Drew

Like Carbro, I believe Kistler only did the one full length (Martins) Swan Lake -- in the press, the critics uniformly indicated that, at that point, that she was not up to the technical demands of the role. Everyone I read was fairly polite, but nothing in what they said suggested that somehow or other her 'artistry' or great beauty somehow made up for difficulties with the dancing. (If anyone reading these posts had a different impression, or saw the performance and would like to respond -- please do so!) I definitely received the impression that the role was not something that she could master...Presumably if it had come earlier in her career, she might have done so.

Of course, Balanchine's one-act Swan Lake was one of Kistler's very first principle roles and critics and audiences were excited about her and seemed to love her performance in the role from the start. Ironically, I found her a little too athletic and blithely youthful -- I think this was one of the first seasons she was dancing -- but I saw her dance the it again, a few years later (?) and thought she had grown to be quite simply beautiful in the role, grand and poetic. (Yvonnne: perhaps you had the chance to see her dance the Balanchine one-act Swan Lake? I had at first thought that that must be what made you curious about the full-length version -- but there are many reasons to want to see Kistler do anything...)

Very nice to be able to read Manhattnik again -- especially writing about such a lovely performance.

Thanks for reporting on this Leigh. Your description makes it sound like something I would have loved -- or at the very least found extremely interesting and sort of fun. Since I know 'tone' can be a mystery on the internet, let me add that I am typing with an absolutely straight face. Also, without exactly being a cultist, I rather enjoy Gergiev.

It's too bad about the lack of audience -- I suppose a performance like this has to be packaged as some sort of 'must see' event to have a chance (I'm sure they tried). I would be curious about attendance at other Lincoln Center Festival performances.

Kirkland danced a very different version of Firebird than Tallchief...With Balanchine, one of the complications with bringing back the creators of roles to coach them is, I should think, the fact that the ballets were often revised for different casts. Presumably, when (and if) a coach is brought in, her or his work needs to be integrated with the work of whoever is staging the ballet, and clear decisions made about which 'version' -- or which moment in the ballet's history -- to honor. Personally, I would very much enjoy seeing the version of Firebird done by Tallchief.

Tanaquil LeClerq led a very rich life both before and after being struck by polio -- but the ballet community certainly mourned the interuption of her career as a dancer.

I didn't exactly feel morbid reading over this thread, but I did find it rather upsetting...the impact of AIDS on the generation of dancers I, so to speak, grew up with -- William Carter is yet another-- was particularly devastating.

On a lighter note (sort of) I do think popular culture tends to encourage a view of ballet and ballet dancers as somehow 'tragic,' or, at any rate, melodramatic. I'm thinking of The Red Shoes or even the Turning Pointe. And Kirkland's first book, the one detailing her failed love affairs and drug addiction, was the best seller, not the second one where she details her ideas about interpretation.

Charles Ward -- a tall attractive dancer who died of AIDS as well. I remember him most vividly as Frantz, charmingly partnering Kirkland in a performance of Coppelia at the Kennedy Center; he was much taller than she and she just drifted down like a feather from their lifts in Act III. I think he danced the premier of ABT's production of Neumeier's Baiser de la Fee, and I'm sure I saw him in some Tetley as well. He also appears for a few minutes in The Turning Point...I recall reading that he spent time towards the end of his life helping care for others with AIDS.

Spessivetzeva also had what might be called a 'tragic' life, though she did not die young. She has been lovingly discussed on other Ballettalk threads...

I saw two fabulous performances of MND over the weekend -- I was especially thrilled Friday night by Wendy Whelan and Jock Soto in the Divertissement. I simply don't see Whelan enough to be able to break down what makes her so great and so moving -- well, even if I saw her often I probably could not begin to do so --but I believe her to be one of the greatest ballerinas dancing today. Without in any way acting or even being at all extroverted, she managed to make every moment of the divertissement intimate a deep, humane, emotional life.

I found the whole performance Friday pretty wonderful all around (despite the problem with Puck's flight, mentioned above, at the end). I liked Evans' Puck and he did handle the gaff well. I'll add that I especially liked his dancing as Puck. I did not think he always timed his 'calling' gesture so as to seem as if he himself were magically generating the music. At the Saturday matinee I thought Hendrickson was even sharper and funnier in the role. My two Oberon's were Boal and Millepied. Boal is simply wonderful in this role -- fast, elegant, witty and not just in his dancing but also in the different 'moods' Oberon has to project, one following right on another throughout the ballet. Millepied has younger legs than Boal if not quite his beautiful lines and he danced at times more 'brilliantly' -- higher jumps, bigger beats, more pirouettes. The sheer virtuousity was a pleasure. And, to my delight, he seemed to enter into the role with the same seriousness and enthusiasm as Boal. I honestly think Boal, though, covered even more space in some of his low to the ground skimming moves.

I saw two great Titanias... Kowroski Friday night had just the right hint of pre-raphaelite sex kitten and danced lusciously. Nichols is not quite such a hot house flower as Kowroski, but her dancing looked utterly fresh, spacious, and natural. The lovers were terrific at both performances -- again with somewhat different strengths. As Helena, Ansanelli was more wittily melancholic than Janie Taylor who really just went through the motions when she had to pantomime. But Taylor's dancing was just as expressive as Ansanelli's and actually seemed larger scaled and even more precise, wild-yet-controled, during the more abrupt, twisted, flying sections of Helena's role than Ansanelli had been -- and when I saw Ansanelli I had thought it would be hard to do the role much more effectively. Friday's Hermia was Rutherford and Saturday's Van Kipnis. Both danced wonderfully, but I did think Van Kipnis seemed more comfortable telling a story. I too noticed the brushing away of the cobwebs but rather naively supposed she was trying to swat gnats away from her face. (Thanks Carbro for the more poetic explanation!) Friday, Amanda Edge's butterfuly was a little too small scaled and blurry in detail for my taste, but Carrie Lee Riggins filled things out nicely Saturday.

Really -- or, I should say in my opinion -- everyone in all the parts danced wonderfully with a sense of energy and fun and magic all disciplined into top notch dancing at both performances. The ensemble dancing in the divertissement was especially impressive (both casts). It is possible I suppose that I see so little dance these days that I have gone soft, but I thought the company looked great.

As a final note: Somogyi was ideal as Hippolyta -- exciting, strong, vivid. At the Saturday matinee performance one couldn't help but be impressed by Reichlin's iconic look in the same role -- the long, long legs and big jump especially. But she is new to the role and did not yet appear to have gotten under the skin of the choreography. At this performance the fouettes travelled from the first one to the last and the jumps were literally up and down; one would be breathtaking, another would lose steam. I certainly would enjoy seeing her again...

Oh a final, final note: At the matinee Miranda Weese and Philip Neal danced the divertissement. She danced with lightness and grace, but having just seen Whelan in the stratosphere the night before it was hard for me to appreciate as I ought to have done. On one of the threads about NYCB and ABT, someone was pointing out the bane of comparison and I suppose I may seem to be doing nothing but compare with this posting. I did very much enjoy both performances, and enjoyed comparing them too. In the end, though, I do now think Wendy Whelan pretty much incomparable.

Hans -- re ABTs ballerinas: I don't really like to post negative things, especially about ABT, a company I love, but I do think the ballerina situation there is pretty dismal, and their repertory positively demands ballerinas. You cannot have a great Swan Lake without a real Odette/Odile; a great Bayadere without a real Nikiya; a great Giselle without a real Giselle; a great Manon without a real Manon. By 'real' I mean someone who masters the role and puts their personal stamp on it...

You mentioned several admirable dancers I left out, so I'll say a few words about them. Mckerrow, whom I admire, is no longer with the company. When she was, the quality of her projection was uneven, to say the least, for a ballerina of her stature. I did think her Giselle was the real thing for sure! especially opposite Malakhov. Jaffe, a fine principal dancer, likewise has retired. Though often impressed by her performances in recent years, I was never fully persuaded that she arrived at being a genuine ballerina. What do I mean by that? Well, I mean someone who inspires me with new visions of the possibilities inherent in the major roles that they dance...at the very least someone who commands the stage with the sheer quality of their movement. (The ultimate pantheon -- e.g. dancers like Ulanova, Fonteyn, Farrell and, in my opinion, Kirkland -- that's taking things to still another level -- for this discussion I'll call it prima ballerina. Right now, I don't see anyone anywhere at that level, though one or two perhaps approach it.)

Herrera, I genuinely forgot to mention. She is stunningly talented, but her development has been rocky. The general consensus a few years back was that she had stalled (check newspapers and internet chat boards for confirmation). During that difficult time I only saw her twice, once horribly miscast in Prodigal Son, once in a very disappointing performance of Balanchine's Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto Number Two. Since that time, I have read from fans on this board that she is coming into her own once again -- which is terrific! I unfortunately can't report on that myself.

As for Wiles, I have seen her in several solos. Since she is a young, gifted dancer, I have no reason or desire to start nitpicking -- but I find it ludicrous to discuss her at this stage as a ballerina. As for her dancing in solo roles, I can only report on what I have seen: in a showcase solo choreographed for a gala by Robert Hill, the choreography was driving and vulgar, and she gave a driving, vulgar performance with fouettes that travelled from almost the very beginning. I don't blame her for that performance, but it hardly won me over. As one of the two wilis dancing in Giselle a couple of years back, she seemed to have no stylistic sense of the ballet at all...indeed she looked more as if she belonged at City Ballet. This spring in the third shades solo of Bayadere she looked much better, but still -- to my eyes -- has yet to 'grow' into her extraordinary height. (She still seems just a bit gangly.) That said, I join you in believing that she will have much to contribute to the company in the future and look forward to watching that happen.

The dancers I mentioned at NYCB are real ballerinas -- I saw Whelan give a distinctive performance of Chaconne that brought that ballet back to life for me after years of performances that simply reminded one how much the ballet 'needed' a Suzanne Farrell. Several others on this board had similar reactions to that performance (though Michael, I believe, disagreed). She has made a mark across the repertory from Balanchine to Robbins to Martins to Diamond project works, and even writers heavily critical of the Martins regime, like Joan Acocella, have acknowledged her emergence as a major dancer. Kowroski and Ringer are absolutely distinctive presences on the stage in a variety of roles. Ringer in Brahms Schoenberg Quartet, second movement, shows a daring and passion that is stunning. She also knows how to draw out her partners -- male dancers who with others seem lackluster come to life opposite her. That's a quality I associate with genuine ballerinas. And she projects! Once when I was sitting towards the back of the fourth ring at the State Theater I could literally hear the intake of breath of everyone sitting around me when she began a solo in Stabat Mater. (By the by, Stabat Mater would I suppose qualify as a Martins ballet that is not misogynistic.) Kowroski in Monumentum/Movements has given a performance of such control and presence that I would absolutely put it against others I have seen in those ballets (including Farrell). I do NOT think that , overall, think she is the ballerina that Farrell was -- for one thing she doesn't have the range or the technique and she also doesn't have a Balanchine to work with -- but I do think she is a ballerina. In Variations for a Door and a Sigh, I literally cannot picture a performance of more daring and intensity; in the Farrell role in Davidsbundlertanze she is mesmerizing. With all of these dancers I can see them again and again in the same roles -- one of my criteria for a 'ballerina' -- learning and seeing more each time. I have been lucky enough to see Kowroski dance Swan Lake now twice. She's not 'perfect' in the role or, of course, traditionally classical, but (in my opinion) she does offer something to the eye and the imagination that bears more than one viewing. I don't even want to see most of ABTs principles do a major role more than once, though for various reasons I have, only confirming my sense that they often aren't offering performances of ballerina caliber.

Just as I forgot Herrera at ABT I forgot Somogyi at NYCB -- I have seen her give outstanding performances, strong yet melting, in both Divertimento Number 15 and Dewdrop. I don't know that she belongs in the ballerina category just yet, but definitely an impressive presence. The ABT equivalent -- good principals who are not or not yet ballerinas -- don't, in my opinion, usually dance on this level of strength or elegance.

Like Dale, too, I don't look to NYCB for great Petipa dancing -- just as I don't look to the Kirov for great Balanchine dancing. And especially since I do consider Balanchine as important a figure for the art of ballet as Petipa, the maintenance of the Balanchine repertory seems to me just as important as productions of Bayadere and Swan Lake for the future of the art. NYCB's dancing of Balanchine is, at present, often inconsistent, but the company has maintained the repertory (as, for example, the Royal Ballet has not maintained the Ashton repertory and ABT has not maintained the Tudor repertory) and, despite claims made for this or that regional company dancing this or that Balanchine ballet 'better' than NYCB, I have yet to see comparable Balanchine dancing anywhere else. And companies I haven't seen (such as the Miami ballet) are hardly in a position to sustain the repertory in any case. To speak of a company I have seen...However impressed I may be with the coaching at, say, the Suzanne Farrell ballet, I think it's dishonest to compare her accomplishments with mostly young inexperienced dancers and a few guest senior dancers to the day in, day out work of City Ballet.

That said, do I wish the level of Balanchine dancing was better at NYCB? yes, of course! Do I love ABT? absolutely! But I know which company I take more seriously, and I persist in suspecting, that at least for fans to whom Balanchine matters as much as Petipa some of the anger at NYCB has to do with the fact that deep down they take it more seriously too. The recent Ashton acquisitions at ABT are a terrific development there -- but has everyone really forgotten the past few seasons: Cranko, Hynd, Stevenson -- by comparison the occasional Macmillan might seem like a relief, and I myself don't think Macmillan's ballets hold up outside of exceptional performances either. For ballets like Snow Maiden or Taming of the Shrew -- even with superstars, those ballets are often a bore. (I was bored in the 'old days' when I saw Haydee and Cranko do Taming of the Shrew.) Some would defend Cranko and Macmillan, but even if one likes those ballets better than I, it's hard to make a case that ABT is going to make its mark internationally as the flagship of British choreography of the 60's and 70's.

A final word: yes the men at ABT are terrific, but several of the most gifted (Stiefel, Corella) have yet to really get under the skin of the very nineteenth-century repertory that dominates ABT's performing schedule. Stiefel, this spring, in Bayadere, still looked as if he was playacting (during Act I especially)...Corella seems temperamentally more at ease with this repertory, but as Leigh Witchel and others have discussed, he appears to be going through a transition of some kind. I saw him twice this spring and both times, for the first time in my experience, he looked overly forceful and landings were sloppy. Cornejo is a remarkable talent, but does not seem to have the body type to take over the major male leads. All of these are wonderful dancers I love to see, and this is (I hope) the most negative post anyone on this board will ever see from me...but I cannot agree with the view that ABT has somehow risen so far above its history and NYCB fallen so far below its history that the former is now the 'better' or 'more important' company.

I was very interested by Amanda's last remark. It seems sometimes as if people just get more angry at NYCB when they see a mediocre performance of one of the company's classics (i.e. Balanchine) than, say, when they see a mediocre performance of Swan Lake or Giselle at ABT. Even more so when it comes to repertory: people seem prepared to shrug at the poor new repertory choices at ABT or even in the case of some older ballets recently acquired for the company (say, the Cranko, Stevenson, and Hynd) to agree that those works may at least suit some fans' taste. But when NYCB puts on mediocre works it arouses heartfelt cries of dismay. I once spoke to an acquaintance at a performance of Martins' Swan Lake -- this person HATED it, yet admitted at the same time how awful she found Mckenzie's version with a kind of bemused laugh.

Personally, I would rather sit through any number of new NYCB works than performance after performance of The Snow Maiden or Taming of the Shrew or even Romeo and Juliet (though I concede the last is a better ballet than the first two). And I think Christopher Wheeldon is a genuinely interesting younger choreographer, and NYCB has to be given credit for giving his work so much support. But the main point I want to make is that I think people are somehow more forgiving of ABT. That may in fact be evidence that people are having a better time at ABT, but it may also be evidence that, consciously or unconsciously, people assume that what NYCB does matters to the art of ballet in a way that only a great company can matter.

I think, moreover, that Martins' decision making at times shows a kind of awareness of what it means to be a great company that I don't always see at ABT. When Martins decided to stage Swan Lake he turned to a major, internationaly known artist -- a decision worthy of respect whether you like the results or not. (I'm unpersuaded by the designs for the first act but like the rest of it very, very much -- and some recent remarks of Leigh Witchel helped me to understand the first act somewhat.) When Mckenzie decided to stage Swan Lake he looked for ways to beef up the male dancing and feature his stars...thus the elaborate Rothbart inserts...While I certainly ENJOYED Mckenzie's Rothbart when it was danced by Malakhov, I cannot help but judge it to be an excrescence on the ballet -- a decision that I don't particularly respect -- and I also find it a huge bore when danced by anyone other than Malakhov.

When I compare the quality of dancing -- ABT in its repertory and NYCB in its repertory-- I think a case can be made that at the soloist/demi-soloist level NYCB performances are more consistenty energetic, daring, and exciting (think Van Kipnis, Rutherford, Korbes) and that with Whelan, Kowroski, Ringer, to say nothing of a senior figure like Nichols and an up and comer like Ansanelli, the ballerina roster is more impressive as well. Even comparing NYCB's dancing to, say, the Kirov -- if one focuses in each case on their *specialty* repertory (Balanchine/Petipa), I would say that City Ballet is still a world class company.

I have seen Part and Meunier in the past, and am pleased by their presence at ABT -- but when I saw them in solo roles this spring, they were not yet, in my opinion, making any kind of mark, something that may well change. In general, I find ABT much more of a gamble when it comes to the corps/soloists than NYCB and especially when it comes to ballerinas who, to sustain the company's present repertory, really should be outstanding. The New York season compensates with appearances by Ananiashvili and Ferri who, as far as I know, don't at present tour, plus even more specialized guest appearances (Cojocaru or Vishneva)...Those are great compensations of course! But I'm not sure what it says about the company as a company...That, too, has always been part of ABT's history, but the Kirkland, Tcherkassy, Gregory, Van Hamel roster mentioned above seemed stronger to me than today's Kent, Reyes, Murphy and Tuttle (still with the company?). Dvorovenko I put in a somewhat different class, and I actually have great hopes for Murphy.

Anyway, I thought someone should say something more about NYCB, and this was my try...

"Catchy and provocative formulations" was my phrase, but Nanatchka is probably right that Gottlieb intended his overall argument quite seriously...but I also think people writing in prominent publications see it as part of their job, even as a serious part of their job, to be provocative, and I don't particularly object to that. (Though the opening joke about the French and Iraq skirts what I would consider a proper tone for any article -- admitedly a matter of taste.)

Mashinka -- I'm so glad you mentioned Terekhova -- she did a series of jumps across the stage in Paquita that were just fabulous. (That was the very first thing I saw her dance, and she immediately went on my list of great dancers...)

I didn't realize so much of this thread concerned Cojocaru's jump in Bayadere when I went ahead and posted on another thread about how much I liked her jump in that ballet. Anyway I'll just say here that I agree with what has been said about her jump in Bayadere by Carbro and Cargill...(and, can't resist adding also that, although Cojocaru certainly has room to grow as a dancer, she is far -- very far -- from being vulgar!)

I also am baffled by the characterization of Guillem as without sensibility. I also think it is silly to describe her as a kind of biological weapon launched against an unsuspecting ballet world. One might well keep in mind that critics frequently accused Balanchine's ballerinas of "lack of sensibility" and overemphasis on high extensions with too little attention to 'classical' line. (Guillem, as it happens, actually can get her leg way up there without distorting the classical line.)

In fact, arguably Balanchine's choreography, in its international impact, is as 'responsible' for the present emphasis on long, flashily flexible bodies as Guillem's individual stardom -- in BOTH cases, what has seemingly been 'learned' from the originals has been, in my opinion, radically misunderstood and distorted and, in any case, there are doubtless other influences at work as well. But if Guillem is not a virus, Balanchine is not a cure. (Leigh Witchel already said something similar.) And, by the by, Balanchine is, in my judgment, the greatest ballet choreographer of the twentieth century as well as my personal favorite.

It's not that Gottlieb doesn't have a right to present his view of the matter, but keeping a fuller historical picture in mind might conceivably lead to more thoughtful formulations...I admit, too, that I am prepared to defend Guillem -- which may be why I sound a little irritable. (I do understand that Gottlieb has a job as a professional journalist, and part of that job is coming up with catchy and provocative formulations.) In my opinion, American critics and fans underrate Guillem. I've only seen her twice, both times in full length roles -- one contemporary (The Martyrdom of Saint Sebastien), one classical (Swan Lake), but I thought both performances were simply impeccable -- commanding in two radically different styles. Both evenings she was totally at one with the style in which she was performing, yet still able to infuse the performances with her own, um, sensibility. I'm sorry not to have seen her dance more...

Of today's dancers -- I particular love Malakhov's grand jete which seems to draw a perfect arc through the air...and seeing Cojocaru dance for the first time just recently (well, a few days ago) I thought her grand jete looked just lovely -- light, soft, stretched out, but not overly so...and as the ghost Nikiya in Act III of Bayadere her final jumps suggested a genuinely otherworldly quality, particularly at the Monday evening performance. In the past, my great favorite was Kirkland -- particulary her leaps across the stage in Act I of La Sylphide which were breathtaking (Manhattnik has written about these several times on this board.)

I don't know who was in Chicago (which I haven't seen) but Shelkanova was one of the soloists I most looked forward to seeing at ABT. I was quite sorry when she left the company...

I wouldn't read too much into the video with Danilova...People -- young people in particular -- sometimes look 'bored and standoffish' when they are feeling a whole range of other things which they may just be trying to cover up or keep under control. Sometimes students look 'bored and standoffish' because they are intimidated and unsure of themselves.

In my ballet student days I was a bit self-conscious if there were visitors in a class (and usually had no idea if they were dancers/dance teachers/fans etc.) but that may not have been typical. The more gifted, pre-professional students had their own ethos which I was never really party to...at the time, my guess would have been that they only cared if an observer was a dance professional.

He was extremely supple and fluid; in his great solos (as Melancholic and in Square Dance) he could appear boneless and yet, when called for, thoroughly stretched out and even taut. He had an extraordinary arched back -- it would have seemed so in a woman dancer. He was also, without in any way 'acting,' very communicative, emotional even, in his dancing. He seemed like a real person on stage (sounds hokey, but I don't know how else to put it). I thought he paired wonderfully with Allegra Kent in Agon and, in my eyes, their pas de deux had a much warmer, more humane quality than any others I've seen (Farrell/Martins, Whelan/Soto mostly). I didn't see him a lot, but I really loved his dancing and as wonderful as Peter Boal is in Square Dance, still miss Cook in that role.

One of the most delightful experiences I ever had sitting near a (talking) child was at a Wednesday Matinee of the Royal Ballet in Cinderella with Darcey Bussell no less! Of course, as soon as I entered the theater and saw it carpeted with children I pretty much gave up on a quiet performance. (And one mother sitting near me did end up leaving with a screaming child -- though she kept putting the moment off, presumably in the hope the child would settle down. I was irritated, but couldn't help feeling sympathetic as well.)

Anyway...many other children remained, whispering and whiggling, and one comment I just loved, because it so exactly mirrored my own thoughts. The synopsis for this production specifies that Cinderella can't go to the ball because she doesn't have the right dress. Well, during Act I Bussell, wearing a plain grey skirt with a little apron over it, looked just lovely (of course) -- and I was even thinking just how extraordinarily lovely she made everything about her look, including her not at all raggedy Cinderella dress, when the little girl in back of me said in a fairly loud, protesting whisper "But I think her dress is pretty! Why can't she wear that to the ball?" I think she even made this point several different times, but I couldn't really fault her...

As a little girl, I saw Deanne Bergsma dance the Lilac Fairy -- and was completely and utterly enchanted. This was my first full length Sleeping Beauty, and she just filled my imagination. Sibley and Dowell were the Aurora and Prince, but I can't honestly say I remember much about their performances or my reactions -- though I know I enjoyed myself!

I also just loved Darcey Bussell when she danced Aurora at Kennedy Center. I think this was the premier of the Dowell production, and many American critics were lukewarm about her performance, but I thought she was temperamentally ideal as a fairy tale princess becoming a 'woman' -- that is, becoming a ballerina. Her dancing, too, seemed both assured and gorgeous, classical but with a soft, lush quality that was quite distinctive.

In that production,when Aurora came down the stairs for her entrance, she paused to smile a greeting to the 'court' (in effect, to the audience), and Bussell's smile had an expectant sweetness that immediately caught me up in the performance. I also remember her wonderfully supple back through all the variations of Act I, and a kind of underlying happiness and serenity to the entire performance, even as she conveyed the different qualities of Aurora's three acts -- birthday girl, vision, bride...

I am particularly interested by Marc Haegeman's last comments.

One understands why a dancer, having first made an impression dancing classical steps in a more 'neo' classical way, would need to be persuaded to give up some of her or his seeming strengths to achieve what might seem merely an old fashioned effect. And, therefore, as Mel Johnson wrote, a director needs to inspire them to see a productions's larger aesthetic vision. When the Kirov first brought their reconstructed Sleeping Beauty to New York, this (in my opinion) had not happened. To me, it looked almost absurd to see this particular staging, especially, given a performance in which pretty much none of the major soloists on stage seemed to be making much effort -- least of all Zakharova -- to convey an image of nineteenth-century style or decorum. Or, more precisely, since I can hardly claim to be an expert on nineteenth-century style and decorum, no-one on stage seemed entirely to 'fit' the total look of the production. (Mind you, I found Zakharova very charming at times -- and have also particularly enjoyed her in Balanchine's Nutcracker...but of course Balanchine is not Petipa.)

I gather things are a bit better with this production now, but I still wonder if it might not be better for future Petipa productions to do some informed modernizing rather than offer these peculiar hybrid -- in effect if not intention -- performances. And I remain dubious about the supposed authenticity of these productions altogether. The comments to which Marc refers suggest some dancers' skepticism and maybe if the dancers are skeptical they have reason to be. Or, too, maybe the years of accreted tradition have also enriched and extended Petipa's vision and should not be thrown out in any case.

I admired much of the Kirov's new-old Sleeping Beauty -- and certainly saw qualities in the ballet I had not seen before, but the most convincingly danced Sleeping Beauty I ever saw, the one in which the choreography's crystal geometry seemed most luminously alive, was the production the Kirov toured several years earlier. I saw three performances of it: the ballerinas were Assylmuratova, Terekhova (a real favorite of mine) and Lezhnina. Ayupova danced the first fairy's variation. Even if I saw more of Petipa's choreography in the new-old version, I'm still not sure I saw more "Petipa" than in these performances.

I strongly support the idea that the Kirov should do 'conservative' productions of the great classics, but conservative does not have to mean, in effect, reactionary (that is, pretending the last century did not occur). Do we really want Benno returned to prominence in Act II of Swan Lake? In fact, even the reconstructions presented so far haven't quite pared down the male solos as they would have had to do to be utterly authentic...and just as well. Petipa himself seems to have cut and pasted on occasion, so a careful and thoughtful adaptation of his work, one in touch with its sources, but also with a living performance tradition, need not be a desecration.

I admit that what I would most like to see when I go to the Kirov is the kind of dancing I associate with Terekhova, Semenyaka (yes...I know, she danced with the Bolshoi), Lezhnina, and Ivanova. That makes me a reactionary in my way, too, I suppose -- only I'm nostalgic for the twentieth century not the nineteenth...Still I can't help wondering if the irony of what is happening now is that we have attempts (underline: attempts) at 'authenticity' side by side with what seems to be a real break in the continuity of a style (and almost of the skill level) that has been continuous for ballet fans of *at least* my generation, and as best I can tell, of generations before...

(Edited to add: I don't mean to sound ungrateful for the wonderful Kirov performances I have seen even on their most recent tours -- including a remarkable Giselle with Vishneva a few years back. And, of course, I am speaking on the basis of seeing them very occasionally on tour.)

Thanks for the reports -- I was especially eager to hear about Kowroski. I don't think 32 fouettees ought to be a sine qua non of the role, but I'm still impressed that she did them successfully. When I saw Kowroski dance Odette/Odile at NYCB, she was stunningly beautiful and moving, but did pique turns in place of fouettees and seemed barely able to hold on to them. One could see in other ways that it was a performance that might 'mature' over time (though still fulfilling as what it was).

What was (a little) interesting to me about this article is that even as it attacks the company as others have done, whether justifiably or not, it takes a somewhat different approach. Actually, even a few years ago, I remember reading essays attacking the company that treated the school as sacrosanct -- including Schorer and the present group of teachers that Rafferty criticizes. SAB performances staged by Schorer, were treated as an example of Balanchine done 'right' in contrast to whatever was being criticized at the State Theater.

I'm working from memory -- having also tossed my copy of the magazine -- but Rafferty seems to feel that Balanchine not only did not want his dancers to be taught a specific 'Balanchine' technique, but that it is, in a way, actively harmful to be taught that way...Ballet technique is ballet technque (the article seems to say) and it is the foundation on which Balanchine worked as a choreographer. The mistake of the present school, as I understood the argument, is that it bases its teaching on the dancers' experience of Balanchine's company and choreography, not the age old traditions that made that company and choreography possible.

She also quotes Balanchine's preface to Muriel Stuart's and Lincoln Kirstein's book on ballet technique. The quote asserts the necessary conservatism of ballet technique -- in suspiciously Kirsteinesque rhetoric, I might add, but certainly Balanchine signed his name to it. Rafferty even dismisses the idea -- that I have always heard repeated as an article of faith -- that dancers in Balanchine aren't supposed to lower their heel when landing jumps.

The tone of the whole is very much that of an 'insider.' She refers to her own work with Balanchine, and includes an anecdote in which she repeats an exchange between Von Aroldingen and Kowroski at rehearsal. I will add that the point of the anecdote is to provide more evidence of bad teaching/coaching behind the company's woes. Here too, unlike others attacking the company, she does not seem to see Martins as the exclusive villain, and indeed is ready to criticize coaches and teachers that others, equally dismayed by the company's dancing, have held up as the paragons Martins should draw on more often.

Personally, I'm always uneasy with an 'insider' tone in critical writing. And if what Rafferty says is true, then personal experience with Balanchine is no guarantee of getting him right. Von Aroldingen does not exactly lack insider credentials. It does seem, too, as if people who worked with Balanchine at different times in the company's history had different experiences, and he himself may have said different things not just at different times, but -- who knows -- even at the same time to different dancers...It's interesting to me, because I think the ongoing debates, including debates within debates, suggest that Balanchine's legacy is a more complex, varied one than institutions such as "The Balanchine Trust" or even a fully functional "Suzanne Farrell Ballet Company" can ever encompass whether for good or ill. I don't mean there is no right side or wrong side in any given case, and goodness knows I want to see a fully functional Suzanne Farrell ballet, but when it comes to tradition or, rather, traditions (plural) one can't always tease out a single best way to keep them alive and energetic, let alone accurate and intact.

For example, in the Von Aroldingen anecdote, Rafferty objects to Von Aroldingen's instructions about a developpe: Kowroski asks if it is to the side or front and she answers 'in between.' Rafferty reports there is no such thing (not in ballet) and adds that in performance Kowroski showed the distinction correctly (moving from one position to the other), and by implication did this in spite of Von Aroldingen's poor anwer. From her point of view the story shows what an instinctive understanding Kowroski has of classicism -- she rises above bad answers. I don't find this implausible. But maybe, in the context of their work together, Aroldingen's answer gave Kowroski the information she needed to produce the very effect that Rafferty admires (!) which means that maybe Von Aroldingen knew what she was doing. Or, even, maybe there is more than one way of showing someone how to dance Balanchine.

I write as someone who admires Martins much more than many on this board. But even if I acknowledge that many Balanchine ballets were better cast and better danced decades ago (not all the time though!), I don't think there is some clear cut answer about what to do with the legacy or who is responsible for what may be going wrong with it.

I saw Antique Epigraphs only once, at its premier, and I had a very negative reaction to it -- something rather rare with me, especially with Robbins. (At the time, too, I thought it was appropriate ballet fan etiquette to share no-holds-barred versions of one's opinions with other fans, and I let loose on "Antique Epigraphs" to some new acquaintances. I later learned, to my genuine surprise and hurt (!) that they thought I was an unspeakable jerk. Unfortunately, we didn't have a moderator to intervene.)

I cannot quite reconstruct why I reacted to the ballet the way I did -- I certainly would not mind seeing it again today. I do remember thinking that I felt as if Robbins was offering a kind of comment on, or response to, Balanchine's idealizations of women. In principle, I found this to be an interesting idea, but practically I thought the result ended up as merely derivative. I think, too, the sheer prettiness of the ballet came across to me as somehow unearned and therefore the fact that the ballet was so very pretty actually irritated me -- the ballerinas seemed less like classical nymphs than vogue models. This was definitely a minority opinion at the premier and I gather that it would be today as well.

I will check in to see, though, if Michael likes the ballet better on second viewing -- I never had one.

Mme. Hermine: thanks for the title of the Tharp ballet. "Everlast" would decidedly *not* be the word to characterize my memory...

"Grounded" seems to me a key word for the discussion. A work that is grounded in classical technique has classical ballet (principles and technique -- which means, too, vocabulary) as its foundation, and not as decoration or even one element among others. Balanchine uses turned-in positions, but he uses them within the framework of a turned-out technique. He does not (with a very few exceptions) choreograph works that simply ignore or have nothing to do with turn-out or the basic ballet positions (literally, first, second...fourth, fifth) founded on turn-out, and the movements and movement possibilities that grow from those positions

I think the choreography for the man in Variations Pour Un Port et Un Soupir is about as close to "modern dance" choreography as Balanchine gets and, interestingly, it's not eclectic or pseudo-ballet at all but really something entirely different. Yet, of course, in that ballet the man's role is still constantly set in precise relation to the figure of a ballerina, a figure definitely grounded in classical technique.

If a work occasionally alludes to or includes a ballet step or even a sequence of ballet steps, that is not enough to ground it in that technique. It is merely using Ballet as decoration. Conversely, modern dance choreographers who genuinely try to work with a ballet vocabulary in a more foundational way, often show a limited range. In my opinion, even Tharp's more balletic work expose some of these limitations. One of the most balletic Tharp works that I ever saw was a kind of demi-character ballet about a boxer and his girlfriend set in the 1920's/30's. It used pantomime, popular dance, and classical technique... I no longer remember the name, but I mention it as an interesting and illustrative 'failure' -- one I wouldn't mind seeing again. Done for ABT under Baryshnikov, it used the full resources of the company, but the bottom line for many audience members (myself included) was that it's many clever ideas found no fully adequate imagery in the "classical technique."

Being "grounded in classical technique" may or may not make someone an interesting choreographer, but a choreographer grounded in the technique inevitably has a greater range, literally a bigger vocabulary, than a modern dance choreographer working with ballet -- at least such has been my experience. It's not necessarily a question of quality. To take a less exalted example than Balanchine, Martins' choreography often uses ballet vocabulary not just in the service of big effects or general development of an idea, but to develop more intricate, complex moments as well. Even if Martins' attitude to classical ballet is ironic, as was suggested by another balletalert poster recently, he remains a classical ballet choreographer.

Though I'm moving a little beyond Alexandra's original question, I would add that, at least on stage, classical ballet is not just a "technique" but a body of work, and I do think that part of being grounded in classical ballet is being grounded in its history. I believe that a genuinely grounded classical choreographer must be grounded in other classical choreographers. For an example beyond Balanchine and Petipa, think of Ashton's Cinderella, which is not just modeled on, but offers a kind of choreographic translation of, Petipa's Sleeping Beauty. I don't think it is a coincidence that the great choreography often has this 'intertextual' quality -- and I suspect we miss many effects of this type because so many ballets have been lost.

Modern dance choreography can, though, also allude to and comment on classical ballet choreography. This kind of intertextuality does not stop with ballet choreographers. And I suspect that part of what critics sometimes mean when they say a modern dance choreographer is classical, is that the choreographer puts her or his works into dialogue with classical tradition to the point of establishing a kind of continuity with it despite the very different techniques. Some of Croce's writing on Morris makes this kind of argument, and so does the way Tharp talks about her own relation to Balanchine.

This usage can lead to the word classical being thrown around a bit too easily -- as when it is equated, as Alexandra notes, with having a strong structure. But some of that ambiguity is built into the history of the word 'classical' itself. For arts other than ballet, the word tends to hover between historical, descriptive, and evaluate associations, and with ballet one has to add to those associations, the specific association with "classical" technique. If it's a losing battle (not ignoble, just losing) to try to keep the word/concept ballet distinct from modern dance, it is probably hopeless to try to keep any control at all over the word classical...