canbelto

Another ballet that's probably difficult to dance with short hair is R&J, because it has to be down, then up, then down, then up, and so on. I imagine it'd be much harder to manipulate a wig constantly than to do your own hair. And speaking of ballet-specific wigs, I really dislike the super-short frizz wig that Manon has to wear in the last scene. I know it's supposed to represent how dire her health is but can't she do that without the frightful wig? I'm surprised ballerinas even agree to wear it. If I were a ballerina I wouldn't be happy about taking my curtain calls in that wig. I wouldn't be happy about wearing that wig, period. It's almost as bad as Grigorivich's snowflake wigs .... There's a Carmen video with Makarova in a super-short, curly 'do that looks so awkward. Thankfully I think Makarova's super-short hair days were short-lived.

Suzanne Farrell's new do: here. While we're on hair, I dont really like that long, shaggy do that was so in for Russian danseurs in the 1980's. Especially during the course of the performance, that hair got so soggy and it really just looked like they needed a hair dryer. I did however love Nureyev's hair when he did those first Giselles with Fonteyn. Because I never get tired of looking at this photo: M&A.

For those who want a picture of Veronika Part's bob, here's a good picture. Still think she'd look so much better with long hair. Lopatkina's changed her bob many times. A few years ago, it was this. Now it's this.

How about the first three movements before T&V? Those girls all have to wear that llong, straight hair. I always assumed the NYCB used wigs for that one because how can all the girls have the same color and texture? Like how would Jenifer Ringer dance that because her hair is pretty dark and curly. Also Walpurgis Nights -- another huge 'uniform hair' piece. I was watching 'Elusive Muse' and it was kind of funny to see Susan Jaffe dancing 'Mozartiana' with her dark bob. Gelsey had short hair? That's new to me. I always thought she had long, sandy-blond hair with bangs. (And still does! In the recent issue of Dance Magazine there's a nice interview with her and she still looks the same.) I'm dismayed that Altynai Asylumuratova chopped off her hair Although her smile is as radiant as ever. That student is so lucky to get a hug from AA. I think I would literally die if I got a chance to meet her.

I'd imagine that it'd be harder to dance a role like Giselle in a wig, because it calls for three radically different hairdos all in one ballet. First hair up in a nice 'peasant' bun, or a somewhat frilly, girlish semi-pulled back 'do, then the hair has to suddenly come undone for the mad scene. Then in the second act there's not much choice -- Giselle has to wear that split-down-the-middle Wili 'do. I have no idea why someone who dances Giselle would choose to have short hair. I saw a picture of Miyako Mishida where she has pretty short hair and bangs. I wish Veronika Part would grow her hair long again. She could look like Ava Gardner. Back to retired ballerinas, Monica Mason and Susan Jaffe now have hair so short it's like almost a buzzcut. I admit I don't really like it. I don't think any woman really looks good with hair THAT short. OTOH, Maya Plisetskaya keeps her hair the exact same way -- pulled back into a perfect neat little bun. Natalia Makarova has grown out her hair, and it's now shoulder-length again or even long. I liked Natalia Dudinskaya's middle-length, permed blond hair that she had up until her death I think. I saw Irina Kolpakova in the lobby and she has shoulder length hair still, but it's dark now and not dyed blond. ETA: I found a very current picture of Guillem here. Her hair is really really long. I think it's pretty. By the way, speaking of hair, what do ballerinas do for Marguerite and Armand? That calls for several radical hairdo changes, all in a very short span. I've always assumed that the 'party' Marguerite hair is a wig and that the 'bedside' Marguerite's hair is real ...

I've noticed this trend more and more. In the past, ballerinas almost always had really long hair that they tied up with a bun, and they wouldn't cut it until they retired. But now I'm noticing that more and more ballerinas have very short hair, and that they use hair-pieces or probably even wigs when performing. Off the top of my head, I think Veronika Part, Uliana Lopatkina, Nina Ananiashvilli, Sofiane Sylve, and Darcey Bussell have pretty short hair. Susan Jaffe I know had really short hair too. I think Natalia Makarova towards the end of her career also had really short hair, and Sylvie Guillem for awhile had this short bob but now her hair's pretty long. I can understand how ballerinas would want a change after a whole lifetime of keeping hair shoulder length or long, but I admit it looks funny when I see pictures of Uliana Lopatkina and she has this super-short cut, and then in performance pictures she obviously has some kind of hair extension/wig. Isn't it easier to just keep your hair long instead of having to put on so much artificial hair during a performance? And can anyone think of any other bobbed ballerinas? Unrelated: I really like Suzanne Farrell's new somewhat short, permed 'do. I think it looks nice and frames her face well.

I love The Lady Eve too. The chemistry between Stanwyck and Fonda is so strong that I wonder how it got past the censors -- during the entire movie, they can't seem to keep their hands off each other. Stanwyck is wonderful -- sexy, yet very innocent, with that husky voice. I love her real tears when Hopsie dumps her. If ever there was a tough/tender heroine, Jean is it. I love "Lady Eve" with her affected accent and the malicious glean in her eyes. I LOVE the scene on the train, especially after Hopsie jumps off, and you immediately see the regret on Stanwyck's face. And the ending ... one of the most uplifting endings I've ever seen. As they run downstairs on the ship to make love, I got the feeling that they'd truly be one of those 70 year old couples who still held hands. Love that entire movie.

While we're on the subject of this year's films, I thought I might talk about a film that hasn't been discussed much, Capote. I find this an interesting film because of the different reactions it draws. I saw the film and thought what Capote did was loathsome -- I didn;t care that he was betraying two sociopathic killers. I thought two wrongs didn't make a right, and I thought the self-loathing and guilt Capote feels became the heart of the story. On the other hand, I have a friend, who is politically even to the left of me, who felt very differently. He said the Hickcock and Smith were con-men, and in many ways, they were conning Capote to buy time for themselves. He felt no sympathy for them at all. I didn't either, but he reasoned, "These two monsters killed an entire family for no reason, if anything Capote helped them way more than he should have, and he doesn't really need to feel much guilt for anything, except for maybe toying a little with Perry." So I thought it was an interesting reaction. We're both politically to the left, but he thought the killers conned Capote, and I thought Capote conned the killers. What do you think?

Went for the 1977 Giselle with Makarova and Baryshnikov, but I could just as easily gone for the Coppelia or the Balanchine Tribute (Vienna Waltzes, Mozartiana, Who Cares).

I want to add that it's strange, but when I stopped trying to figure out all the symbols, that's when I started enjoying The Magic Flute for what it is -- a delightful opera, with one of Mozart's best scores. That it's like a fairy tale -- it can be enjoyed almost without reservations (unlike the darker, more troubled da Ponte operas). And to note: Magic Flute was one of Mozart's instantaneous commercial successes, and has remained since the opera's premiere. It is possible just to sit back, cringe at the high F's, laugh at the silliness, and swoon at Pamina and Tamino. Particularly if Fritz Wunderlich is singing. But if you want more books, there's also a slightly different take: The Magic Flute: Die Zauberflote. an Alchemical Allegory by by M. F. M. Van Den Berk, M. F. M. Van Den Berk. It focuses on the fact that the Freemasons believed in alchemy, and that Die Zauberflote is an alchemical allegory, with much emphasis on the elements (fire, sun, water, etc) that have already been discussed here and in other books.

A big theme of BBM is sacrifices. Alma makes sacrifices -- for years she stays married to a man she knows doesn't love her, because of her economic immobility. She finally leaves when Ennis basically says he refuses to support any more children -- it's kind of like Scarlett telling Rhett she doesn't want anymore children. It's dropping the curtain, and I got the feeling that was when Alma truly began to look for a way out. (And did. We never know if her second marriage is any happier than her first.) Jack makes sacrifices. He has a cold, awkward, distant relationship with his wife, and obviously is willing to make sacrifices to live with Ennis. And as he said, he sacrifices some of his sexual impulses, despite nipping to Mexico once in awhile. But as Ennis points out, they're not the same kind of sacrifices Ennis has to make. Jack can truly go live off somewhere, start a ranch, etc. He has the economic means to do so -- he also has the knowledge and the business sense, just from watching his wife and working for his wife's family. Ennis, OTOH, has simply quit jobs to go to BBM with Jack, and this kind of intermittent employment is what keeps him trapped in his life. He has to find some way to make child support payments. He has to find some means to support himself. The fact that Jack is very willing to support Ennis is something that probably never occurs to Ennis. Ennis's background and his life have told him, "If you can't fix it, you have to stand it." It's very telling that at the end of the movie Ennis is living in a trailer. Had Ennis been the one that died, Jack never would have ended up in a trailer. BBM is a "love story" in the sense that it's about this love between two people. But I think its message, "Life's more complicated than that," is depressing and may be why some people found it boring. They want to see Ennis and Jack in love, happily smiling at each other the way most movies are. The depressing things that result from Ennis and Jack's relationship are ... well, depressing. But I think it's a very good movie about the bonds between humans, how they do form or are NOT formed (despite marriages and children). As an example, yesterday the division at the job where I'm interning got dissolved in a "reorganization." When we heard the news, our big boss was crying, people everywhere around the office were crying. I started crying, because I've become very close to a lot of these people, especially my boss/mentor. These are people who have worked together many years, some of them in their own way developed a love for each other, and to have it arbitrarily torn apart is painful. But that's life, too.

Yes the class differences between Ennis and Jack became more pronounced as the movie wore on. I got the feeling that both of them started off as in the country underclass, although Jack was probably wealthier. But Jack married into a rather wealthy family, and ended up in the upper middle class. Enough to hobnob with country club folks. But Ennis did not. He married poor, remained intermittently employed, and could barely keep up with child support. Jack had the monetary mobility to see economic feasabilities for himself and Ennis. Ennis did not -- in their last fight, he mentions that he has already lost quite a few jobs because of his trips to Brokeback. Ennis lives paycheck to paycheck, and when you're poor, it's a lot harder to be romantic. I think BBM touched me because it showed love, and all its complications. Romantic love isn't all cut and dried. Ennis loved Jack as much as he was capable, but he wouldn't and couldn't ditch his mindset and background to start anew with Jack. Love isn't always like Romeo and Juliet, where two people throw caution to the wind and run off together. Two people can share an immense love but there are other ties that bind. For Ennis, it was his poverty, provincial mindset, and childhood trauma. And for people who are frustrated with Ennis, how many times have you loved someone without saying so? How many times have you loved someone and known that it could never work? I'd gather that everyone has had a few instances in their lifetimes. BBM is not a movie for people who've never experienced heartbreak. I don't think they'd get the movie. For me it was heartbreaking.

Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, but I wanted to tell people that this DVD is definitely worth getting. It's divided into two parts: dancing and talking. 70 minutes of Maya dancing, and some of the material isn't new but a lot of it is, including a complete performance of Bejart's Bolero, from 1977. And of course, who could ever get tired of seeing Maya do The Dying Swan? The 50 minute interview is wonderful. She has some truly incredible stories to tell, like getting a call basically saying, "Chairman Mao is coming to visit. Please dance." Or Stalin going incognito to a Swan Lake and dying the next day. Maya is as beautiful as ever, and her husband Schedrin is incredibly handsome too. But my favorite part of the entire dvd is Maya recalling her debut in Raymonda. She starts humming the Raymonda melody, and her arms start moving along with the music, and her eyes glisten and she smiles, and I've rarely been so uplifted by watching a dance video.

Hi Carbro, I forgot to mention Ulanova, who was certainly not sylph-like either, and neither was Alonso. But at least from videos, what they did bring to Giselle was a certain earthiness. Most Giselles bound out of the house jumping and leaping in a pretty blue dress, and you think that if there was a village pageant, they'd win. But Alonso and Ulanova have that ordinariness which I think is very special. And of course, they were light on their feet, with a purity and grace of movement. Anyway, when I meant "perkiness" I didnt mean a cheerleader personality, I meant a kind of bubbly, innocent sweetness. Would have loved to see Sibley or Asylmuratova because both dancers I think of as very radiant and sweet performers. I think Giselle only works if you see this sweet, innocent, loving girl crumble before your very eyes. In Act 2, I still want to see that purity and innocence. She's not a Wili because bitterness and revenge aren't in her vocabulary. That's why I don't think tall, majestic, haughty dancers would work in this role, and I'm genuinely curious to see if any of them managed to be convincing. Height particularly I see as a problem in Giselle because I picture Giselle as significantly younger than Berthe or Albrecht. She's like the sweet young teen, while Albrecht, Hilarion, et al have all been around the block a few times. So a Giselle that towers over everyone (like Zakharova or Bussell) I just can't imagine. Not saying Giselle has to be Kirkland/Markova/Makarova/Cojocaru tiny, but a 5'9" Giselle I'd have a hard time picturing. Also haughty/regal dancers like Murphy or Guillem or Platel.

I've always thought of Giselle as the most "emploi" based role. I can accept a lot of different Odette/Odiles, but with Giselle I only really want one type of dancer: someone who's perky and innocent in Act 1, and then otherworldly and lyrical in Act 2. And I've noticed that most of the famous Giselles have been short or at least simply medium-height. Natalia Makarova, Alicia Markova, Gelsey Kirkland, Elisabeth Maurin, Alina Cojocaru, Irina Kolpakova, Alessandra Ferri, Margot Fonteyn, Alicia Alonso, Carla Fracci ... Even Diana Vishneva, who's become a very famous Giselle in the past two years or so, is only medium-height, especially compared to the rest of the MT ballerinas. More than height, I think of Giselle as a role where the ballerina must be "light." Don't know how else to describe it, but someone like Vishneva, although long and leggy like most modern ballerinas, is very light on her feet. Light, airy jumps, quick, light arabesques. Cojocaru, Kirkland, Ferri, and Makarova et al are very light dancers. The only exception I can think of is Olga Spessivtseva, who from pictures at least looked very long, leggy, and tall, especially compared to other ballerinas of her time. I really can't imagine a tall, majestic dancer like Svetlana Zakharova, Agnes Letestu, Elisabeth Platel, Syvlie Guillem, Darcey Bussell, Cynthia Gregory, or Veronika Part being Giselles. Non-tall dancers like Gillian Murphy or Maya Plisetskaya I can't imagine as Giselle either, because they too have a heavy, noble, regal, majestic bearing. Yet I know it happens. I just haven't seen it. So ... for those of you who have seen tall, regal dancers as Giselle ... what happened? Do they become believable if they are good enough actresses/dancers? Do you forget about the height? Or do they simply look miscast? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not blaming Balanchine the man. As I said, he was a man of a different time and place. And as biographies will note, his childhood was extremely lonely. It's not surprising that ballet became his life, and that he expected his ballerinas to be as fanatical in their devotion as he was. I don't think he's an inherently cruel man, just as I don't think Diaghilev or Ninette di Valois were monsters. They weren't. They were just old-school people who perhaps couldn't fathom the idea of a working mother, or a life beyond the stage and barre. Certainly Diaghilev could also be very kind to his dancers; when they needed him, he was there. Even for people like Nijinsky; he rescued Nijinsky from war-torn Eastern Europe during WWI, and he certainly put his dancers and his company above himself and his needs. And most dancers also remember Balanchine with affection -- he too could be very kind and nurturing. I remember an interview with Mikhail Baryshnikov who said when he told Balanchine he was leaving to be AD of the ABT, Balanchine said, "Ok, but if you can't do what you want, you can always come back here, because this is your home too." He kept Allegra Kent on the payroll despite her injuries and pregnancies. So these people weren't monsters, they were just from a different time and place and they had ideas that today seem rather unenlightened. What I'm trying to say, is that this article (and others) often use Balanchine quotes (like "I want to see bone" or "The color of a ballerina's skin should be a peeled apple") to highlight the cruelty of the ballet world. And I'm saying that it's naive to say that the issues highlighted in this article didn't (and don't) exist. Eating disorders unfortunately are common among certain professions, and now more and more common among "regular" girls too. I have no doubts that cruel teachers exist -- ballet is a world based on discipline, and some undoubtedly take the discipline too far. I think dancers like most performers have a degree of insecurity that will sometimes cause personal problems (Gelsey Kirkland being an extreme and famous example). And the Australian Ballet still has an open "whites only" policy AFAIK. Hopefully this will change -- remember how only 20 years ago it was quite accepted that only white football players could be quarterbacks? Thank god there were people like Doug Williams and Warren Moon to prove the foolishness of such an idea. So: anorexia, low self-esteem, racism ... yes I believe they're in the ballet world. But I also think that some ideas are thankfully in the past. Ballerinas being mothers is one example. Also, I see more and more dancers taking time off for injuries, which is great. Certainly the old mentality that "if you can stand, you can dance" caused a lot of chronic and painful injuries and body damage. And I do think that ballet teachers probably rely less and less on the Diaghilev model. Ninette di Valois saying that she was so scared of Diaghilev that she could hardly look at him; George Balanchine remembering that he walked around practices with a huge stick and banged it if he was displeased. I could be wrong but I don't think most ballet pedagogues are like that today. Well this post has certainly rambled, but I'll just end with something I recenty saw. It's the dvd "Plisetskaya: Diva of Dance." It contains a long interview with the great Maya. Now Maya had a hard, hard life, despite all her accolades. She was tailed by the KGB constantly. She wasn't allowed to tour in 1956. And the interviews mention these things. But what struck me the most was Maya remembering her debut in Raymonda. Now 80, she starts to hum (slightly off-key) the Raymonda melody. Her eyes look dreamily happy, and her face takes on a heavenly radiance. In that moment, I remembered that exchange in "The Red Shoes." "Why do you want to dance?" "Why do you want to live?" I think this article (and most articles that try to damn the big, bad, cruel ballet world) forget people like Maya Plisetskaya, people who were born to dance and could not have done anything else. Ok, done rambling.

I guess I don't have much to add to this discussion except to talk about a novel where there were actually two written endings: Great Expectations. In the first ending, Pip runs into Estella some years after their last parting. He knows her life has been miserable. They share a few words, and then part again. In the second ending, they meet at Miss Havisham's old house. Both have learned a lot from life. These two characters embark on a new life together. I must say, I don't know which ending to prefer. The first one feels more true to life. We talk about things like closure and all that, but the truth is it's rare to get "closure" on any relationship. People come and go without a truly satisfactory "ending." Love often goes unexpressed, hearts break, life goes on. OTOH, the second ending feels more true to the story. Great Expectations has been about the maturity of Pip, and, to a lesser extent, of Estella. Pip's benefactor was Estella's father. Estella is the love of Pip's life. It feels natural that at the end of the novel, these two characters would start a life together.

Ok I think there has to be a balance, as in anything else. In the U.S. balletomanes tend to idolize all things Balanchine, oftentimes forgetting that Balanchine was a flawed human being with an old-world mentality and background that perhaps made him a poor fit for the American life. He loved the United States, he loved the long, leggy, tall American dancers. But he also undeniably had ideas of a ballerina's life and priorities that today seem Draconian. He was in Diaghilev's Ballet Russes -- like Diaghilev (and Ninette di Valois), he had a fanatical devotion to ballet, that in today's light seems perhaps frightening or at the very least extreme. He in particular discouraged ballerinas from marrying and having children; this thank god has changed in the United States, and in other ballet companies it never seems to have been that much of a problem (the POB, Mariinsky et al always had their share of working mothers). Ballet is a demanding, competitive discipline, and I don't think we should have "blinders" that issues like anorexia, low self-esteem, cruel teachers, crippling injuries, and racism don't exist. They obviously do. On the other hand, is ballet so bad compared to, say, Hollywood? Where starlets today (still) starve themselves, undergo drastic plastic surgery, basically prostitute themselves, for the chance of a "big break." Is it so bad compared to gymnastics, where physical abuse, anorexia, stunted growth, social isolation, et al are all big, documented problems? Is it so bad compared to many professional sports, where athletes pump themselves full of dangerous steroids, and are often cruelly cast aside whenever their knees or arms or whatever else gives out? Is it bad compared to the life of a miner, where day in and day out men are forced to enter dangerous caves full of substances that will give them lung disease? Perhaps the point of my rambler is: do problems exist in the ballet world? I have no doubts that they do. They exist in all competitive, demanding professions. Are things improving? I think they are.

Sorry, I've been very busy in a conference in San Diego. But: I was thinking that yes Lureen and Alma are somewhat unsympathetic, but as it goes, sometimes people who are unloved and neglected tend to turn harsh and cold. Neither Jack nor Ennis love their wives, so it's only expected that their wives become spiteful (Alma) and aloof (Lureen). Thus I don't think Alma and Lureen are inherently unsympathetic people. But in the movie, they become unsympathetic, because we see the movie through Jack and Ennis's eyes. I think it's a tribute to Ang Lee's direction that yes he did make the wives unsympathetic, but he also pulled back and allowed us to see the bigger picture. We saw how Ennis's daughter awkwardly but tacitly understands her father, the way only children can. We see that Lureen never even knew what Brokeback Mountain was. Basically we see that the unhappiness of Jack and Ennis is infectious. Ennis even makes a nice, wholesome waitress spiteful and angry. Watch her first scene, when she's a chatty, flirtatious girl. And then watch her final scene with Ennis, when she spits, "He actually TALKS" (about her new boyfriend). Was the waitress not a nice person? I don't think so.

I have to say, that although I respect Ebert generally, he's totally lost me with his "Crush" on "Crash." He's acting like it was the greatest, deepest film in decades, which it is certainly not. If he wants a film that really talked about race relations but in a human, realistic way, he can rent "Do the Right Thing." If he likes interweaving storylines, he can rent "Magnolia" and "Traffic." If he wanted a film that "said" something but only with more elegance and subtlety he should have taken a second look at Capote, Goodnight and Goodluck, and Brokeback Mountain. When my sis called me to tell me "Crash" won, I totally thought of you dirac When I fretted that it might actually win, you "assured" me that reason would win out in the end. Oh well.

Just saying, my worst nightmare has come true. In a year of some very great films (Brokeback, Goodnight and Goodluck, Syriana, Capote, Munich), Hollywood picks a so-so film for Best Picture. Bleh. At least Ang Lee got best director.

Cygnet, Veronika Ivanova is still listed on the roster, but I havent heard of her dancing in awhile. It's a shame that she was still in her prime when Vaziev took over, and created a new generation of stars (which is typical for a new AD to do). Hopefully, some MT experts can help us out. Natalia, you know what Ivanova is up to nowadays?

I'd say if ever there was a wholesale change in ballet ideal body types, it took place around the MT in the 1900s. The dominant ballerinas of the 1890s, Mathilde Kschessinka and Pierina Legnani were both extremely compact dancers. Legnani's compact shape allowed her to dance those famous fouttes. But around the early 1900s, a different breed of ballerina became "in." They were thinner, leggier, with more arched feet: Tamara Karsavina Karsavina again Karsavina -- look how long her legs look in this picture Anna Pavlova Pavlova again Olga Spessivtseva This new aesthetic I think became permanent. I don't think a dancer like Legnani, no matter how talented she was, would get into a ballet company today.

Altnyai graduated from the class of Prof. Inna Zubkovskaya so it makes sense that there's some brief footage of her. I don;t remember seeing her at the tea party though ...

dirac, I have a sinking feeling it will. Roger Ebert for one has been loudly championing Crash and predicts a Crash upset. I hope the Academy "does the right thing" and "quits" Crash, because Brokeback is in every way a superior film. The only award I'd give Crash would be Best Supporting Actor for Matt Dillon ...