Hans

Thank you, Coda. I don't know where my brain was when I posted that. MinkusPugni, in the very strictest sense of the term, Classical ballet has not occurred since the time of Noverre. We've discussed this issue before on BT and haven't really come up with anything conclusive as to what to call today's dancing. As historical periods are generally named after they've occurred, I think we'll just have to wait until we have the benefit of hindsight on this one.

My best guess is that none of us has any (postable) idea. I'm certainly bewildered.

Michael, there's one important factor that is overwhelmingly important when it comes to "updating" ballets that opera companies, by and large, do not have to deal with. In an opera, the music (generally speaking) always remains the same. When choreographers udpate ballets, they often change the steps as well, and as ballets are not notated as frequently or as in as much detail as music, that presents a large problem when it comes to maintaining a traditional version. Bart, the Kirov does what you describe to an extent. For example, I believe they currently have two Nutcrackers in the repertoire (Vainonen and Ratmansky). Ratmansky also choreographed a Cinderella for them, and I don't know whether they kept the Lavrovsky or not (or even if they were still dancing it when Ratmansky choreographed his version). They also have both the reconstructed and Sergeyev versions of Sleeping Beauty and La Bayadère, although with La Bayadère they use the reconstructed costumes for both productions, as far as I know. I imagine that only a company with resources comparable to the Kirov's (both artistic and financial) would be able to do something like that.

I agree, Helene.

Yes, any lip-kissing in Sleeping Beauty tends to annoy me (she's supposed to be awakened by a kiss on the forehead, after all) but I can see how it would have that effect onstage.

Regarding mime, I know many dancers and artistic directors think it's boring and outdated, but it is there for a reason, and what they do not understand is that many audience members who do not know much about ballet technique are NOT impressed by "tricks." They see much more impressive things done at the Olympics, &c and in fact find that it is the dancing that "deadens the action and breaks the dramatic line." I agree with that to an extent, although dancing in the classics is like arias in opera--it gives you a look inside the character and shows what he or she is feeling. Mime and dance are both expressive, just in different ways. However, if you remove the mime from the classics, it removes the context from the dance and strips it of meaning. Just as musique dansant was never meant to be played by itself, but was always intended to support the dancing, a lone variation makes little dramatic sense without the mimed story to back it up. However, there is also music composed to be played alone, and there is dance that is meant to be performed without mime. In this case, the choreographer puts everything s/he wishes to express into the danced steps and there is no need for the framework of mime and an explicit plot.

Regarding NYCB and museums, NYCB was created by Balanchine (and Kirstein) to perform Balanchine's (and later, Robbins's) ballets. This is a different mission from MoMA, whose goal is to present modern art, whoever creates it. As Petipafan wrote, NYCB needs new choreography, but its core must remain Balanchine. However: I don't think anyone here is supporting the idea that NYCB should dance only Balanchine. Everyone has stated that NYCB needs new choreography, but just as Balanchine looked to Petipa's ballets while creating new ones, so must current choreographers have Balanchine to see as they create something that is new and different, but still rooted in ballet's long tradition.

What, no one's going to mention Sleeping Beauty? They kiss right there onstage! I second Farrell Fan's mention of Bugaku. Certain parts of Prodigal Son are also erotic.

I think the fact that NYCB has to import Balanchine experts says a lot about the state of the company.

I read that the vast Bolshoi stage was not sufficiently lit for video; I imagine it must have looked different in person.

I don't. Seriously, though, any successor to Balanchine is going to be criticized, but I really don't think Martins has done a good job taking care of NYCB's repertoire, even as he has done some admirable things for other choreographers, such as the Diamond Project and encouraging Christopher Wheeldon.

Yes, I saw a video of a Russian dancer performing fouettés without coming off pointe at Varna a few years ago, but I don't think there was any type of hopping involved. It was interesting.

As far as I know, it was not filmed at the Maryinsky; I heard somewhere that it was filmed at the Bolshoi theater, but I don't know if that's correct. For a Sleeping Beauty with some of the old special effects intact, you may wish to see the film of Kolpakova and Berezhnoi, which includes the panorama and people rising from and disappearing through trapdoors in the stage. You'll think I'm crazy, but I like the wigs.

I haven't seen this film, but it may put things in perspective a bit to know that Dudinskaya was famous for her excellent technique in her day. You may also wish to see her dance Carabosse (en pointe) in the 1964 film of Sleeping Beauty with Sizova and Soloviev. Having been one of those who just didn't "get it" when it came to older dancers for quite some time (with some of them, I still don't) I have to say it takes quite a bit of viewing to see what people loved so much about them, and sometimes their technique and positions really are much better than they may seem at first glance. As it should be!

Oh, to have known that back when I was at SAB....

I remember reading that it was silk nylon (maybe it's the same thing?). I wonder what I did with my copy of the book....

Vaganova technique is very different now than it was in the fifties--in fact, that goes for ballet technique everywhere! I was taught at UBA to do pirouettes the way Darvash describes in your last paragraph, Bart. I have to say that at UBA as well as at the Vaganova Academy according to what I've learned from vrs, they most certainly DO currently teach students how to turn, and they do not force turnout beyond what a student can do, although students are encouraged to develop their turnout to the greatest extent possible, as they would be at any ballet school worth its salt.

Brava, Alexandra!

Cubans have a secret: They cheat. I took a master class with Laura Alonzo during which she told us not to relevé until we were halfway around our first pirouette, which directly contradicts what most other ballet teachers will tell you: relevé, then turn. And it works very well if your goal in life is to do more pirouettes than everyone else whatever the cost, but if you want to be a ballet dancer, at some point you have to realize that making the audience dizzy is not the main object. Gina, I definitely agree with you regarding naturally gifted turners. Some people (like Danny Tidwell) have such an incredible ability to pirouette that no amount of training could produce (although good training can come close).

Bart, off the top of my head, I don't think there is such a correlation, when I consider that such great turners as Terekhova and Plisetskaya also had fabulous jumps. I think Chenchikova is a special exception.

I don't know, I think that to a degree, NYCB is and should be a Balanchine museum. Not that new works can't and shouldn't be danced; of course new ballets are vital (and once in a blue moon, they're actually good, too :rolleyes: ).

Ok, I think I see what you mean. Russians do tend to take relatively long preparations. (Did you ever see Nureyev live, btw? On every video I have of him, his pirouettes are impeccable.) And Makhalina, from what I've seen, seems to be rather good at pirouettes. I think regarding Asylmuratova, although she could balance for days, she got rather nervous about pirouettes, which is natural when one has a flexible body and long limbs. But her fouettés were quite good, IMO. It seems to me that all of the dancers you're referring to are the long-legged, flexible, "adagio" type dancers who are so popular these days, so that may be one reason they don't do very spontaneous-seeming pirouettes--they really have to concentrate on them. Unfortunately, Russian ballet schools just aren't "breeding" (for lack of a better term) the more compact, strongly-built body type (Chenchikova, Sizova) that turns easily anymore--note that Gillian Murphy and Michele Wiles do not have those pretty Zakharova feet, nor do they have her high extensions or hyperextended knees, and they can both turn for days.

Canbelto, this is so very different from my experience! I've found Russians to be consistently strong turners, and indeed Vaganova training emphasises a great deal of control in pirouettes. In fact, I've found that the weak turners are more the exception than the rule and that people such as Murphy also tend to be the exception when it comes to American or British training. (Julie Kent isn't exactly a whirling dervish, for example, whereas Michele Wiles, Adrienne and Ashley Canterna, Vanessa Zahorian, Ekaterina Osmolkina, Viktoria Terioshkina, Alla Sizova, Larissa Lezhnina, Tatiana Terekhova, and Altynai Asylmuratova all turn or turned beautifully.) Which Russian dancers do you notice not turning well?

Solor, the entire point of the Trocks is to parody classical ballet; besides, when I saw them do the Underwater Scene from LHH live, they danced it "straight." For humorless male pointework, you may wish to see the Male Ballet of St. Petersburg.

The Epilogue you mention is really (as far as I know) Act IV of the original production. The Royal Ballet includes Makarova's imagining of it, and I believe the Kirov's reconstruction of La Bayadère includes the original Act IV.