Drew

When the dancing is choreographed, lit, shot, and edited the way it is in this trailer it scarcely matters that the woman is Natalia Osipova...except maybe when it comes to the height of the final leap and even that could be an effect of camera angles. It's sort of depressing to me, but perhaps the actual show will be more dancerly...

I take the 'no politics' rule very seriously, but am hoping we can at least take notice on Ballet Alert that one of the iconic protest images of recent months is a figure widely referred to as a "ballerina" on top of the statue of a bull.

The dancer atop the bull IS in a ballet position, attitude en arrière, but is barelegged and barefooted. One article I read described her as on pointe--which she most certainly is not--but which does show the degree to which the "ballerina" moniker has taken hold.

I am actually very late to the party regarding this image which I only learned about this week, though I gather it has been circulating on the web for months...I did a search on Ballet Alert, but saw no mention of it, so thought it was worth posting about even belatedly.

I had trouble finding a politics-neutral link, but people might try googling "the ballerina and the bull." If you search "news" most of the entries that come up will be pertinent.

I find this poster a much more interesting phenomenon with regard to the popular idea of a "ballerina"--graceful, yes, but empowered and anti-elite--than, say, Aronovsky's Black Swan.

Here's the thing . . .

It's swell that Whelan and Kowroski and Mearns are getting a lot out of the process. But what about those of us in the audience? I'm not a foundation for the arts -- I don't feel I should have to shell out $100 per ticket to see crappy works that everyone knows will be dead-on-arrival all in the name of subsidizing someone's artistic development.

Fair enough...but I will repeat (I promise moderators: just once) that it's a balance. In part, because Whelan's and Kowroski's and Mearns' "artistic development" can impact their performances in the ballets you (and most of us) do want to see.

What if a sublime Kowroski Diamonds was partially nourished by, say, Prism, the Diamond Project work which Tomasson created for her early in her career? (I would say, a pleasant enough work, which featured her effectively, but hardly a masterpiece.) And for many of us, it was a Richard Tanner work that first brought the fabulous pas de chat of Ashley Bouder to attention: presumably that work was important for her as an early featured role.

Now IS it really always the case that dancers are "getting" something from these new works that spills over into other better works? Surely, one might well respond, an Ashley Bouder's talents transcend any one given work! She hardly needed Richard Tanner. Might it not even be detrimental to dancers to be putting too much energy into weak ballets, works that cultivate, as it were, values that are not particularly balletic or musical?

An important question certainly. Heck, Croce seemed to think that focusing on the hardly mediocre Macmillan made the Royal incapable of dancing the much greater Ashton. Though--to give a pertinent counter-example--Farrell seems to have learned a lot from dancing Bejart for years!

So I don't have tidy answers. But it is not at all clear to me that Whelan and Kowroski and Mearns have not benefited from having works created for them and that those benefits have not also energized their dancing in far better ballets: the ballets everyone agrees they love to see them dance. Whelan in particular first seemed to make her mark in Peter Martins' works.

Personally, I like to see programming at NYCB emphatically Balanchine-centric (uh...Robbins, too, matters, but his works seem much more uneven to me). And I wish they would do more "offbeat" Balanchine revivals (Gaspard de la Nuit?). But I actually don't know if that's what the new audiences want or not--as opposed to long-time balletomanes. I once had to stifle myself when a friend raved to me about Red Angels specifically at the expense of the "boring" Concerto Barocco (he's a very good friend).

It does seem pretty clear that under Martins, the company has been over-gambling on new works and new choreographers. I won't argue with anyone there and I share the disappointment, but I don't share the outrage. And I can't help but give Martins credit for his support of Wheeldon and Ratmansky and even the initial opportunities he has given others. Kevin O'Day did one much-praised work for NYCB and Martins gave him another chance. Likewise with Mahdaviani. Well, gee, I would have done the same...I fully support, too, the decision to invite Forsythe: he did not seem to 'take' at NYCB, but he is a major figure in contemporary ballet. As for more recent years, they have brought a lot of seemingly embarrassing flops--and Wheeldon and Ratmansky...

As for ABT being more exciting these days than NYCB as someone above commented? It's an entirely different kind of company, but given the kind of company it is, based in full length works, its productions of several of the classics are at least as embarrassing as NYCB's premiers and with less excuse. (I say nothing of some of the appalling premiers they offered post-Tharp, Pre-Ratmansky.)

As for the twentieth-century full-length works ABT dances--honestly, even as ballerina vehicles I consider many of them quite mediocre. (Onegin? If you think it's a great ballet, then it's no great surprise you don't like NYCB.) And what is a ballet like Onegin there for if not the "artistic development" of ballerinas like Vishneva who, I don't doubt, love dancing Pushkin's heroine as much as Whelan loves having works created for her. Ditto Osipova and Juliet. The one thing you can say for these works is that they are crowd-pleasers. So, score one for McKenzie and ABT--but, no, I don't find this approach exciting.

As far as the classics are concerned no-one seems to hold ABT to a serious standard--that is they complain, but without the sense of urgency one gets in complaints about NYCB. When it comes to Balanchine people do rightly hold NYCB to a serious standard.

It's as if people expect sub-par productions or a lackadaisical corps in the great nineteenth-century ballets at ABT. The attitude seems to be that as long as a Cojocaru or an Osipova or a Murphy are at the front of the stage who cares? I am not unsympathetic to this view; I love those dancers--and have never opposed ABT having a few regular guest stars. But if the Martins' regime is flawed, I would hardly hold up Mckenzie's as an artistic paradigm. The fact is that we need some major companies that are at least trying to get new works on the boards on a regular basis.

Presumably both Mckenzie and Martins are in their final years as directors of their respective companies...we will see if whoever comes next does better. Maybe, maybe not.

Dancers wanting to work with new choreographers? Why should I pay for it?

There's a balance I think...Perhaps the company (any company) would not be able to keep some top dancers without new works? Perhaps some dancers would grow bored and their boredom would show in how they performed even the works you (who "pay for it") most want to see? It's not unheard of for even failed works to develop aspects of dancers that then inform their other performances in positive ways...Dancers are living bodies who need to be inspired in a particular way (not a book, as you made the comparison, to be put down or picked up at will with no harm done to the words on the page while the book stands sitting unread on a shelf).

Having said that, I don't entirely disagree with you at all (and I also know you are just trying to make a point): dancers' desire for new work should not serve as the main basis for a company's artistic policies, certainly not for a major ballet company's policies. But I don't think it can be entirely dismissed either, especially when a company is founded on a principle of creativity.

For that matter, audience popularity--that is, what people are willing to pay for--should not be the main basis for a company's artistic policies either: no matter how much they pay. It's a balancing act there too. After all, it's not as if Variations For a Door and a Sigh which the company revived so brilliantly--with Von Aroldingen's coaching as I understand--is ever likely to be a sold out affair...

Does Raymonda "usually" do entrechat-quatres to pointe? These are STUNNING, and i don't think I've ever seen them before. I THINK they're usually just changements to pointe.

They are stunning and, at least on Youtube, Novikova made them seem perfectly light and easy.

I am editing to note that Macaulay really only argues that the new Fall NYCB seasons have been seasons of treading water--which is not quite the same thing as a global judgment on the company under Martins or even over the last couple of years. However the comments on Macaulay's phrase here on Ballet Talk have broached the issue as a larger one and I'm responding to that response:

Who are the top two classical ballet choreographers working today? Presumably most fans would answer: Christopher Wheeldon and Alexei Ratmansky. The first emerged at NYCB and did his first major works there; the second emerged elsewhere but has choreographed breakthrough ballets there, works that greatly enhanced his reputation in the States at the very least and have been re-staged elsewhere.

I also wonder whether either would have had these opportunities with NYCB if the company had not kept up its devotion to having constant premiers. I'm not saying most have not been mediocre--by all accounts (and from what I have seen too) they have been; but I'm not sure waiting around for 'a Wheeldon' works if the Wheeldon never gets opportunities to shine before anyone knows he IS a Wheeldon.

If you don't like Wheeldon or Ratmansky, fair enough. But they are widely respected...and I have not often heard people suggest the names of other choreographers supported by other companies whose work they like better.

And also: who, according to many viewers and critics, (Macaulay included) is one of the most exciting if not the most exciting American Ballerina in the world today--NYCB's Sarah Mearns. I am sure several others on this board would want to place the names of Tyler Peck and Ashley Bouder beside that of Mearns (along with ballerinas from other companies but my focus here is NYCB).

Add to the above the fact that NYCB at least dances a lot of Balanchine on a regular basis and indeed many critics (Macaulay included) very much praised the quality of their dancing in Balanchine just last spring, and I would say that "treading water" makes more sense to me as a judgment on a particular season or group of performances--which, in fact, is how Macaulay uses the phrase--than on the company's recent history as a whole. Certainly "Ocean's Kingdom" was a predictable failure (seriously: who thought it was going to be more than a trifle at best).

At the very, very least, the ups and downs of the Balanchine performances over the Martins' years rather confirm that by keeping Balanchine alive in repertory, the company has at least preserved the conditions necessary for these works to be realized in great performances whether it is an unexpectedly thrilling Chaconne with Wendy Whelan (as I saw some years back) or Mearns in Diamonds--which I have been reading about this season.

The fact is that institutions like NYCB are never going to hit it out of the ballpark every season let alone every performance. So, from my perspective, it's best to take a longer or 'big picture' view -- while of course one may also register short term disappointments. When I take the long view, I see top dancers and top ballets emerging from the company over time--and not just "in house" talents, but really major figures. I may say I'm disappointed with this or that aspect of the company's policies or performances (and the new ticket pricing system????? What the ****--uh, I don't want to be banned from this board, but...).

So I would say: maybe not Michael Phelps, but not treading water either.

Great pity if he will not be able to attend and I feel sure that he will not. Now, he has a valid cause, not like that Jelinek woman a couple of years ago who "was terrified of crowds and rather stayed home with her stuffed toys". Yes, it is actually true

Pamela, That is a startlingly judgmental comment. I suppose you are not familiar with psychological or emotional pain or the terror and pain of shyness.

I don't suffer as Jellinek does, but I can easily take her feelings seriously. And, in any case, people don't necessarily become Nobel prize winning authors by having the same preferences as everyone else...

Of course, for an author who would wish to attend the ceremony (which is probably most), it's a shame if they can't.

I should add that I have very much enjoyed being introduced to Tranströmer's poetry on this thread (and elsewhere) as a result of his prize.

Thanks--I'm definitely looking forward to reading more about this production.

69 (or 70 as one of the articles says) seems rather young. How sad.

I saw her twice that I remember--both times dancing Flames of Paris pas de deux with Vladimirov as part of a Bolshoi "highlights" program. The first time, I was a very little girl (had only been allowed to go because there was an unexpected spare ticket) and I was totally overwhelmed--though I must admit, mostly by Vladimirov's leaps. But it was altogether a memorable performance. Pretty much my first experience of what now seems very much "old style" Bolshoi bravura dancing. And very exciting to a child who had never dreamed of such a thing!

...And she gets flowers!

Sad news--a great, great dancer. The first time I saw the Royal was a performance of La Fille Mal Gardee at the Met in 1970 and he was Alain, hilarious and heartbreaking!

I thought his last performance with the Royal was as the husband in A Month in the Country--they were on tour in D.C. Grant took a solo bow at the end of that performance, and I was one of a group who waited backstage for him. When he saw us, he said several times how touched/surprised he was (I can't remember his exact words) that this tribute from fans was happening in Washington D.C.

A Washingtonian myself I was quite irritated when several people there rushed to tell him that they were from New York and did so exactly as he was expressing how touching it was that this would happen in Washington...I realize they probably wanted him to know that they had come down especially for the performance, though there also seemed just a whiff of disdain (intentional or not) for anyone who was not a New Yorker in their manner of rushing past his pleasure at being well-known among Washington ballet fans--which, of course, he was.

In that performance of A Month in the Country he once again brought great depth and humanity to a character who might seem merely a clueless or insensitive dolt...one was able to feel for him even while understanding his wife's frustration and disappointment.

Last season and this season, several posters have commented that Chase Finlay "stumbled" or was incorrect with some steps. I don't know steps adequately, and don't have a real memory for sequences (as Alastair Crowley claims he has), so that I am not qualified to identify such problems.

Gee, I know Alastair Macaulay is not popular in some quarters on this board, but surely we don't want to conflate him with The Great Beast? (Just kidding, ViolinConcerto. )

I’m shared. Up to me, choreography lacks originality and the magical world supposed to be at the chore of the work is ruined by some impossible costumes. Bullion and Dupont saved the ballet with their presence and skills on the Premiere trying to throw us in a different world but with Osta/Pech and Ganio/Gilbert down to earth dancing, it turns to be really boring.

Thank you silvermash. The reviewer for Le Monde was more positive, though the ballet definitely sounds as if it took a rather playful view of its "magical" material (Ratmansky seems drawn to jokey...)

The premiere is tomorrow (the 21st), yesterday was the dress rehearsal.

Has anyone seen it now?

I also believe they need a couple more female principals, I saw them seven times in recent years, and it seems like every ballet on tour have same lead ballerina, mainly Zakharova, Osipova, and Alexandrova. Not saying those ballerinas aren't great because I do love Osipova, but Bolshoi desperately needs a more lyrical ballerina to balance out the mix.

I don't have deep knowledge of the Bolshoi roster but believe Kaptsova and Lunkina are both more lyrical ...

I had wondered if we were going to update this topic until I started reading more closely! (Based on my nowadays somewhat limited live-performance-going, I was going to write on behalf of David Halberg and Ivan Vasiliev...I can easily guess some other names that might appear.)

To Puppytreats' question about whether a director has the power to impact a dancer's career outside his (or her) control of his own company: Farrell more or less accused Balanchine of blackballing Mejia and herself with other ballet companies when they left NYCB--hence she ended up with Béjart, by no means a traditional ballet director. It's hard to know all the ins and outs of that particular story. I rather suspect Balanchine would not have had to 'do' anything for companies to be wary of hiring her if they wanted permission to dance his ballets. But there are other issues as well. She was a great dancer, but an especially extraordinary Balanchine dancer.

In general, without having insider knowledge, I still imagine that the number of directors with that kind of power/influence beyond their own company is not great--obviously it can't help a dancer's career to have any of their former colleagues bad-mouth them. However, if they were just frozen out of repertory and decided to leave a company to seek other opportunities? Doubt the scenario puppytreats asks about is often a problem. Though reading this paragraph over, I fear it sounds naive.

To take a partly related Modern Dance example, when a documentary film about Paul Taylor's company came out and included a scene concerning the laying-off/firing of a dancer, there were a number of viewers in the dance world who thought it unethical to include the episode since it could adversely affect that dancer's career elsewhere. Taylor was not accused of doing anything directly or deliberately, but the film was seen as a problem. (I don't know what actually happened to that dancer...)

To address Puppytreats' other point (which I realize was not directed to me): I can imagine many reasons why a dancer would remain with a company even under very much less than ideal circumstances--especially when finding a more promising position might mean leaving one's home town (or home country) and home language; possibly leaving behind family as well as friends. Indeed a million personal and even professional considerations (style, training, taste, job security etc. etc.) might keep one in a company where one's options were limited. I can't speculate on any particular case of course, but making the leap to a completely new career and likely a new aesthetic does not always go smoothly even for very talented dancers. (At ABT Veronika Part was a case in point: it took her a number of years to find her footing--so to speak--at ABT and I am NOT one of those who considers that simply the 'fault' of management.)

Very sad news...

His website now gives an update dated today saying that he remains in the hospital after his surgery, that the operation was successful, that he is in a coma, but that he is in stable condition.

They quote the hospital as saying there were no changes in his condition today. However they also quote his doctor, dott. Sergio Pintaudi, as previously stating that the singer may have had a bleeding inside the brain (cerebral hemorrhage?) immediately before the accident, which could have caused him to lose control of the vehicle.

Thank you for the update...(I had only thought to check his website earlier today before this was reported.)

Thank you for posting the news, Mme Hermine. I hope his recovery is a smooth and rapid one.

During one of my last visits with my mother, who was having many problems (mental, emotional, physical), I decided to take her to the Washington Opera--it was Tosca with Licitra. He was terrific and she had a wonderful time and especially enjoyed his singing; the whole afternoon put her in a (rare) good mood. This was not too long before her death. (And thank goodness for Kennedy Center's convenient set-up for someone who could walk a bit but still greatly benefited from having a wheelchair to use at the theater.)

Anyway, I know Licitra's career has had ups and downs, but I just love him because of that performance. Wishing him the very best.

Consider this: Both The Nutcracker and Coppélia have libretti by the original "Mr. Goth", E.T.A. Hoffman.

Libretti based on his work anyway (he died in 1822)--and rather less gothic than their Hoffmann sources...though productions may well choose to underline Hoffmanesque elements.

La Sonnambula (or Night Shadow as it was once called) and La Valse are rather 'goth' or gothic in tone--even if they are the work of a choreographer generally known as neo-classic. (Probably Gaspard de la Nuit too, but my memory of that ballet is very vague--similarly Cotillion which I saw once in the Joffrey's reconstruction of it.)

The dark cartoonish critics of Robert Schumann's Davidsbündlertänze also have a gothic quality--especially as they stand out against the Casper Friedrich inspired backdrop; but I have never thought that that moment of the ballet 'worked'--it's at once too literal and too exaggerated and almost seems (unintentionally) giggle worthy.

There may be other examples in Balanchine's oeuvre as well--at least I would not be surprised since that was definitely one of the colors on his palette albeit not one he used very prominently or often.

On topic? There is a huge world of fantasy literature out there; it's not a genre I read, but it's hard for me to believe it would not supply some intriguing stories that might be at home on the ballet stage.

Done!

The irony is that Simon G's characterization of Healy as a dancer was that she was highly technical, but not a great artist, while the criticism of Healy as a skater by many was that she did not have the technique -- by which they meant jumps, because her spirals, spins, and edges were beautiful -- but was considered a great artist on ice.

Could one reason be that the term "artist" is thought of differently in each discipline, relative to the skills and difficulties?

Simon mentioned that, of the 3 young dancers brought to ENB by Schaufuss, including Healy, only Trinidad was an "interesting and real ballerina." I recall several long disputations on Ballet Alert about what that concept, "ballerina," actually means. Does the same hold true of terms like "artist" and "artistry" in skating?

I appreciate Simon's testimony, but would not be inclined to draw any conclusions about Healy as an artistic skater/technically accomplished dancer. As far as Healy's career at the Festival Ballet goes, "artistry" as a teenager may well still be developing, but--as noted already--Ashton thought highly enough of Healy to choose her for the "first cast" in the re-setting of his Romeo and Juliet--and I have read praise for that performance as Juliet elsewhere. I also once spoke to someone who saw her at a gala (somewhat later in her career) and found the quality of her movement very beautiful.

Gelsey Kirkland commissioned her own second act Giselle costume which cost her $1000...

...which she ordered of the same fabric she found Carla Fracci's skirt to be made of via sneaking on the Italian's dressing room in the middle of the night and cutting a piece from the underskirt... Oh Gelsey, Gelsey...too much Gelsey..

Maybe she was high at the time?

I understand it's a joke--you have made jokes about Kirkland and drugs before--but I believe the drug problem kicked in later and Kirkland did not need drugs to be an obsessive perfectionist. And...uh...the results were more than apparent in her performances which were extraordinary and seemed as if they were utterly spontaneous. Indeed from performance to performance she was different. I'm sure there are some people out there who were/are not fans, but almost everyone lucky enough to have seen her Giselle when she was at the height of her powers remembers her as one of the all time great ballerinas--no joke!

I would probably have been quite happy spending my life looking at Balanchine ballets at the NYCB. (With Balanchine still alive, well, and presiding over it all, of course!!! )

And...don't you find yourself waiting for a super-deep 6 o'clock suported penchee, ballerina touching her supporting leg with her forheadhead in the slow movement of certain, beautiful "tutu-ballet" of him...? (Now, talk about "iconic"! )

I can't quite tell how much you are serious and how much you are kidding, but for myself...not remotely. That's a decorative elaboration of the adagio in Symphony in C, not at all fundamental to the second movement's beauty. Iconic AND essential for me would be the the various great arching and bending drops into the man's arms that punctuate the ballerina role throughout. In this very integrated (modernist) plotless ballet, I would be dismayed if somehow it were re-choreographed without those movements...that would not be the adagio of Symphony in C. But that's very different from dancing a variant of one section of a variation in a more loosely constructed nineteenth-century ballet--and one that is already made of up of elements from different eras by different choreographers set to different composers. (As Alexandra said above: there is a reason they were called variations). And in Symphony in C I can easily live without the head to knee...

Let me add quickly, that like Cubanmiamiboy, I too 'expect' the hops in Giselle and enjoy them especially when beautifully done--but if from time to time I were to see a performance in which the ballerina left them out or had to change it up midway (I saw the latter once), that alone would not make or break Giselle Act I for me.

The first performances of Sleeping Beauty I ever saw that seemed to me worthy of the ballet's reputation were danced by the Kirov some years ago (Sergeyev version). As mentioned already in this discussion: No fish dives! I was surprised and, I admit, 'disappointed' especially as I did not anticipate the change (to my eyes 'change'): but I still thought it was the best Sleeping Beauty I had ever seen.

I have never judged an 'Aurora' by how long she can hold a balance, an Odile by how many turns she can spin, nor a Giselle's hops.

Exactly my feeling. I may very well admire and enjoy a ballerina who does the above mentioned sequences brilliantly, especially if she integrates them into the totality of her performances (and does so beautifully, musically, movingly), but these seemingly "iconic" moments should never (as I think) become fetishes. Indeed one of my objections to youtube (along with those already expressed by Simon, Alexandra, and others) is that it encourages a fetishization of isolated moments in a performance...And, of course, it entirely loses whole dimensions of the performances in question.