Drew

Thank you for posting this Sandik. I have little knowledge of flamenco or Gades, but do remember seeing him in Blood Wedding with the Ballet Nacional de Cuba. We--that is, the huddle of ballet fans I knew who went to see the company repeatedly--were absolutely blown away both by the work itself and by Gades' performance.

A bit off topic--but it IS really fascinating to think about how certain choreographic materials get passed down. (Alexandra--Dance historians have their work cut out for them!) To stay with Ashton and a fairly straightforward example: Karsavina shows him some of the pantomime she did in the Maryinsky La Fille Mal Gardee, presumably a Petipa or at any rate late nineteenth-century version and it ends up in his Fille--but how much really goes back to the late 18th-century "original" and whatever ballet (or boulevard/carnival theatrics) that may have hearkened back to... I have an acquaintance who knows nothing about ballet who saw Ashton's Fille and assumed it WAS an 18th century ballet, which an English choreographer/director had, more or less accurately, revived. I corrected her, but found myself wondering if there wasn't a bit of "truth" in her mistake anyway. Presumably, many ballet enchainments and images have been preserved, much more indirectly, perhaps through classroom syllabi, and long after the ballets were lost or forgotten. This in no way is a slight to Ashton (or any other choreographer)--most cultural histories work by way of quotations, citations, and revisions whether these are direct, indirect, conscious, unconscious, or, well, you get the idea...Still, it's very intriguing to hear about the genealogy.

I think I would enjoy seeing Jennifer Ringer (and perhaps Ashley Bouder or Jenny Somogyi) in Les Rendezvous. However, I am working from somewhat dim memory images of the ballerina role and am not sure how the ballet would suit NYCB as a whole. Still, it might. When ABT did it some years back, several people noticed that one tour de force in the choreography for the ballerina was actually similar to something Balanchine choreographed for Merrill Ashley in Ballo della Regina. I am afraid I can't recall the exact steps--it involved a repeating echappe to second on point into (or out of) some sort of turn or jump. (There's a precise description.) However, I'd be happy enough to see the Royal revive it for Cojocaru or, at least read about them doing so since I probably wouldn't be able to see it!

Most people who post on "ballettalk" know how to read Acocella's article whether they a)altogether agree b)somewhat agree c)somewhat disagree or d)altogether disagree with it. They see it as part of a larger debate, have some knowledge of the (past and present) standards which she evokes, and if they attribute an "extra" critical motive to her writing, it's not that she wants to undermine NYCB as an institution. Most legislaters (or their staff), arts patrons, and general audience members, though they are not necessarily naive, do not have the time or interest to do much other than take reviewers at their word. In this case, a very respected cultural publication has been pronouncing for some time that the company is going down hill. People who read that a once great institution has fallen on hard times may become dubious about attending performances and policy makers deciding about money for the arts become dubious about giving it. It's one thing to say great art should be supported whether it's popular and profitable or not--but if one hears that, after all, NYCB is not producing such great art anymore then, if you are a policy maker or theater board why not support something popular or showcase something that that will make more money (or, at any rate, lose less). (I am writing as if I attribute at least partially sincere motives to those involved--of course, that may be over generous.) Serious criticism cannot occur if critics have to worry about the "political" uses to which their writing may be put, and I support serious criticism. But it may at least be worth noticing that even the most vehement critics of NYCB in its present state still pretty much assume that the company is on a stable footing. That assumption perhaps even fuels some of their irritation. Presumably, they wouldn't mind if their words influenced changes in artistic policy (though, also presumably, they don't expect it and Accocella is quite explicit that she thinks Martins' response to attack has been to "dig in his heels.") I do think critics should remember the frailty of arts institutions in the U.S.--NOT soften their opinions, but also not blithely assume that NYCB in its present form--having a repertory dominated by Balanchine and danced by world class dancers--will always be with us. (One reason people are so thrilled with the Ashton festival is because companies have NOT been dancing these ballets very regularly, including in the U. K.) To some extent, I sort of agree with Oberon: if the company is really doing as shabby a job as people say, then perhaps we should expect it to lose public support from arts sensitive audiences and government alike. Unfortunately, if it does lose support I doubt we are going to see more and better Balanchine, with Farrell or Von Aroldingen (or whoever) at the helm with a well-oiled adminstrative machine behind her, and (most unlikely of all) higher quality premiers. We are much more likely just to see less of everything and less consistently well-danced even than it is now. Perhaps some do feel the level of Balanchine dancing has gotten so poor, that the company really does not deserve substantive support. The end of the Saratoga era could in a way then be seen as a kind of institutional confirmation that the Martins era has not been able to maintain the success of its predecessor. My view is that while this is is partially true (though some of the reasons are beyond Martins' control) not only is a loss of support for the institution--as it is now under Martins--bad for ballet, but people continue to underrate his real accomplishments. In any case, the SPAC being able to get away with this is just a bad sign for the arts all round in this country, though not the first or last. On a somewhat brighter note, perhaps some other summer festival will offer a home for the company. Traditions, especially institutional traditions, do change and it's not always the end of the line. (That's no comfort to NYCB lovers in Saratoga I know...)

I only saw three performances but I'll go ahead and list my "highlights" anyway! Ashley Bouder in La Source -- just stunning -- huge jumps, tremendous energy, engaging musicality. (I was pleased to see that dancing a non-jumping role in Divertimento No. 15 she also made a solid impression, but I can't say Divertimento No. 15 was, on the whole, any kind of highlight.) Episodes, especially Maria Kowroski in the final movement. The choreography offers a series of extraodinarily concentrated explorations of what ballet can do at its most distilled and most daring. Kowroski I loved for the poise and clarity of her every movement. I really did feel as if I was seeing the music...It was baroque order brought to modern (and modernist) life. Also worth mentioning: The Four Temperaments -- a solid all round performance of one of Balanchine's greatest ballets. (Reichlen was a weak link in the performance I saw, underpowered as choleric, but I do think she is very promising and understand why she was cast.); Jennifer Ringer, looking unspeakably beautiful in Robert Schumann's Davidsbundlertanze and dancing with a purity and simplicity to match. I was disappointed in Shambards, though I have admired other work by Wheeldon -- still, I was very struck by Carla Korbes in the first movement. She seems to have the gift of making any movement interesting. I'm afraid I don't know how to put it more precisely... A final note: although I didn't quite share the horror expressed by many when the plans for this season were announced, retrospectively, I'm feeling some sympathy for it. I think the company might have done more to honor the centenary with projects conceived specifically to showcase aspects of the Balanchine heritage likely to be lost: more revivals of little or rarely performed works or even some one time only special performances in which the company showcased different versions of still-performed works or, more realistically, excerps of different versions. That may have been unrealistic, given the enormous pressures of a full length ballet season, still... (I also had a forlorn hope that the centenary would be a good occasion to try to rebuild a relation between NYCB and Suzanne Farrell without anyone losing face.) Also, although I am reluctant to comment on a work I haven't seen I think commissioning Musagete was a misjudgment. Balanchine himself plays the indirect biographer of a suffering artist in Davisbundlertanze, so I don't think one can quite object to the genre per se (and I don't think too many people would be prepared to defend the cartoon critics that appear towards that ballet's end if they weren't Balanchine's doing...). Still, one could easily have predicted that Eifman would have little to offer of a serious choreographic or conceptual character as his commentary on the life of Balanchine, and by all accounts that seems to have been the case. I doubt, too, the company can count on Eifman's audience returning if they don't see more Eifman in the repertory...However, if I see the ballet myself and decide I feel very differently I promise to write a long mea culpa...

I have had one similar experience with a friend of mine talking about how much he loved Ulysses Dove's Red Angels and mentioning, in passing, having to sit through the 'boring' Concerto Barocco. Of course, it is very possible that he saw a boring performance of Concerto Barocco. I can't help but add in response to Oberon's examples that more than a few passionate admirers of Balanchine think of Brahms Schoenberg Quartet as less than top tier Balanchine (as, indeed, mostly "pretty") and Balanchine's Firebird as interesting primarily for the Chagall designs. That is, I don't think piety towards all things Balanchine is realistically to be expected and not even desired--in the days when it was "his" company and his heritage seemed less at risk, many of us were, I think, a little less pious than we have become. But as far as the more general question...I guess I would say the company is not and could not still be "his" but is still very much shaped by his role in its history. The director and others still connected with the company provide a direct link to his example. (Yes, one wishes even more of those links were being maintained, but the point is that some still are.) The repertory is still dominated by his ballets, even when they are unevenly maintained. Indeed, from the point of view of repertory the company is far more Balanchine's company than, say, the Royal Ballet is Ashton's company. (Maybe this summer's Ashton season at the Met will prove me wrong, but I doubt it...) Moreover an interpretation of Balanchine's aesthetic still clearly motivates most of the choreography that the company presents. That is: the Petipa-Ivanov heritage given a stripped-down modernized look, the constant presentation of new work -- mostly one act, plotless, and using the classical ballet vocabulary as well as substantive and even, occasionally, commissioned scores. Some other companies do these things, but not so consistently or ambitously. Now, the interpretation of Balanchine's aesthetic being applied may miss a lot of what's important in Balanchine; it may indeed distort or misinterpret what he does with classical vocabulary. The disconnected sequences of Episodes or extended classical silhouettes of Four Temperaments may inspire some Diamond project works, but much of the innter structure and logic seems to have been lost. But the way the company operates is still recognizably an attempt to continue a version of the Balanchine aesthetic in some form. That said, I suppose the commissions form Stroman and Eifman may come close to contradicting what I just wrote. I haven't seen the works, but Stroman is not a classical choreographer and Eifman's aesthetic is, by all reports, about as distant from Balanchine's as its possible to be (both in the company's current version of "Balanchine's" which may well be incomplete and in a more capacious understanding of Balanchine that recalls, for example, the company's collaborations with Tudor and Ashton.). for the rest, I don't think it's terribly important that audiences know the company's or Balanchine's history. I guess a company should always have a core audience that is passionate and knowledgeable, but if that's its only audience, the company probably isn't doing great business. One concern is that the box office for works at odds with NYCB's heritage will ultimately influence the company to change that heritage ... I actually think Martins will always offer something of a stay against that happening, though perhaps not as much as most of us would like... Anyway, this is just thinking out loud, so it's a bit formless. The performances I saw of Balanchine this season were, for the most part, excellent and that, at least, I'm happy about.

I remember her phrase as something more along the lines of Nilas Martins being the purest classical stylist in the company -- I still don't think I would agree, but it was definitely more precisely phrased than "greatest classical ballet dancer."

Actually when I referred to daily critics as sitting ducks for attack I didn't mean by people in the arts world, I meant by other critics and people like us. (Of course, it goes with the territory.) Kisselgoff did write the preface or introduction to Nijinska's _Early Memoirs_, something I haven't had a chance to read, and over the course of her career has done interviews ... (and for all I know other types of features as well). Anyway, I know people have very different reactions to what they read--especially on topics they care about--I enjoy reading her reviews.

Well, I find her very knowledgeable and fair. Unlike some of the critics you mention she covers a vast array of performances day-in, day out...She's not writing essays for a weekly. Some aspects of her writing style may be due to editing, since the Times, one suspects, has very particular protocols. Moreover, I admire the fact that Kisselgoff writes very responsably--someone with a more shoot-from-the-hip style writing in the Times could do a lot of damage to an already financially and artistically struggling dance world. I may not always agree with what I read, but I appreciate the thoughtfulness and openness to different "aesthetic" approaches as well as the substantive knowledge of dance history. And she does express opinions, usually well-balanced ones, though sometimes one has to read for them pretty carefully. For a long elegant essay, written after days (or weeks) of mulling a performance over and polishing the prose -- well, I don't look to the daily reviewers. (Though I might well enjoy reading what Kisselgoff would do in that kind of format...) I also can't help but feel that, given what they have to do, daily reviewers are, so to speak, sitting ducks for attack. It can't be an easy job. (P.S. I have been going to the ballet for over three decades.)

I'm interested in hearing about all the Swan Lakes--particularly as I'm unable to *see* any of them--but I'm especially thrilled at the responses, here and elsewhere, to Part's performance. I'm hoping Dale saw it and will report as well... (I was able to see Part dance in the shades scene in Bayadere earlier this season--third solo I think--and was struck by a textured, weighted quality in her movement that I somewhat recall from other Kirov ballerinas. I found her lines beautiful as well, but this one solo role in Bayadere does little more than give one a glimpse of her dancing.)

I saw Kistler dance the Farrell role in Davidsbundlertanze Thursday and Saturday night and was a touch shocked--she appeared to be mugging through the choreography. She didn't seem Farrell like and she didn't effectively reinvent the role in her own image either. I can't say I remember Farrell's performance in detail, but I do recall that even when she had a playful, erotic quality she remained a more otherworldly or mysterious figure--Kistler danced as if she thought her character was a flirty jokester and a bit of a drama queen. Yet Saturday she received the biggest cheers of anyone in the cast and although I'm aware she is much (and deservedly) loved by the NYCB audience, I was still curious if perhaps I had somehow missed or misunderstood something in her performance. I was actually slightly relieved when I read Leigh Witchel's and Perky's comments. (This is one Farrell role in which I found Kowroski quite magical when I saw her dance it a few seasons back.) I also found Ansanelli's performance to be a little too callow for the ballet even if one allowed that she was part of a "couple" that was supposed to be younger and more impulsive in its love, but in her case I could feel some potential in what she was doing--and the role is not quite so central to the ballet. On the other hand I did like both Nichols and Ringer very much. Watching Ringer and Boal next to Ansanelli and Martins, one saw and felt the beauty of a 'less is more' approach to the choreography. Saturday night, I thought Nichols was even more intense dramatically than Thursday; Ringer, too, semed even more deeply connected to her role and (if possible) more beautiful than on Thursday. (I suppose that seeing the ballet a second time simply helped me connect better to the performances I most admired.) Back to Thursday...I actually quite enjoyed Hubbe in La Source. It's not a ballet I've seen much, so perhaps I was less sensitive to ways in which his approach didn't "fit" the ballet. Anyway, I found the nuance and musicality of the performance quite engaging.

Hmm...if we thought of the "American" in "American Ballet Theater" as referring to all of the Americas, it would be at least a little more accurate. (Of course, it wouldn't solve the schooling problem.)

There are some other impressions of the company posted in a thread listed under "News, Events, and Issues." (I saw them in Giselle and seem to have liked them better than other posters...)

I can't speak about the Voigt situation. I can say that one of the greatest opera performances I ever attended was Jane Eaglen and Ben Heppner in Tristan und Isolde at the Metropolitan Opera (with the much slimmer but also remarkable Rene Papp as well). The production was staged for them and worked with them. It had an abstract, iconic quality that allowed the beauty AND drama of the music to come through -- and lesser singers could not remotely have achieved the same impact in this opera. In general, I don't think it's too much to ask opera directors to work with great singers with unusual or extreme body types -- let alone garden variety 'big girls' (I'm quoting a quote on an earlier post) or, indeed, big boys. I accept that an opera house may want to do some productions where they give the director a free hand for her or his vision -- I even support it -- but I'd be sorry to see a major opera house give up on on great voices in the (supposed) interests of musical 'theater.'

GWTW -- I doubt reducing the subsidy would lead to more classical productions. If anything, it might turn into an excuse to do more contemporary works that don't need the elaborate productions many of the classics need. It may well be a good thing for management to hear from its audience -- and to understand that there IS an audience for classical ballet -- but the free market per se hasn't done much for ballet companies elsewhere, I wouldn't wish it on Paris.

I just saw the company dance Giselle in Atlanta and I seem to have had better luck than Veronica in Las Vegas. Based on what I saw, I would be inclined to recommend them especially if (like myself) you live in a city that doesn't get much quality classical ballet. The Giselle was a traditional production -- though with some unfamiliar touches, at least to my eyes -- and danced to taped music. I liked it, especially Act II. In Act I I missed Giselle being crowned Queen of the Vintage, and wasn't sure how I felt about the strong contrast drawn between the 'character' peasants wearing heeled shoes and bright purply/reddish costumes and the 'classical' peasants/friends of Giselle in white dresses and on pointe. (I didn't miss the peasant pas de deux which this company does not include.) Throughout, I thought the ensemble looked stylistically coherent and reasonably polished; no-one I saw was a great actor, but they were all clear and committed in the mime passages. As Alexandra said, the company knows what it's doing. Act II made the stronger impression, but that's true of better companies than this one. Even when dancers were weak or uneven, they would surprise one with something particularly well done. The Albrecht, Vasily Amerianov, was the least distinguished of the leads, but he clearly knew what the big moments were and he had a nice dramatic moment at the end when it's dawn and he looks at his raised hand as if suddenly realizing that he's actually alive. The Giselle, Olga Grigorieva, was overall very good if not particularly touching in most of Act I, but then gave a quite effective mad scene in which her whole body was involved. Her Act II wasn't quite ghostly enough for my taste, her torso at times a hint too square for the romantic silhouette, but her arms were lovely throughout and, well, she knew what she was doing...For me, the real delight of the evening was the Queen of the Wilis, Olga Sizikh -- who, according to the program just turned 20 years old. She really commanded the stage, had a big airy jump, wonderfully ripply pas de bourree and was the least noisy of an admitedly rather noisy bunch of dancers. She also had a wonderful quality of movement through her upper body; at times, perhaps, she was somewhat over emphatic with it -- you could see her gearing up -- but then the movement would just ripple through her entire body from the tips of her fingers to the tips of her toes and I would think 'oh...a ballerina' or, less hyperbolically, 'that's beautiful.' I also liked the very snobby Bathilde of Tatiana Smirnova. Anyway, in my opinion, it's not a must see, but -- depending on your options -- I would call their Giselle, at least, well-worth seeing...Radchenko's Cinderella may be an entirely different matter, but having seen the Giselle, I would probably go.

I was a little surprised that Carol Iannone mentions attending just two all Balanchine evenings this season before giving her account of how much has gone wrong with the company. I suspect that six or seven evenings wouldn't have altered her opinion (and evidently she doesn't think they would have), but I still feel that when one is going to launch such a strongly worded attack on the entire NYCB enterprise one should have a little more to base it on than two performances. When Balanchine was alive there were seasons when I saw a performance or two (or three) that filled me with dismay; of course the situation is different now, but I would still take the article somewhat more seriously if the author had checked in to the State Theater regularly over the course of the season...

Thanks to everyone for the season wrap-ups. Michael -- as I have very little direct contact with NYCB these days, I enjoy reading your account of the individual dancers; it makes me feel once again connected to the company. I cannot forbear adding that Derrida, although very interested in how words can constitute events, has never argued that events are "what people say" they are and "nothing else," and if anyone claiming to be a "follower" of his has made that claim then s/he is saying something he never has...I admit this doesn't have much bearing on your main point which I understand to be that the hype around the centenial was not matched by its on-stage acheivements.

This is only the second time I have seen the Atlanta ballet so I'm a little leery of commenting, but so little is written about the company on this site, I thought I would try to post something. For Valentine's day weekend they have been performing their version of Romeo and Juliet, and they will be performing it next week as well. It is "choreographed and directed" by Michael Pink -- I gather that the company has danced other full length works by Pink including his Dracula. His Romeo and Juliet uses the Prokovieff score and is very Macmillanesque. (According to the program Pink trained at the Royal and later worked as an assistant to Nureyev for a production of his -- Nureyev's, that is -- Romeo and Juliet). The few outright original touches include a voice over at the very beginnning and closing of the ballet. The overture opens with clashes of thunder and and flashing lights to suggest the accompanying lightning and we hear "Two houses both alike in dignity etc." while we see behind a scrim the two lovers standing side by side and then collapsiing; at the ballet's final notes, just as Juliet dies, we hear, similarly the play's final lines. I was actually rather touched by the end of this performance and the voice over at that exact moment came close to spoiling the moment for me. Everything in between the voice overs was pretty familiar. The opening fight scene was staged a little more lowbrow than Macmillan's (fewer swords, more kicked crotches, and lots of food being hurled about); later in the ballet Juliet kept getting into wide open second positions on point -- presumably to express sexual arousal, and she appears at the end of Act II to witness the pile up of dead bodies (Mercution/Tybalt). The Verona festivities on the whole were a somewhat simplified version of what one usually gets, the 'pillow' dance music at the ball given some violent, 'macho' touches -- the men's part is performed as a dagger dance and, well, I could list a few other variant details, but they hardly changed the basic Prokoviev Romeo and Juliet template. (Also, my memory of other productions, Macmillan et. al., has become increasingly vague, so I may have thought something was 'original' that wasn't.) In its at times watered-down and at times tarted-up familiarity, this was very much a provincial Romeo and Juliet, but it had the benefits of a good live orchestra, serviceable sets and even better costumes. Most importantly, it had the benefits of a company that looked to be giving themselves over to the whole performance with a great deal of energy and concentration. The one other Atlanta Ballet performance I saw this season was another full length ballet-entertainment (Eldar Aliev's Arabian Nights) and the company brought a similar quality of energy and concentration to that. I'm now quite won over by them as a group. I even thought the technical quality of the dancing, which was very uneven in the Arabian Nights. was somewhat better in Romeo and Juliet. but the demands on the ensemble in Romeo and Juliet are not that great (from a technical or classical point of view) and there are fewer soloists in roles that expose them as classical dancers. By Act III, which was primarily over-the-top pantomime, one could also see that the dancers' sheer engagement in what they were doing could not quite make up for the fact that they aren't the most accomplished mimes in the world, but their work came close enough to make this a satisfying evening. I saw the "third" cast -- Naomi-Jane Dixon and Joe Roesner were the leads. His dancing and even his acting were low key, but personable and he had a wonderfully finished and 'ardent' quality to his upper body. Along with the Mercutio (Brian Wallenberg) and the Benvolio (Tuan Shuai) he impressed me, too with his attention to line. He and Shuai especially often had a kind of light elegance that carried from the top of their heads through their legs. None of the three men were firecrackers, but it was at times a relief that all the male kibbitzing had a more nonchalant quality than in some other productions. The other thing I will say about Roesner is that he really dances...I know that sounds like an absurd thing to say about a dancer. I mean something like he moves *through* the steps rather than just doing steps. (I sometimes think that what I mean when I say so-and-so "really dances" is what other people mean when they describe a dancer as musical, but I'm not sure.) If Roesner was most impressive from the waist up -- I initially was most impressed by Dixon from the waist down. In her first appearance, she showed some wonderfully quick and articulate footework. She was a very young Juliet, girlishly happy, girlishly frightened, girlishly hysterical. There was some growth in the character, of course, but the girlish never entirely disappeared. Act III in this version calls for lots of histrionics. From upstairs, where I was sitting, it was effective enough, but I don't think she is a great actress. The pas de deux throughout went smoothly and had a fresh unaffected quality. Roesner and Dixon seemed very connected, though they did not quite achieve the quality of free spontaneity in the lifts that the choreography, such as it is, calls for. Still, my companion (who had never seen a ballet version of Romeo and Juliet in any form) thought the balcony scene was "rapturous" and the reaction was not unearned by the dancers. The bedroom pas de deux emphasized the lovers state of semi-undress (not my favorite approach). These dancers were surrounded by the usual array -- Lord and Lady Capulet, Tybalt, Paris, Friar Lawrence etc. I thought Lady Capulet had the most beautiful costume and the most beautiful hair style of the entire production. She seems meant to be a striking figure in this production as she is played very young, very attractive, and decidedly in love with Tybalt. My cast had Emily Cook in the role and I liked her a lot -- I felt that she was one of the best performers on stage at conveying what she was feeling without going over the top (of the admitedly already over the top staging) or, alternatively, having lapses into amateurish hand signals as a few of the other dancers did. But even when I felt dancers weren't quite getting things right I always felt they were 'inside' the ballet and they kept me there too. Dance-wise, I did notice a range of abilities on stage whenever there was ensemble dancing, especially ensemble dancing that involved point work or classical steps of any kind. But even when skill levels varied, everyone seems to have been carefully rehearsed to dance effectively together. One fault that undermined several set pieces was that in at least three ensemble dances and even in one of the pas de deux the dancers got noticeably behind the music. All the times this occured the dancers were dancing together, so I didn't initially notice anything wrong, but when the music ended they would still be completing a dance phrase -- e.g. turn-fall-to-knee or some such. It was very obvious and just as obviously not intentional. Several scenes that met with silence from the audience would probably have garnerd (perfectly approriate) applause if the dancers had been 'on' the music. One other note: the company performs in a masonic temple turned movie palace turned performing arts venue, the 'fabulous' Fox theater. Fabulous is the theater's PR moniker and quite accurate. Its biggest claim to fame is that Gone with the Wind had its premier there. I doubt it's ideal for dance -- certainly some of the sightlines aren't -- and the stage is small for major companies. But it is fun just to walk into the theater, and I think it is an asset for the company. The dancer Tamila, who performed Tybalt at the performance I saw, says in the program's biographical notes that "[his] favorite choreographer is George Balanchine and he enjoys performing at the Fox theater." This made me smile for obvious reasons, but also because I myself enjoy just going to the Fox theater. Since I mentioned the Masonic connection New Yorkers may be picturing something along the lines of City Center...but you would have to picture City Center with far more elaborate and detailed Moorish decor everywhere you look plus an artificial starlit sky, Egyptian motifs in the ladies lounge, a live organ playing when the theater first opens, and popcorn at intermission (among other things). Perhaps now some of you are just picturing something you would not approve of, but I find it just the right mix of enchanting and goofy.

I agree that the Kowroski/Farrell comparison misses the the mark in many ways -- and when I have seen Kowroski in certain Farrell roles, I have also felt that those roles just showcased her limitations...but I did want to add that one of the most beautiful and (for me) most moving performances I ever saw Kowroski give WAS in a Farrell role: the 'muse' figure Farrell created in Robert Schumann's Davidsbundlertanze. By no means did she look like Farrell in the role, but it was a case of her inheriting that repertory and being able to give it 'new' life.

The Sleeping Beauty. The 'original' Petipa, of course, though Lopokhov (sp.?) Lilac Fairy variants are okay by me! Oddly, I couldn't cope with the Balanchine question, but this one I didn't even have to think about...Either my love of ballet includes a ruthless streak I didn't know about or the certainty of never actually having to face the problem in reality calmed me down. (Whereas we may one day face a reality in which we only have five or six Balanchine ballets that in any way resemble their originals.) So, now, having given it some thought and, with the additional disclaimer that I don't really believe great art works can be ranked, and we are just playing...here are my reasons: Disclaimers aside, I judge The Sleeping Beauty to be the greatest ballet ever made. It includes the greatest classical dancing ever choreographed, danced to the greatest ballet score ever composed. It also contains a tremendous variety of moods, elements, and styles -- making it a particularly exemplary work to serve as the last ballet standing. Finally: we know historically what this ONE ballet inspired -- from the collaborative 'gesamtkunstwerk' oriented experiments of the Diaghilev company, to the Royal Academy of dancing, to Balanchine himself. So, if, in this imaginary future with only one ballet, some enterprising young artist (or artists) decided to revive the art, Sleeping Beauty allows for many wonderful developments. I don't think one could work 'backwards' in the same way from, say, a work by Ashton or Balanchine and somehow extrapolate a Petipa-esque vision. I suppose this is just a wordier version of what Alexandra and Hans have written, so finally, finally (and in a more personal vein): I can't bring myself to say I love the Sleeping Beauty the best of all ballets, but I certainly can't think of any ballet I love more. It was the first ballet I ever saw, albeit in a film that chopped up (and out) tons of choreography, and it made me a balletomane immediately and, apparently, for life.

Thanks Alexandra -- I had checked the link when you first posted it above, and checked again after the performance. I'm confident about some dancers (e.g. Hojlund) and I actually think the listings in Atlanta were basically accurate, but based on people's descriptions the Terpsichore has become something of a question mark in my mind. Both Marie-Pierre Greve and Schandorff (not Lindstrom) were listed as being with the group in Atlanta and Schandorff was listed as dancing in Apollo. Sometimes this sort of thing makes me crazy, but I'm trying to be more philosophical -- I saw a performance of the ballet which, as a whole, was characterized by a kind of simplicity and purity that was very effective and effectively 'centered,' too, by a very charismatic Apollo (Hubbe). Anyway, if someone happens to find out for sure who danced Terpsichore in Atlanta by all means post the information...

Effy and Alexandra -- the program definitely said Schandorff was dancing Terpsichore and (unlike in Brooklyn) seems not to have had obvious errors in it, but based on your descriptions of the dancers, I think I may have been seeing Marie-Pierre Greve. However, I was not sitting terribly close and since I don't know and don't want to short change anyone, I'll just say I thought it was a lovely performance.

I have never been able to figure out how to do accents over letters when posting, so please just imagine them whenever they are needed... The Principles and Soloists of the Royal Danish Ballet came to Atlanta with a less Bournonville-centric program than was seen in Brooklyn. I was initially disappointed, but in some ways it may have turned out for the best. Having read these earlier posts, I am now a bit paranoid about who I may or may not have seen and, in any case, seeing a group of dancers give a one time only performance of excerpts is not the best way to learn who they are or what they are trying to do. From this group. the only one of the dancers I had seen before was Hubbe. That said, barring mistakes in the program, the dancer who most impressed and delighted me all evening (other than Hubbe) was Tina Hojlund. In both modern and Bournonville works she seemed wonderfully all-of-a-piece, dynamic, and engaging...I can't really judge as an expert, but she seemed to me to "fit" the Bournonville choreography better than anyone else on stage... Anyway, the program in Atlanta began with Apollo with Hubbe and (according to the listings) Schandorff, Cavallo, and Still. Schandorff or whoever was dancing Terpsichore (she did not have auburn or blond hair) had a nice freedom of movement and from a pure ballet perspective, I think, Apollo turned out to be by far and away the most satisfying experience of the evening. I thought this was a lovely performance in which Hubbe's precision, beauty, and dynamism combined with the purity and lightness of all three women to cast something of a spell...(The "ballet talk" thread on hokey critical phrases keeps nagging at me as I type, but I'm not doing this professionally, so I guess I can be as hokey as I want.) The taped music did nearly wreck things at one point, when the tape seemed to hit a glitch right before one of Hubbe's solos. His complete concentration and command saved the moment and the ballet right there... The middle section of the program had two contemporary works by Rushton: Nomade (with -- always, according to the listings -- Hojlund and Blangstrup) and Triplex (with Cuni, Kupinski, and Hansen). In the latter I was struck by the woman's lovely classical lines and lightness, yet couldn't help feelilng that, as lovely as she was, this admitedly slight piece of choreography, which Liebs described as 'fake Twyla Tharp,' would have looked better danced by modern dancers. (I think much real Tharp choreography looks better danced by modern dancers.) I also thought the dancers, though superb, looked a touch careful now and then. Oddly enough, Nomad, where the vocabulary seemed a little more Grahamesque, seemed to suit these dancers better, and the soloists in that work brought a lot of power to it. Still, it was also very slight. This section of the program concluded with an excerpt from Act II of La Sylphide, with Cavallo, Hubbe and three sylphs: Hojlund, Molbach Slot, and Cuni -- Hojlund (or, at any rate, the first of the sylphs to make an entrance, and offering an almost blurrily fluttering pas de bourree) was just lovely. Hubbe, too, danced beautifully, but he was never a big jumper in my experience, and he now has no bounce whatsoever, and also decidedly fudges his double tours. Allowing for that, however, he really shows you, even in excerpt, what a genuinely fine performance of this role might look like. I quite agree with what Liebs wrote above about a kind of joy in this repertory showing through his dancing. Like Liebs, too, I was less than charmed by Cavallo, though I wasn't sure why -- I thought perhaps her upper body seemed stiffer, perhaps, than was ideal. However, I should add that I don't find the excerpt approach to Act II of Sylphide at all effective -- for me, it was a pleasure to have the opportunity to see some more Bournonville etc., but I would just as soon have seen some of the company's less frequently performed Bournonville repertory, especially as it at least seems more suited to excerpt form. (That said, a friend of mine who only attends the ballet occasionally thought this was the high point of the evening.) The program closed with the pas de six and Tarantella from Napoli. I have never seen a full length Napoli, though I have seen a 'complete' Act III, and it is one of my all time favorite scenes in ballet. I was particularly fortunate to see casts led by Arne Villumsen, Linda Hindberg, Lis Jeppesen et. al. This evening's performance was certainly a pleasure -- if an uneven pleasure -- to see. The pas de six looked a little too dry and academic to me at first, though I suppose they want to work up to the tarantella. Still I was a little grumpy when Lund made his first appearance of the evening and was obviously doing some of the finest male dancing of the evening technically and yet seemed completely expressionless...fortunately things picked up when all the other dancers arrived on stage with tambourines and much of what followed was very good, including Lund who picked up in dash and expression. I particularly liked the way the dancers 'fed' off of each other, and flirted with each other, so that here and there the whole thing had just the right spontaneous feeling. One or two of the 'backround' dancers, in particular, seemed to have things just right, though some others and some of the soloists less so. Once again, Hojlund was an absolute delight. She was in yellow (there were actually two girls in yellow -- I thought the other may have been Cuni) and danced the solo that has an arabesque at least somewhat penche on pointe...Anyway, her dancing had wonderful inflections, upper and lower body working together, so the whole thing had a demi-character feel, while still showing a very fine classical technique. I'm pretty sure Cavallo was doing the Teresina (dusty blue color). She once danced with the Atlanta ballet and, here in Atlanta, was given the only solo bow of the evening when the ballet was over -- the audience was appreciative and I should add I liked her better in this than in Sylphide; actually I quite liked her in this, and liked the way Lund presented her, except that when he threw himself to the ground, he went down so slowly and carefully (actually didn't throw himself at all) that I was a little bemused and not in a good way. Let's just say that it was my moment to miss Arne Villumsen. Anyway, elsewhere he showed a wonderfully supple back and a more forceful presentation all round. Hubbe also made an appearance that had a lot of sparkle. Altogether, the whole of the tarantella was very enjoyable... I feel the above sounds just a little reserved or, perhaps as if I can't quite make up my mind. I find it hard not to compare the present dancers to those I've seen in the past -- even just the past "Soloists of the Royal Danish Ballet," a group that included Niels Kehlet and Ib Andersen when I saw it. With Apollo, at least, one felt one was seeing a serious performance of a substantive work, led by a great dancer...With Napoli, it was just a very good, if uneven performance of dances abstracted from a substantive work. Perhaps I'm just jealous of those who saw the company in D.C.

I saw her as a guest artist with various European companies in the States, and I know she often appeared as a partner for Nureyev on his marathon tours both in the States and elsewhere. I recall her as rather long limbed with somewhat angular and distinctive facial features, but my memories are very dim...For example I'm certain that I saw her in Giselle, but honestly don't remember the performances very well and am not quite sure if I saw her with a company from Berlin, the Festival Ballet, or both. I'm posting because I do remember a performance of Miss Julie that was just fabulous (though I'm still not sure which company she was appearing with) -- I even recall that a critic in Ballet Review who had otherwise not much admired Evdokimova gave the performance a rather striking though very backhanded compliment (something to the effect that, in playing this horrible, unattractive mess of a character Evdokimova had, at last, found a role that perfectly suited her talents -- the exact quote, which I have long since forgotten, was even nastier and, to be honest, funnier). Anyway, I thought the snarkiness was very uncalled for, but couldn't help laughing a little since the remarks did catch something about how really spot on the portrayal seemed, at least to me who had never seen the ballet before. She just inhabited the role in a very unabashed way... Anyway, I wish my memories were more 'spot on,' so any help filling in the above would be welcome...