canbelto

She was also close to Arthur Mitchell, and judging from the autobiographies by Allegra Kent and Edward Villela, deeply loved by her colleagues. I read the Jerome Robbins biography and Tanny's letters are the best. What a witty, vibrant, talented woman.

For those who have seen the video: is the mime retained? ANd how are the Florine and Bluebird?

Glamourous, sexy, even dangerous: Tanny LeClercq, Maya Plisetskaya, Irina Dvorovenko, Sylvie Guillem, Diana Vishneva

Sweet, charming, girlish: Alina Cojocaru, Alla Sizova, Patricia McBride, Gelsey Kirkland

All-around beauty: Altynai Asylmuratova, Alicia Alonso, Olga Spessivtseva, Carla Fracci, and Alla Shelest

Hmm, I notice that all my all-around beauties happen to have very dark hair

I agree with Herman about Lezhnina looking out of place among the current Kirov company. What's more, she looked out of place even when she was principal at the Kirov. Lezhnina looked very different from Makhalina, Asylmuratova, Mezentseva, Ivanova, Ayupova ... Me, I always thought Lezhnina was too porcelain china doll for my taste

Also, is there a "classic Kirov style" for this role? Irina Kopakova and Natalia Dudlinskaya were both strong muscular dancers. The Kirov choreography also completely eliminates fishdives, something that annoys me.

Well ... wasn't the current RB Sleeping Beauty designed for Darcey Bussell, who is many things but certainly not what I'd imagine to be an Aurora type? The video from that production went to Viviana Durante, who is rock solid but also quite a bit earthier than the "typical" Aurora.

I havent seen the Sylve video (it's on my Xmas list) so I certainly appreciate the insightful reviews.

Didnt Mr B always say "My wives left me?" It's typically cryptic -- was he also talking about his muses (Farrell, Adams, etc.) who also "left" him by launching personal lives apart from him? But I've read the Gottlieb book and one of the things that's most striking is that for someone so patriarchal Mr. B's wives sounded like incredibly strong-minded, independent women. It gives me ideas about why none of his marriages ever worked out -- in the studio these women were his "muses", women he could shape and mold according to his imagination. But offstage, Maria, Tamara, Vera, Alexandra, Tanny, Suzanne, Diana, Allegra ... they sounded like handfuls!

I liked the Gottlieb book better, IMO it's more creative. The Teachout seems to be more derivative.

I keep imagining the perfect La Bayadere, but I havent yet seen it, either on video or live. I've seen perfect Nikyas (Cojocaru, Zakharova, Asylmuratova), great Gamzattis, less perfect Solors, and only the POB video has IMO perfect Shades. And Golden Idols, and character dances ... Each performance that I've seen has had a combination of greatness but none of them had ALL the elements working together. This is IMO a ballet that relies so much on balletic ideals that no live performance could ever live up to an opium-induced vision

Long and lean figure is part of it (and I agree that Spessivtseva had that) but I was also thinking of a jazzy, quick, precise attack, fast footwork, easy high extensions ... In that regard, I was shocked at how "modern" Alonso was -- the lightning fast way she seemed to get her leg above 90 degrees, the way her feet seemed to accentuate each step of a dance with such bold confidence. When she kicks she KICKS, she doesnt just place her leg. She seemed unconstrained by the "classical" positions. I could easily see Alonso doing, say, Rubies, whereas in my wildest imagination I dont think Ulanova could have done it

I'm not "knocking" the purely classical dancers like Ulanova at all. I mean, it probably takes as much skill to perfectly place your leg at 45 degrees as it does for Plisetskaya to do a huge grand jete. And I think most ballerinas today are a combo of "modern" and "classical" -- they might emulate Ulanova's soft, lyrical arms while at the same time strive for Plisetskaya's leaps or Alonso's quick, multiple pirouettes. Some dancers, like Julie Kent, I think are more "classical", others (say, Wendy Whelan) more "modern" and every once in awhile you have a dancer who seems perfectly balanced between "classical" and "modern" (ex: Asylmuratova, who had the easy high extensions and danced modern works while showing such classical line, or Natalia Makarova).

On my personal scale, between 1 and 10, 1 being stuff I regret getting (the Grigorivich Nutcrackera nd 10 being stuff I thank my lucky stars was released (the RB Bayadere, the R&J film with Nureyev and Fonteyn) I'd put this release at a 7.5. Ferri's Titania is a treat to watch as usual, but Stiefel's one of those dancers I've never been able to "get." I like Balanchine's working of Midsummer's Night Dream more than Ashton, but Ashton's Dream is shorter, and perhaps more romantic.

One of the great things about this ballet is Herman Cornejo as Puck

carbro, it's Portrais of Giselle, and has Anton Dolin coaching Patricia McBride.

Spurred on by y'all's comments I saw the brief clips of Spessivstseva last night and agree that she does seem "modern" -- long and leggy, with a quickness and sureness of attack, but I really have to see more of her dancing to decide.

Another thing I associate with "modern" ballerinas is turn-out and feet. That's yet another aspect of Alonso's performances I noticed -- the sharp, clearly defined turnout and very arched feet.

I suppose I'm just bowled over by Alonso. I hitherto had thought that the 1950s NYCB ballerinas were the first ballerinas to dance in a style that I'm familiar with today (remember, I'm a 20something!!) but Alonso really pushed back that clock. And I still havent seen the quadruple pirouette done by anyone else

Indeed, Alonso on video at least accomplished the 32 fouettes for Swan Lake without ever leaving a small marble square onstage. And she ended the series with what looked like a quadruple pirouette. I was stunned.

I'm not saying Ulanova and Fonteyn were NOT technicians (indeed, her Rose Adagio can stand alongside any modern Aurora) but just that their overall style seems to be clearly from a different era. With Alonso, I just dont get that feeling at all.

It's not so much the ballets she danced, it's the style. We really dont have enough footage of Spessivtseva to judge, but IMO Alonso's dancing just seems "modern" even if it's Giselle. The sharp, quick attacks, the easy high extensions on the arabesque, the quick multiple piroettes (shades of Gillian Murphy). There's a vigor and pure athleticism in all the footage of Alonso that I find fascinating. Her figure is very modern too -- less of an emphasis on "proportion" and "harmony" but longer limbs, legginess, a bold exotic glamour rather than classical softness.

I mean, when I look at footage of Galina Ulanova or Margot Fonteyn they are clearly "historical' dancers meaning if they danced today I'd raise my forehead and say, "Hmm." I recently watched two Sleeping Beauties, one with Margot Fonteyn/Michael Somes and one with Altynai Asylmuratova/Konstantin Zakhlinsky/Zhanna Ayupova, and the modern technique of dancing is very pronounced when you compare the videos side by side. But Alonso seems as if she could dance alongside Gillian Murphy, Darcey Bussell or Svetlana Zakharova.

I also think different companies and schools made the switch to "modern" style at different times.

For instance the NYCB was clearly cutting edge, and individual companies had dancers that pushed the edge of classicism. Like Maya Plisetskaya with the Bolshoi.

There's a lot of talk about "modern" ballet technique versus "historical" style. I was wondering who y'all think was the first "modern" ballerina? Meaning, if she danced today, you wouldnt bat an eye and think, "Oh, she dances differently."

Strange to say but I think it's Alicia Alonso. There isnt much footage of her, but from what I've seen she has many of the qualities I associate with "modern" technique -- very precise footwork, easy extensions, long tapered limbs, super fast turns, an ability to infuse athleticism into even the most lyrical moments. Maya Plisetskaya too, but she started dancing later than Alonso I think.

I dont think it's necessarily inconsistent to think that Fonteyn thought taking up with married men was sinful, but did it several times herself. She had a rather conservative upbringing, which was decidedly at odds with the freewheeling bohemian life of a ballet company. I bet if you asked her, "Do you believe homosexuality is sinful?" she would have said yes but it didnt stop her from becoming friends with a lot of gay men -- Nureyev, Ashton, among others.

I kind of think there's kind of a gender double standard. I've seen various articles/books that talk about Balanchine's spartan lifestyle and his piousness. They also mention in the same breath numerous marriages and the fact that he left a parapalegic wife for a woman who refused to marry him A lot of people hold principles that, for one reason or another, they cant maintain in their actual lives.

I'm so fond of the arts (opera, ballet, theater, etc) that I've long ago given up judging performers who are perhaps rather "ruthless" with rivals, because I've found that dig hard enough, and NO ONE is completely innocent of this. It's not just Maria Callas shoving Renata Tebaldi out of La Scala, it's Tebaldi having a pretty iron grip on the Met and particularly, Rudolf Bing, who bent over backwards to please a diva known as "dimples of iron." Enrico Caruso, supposedly a "very nice" guy, who dutifully attended performances of up-and-comers and decided whether decisive action needed to be taken. Nellie Melba used to wire Covent Garden: "It's her or me." Today, I've even heard rather blood-curdling stories of Placido Domingo. And that's just opera.

In ballet, Natalia Dudlinskaya demanded exclusive rights to Giselle. I think essentially performers are insecure people, and they want to hang onto stardom. Some are more successful than others. They overplay their hands very often -- when Rosa Ponselle, neurotic and afraid of anything above the staff, insisted on Adriana, the new GM Edward Johnson decided to throw out Rosa with the bathwater altogether. It was a desperate move by a prima donna and a coldhearted one by the GM, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

So I have no doubt Margot Fonteyn was very shrewd and hung onto stardom, but I also have no doubt that she was not alone, and probably nowhere near the very worst, of stars who could not tolerate other stars in tha galaxy. I mean, for every performer who humbly retires and devotes their life to teaching, there are just as many who stay too long, and say they'd rather starve than help the next generation. (In Rasponi's Prima Donnas, Renata Tebaldi declares she has no patience for the newer generation of singers, whom she calls "mosquitoes.")

I hate to sound cranky, but I find Michele a very promising but somewhat undeveloped dancer. For now, she has many obvious things going for her (good looks, figure, great turner) but IMO hasnt developed the panache and "perfume" that separates the great ballerinas from the "promising" ballerinas. For one her arm movements havent developed the natural, soft quality that I look for in ballerinas. I hope she doesnt become a Paloma Herrera -- that is, a ballerina who seems perpetually stuck in the "Wow! Great turns!" stage. That doesnt look like it's going to happen but I really hope it doesnt as she's certainly so promising. She reminds me of Darcey Bussell a bit.

Another potential problem for Michele is how TALL she is. When she danced T&V and she had to hook arms with the corps she towered over all the girls so much I thought she'd topple over them. It'll take a very particular danseur to partner someone as tall as Michele.

I could see her as a great Kitri, maybe Raymonda, Aurora. Giselle not so much. She doesnt have the inherent fragility I think the very best Giselles need.

Vera Volkova is portrayed as a very positive influence on Fonteyn's dancing, being called the "Lilac Fairy" in Peggys career.

I think Daneman is a bit in love with the "typical" storyline of a ballerina: that is, a girl with imperfect technique but great determination arrives backstage at a ballet, is discouraged at first by middling reviews, but one night becomes a Star. (That night being her SB debut in the US). She tries to make Fonteyn;s life fit that storyline.

As for Fonteyn, Daneman seems to think Constant Lambert (who she calls a "genius" which I thought a bit much -- I mean, Beethoven's a genius. Constant Lambert? Not so much) and Ninette de Valois are the driving forces behind Fonteyn's stardom. She doesnt much seem interested in the Margot-"Freddie" relationship, maybe because unlike some other choreographer/muse relationships this one had a minimum of tears and tantrums and thus isnt as interesting.

Fonteyn started working with Ashton when she was 16 (the year that, according to a quote in the Vaughan biography of Ashton, P.W. Manchester said, after one of her performances in "The Lord of Burleigh," "That was the night we all knew she was the one!")  If the book portrays her as "simply a reliable Sadler's Wells dancer" that certainly does shed a different light on things.  But what?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well there was a certain period when Ashton didnt really care for her, and she got solid if middling reviews of Giselle, et al. At least that's what the book says. It also makes Ashton's favor of Fonteyn seem very connected to his anger of Markova leaving.

I enjoyed this book mostly as a history of a ballet era. This book focuses a lot more on parts of Fonteyn's career that she didnt like to talk about (namely, before she became Ashtons muse, and was simply a "reliable" Sadlers Wells dancer). I editted my Amazon review to say that I consciously separated what I felt was genuine biography and what was backstage gossip. It's pretty easy to do. For instance, theres a lot of secondhand and thirdhand storytelling: "Margot was overheard saying ..." or "someone said Lynn Seymour said ..." Plus all the sex stories -- I mean, the people are dead, so who really knows? But as a chronicle of Fonteyn's very long career, with a lot of ups and downs, the book was very valuable to me. I suppose this is becaus eI'm American and know the NYCB through and through (I can name the succession of Balanchine muses off the top of my head ) but the RB history was a lot more unfamiliar.

As for Nureyev, I find again that Daneman's kind of mean about him, and some of the descriptions have a faint whiff of homophobic judgementalness. And I kept thinking that Margot, despite her right-wing leanings and taste for rightist dictators, was NEVER judgemental and was supportive to her last break about Nureyev's very flamboyant life.

canbelto - thanks for your prompt response, but at present there is no link in your post, and i am guessing that maybe we should all GO THROUGH THE AMAZON BANNER anyway, because maybe just every click (as opposed to every purchase) DOES advantage this site. thanks for trying!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you click on the "here" thing it goes straight to the page.

Try this:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067...4315055-3736110

is my review for the book. it's the first review (meaning the one nearer the bottom of the page.

I finished this book and have seen it in bookstores. I think it is well-written, and well-researched. I put up a review on amazon (I was the very first to review the book!)

I agree that Fonteyn seemed like a complex, contradicting personality, and I cringed at her taste in men and also dictators. (Pinochet, the Marcoses). I wonder if her extremely disciplined ballerina lifestyle led her to crave adventure, and thus her fondness for revolutionary schemes (of Tito's). It seemed as if different people had different views of Margot. On the other hand the backstage goings-on of a ballet company are always fascinating fodder. Ninette de Valois was certainly a piece of work. And Daneman is much, much more symapethetic to Nureyev than a lot of biographies have been.

The thing that gives me hope for Sleeping Beauty (and my god I wish this hope comes true) is that the distributor is Kultir Videos, which has released some excellent performances recenytky and is still releasing stuff.

If not, I;m getting a converter and transferring my videos to dvd somehow.

There are some absolutely fabulous performances on video which for some reason havent been released on dvd. Anyone know if there's hope for the following performances?

1. Sleeping Beauty - Asylmuratova, Zaklinsky, Ayupova. By far the best-danced Sleeping Beauty on video, even though the lighting is way too dark. This would truly be one of those dvd's I'd buy 5 copies of.

2. Backstage at the Kirov

3. Suzanne Farrell's Davidsbundlertanze. Also, the Apollo with Martins and Farrell.

4. Portrait of Giselle

The Kirov version is set to be released in November on dvd. Yay! I'm really looking forward and have already pre-ordered.