you aren't, not much you can do about it. That's not to say that Russians never have off nights in class or performance, but I do find that their attitude makes one more aware of what balancing involves and how to control it.

Oh, right, that would make sense, wouldn't it? Sorry--my mistake.

Actually, I've never heard that expression used the way Paul does in your quote above (maybe it's a west coast thing). In my experience, it is used regarding technique and balance in a particular position. It does not apply specifically to pointe. Either you are on your leg (that is, on balance on one leg) or you aren't. If you're not on your leg, you would probably come off (demi-)pointe but not actually fall in the sense most non-dancing people think of falling. However, I'm not sure how a dancer could perform an entire variation without being on balance once. If you're not on your leg, you assuredly can't relevé to pointe. Perhaps Paul means the ballerina had trouble finding her balance and was just mildly "off" in the sense an opera singer might be just a tiny hair sharp or flat--not enough for most people in the audience to notice or to seriously affect the quality of the performance, but enough to annoy and distract the dancer.

I actually think (and please bear in mind that this is merely my opinion and not based on any type of historical research) that we over-polish the arms today at the expense of spontaneity and unaffectedness (and sometimes even some natural grace!). I haven't seen this footage for quite some time, but remember that Karsavina had completed her schooling before Vaganova became influential at the Imperial Ballet School (or whatever it was called at the time), and that her training was therefore modeled on the older Romantic French style with arabesques that leaned forward as opposed to the rigidly upright Italian arabesque. Vaganova, as you may know, advocated a compromise between the two positions--an arabesque that leaned forward to allow for a straight jambe qui travail and greater height, but also tensed at the waist so that the back muscles were engaged and there was some opposition involved. Karsavina did take Legat's classes after Christian Johansen died & I am not sure how much he and Vaganova may have discussed their ideas about technique (if at all) but Karsavina may be performing an early form of this arabesque that included the lean forward but with enough tension in her back to keep her from falling over. I also think it's important to keep in mind that many technical advances were still being made at that time (consider that when Balanchine choreographed "Stars and Stripes" it was unusual to have an entire corps of men who could all do a double tour, and there are many ballerinas today who cannot do entrechat-six) so one should not expect such advanced steps to be as polished as they are today. However, there were those in Karsavina's time who found her technique to be imprecise; she was better known for her qualities as a dance-actress, so she may not be the best example of what the imported Italian ballerinas were capable of technically. As an example of Karsavina's effect on audiences regardless of her less-than-stellar technique, consider contemporary reports that she eclipsed the great Nijinsky in "Le Spectre de la Rose," a role that today's technically accomplished dancers do little with artistically.

I could be wrong, but aren't there bits of Giselle in "The Turning Point"? As far as ballet as a metaphor/major plot point in a movie, I can think of "White Nights," "Center Stage," "The Red Shoes," and "Limelight," as well as "The Turning Point" (of course) although I'm sure there are others. A small historical note you might find interesting--Giselle was not originally the delicate weakling she is portrayed as today; in fact, she was a healthy, hearty peasant girl who committed suicide when Albrecht's duplicity was revealed. I suspect that it was Grisi (not sure, perhaps Elssler...?) who started the "dying of a broken heart" concept, stating that she did not need a sword to die.

I've actually been in that circumstance as a dancer--the curtain dropped and I and a few other soloists were to go out front to bow, partly so that the corps girls had time to change for the next scene. Well, the second that curtain hit the floor, no matter how quickly we ran out, even if we nearly collided in our attempts to get out front as the previous dancer was leaving, the audience always stopped applauding in between, and I must say it was rather difficult to endure even though once I'd stepped out they were always very enthusiastic!

That makes me wonder what on earth his qualifications are.

I wonder if perhaps un-pancaked shoes are more historically accurate, come to think of it. Would dancers back in 18/19C France have wanted to de-shine their satin slippers?

Actually, it was Ashton who said that about Fonteyn's feet. Also, to be fair, it was when she was still a very young dancer, and I think he was referring to how she used them, not their shape.

Leigh's description is consistent with how I was taught at SAB--most of the teachers paid very little attention to the arms. However, for the girls it was a different story. While the legs were paramount, Schorer and Pilarre paid a good deal of attention to how the girls used their arms, and indeed if you go to SAB today and watch a girls' class, they all have almost exactly the same port de bras. Please keep in mind that this was about 16 years after Balanchine died, so I am not in a position to say whether that was what he wanted, just that it's what I learned. Cabriole may be able to tell us more if she sees this thread, as I believe she danced with NYCB while Balanchine was alive. I also agree with vrs about the "character" arms. In character class at UBA when we would do a Spanish dance, imagine my surprise at seeing my former-Bolshoi teacher demonstrate "Balanchine hands and arms!" He even singled me out as doing it more easily than the rest of the class. Of course, when it came to doing the elegant Vaganova port de bras, well, that was a different story--after I had been at SAB for a while, Sir Pyotr Pestov told me my hands looked like forks, so the whole silverware analogy is a double-edged sword.

Well, don't take my word for it--I have a rather bad track record regarding ballet history here!

Kate, are you referring to flexed wrists used at specific times in choreography or to a general port de bras mannerism used throughout the style?

Wasn't the Act III pas de deux as choreographed by Petipa originally a pas de trois?

I don't even bother with my local paper (mistakes galore, no arts coverage) and subscribe to the Washington Post instead. It usually covers dance in the Style section, and in addition to regular articles about contemporary dance, it has devoted a few very large articles to the Washington Ballet union saga. It also gets Sarah Kaufman (with whom I've found I pretty much always agree) to review anything major coming to the Kennedy Center, and of course it also occasionally features our very own Alexandra Tomalonis.

As a dancer, I can confirm that we definitely can tell the difference between attentive and inattentive silence.