Hans

Yes, it is a different style. I see it even today, though--the arms are not actually locked into place, but they are moved all in one piece, so they look stiff, even if they are relaxed. The shoulder blades are pulled apart instead of together, which leads to a more rounded look in the shoulders. Also, the heads tend not to incline, only to turn, which does not involve the upper back, so the torso does not move much, only the limbs, which contributes to the stiff look. It feels nice and comfortable to do, but I do not prefer it for both aesthetic and technical reasons. As for the lower body, it's not that the feet aren't pointed, but the legwork is not sharp and clear; it's a softer, less elastic look that many prefer over the crisp Russian footwork. All this leads to problems (for me) when a British-trained dancer does Swan Lake--the arms don't look soft enough and the legs look too soft, IMO. Of course, this is all a matter of style, and the British style certainly feels nice to do; I'm just used to the Russian approach.

Rachel, why would it be terrible to have a high Russian attitude in the Rose Adagio? Of course the leg can't be raised too high, but a little above 90 degrees is normal and gives the leg a nice upward curve--those perfectly square, 90-degree Italianate attitudes look rather ugly to me. I would actually prefer to see fewer 180-degree penchées, as the point of the step is a tilted arabesque and is therefore more about the body than the leg, which goes up because the body lets it. Alexandra, strictly speaking, those are not arabesques penchées in Kingdom of the Shades. When one performs a plié in arabesque, it is usual in Russian ballet to raise the leg and lean the body somewhat forward, but it is not officially a penchée, as far as I know.

Did anyone see Ulanova? I find Fonteyn (on video anyway) cold, but I feel that way about a lot of British-trained dancers. Too stiff in the upper body & mushy in the legs. So far I haven't seen anyone ideal in both roles, though Makhalina makes a good Odette and has the technique to pull off an impressive Odile. I wouldn't say she's my favorite, though. Did Asylmuratova ever dance Swan Lake? I could almost put her as my favorite by default!

Dirac, that is a wonderfully hilarious idea .

Actually, classical ballet steps are not all that difficult to write down; the problem is that different methods use different terms. Also, there are many different variations on each step. In music, a c is a c, with relatively few variations (staccato, legato, forte, &c) but with ballet, you can't just write "two tendus." It has to be "two tendus in a small pose croisé devant with the right leg, in one count each, closing on the accent." Even that only has meaning for a Vaganova-trained dancer--to get others to understand it, you would have to specify where the arms and head are, and that still doesn't take into account where it occurs on the stage or in the music (other than a brief note about the accent). And that's just two tendus! Of course, it would be much simpler if we could all agree on terminology, but there's so much history and tradition involved in all that; in fact, no two ballet methods do each step the same way, so it may actually make more sense to keep the different names...now I've started to confuse myself;)! We've had discussions about this in the Teachers forum before--it gets extremely complicated.

If Brody hadn't shoved his tongue down Berry's throat, he would have been able to finish his speech in time. The expression on her face said it all: disgusting. Thank goodness for Peter O'Toole--and Steve Martin, who kept things moving and was funny without being crass.

Once you take out all the mannerisms, Balanchine's choreography is fun to do and much more enjoyable to watch. Alexandra, thank you for the clarification. Carbro, I don't see why a musical, plotless ballet can't be just as interesting to watch as it is to dance. Personally, I didn't become a dancer because it was merely fun, although that was part of it. Good dancers don't just dance pretty steps for their own fulfillment; they communicate with the audience. Whether the ideas, images, and emotions they communicate are originally theirs or someone else's, dancers must understand and interpret them, and this requires an active, open, imaginative mind. A choreographer may ask a dancer to portray an emotion, idea, or concept with which the dancer has no experience. The dancer must then rely upon the choreographer and outside sources to gain an understanding of what that concept is like, to imagine it for themselves. This is why all dancers are creative artists, whether they choreograph ballets or not. They are the ones who make ideas come alive.

Alexandra wrote: Yes, it is. Balanchine's aesthetic as I learned it was about physical daring and extremes (it's the original X-treme Ballet) but with a curious emotional detachment. It's energetic, but sort of a mechanical energy, as if gasoline runs in the dancers' veins instead of blood. Of course, when you get down to it, life is nothing more than chemical reactions on a cellular level--some refer to the human body as an incredibly efficient machine--but what sets us apart from computers is our emotions, which I feel Balanchine's aesthetic neglects (squashes...?) in its quest for more energy, faster movement, higher legs. His ballets remind me more of exercise than art. Instead of digging into his dancers' bodies to get at their deepest emotional impulses and thoughts and therefore seeing them as people as Graham did, Balanchine glorified the cellular, the automatic--those nervously flicking wrists; tense, affected arms that are so difficult to change; and fixed, staring eyes speak more of muscle memory than conscious thought. I don't know how his aesthetic was originally; I only know it as it was taught to me a few years ago, and it seems to me disturbingly detached from the realities of life, his dancer-mannequins moving mindlessly in a test tube, outwardly suggestive of human activity but internally, merely obedient (I feel this during many of his ballets--Serenade, La Valse, Scotch Symphony, Agon...). It reminds me of The Stepford Wives, and though I don't care for Jerome Robbins' choreography much either, I think with his emphasis on more personal relationships, he was a good complement to Balanchine.

Interesting point. Do you think all those creatures become human in the finale (which I admit I enjoy)? Or from another point of view, are they perhaps people who become ennobled by art and/or their struggles with the world?

Alexandra wrote: I don't hate it exactly...it just leaves me cold and bored, with sort of a distasteful feeling. The dancers seem so robotic, so soulless yet self-centered--and not in a charming way as in "Narcissus." They seem to inhabit such a bizarre, surreal world that is without meaning or emotion. Every time a dancer performs a step, I want to ask them why they did it...I think mostly what I dislike is the lack of a sense of purpose. What are they all dancing about for? What's the point of it? What, above all, are they trying to express? Maybe if the dancers had modern training it would help; there appears to be some Graham in the ballet. Even in abstract modern works there seems to be a reason for what the dancers are doing, but I don't feel it in this. It just seems to be an emotional void in which steps are dissected and bizarrely presented to us for examination, as if it's a weird science experiment on Ballet, reminding me of those movies in which a mad scientist puts a human head on a giant beetle just to see what it looks like and whether it will live. I do not like the mechanical, scientific approach to choreography, which is what the 4Ts looks like to me. I have similar feelings (esp. re: purpose) about many Balanchine ballets, even the ones with plots. Note: This should not be interpreted as a dislike of MCB's dancing, which I thought was technically adept and for the most part quite polished.

I didn't think this program as good as last week's...it felt like we saw less, probably because the Bolshoi's section brought a great deal of variety. I thought 4T's was admirably danced by MCB but do not like the choreography at all. I started out thinking "Sea of Troubles" was interesting, but it went on way too long and it was confusing trying to figure out who was dancing what when. And those crowns...you're right Alexandra--they look like they're from Burger King. I had mixed impressions of the Kirov. On the one hand, the corps was just about perfect; I had complete confidence in the dancers' technical strength and shared sense of musicality; the opening was breathtaking, and they provided a beautiful complement to the rest of the dancing. The three soloists looked mostly very good in the first waltz; the first two variations (Golub and Zhelonkina) were quite clean, but the third was weakly danced by Ostreikovskaya. Danila Korsuntsev made a very good Solor--tall and dark, with a high jump and good but not overpowering flexibility. However, the costume was hideous--an awful shade of blue with what appeared to be a woman's bikini top. The blue rubbed off on Daria Pavlenko's white bodice, which was distracting and surprising--was Solor's costume colored with chalk? I've never heard of a costume's color coming off before. Pavlenko was technically strong, but there were moments in which she concentrated more on raising her legs than dancing the steps; she got her feet mixed up a few times, and her position a la seconde was not good, with the leg too high and the torso moved to one side to accommodate it. Also, she gave the impression of being peeved or bored, more like a runway model than the calm, remote shade of someone who used to be alive. I was surprised at how "un-Russian" the company looked--the port de bras and épaulement were clean, but the use of the back in every movement was not evident, and head positions and movements were not clear--they were an afterthought rather than being an integral part of each movement. It was disappointing; the style was bland. They looked more like competition medalists, with good technique but no flavor besides a grin; the port de bras was polished and boring. It made me kind of sad to see the Maryinsky look that way. I noticed that Alla Sizova was in the audience, and I wished she would go up there and show them how it should be done! (She could do it, too.) Hopefully they will improve for Swan Lake later this year. Fun Anecdote: During dinner in the Terrace Restaurant, who should come sit at the next table with a group of other Maryinsky dancers but Daria Pavlenko! She is very tall and lovely in person, and was dressed very stylishly, down to those pointy shoes that are fashionable these days, though I have no idea how she could wear them after being in pointe shoes for so long. Then as I was leaving the restaurant, I came upon Danila Korsuntsev, who graciously gave his autograph (I hadn't wanted to disturb Pavlenko during her post-performance meal, even though she seemed dressed to receive fans). Korsuntsev is really, really tall and intimidating, but seemed very nice. I hadn't known before that the Terrace Restaurant was such a good place to find Maryinsky dancers--I will remember this when I come back for Swan Lake!

Ed, I think that was actually my fault--I didn't mean to imply that you personally held those literal views about those singers--I knew they were examples and should have been more clear. By the way, I love Gruberova's voice. It's so rich and 'big,' but so controlled, and I never have the feeling she's straining for a note. Re: Sills, I like her wholesome persona. She doesn't (didn't?) put on any airs or have huge tantrums like other stars; she just sang beautifully, and it was enough to just be herself. I sometimes wonder if the tantrum divas don't actually suffer from low self-esteem.

I was offended, too. Nobody said it was "curmudgeonly charm" or indeed charm of any sort that caused Johnson to write that the RBS dancers were "disgusting," among other things. Why is there such hatred toward ballet students? If Crisp wanted to criticize the idea of the cupid, he still needn't have called it "loathsome." Whether Crisp likes children or not, Petipa, Bournonville, and Balanchine all used them in their productions, which will certainly outlast him and his reviews. Dislike is no excuse for rudeness, and being a critic does not require that one write one's exact thoughts, especially if doing so would be pointlessly cruel.

Marc Haegeman wrote: That's true...the Soviet version doesn't have an Act IV, does it? So at least the story now has a resolution. But I hope they do continue to dance the Sergeyev Sleeping Beauty, especially considering that in places it seems to be more accurate than the reconstruction--though I definitely prefer the reconstructed sets and costumes...some of the Sergeyev court costumes are downright ugly, and the sets...:rolleyes:

No, not the HBO series. This is the continuation of the Ballet Audience Decline/Famous Operatic Sopranos thread under Issues in Ballet. Ed Waffle commented on some of the weaknesses of certain singers, which was interesting, especially concerning Swenson and Gruberova--Ed, you wrote that Ruth Ann Swenson can't sing coloratura passages while Edita Gruberova can sing nothing but. (I'm paraphrasing.) I have recordings of both of them, one in which Swenson sings beautiful coloratura and another in which Gruberova sings "Ah! Verranna a te sull-aure" from Lucia di Lammermoor with Alfredo Kraus. Both sound very nice to me. I'm also curious about the perceived weaknesses of other singers, like Beverly Sills, Roberta Peters, Kiri Te Kanawa, Leontyne Price, and Marilyn Horne. I'm afraid I'm not a very good opera fan--I like way too many singers! I think my favorite would have to be between Sills and Price...but as a bass, I am bound to revile all tenors, as well as prefer mezzos to sopranos ;). By the way, I have a question about Rossini's L'Assedio di Corinto: is the (male) character Neocle usually sung by a woman? I have a cd on which it is sung by Marilyn Horne, which seemed a little odd, but if that's how Rossini wrote it...

Re: ballotté, it is interesting that Karsavina performed it that way, as according to Vaganova, it should be performed with straight legs so as to get a gentle rocking motion. I know Karsavina's way would probably be pre-Vaganova, so it's interesting to see how it changed. Performing a historical reconstruction at the Maryinsky is not skipping the last century, as the modern versions are kept in the repertoire, so I still don't see the objection. Cargill wrote: Actually, that is one thing that did not make sense to me. Solor, Albrecht, and James all dance with their Shades, Wilis, and Sylphs, so why can't Désiré dance with the Dryads?[Editing to say: Does Solor dance with the Shades in the reconstruction?]

Well, if they don't want to dance Petipa, why are they at the Maryinsky?That the reconstructions are considered less musical could be due to a number of factors: a different sense of musicality in the 19th century, illogical counting on the part of reconstructors, &c. I think it would help dancers today if they would get used to moving--many of the classics are performed these days as if they are a series of positions, not continuous movement. I can see even as late as videos from the 1960's that ballet used to be thought of as movement, not positions. The desire to impress the audience has superseded the importance of actually dancing. I would also like to state that I don't think modern productions should be thrown out in favor of historical reconstructions, however accurate. As I've written elsewhere on the board, I sometimes prefer modern choreography to what I've read of reconstructions--I'm not saying people should automatically prefer it and think it's better just because Petipa did it. However, looking at how productions have changed through the years lets one see important details that may have been lost as well as judicious editing decisions that have tightened the action and improved the ballets. Dancers could look and see if perhaps some of the older details or steps suit them better or if it's best for them to dance more of the updated choreography--they'd have more to draw on than just the current production, which probably has a lot of good in it, but at the same time might ignore some "good" in the name of progress. And as for dumbing down their technique, it's obvious that there's been a serious decline in real ballet technique in at least the past few decades if not more. I would think a return to the original choreography and style of performing would demand a higher level of technique than is commonly seen today, not to mention far better acting. Just because legs go higher now and men's jumps are more ostentatious does not mean technique has evolved at all; I would argue that it has not. [Note: I don't mean to say technique hasn't evolved at all since the 19th century; but I think there's been precious little technical progress since the '60's and '70's.] Certainly we understand the body better now, but I predict that it will be a long time before we really start seeing the results of this understanding in everyday dancing. Also, perhaps it is just that the stagers of the reconstructed ballets are not good. No matter how excellent the ballet, a bad staging will make it look bad, and if the stagers go for a mathematically dry reconstruction, of course the performances will be boring and unmusical. Ballets need talented stagers to really bring them to life.

Actually, one aspect of the RDB I'd forgotten to mention was how well the women jumped--very impressive, with quite clean beats. I noticed the raised heels and lack of turnout among most of the dancers, though I admit that is an overgeneralization; also, I've seen these same two things a great deal among American dancers as well, even those in companies such as ABT, so I didn't mean to make it sound like a Major Sin (though of course it would be nice if it were corrected). I also think it's smart of them to modulate the height of their jumps--it's wonderful that they pay attention to that! Re: Volochkova, I agree with you--that combination of a tan, blond hair, and lots and lots of glitter produced an effet generally associated with Vegas (at least in this country). I think her makeup was probably intended for a much larger theater, and wouldn't look out of place on the Bolshoi stage, but in the Eisenhower, it really was just way too much. Roma, I know it's probably futile to hope for Ayupova, but at least maybe we could have Pavlenko...? I would just be really irritated to see an overtly athletic ballerina in Kingdom of the Shades--and it's not like I can just pop over to the Maryinsky to see a different cast whenever I please! I'm really happy they are going to bring Swan Lake later in the year, and Nutcracker, but I want to know which Nutcracker it will be before I buy tickets.

Wow...I guess everyone was waiting for my next post! I got sidetracked over the weekend and now can't quite remember what I was going to say...except that I think less focus on extreme positions will help dancers learn to emphasize movement quality and that wearing those heavy costumes could help lead to a more stately way of moving, less athletic than is often seen. However, the dancers have to be willing to do it.

I wish I could have written sooner after the performance, but better late than never, I guess. I went on Sunday, and had a really good time. I found the opening of the Napoli Pas de Six to be a little too cute, but was soon won over by the dancers' energy and evident high spirits. The feet were quick, but not as clean as I expected--they rarely put their heels down, which made for some shallow demi-pliés, and none of them were very turned-out. I still found it more interesting to watch the legs, as the port de bras was stiff and the épaulement barely existed. the costumes, too, looked a bit ballet school recital-ish, as though they'd been ordered from Curtain Call, though they probably look better surrounded by a crowd and surmounted by a bridge and flags. It looked a little strange to have the dancers just standing around onstage after their variations; again, I'm sure it makes more sense within the context of the ballet. Overall, very well done--wonderful energy and mostly very clean, quick dancing. Le Spectre de la Rose was positively weird...the curtain opened on a bare stage with a plain, modern, white Ikea chair downstage left. Nina Kaptsova then entered lyrically in a frilly pink Victorian gown, and the effect was, to say the least, inharmonious. To make matters worse, in leapt Gennady yanin in a frightening costume of bathing cap covered in very fake-looking rose petals and tights of a shade that was not meant to be worn by a male dancer. Just because Nijinsky did it doesn't mean everyone should. I did not find him appealing in this dance, as his arms were effeminate and his legs short and bent. His jump was also unremarkable. I enjoyed Kaptsova's dancing, however; she had a dreamy quality and was light and lyrical. La Fille mal gardée was a big improvement on the dancing thus far--Goryatcheva showed us the clean, unmannered port de bras the Danes had lacked, and also used her long, beautiful legs to advantage, not raising them to ear-scraping heights but focusing on her dancing as opposed to positions. She was delightful in her quick allegro variation. Bolotin showed beautiful high jumps in his variation and the coda and clean legs and feet. Both of them actually used their heads, which was a pleasant surprise. Goryatcheva looked more "Kirov" than Kirov-trained Volchkova...more on her later. Narcissus opened with rather too many flashy jumps and turns instead of choreographic substance for my taste, but later, the choreography was coherent and clear--we never had to wonder what he was doing, or what some gesture meant--it was all very clear without being heavy-handed. Very, very well acted by a boyish Gennady Yanin, convincingly innocent. Beautiful music, too, which was a nice change from other new choreography. I agree with Juliet about Don Quixote: Las Vegas Kitri. Those big sparkly tutus, along with Volochkova's heavy makeup, big gold bracelet, and exaggerated manner probably come across well on the vast Bolshoi stage surrounded by big elaborate sets and a crowd of people, but in the small intimate Eisenhower Theater, the effect was overpowering, like having to stand in line next to someone wearing a lot of bad perfume. The pattern on Evgeny Ivanchenko's sparkly white jacket recalled Elvis. However, the dancing was mostly very good. Volchkova is not a small or feminine dancer; she is built more along the lines of Chenchikova, tall and athletic. Yet for all her mannerisms and glitter, the adagio was rather low-key, no stunning balances or technical fireworks. All we got from her was an attempt to touch her knee to her ear every time she performed a developpé a la second, which usually ended in failure; she contorted herself to no real effect. Irina Fedotova in the first solo was excellent--she jumped higher than the Danish men put together and landed without a sound. Very clean, with nice port de bras. Ivanchenko's solo looked good; technically impressive, but again I agree with Juliet--he could have used more flair and Spanish flavor. Volochkova's solo was boring, a weird mix of Gorsky and Petipa that was unimpressive. Unfortunately, she held her ending pose for quite some time, turned around into another pose and stood there for a while, then walked slowly to the center of the stage and took three bows as if she'd just danced the variation of the week. Most of the audience gamely played along and applauded as long as she bowed; it was not deserved. Ekaterina Shipulina in the second solo looked quite nice, I thought; graceful and lyrical, with no obvious technical weaknesses. She seemed to have a nice jump and clean lines, although not really very remarkable or memorable. The coda was at least fun; Ivanchenko has beautiful legs and feet but needs to project more. Volochkova snapped her fan open on her doubles, which spared us from having to look at her messy first position during her pirouettes. After the first sixteen, though, she was sloppy...gave new meaning to "'executing' the steps." I've never really liked Fancy Free very much, even though it is well-choreographed and often humorous. It was well-acted by Craig Salstein, David Hallberg, and Marcelo Gomes with Paloma Herrera, Julie Kent, and Angela Snow. The dancers tried to make the purse scene playful, it seemed, but the music is menacing at that point, which gave the dancing a darker tone. I wanted the police to show up. The rest of the ballet, however, was clear and playfully danced, though some of the men moved rather too exaggeratedly (Gomes' solo recalled Marie Rambert's comment to Frederick Ashton that he waved his "great big bottom about like a banner"). Overall, a fun, enjoyable evening. It was interesting to watch how the various companies related to the stage--the Danes seemed quite comfortable in the space; I was in the balcony, and I felt it. Volochkova's dancing spilled over the proscenium, making it feel as if I were in the third row, and the other Bolshoi dancers, while they appeared to have enough space in which to dance, clearly seemed used to having much more space on the sides. ABT just looked cramped, probably because of the huge set. I can't wait until next week when I get to see the Kirov...does anyone know if casting is up for them on the KC site yet? I hope they don't inflict Zakharova on me...I'm praying for Ayupova!

I find it rather amazing that artists at the Maryinsky aren't curious to see what Petipa's productions (which are the basis for their repertoire, style, and indeed, most of the reason for the Maryinsky Ballet's current existence) looked like in their original form. He was, after all, one of the greatest choreographic geniuses in the world. There is nothing wrong with 'freshening up' a production that is looking a little worn or dated, but some of the 'improvements' made over the centuries served only to confuse the dramatic action to the point of incoherence and to add needless technical virtuosity. I think it is extremely instructive to see what Petipa actually intended his ballets to look like in contrast with the modern productions of today--what has been changed, what has stayed the same, &c. Just because the original form of the ballets has been notated doesn't mean they must forever be performed the exact same old way, but they should be used as a guide to make sure the ballets don't lose their dramatic and choreographic integrity. If nothing else, think how much richer dancers' interpretations of their roles can be if they can draw from centuries of experience instead of just one production. I'll finish this post later; I have to go teach a class.

Thank you both--that helps make more sense out of Kingdom of the Shades. A mime scene would make more sense there, but the pas de deux is also quite beautiful. Some believe that the pas de deux belongs in Act I for some reason, but the music it's danced to has exactly the same tune as the waltz preceding it, so I think it's in the right place. By the way, I thought the final tableau was of Nikiya leading Solor up to heaven, and that the temple was destroyed just before the marriage took place...perhaps Makarova just changed that around a bit in her production. However, that's interesting--that Solor and Nikiya are not together in the end after all.

That excerpt from the libretto is helpful--it sounds as if Nikiya doesn't assign blame at all, perhaps thinking the snake just crawled into the flowers by accident. By the way, I have a few other questions about the plot of La Bayadere, such as: What actually happens during Solor's visit to the Kingdom of the Shades? Is it just dancing, with no plot at all? This seems a little unlikely, given that other Petipa dream sequences at least have some connection to the action besides "Solor smokes opium and has a vision." Why exactly does the Rajah want Solor to marry Gamzatti so badly? Can he just not find anyone else in the right caste? Or perhaps because Solor and Nikiya are from different castes, they can't publicly declare their love?

I heard something similar, Alexandra, only I was told that the reason Lilac's variation is so easy was because Marie Petipa couldn't dance well...interesting that Petipa's daughter should have been a bad dancer! I actually prefer the choreography that emphasizes that the Lilac Fairy is one of a group--the most important member, perhaps, but not self-sufficient. Remember, all the other fairies give important gifts, too!

Now it's my turn to clarify--in the Sergeyev production, the entrée, adagio, variations, and coda are performed by five fairies and Lilac. Before, when I've referred, and heard reference to, "six fairies," I (and probably others on this board) assumed that "six" included the Lilac Fairy because that was the way I'd always seen it done.