Drew

I have enjoyed reading all of these reviews--thanks to everyone who has posted. I agreee that this production of Sleeping Beauty is one of Martins' more successful projects and I actually think that of all the inineteenth-century classics Sleeping Beauty makes the most sense for this company to take on--especially as I have always understood that Balanchine wished to stage it or at least contemplated staging it though in at least one interview he seemed to think it would be impossible to reproduce the thrill of the Maryinsky of his youth. And he did, in fact, stage a Garland Waltz for the Tchaikovsky festival. (I should add that Nutcracker is a special and, in my mind, separate case.)

I am very interested to hear (pleased...sort of) that the houses sold well. (Only "sort of" because I'm not crazy about the idea of a more full-length story-ballet oriented NYCB.) Presumably the reason for this ABT-esque season during the time of year NYCB does not have actual ABT competition was to generate box office. So far, it sounds as if the plan has worked. Though I'm glad the company will go in another direction in the spring when ABT is dancing at the Met. What's amazing is that I can totally picture Bouder, Peck, and Morgan being just as good as everyone says -- and debuts after all are not crowning achievements, just important steps on a journey. Of course it's important that the standard be high enough for a world class company even in a debut and it sounds as if Peck and Morgan surpassed that easily.

I guess I'm a bit of an outlier on the Rose Adagio -- I think the emphasis on the balances is way overblown. Great if people can do it--and I'm not too high-minded to get a shiver up my spine and applaud wildly etc. if it's done spectacularly but having the ballet hinge on that? The best overall performances of Sleeping Beauty I ever saw were by the Kirov (Maryinsky) in the Sergeyev production. I saw three casts: the first ballerina Assylmuratova (whom at least one critic and two audience members compared to Fonteyn in my hearing) barely made a stab at balancing at all just taking her hand from one partner and immediately handing it over to another with nary a pause. The second, Terekhova, made a slight stab at it; only the youngest, Leznina made anything like an attempt (pretty good as I recall) at a full blown "balancing" Aurora. Now, admitedly, Leznina's performance was my favorite, but because of her crystalline line and gorgeous attitude en arriere, not because of her balances. Loved Terekhova too; not sure why, but I was not as in love with Assylmuratova as others were; but it was certainly NOT her failure to balance.

No-one wants to see Aurora looking frightened, shaking, and stumbling about in the Rose Adagio (alas, very much what Sarah Lamb offered with the Royal at Kennedy Center--from interviews I assume it was a case of bad nerves dancing in front of her old teachers and not a typical performance). Of course, Cojocaru's exquisite poise and wonderful balances, also with the Royal in D.C., was a thrill. But I would never make balances such an important touchstone for this ballet. (I remember wishing Cynthia Gregory would quit trying to balance so long, as she kept rocking back and forth while holding the balances in a peformance of ABT's old Messel revival production. ) Moreover, the rose adagio itself is a lot more than balances--if anything, my touchstone is the moment when the ballerina rushes downstage and just bourrees while while making sweeping port de bras, the music swelling climactically about her. It's crucial that SHE (and not the music) is in command of the stage--as if the music were swelling out of her, not drowning her!

Anyway, I wish I were with all of you seeing these performances--balances, imbalances, and all!

Unfortunately I have not been able to read Marc Haegeman's review. I have seen the wonderful clips Helene posted and although I have no idea how this ballet works in the theater, I feel certain that if Sol Hurok were alive this would already be booked for New York and a U.S. tour ...

Classic ballet, Lavish scenery and Costumes, melodramatic story, star dancers (even alternating star ballerinas!), and all based on a novel by the author who inspired Les Miz: what can't be promoted here?

The choreographer Antony Tudor tells a story about creating the lead role of Shadowplay on Anthony Dowell. (One caveat: I read this some years ago...)

He instructed Dowell to turn upstage and look up towards a tree (not literally there of course in the studio!)--he then asked Dowell what kind of tree it was. Dowell, understandably, had no idea and was evidently waiting for Tudor to tell him. But Tudor stopped the rehearsal because, as he remarked, if Dowell didn't know what kind of tree it was, there was no point in continuing ... The next day on the way into the studio Tudor saw a gorgeous mango in a market and bought it. When the same moment in rehearsal came and he told Dowell to turn around and look up at the tree, then had Dowell put his hands behind his back and handed him the mango. Dowell then looked at the fruit quite amazed and delighted and asked Tudor what it was--Tudor told him (a mango) and then when they did the 'tree' moment and Tudor asked him about the tree, Dowell volunteered "it's a mango tree"-- Tudor felt that in this way, at last the tree was "real" to Dowell...

Tudor's process seems a pretty elaborate way (method-like) way of getting Dowell to really "live" that moment authentically; but I infer he wanted Dowell's imaginative investment in the gesture of looking at a tree and felt that if he simply told him "you are looking up at a beautiful mango tree: the fruits are luscious and glowing" he would just have gotten a generic ballet-look-of-wonder moment. I can't testify if all this was really necessary; I can say I loved Dowell in Shadowplay. (I have often wished ABT would revive the ballet for Stiefel -- and they certainly have plenty of other fine men to alternate in the lead role. Hallberg might also do it now.)

Anyway, the story certainly confirms Nanarina's point about the use of the eyes being something that also comes "from within."

A fairly obviouse place where use of the eyes becomes important is when Siegfried runs after the swans, following their flight with his hand and eyes. Some dancers are content to let the hand do the work, but others really see the swans, so much that you want to glance behind you to see them yourself!

Anthony Dowell made this moment one of the highlights of his Siegfried -- precisely through the wonder and longing in his gaze as he looked across the sky. One totally 'felt' he was seeing--and fully experiencing the sight of--the swans.

In a review of Dowell in Sleeping Beauty, Arlene Croce wrote something to the effect that in the Vision scene he was one of the few dancers who created the illusion that he really was having a vision of Aurora appearing and disappearing rather than just playing hide and seek with the corps de ballet. I imagine his eyes must have been fully integrated into his gestures there as well.

Violette Verdy in Emeralds used her eyes to wonderful effect; in the opening of her solo they followed the movements of her arms...hands...fingers, but did so with such expressiveness and immediacy that they didn't so much direct you to the arms etc. but seemed to dance along with them.

Work may take me to London in late July--I won't have much choice about dates if I want to see the ballet (and I do!), but still would be very eager to hear any news about casting as soon as it is available.

I am, of course, aware that casts are, as they say, "subject to change."

I think this would be a huge success on tour. . .hope some impresario thinks the same.

I remember Suarez as one of my favorites when the Cubans first came to Washington D.C. --but I do vaguely recall her appearing primarily in soloist roles when I saw her. I believe too I was especially struck with her dramatic quality -- the way her eyes projected -- in a ballet based on a Lorca play. (Eyes don't tend to fare too well on youtube.)

Bergsma was also my first Lilac Fairy--Unfortunately, I only have very dim memories of the performance itself but I have extremely vivid memories of how wonderful she seemed to me. I don't think any Lilac Fairy I have seen since Bergsma has made the same kind of impression.

I know no-one intends disrespect but I do still want to make clear my strong belief one's buying tickets for or admiring Osipova, whether or not one is a "fan," need not be a matter either of (as Mimsyb writes) being "so pulled in by the (granted) superior jumps and other technical feats, we either miss or ignore other things that go to make up a true artist" or (as Vipa writes) that "in the ABT world a lot of ticket buyers will always go for the Russian import!"--(neither of which phrases suggests all that much respect by the by).

It's possible to adore Balanchine/NYCB and, when possible, travel to New York to see NYCB (me--this year Liebeslieder Waltzes was the draw) or even ABT with specific repertory in mind (me again--this year Sylvia) and American Ballerinas (me yet again, Murphy) AND travel to New York to see Russian Ballerinas (still me--Vishneva and this past spring Osipova). I'm guessing my range of taste is not that unusual among a lot of ballet lovers--actually I don't have to guess, since I can just read this board!--though I am especially lucky in that I have been able to travel occasionally to see ballet since moving away from New York.

Now, do I agree that Osipova is young and needs to grow? Sure. Do I share some of the concerns expressed about her development in the context of early "stardom." Yes, I do. Do I take seriously the charge that she is unmusical--well, yes to that as well (and I have also heard it in another context); in fact, I will keep an eye/ear out for the problem if I am lucky enough to see Osipova again, so I can judge what it is people are responding to when they dislike her relation to music. (I think video is not the best way to judge musicality--I would not trust the coordination of sound, especially over computer and too much else about the dancing body is lost). But ... uh...being excited by Osipova's promise and, indeed, about her current quality should no more be reduced to mere delight in jumps or Russian 'guest stars' than dislike of her should be reduced to suspicion of ABT hype or some such.

Bart asked me about the partnership with Halberg--I actually made the point about being pleased to see that they were going to continue to dance together less to emphasize that I think it's a partnership with promise than that I like the idea of at least having a stable partnership within which Osipova can work for these "drop in" guest appearances. I do think it's a promising partnership--I thought there was a nice flow of energy between the two during the performance of Giselle and that the lifts were lovely. But I'm more concerned generally with the need to give dancers a chance to develop and that includes giving partnerships a chance to develop: I'm not in favor of sticking with things that aren't working, but arbitrarily shuffling the cards makes no sense to me either.

There is no question that Osipova is still young and needs to grow--but I would not take it as a given that those of us who like her have simply been snowed by her "technique." She may not be for everyone, but she is not all steps, because she really dances (weaves the steps together engagingly) and I found pathos and stylistic awareness in her Giselle. She also brings an eagerness and passion to the stage that makes me care about her. Could that descend one day to circus tricks and star mannerisms--well, sure it could, but I think it's premature to think that that is where she is headed.

Unfortunately, parachuting in for occasional guest appearances is probably not the best way to develop relationships with partners or the company around one--or, indeed, artistic depth in general. For that reason, I was glad that ABT continues to pair her, for the time being, with Halberg rather than experimenting with different partners.

I hesitate to say what will be the "better" role for her, but I would probably be more interested in seeing her as Aurora--her dancing is extraordinarily accomplished (what people usually call great "technical skills" but I think that's too limiting a word) and accomplished in a way that Juliet hardly requires. And, though I found her a touching Giselle and think she will bring energy and pathos to her portrayal of Juliet, I'm not sure Juliet is the role to show off or to test and stretch her greatest qualities. (And, anyway, Sleeping Beauty is a much greater ballet than Macmillan's Romeo and Juliet, though I know ABT's production has been criticized.)

However, last year almost everyone seemed certain that Osipova's Sylphide would be more worth seeing than her Giselle and, after the fact, it seems as if the Giselle was much better received (in New York that is). So really, you never know. One way or another, she is definitely worth seeing

Off topic, but following up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_A...al_Reproduction

Here's the wiki entry. Yes, it is read that way by most philosophers, even if he also talks about how it leads to other political formulations and actions due to being mass-consumed. He talks about the 'shattering of the true aura' in these reproduction forms, the 'aura of the bad cult of the film star'. He disparages the editing process that makes of film a 'perfect orchid', and is being sarcastic when he says that. He cites Duhamel's loathing of the film. I brought it up because FILM is different in that it grows directly from live theater--it is still a kind of theater that is, yet, entirely different--it is a 'sleight-of-hand'.

Thanks for the reference. I took a look: the wiki entry does not really say that Benjamin is anti-film--actually it makes him sound somewhat anti-aura, i.e. critical of traditional (notions of) art--but...uh...I don't suppose either of us view Wikipedia as a final authority in these matters and Wikipedia itself heads this entry up with a note saying it may not meet its own standards...

Anyway, my reading is rather different from yours and I find it in a lot of secondary literature. I think that Benjamin certainly opposes the 'aura of the bad cult of the film star' but that is very far from being anti-film -- and even if one reads the essay as 'melancholic' as Quiggin suggests (and I think many others agree) one still might have difficulty reaching the conclusion that it is somehow against film. Benjamin is diagnosing a phenomenon and trying to think through its implications.

A very "standard" scholarly book on Benjamin like Richard Wolin's makes the case that Benjamin's essay argues for the positive (for Benjamin, as you remark, that would mean political/emancipatory) potential of film and that this is not an incidental but an essential aspect of the essay, alongside the analysis of a no-longer viable notion of art as aesthetic, quasi-cult object. Right or wrong, Wolin's is not an eccentric reading, however much most readers -- myself included -- respond to Benjamin's 'melancholy' as well as the textual undercurrents that may make one dubious--such as the remarks on the 'bad cult of the film star.' (I actually hold no particular brief for Wolin--dislike certain things about his work--but cite his book as a very mainstream, standard reading.)

As I understand Benjamin he's not for OR against film--he is for what he takes to be a clear-sighed analysis of the contemporary situation of art.

I do grasp that, as Quiggin remarked and you confirmed, you were making a different point about film as an art form in relation to recorded music and I fully agree that these are two separate matters. My own relation to classical music is heavily mediated by ballet performances and recordings, but I firmly believe in the power of a live performance in which my full attention is on the music. (Later this month I hear my first live performance of the Brahms German Requiem. I consider it sort of a major event--for me.)

Off topic, but...

You have the classis Walter Benjamin text 'the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction', which is very anti-film

I don't think it's often read that way--quite the contrary in my experience--though it's characteristic of Benjamin that he can plausibly be read in very different ways.

To return to topic: when I saw the thread title I immediately thought it might be a thread on the Der Rosenkavalier trio! In the meanwhile it has sent me to youtube several times...

I was a bit underwhelmed by Tharp's "Come Fly with Me" when I saw it Thursday night. "Vegas-y" was my companion's comment; well, it IS Sinatra, but that does about sum it up. Perhaps not entirely. For a brief moment towards the end, when--to the strains of "My Way,"--the women came out in white gowns (as in Balanchine's Vienna Waltzes) and, with their partners, swooped across the stage in various asymmetrical patterns of lifts and dips cued unexpectedly to the music, it had something like the poetry of Tharp's early works.

The plot (such as it is) is a riff on a series of stereotypes -- gangsters, glamor girls, charming more-or-less innocents, plus the main character who is also the one black character-- a super-sexualized, at times screaming (literally) woman who gets beaten by her stalker boyfriend (or love-hate partner or whatever), crawls on the floor animalistically and enjoys lesbian sex. Presumably, none of this is unself-conscious (though I would not go so far as to say I found it ironic), but it didn't seem terribly interesting either as a riff "on" the stereotype. The "My Way" number was such a pleasure in part because its beauties seemed meant to sort of sweep the past away without quite forgetting it -- offering a formal idealization of what preceded. But I wish I had found the "past" in question more compelling to begin with...

I had not gone expecting a masterpiece, but rather thought to enjoy the show as a guilty pleasure, and at times I did--I like Sinatra--but for the guilty pleasure to really kick in the men would have had to generate more of the heat the choreography was, to say the least, telegraphing and I would have had to like the costumes more. To my eyes they looked more 'dance company budget' than 'Broadway budget' and the lingerie in Act II -- when people start undressing -- was not particularly fetching. Maybe that was the irony. Or maybe I just missed the irony. The dancers were very good, but I wasn't quite blown away by any of them and I feel I should have been.

I do recognize that Atlanta, where the show is now, counts as a try out and the show may be much better by the time it gets to New York. There is obviously a lot of talent on stage...

Edited to Add: Out of curiousity I just looked at some of the reviews; the critics so far like the show a lot.

The "Jockey Dance" from this ballet has been included on excerpt programs performed by soloists from the Royal Danish ballet on tour--I think I've seen it twice (it's quite clever). I remember how startled I was to read in program notes at a Sadler's Wells performance a few years back that Bournonville was inspired by Bakunin's escape from a Siberian prison--Bakunin/Bournonville seeming a rather unlikely combination...

I will boycott movies with those actors in them until this matter is settled. But then again I don't bother with most Hollywood rubbish.

Plenty of people signed who make/act in films that are far from being "Hollywood rubbish" and indeed have nothing to do with Hollywood--but as you and others on this thread have argued, the issue for the legal system to confront should not be whether someone is a great artist or a rubbish artist or no artist at all. I think that in a more general discussion of the issues and emotions raised by this case and its consequences, the same argument applies.

This Sunday's NYTimes had a piece in the Arts and Leisure section treating of "French" attitudes towards an elite of artists and intellectuals when it comes to certain kinds of crimes. (I put the word "French" in quotation marks, because I'm not persuaded that the divide is really between the French and the Americans in quite the way the article implies and I have a hard time taking seriously any social/cultural analysis that does not give much or any attention to the fact that all the examples it considers involve crimes by men against women.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/weekinre...tml?_r=1&hp

A screenwriter collaborating with Polanski has an op-ed piece in the Times today that is very compassionate towards Polanski, but the piece does make clear the writer's belief that the actions of Polanski's own legal team in the wake of a sympathetic 2008 documentary led to his current predicament. Specifically the writer refers to "subsequent [to the documentary] vigorous legal attempts to have the case against him closed..." In that context, the decision to arrest Polanski now seems less puzzling to me than it does to others.

I am not a master of links but:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion

At any rate, you can find it in today's Times...The official Times editorial, in the same issue, takes a rather different view of the matter.

(Mel -- With such a dim view of opinions you must find it rather stressful to moderate an internet discussion board...'Jaw, jaw' indeed or, at any rate 'type, type'--though as I infer, perhaps it's the non-aesthetic legal context that makes the opinion-opining troubling to you (?)...When Spiro Agnew was on trial, I asked my father if he thought Spiro Agnew had taken bribes--his response was that he wasn't on the jury and hadn't heard the evidence. This is a different kind of case--since Polanski was convicted--but surely no work of art.)

Disagreements over a number of these dancers on this thread suggests just how personal and subjective our evaluation of dancers and their artistry can be. One person's "cold" or ""dull" is another person's "dazzling" or "thrilling." It's the same with "passionate" and "vulgar" and their synonyms.

I think one's love for a dancer is often very "personal and subjective" and what I enjoy about this thread topic, especially if one sticks to it very strictly (which turns out not to be that easy), is that it isn't about garden variety disagreements. Rather, it's a chance to come out of the closet if you thought Ulanova was a bad actress or Fonteyn an overrated Aurora or Sibley and Dowel a mismatched partnership... NOT the place to debate whether Yvonne Borree is up to the demands of the Balanchine repertory.

At the same time, it's useful to recall that our evaluation of dancers (not just love or aversion, but evaluation) isn't solely personal and subjective -- objections to Makarova's tempos may be a matter of taste to some degree, but her tempos were often super slow and one could have a reasonable argument about what impact that had on the the interpretation of different roles.

You can't make me dislike Makarova --one of my all time favorites--but you can explain to me why her dancing felt artistically unsatisfying to you in some respects and explain it in such a way that I can "see" what you mean regarding tempos and how they may have distorted choreography. And, on the other hand, I can try to explain what is inventive or intriguing about a particular musical choice she made or why I think it worked interpretively. That type of argument is a little different from 'agreeing to disagree' though in the end one may just agree to disagree as a matter of courtesy or respect . . . or getting off the internet.

What comes through in the discussion as well is that some evaluations, like some matters of personal taste, are inflected by particular traditions of training, choreography, and presentation -- also not simply a personal or subjective matter.

Still, when the subject is "dancers that everyone loved but that you didn't," taking the word "everyone" pretty seriously, then the discussion is bound to have more than a dash of purely personal taste mixed in...

I would love to hear reports on the Royal Ballet season, but I am perhaps a little out of the loop regarding Cojocaru--as I was surprised not to see her name in the upcoming casts you mentioned. Is she injured again? or has she still not fully recovered from her neck injury? It seemed last spring as if she was on her way back...

I've never disliked Heather Watts, but never gave her much thought either way, although I saw her a lot. A critic friend talked about how she was 'the best at NYCB' in the 80s, something about 'in rehearsal more than performance', but that was pretty abstruse to me.

I recall Watts as one of the most widely criticized dancers in the history of NYCB -- I liked her in some roles not in others, but I would not remotely consider her a dancer "that everyone loved (including critics)."

I'm ashamed to admit this here. But .... here goes. Erik Bruhn.

Bart--You are a brave, brave man and for that I salute you. Certainly if we lived in an earlier era, I would have had to challenge you to a duel.

I feel compelled to add that I think that film and video are uniformly misleading. With dancers I hugely admired and saw a lot (such as Makarova) video has given me nothing...nothing to recall what I loved. And I rather suspect that it's even possible that when one admires a dancer on video, in real life, one might have seen problems or had issues.

I'm not saying it isn't a tool for historians and fans alike -- I could not be happier that the Kirkland Giselle Act I solo has become available -- and I sometimes comment on video myself, but I firmly believe one can only really assess a dancer one has seen live. (I don't think Dying Swan is a much of a gage either, by the by, for judging a dancer unless she is Anna Pavlova.)

A dancer that "everyone loved (including critics)" but that I didn't? Well, I don't know that quite everyone loved her, but on this board Miranda Weese was hugely admired and critics certainly liked her...I found her reliable, but was otherwise not enchanted. David Wall always received raves for his acting ability, but when I saw him as Romeo and Siegried I found him to be reliable (again, that word) in image and manner, but no remarkable dramatic artist.

But to match Bart's bravery (which I feel I must): the young, pre-injury Darci Kistler. Kistler! Whom I have seen give stunning ballerina performances in the later and much later parts of her careers did not have the same impact on me when I saw two of her earliest triumphs. The part of her career that "everyone" agrees on and admires I somehow missed even when I was looking straight at it. In Divertimento no. 15, the "eager" quality that others loved meant that she danced so far ahead of the music that it simply irritated me especially since it unbalanced her relation to other dancers on stage in what is, in crucial sections, an ensemble work and as Odette in the condensed Balanchine Swan Lake--I somehow just didn't see what others saw or, rather, the coltishness looked to me like just that, coltishness. I didn't dislike it but I wasn't swooning.

To be clear: I consider Kistler a ballerina and have hugely admired and loved her performances, but ironically not the performances that blew everyone away before she suffered injuries. I do think in this case the problem may have been me and not her.

I never made a vow not to see The Leaves are Fading without Gelsey Kirkland and certainly would be willing to see it without her (or would have been say, had it turned up on a program I had chosen for other reasons)--but, thinking about it now, I notice that, in fact, I never went back to see it since she stopped dancing--even when I was living in New York and the ballet was scheduled frequently with excellent dancers.

I wasn't consciously avoiding it, but it was never on a program with something else I felt a need to see, and I never worked up the interest to see the ballet without her: retrospectively, I think that Kirkland had made it such a moving experience that...well...I wasn't that interested in seeing it without her and my memories of her are indeed so fragile that I didn't want to obscure them further. But I can't say I had thought things out quite so consciously or that I don't understand why it seems a peculiar attitude.

Have anyone but Farrell and d'Amboise ever danced this (in public, I mean)? It certainly put Farrell on the map as the Balanchine dancer of the future.

I saw Meditation danced by Farrell's company in New York; I don't recall the dancers -- possibly Christina Fagundes in the Farrell role -- but, in any case, it was nicely one.

Because of the choreography's seemingly quite deliberate, even confessional, role in the Balanchine-Farrell mythology, Meditation looms larger in significance than it would otherwise. At least I think so. I'm happy to see it lovingly preserved, but it's not a Balanchine work in which I have much investment.

I remember how thrilled I was when I learned I would have a chance to see Jean Babilée with Béjart--he had always sounded so intriguing as an artist. I don't remember a lot about the performance beyond his sheer physical charisma--and the use of a jungle gym--but I was not disappointed.

Ayupova was a favorite always, but also, for me, among those Natalia mentions, Veronika Ivanova--a lovely dancer, and (as I remember her at least) very much an exemplar of "old school" Kirov purity of style.