Drew

The effect of this type of casting on me is pretty much as Alexandra describes -- rather than try to compare Giselles or Kitris I tend to settle for one of each. (ABT standing room this season was $20 on weeknights and $25 on weekends; and it is very obviously not selling well at those prices.) I do think that a company can't let its box office be primarily determined by balletomane habits, but even for general audiences this type of casting is baffling -- especially with a repertory that so depends on featuring principles. Presumably, too, long term box office depends partly on developing "big" stars -- in ballet that means artists, too -- and this does not seem to be the way to do it. It also means that if a general audience ballet goer (say, a subscriber who buys a few extra seats) reads a rave review of Dvorovenko as Kitri and thinks, I HAVE to see her...well, gee, they aren't likely to have the chance. Under the current regime, Kent seems to be especially favored, though; she actually did get two cracks at Swan Lake (with two partners) and Giselle (originally planned to be with two partners). Ironically, the ballets that dancers DID get more than one chance at were the lighter weight Cinderella, Merry Widow, and (dance-wise lighter weight) Onegin; even if Ferri had not withdrawn this would have been the case. (I know Onegin has its champions, and I will concede that if ABT is going to do it at all, dancers should have a chance to perform it repeatedly -- especially given the dramatic and partnering demands.)I don't entirely envy Mckenzie having to make these decisions, but as I recall when the company had Makarova, Kirkland, Van Hamel, and Gregory leading the way, the casting wasn't quite this scattered. I know this is off the fouette topic, but rather than fake one more remark on fouettes I will leave it up to the moderator to decide what to do . [ 07-16-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

I've never quite understood what people mean when they criticize Kirkland for the intensity of her research and preparation of roles. Onstage the results were magnificent (not just my opinion) and she looked utterly spontaneous...So from an audience or an artistic point of view why would one imply that her methods were somehow wrong? Presumably the answer to that question would be that some other dancers didn't enjoy working with her, or that her career was cut short and her general obsessiveness may have played a role in this etc. But in terms of what was achieved on stage, I don't think she can be said to have been "overrationalizing" anything. And there was, obviously some relation between her methods of preparation and that achievement... I go back and forth on the generational difference question. I do think that memory gilds the lily, people are loyal to their first loves and so on. I am one of those who got sick of "sheezno Fonteyn" as a youngster and though my favorite ballerinas are all retired (as, for example, Kirkland!), I forbid the words "she's no x or y" to leave my lips unless I am provoked by an outright comparison, and even then I try to exercise restraint. But I do feel the differences, especially at the very top level of dancing. Then, once in a while I will see a performance or a dancer who inspires the kind of pleasure, I "used" to get and because of that, too, I tend to trust my other, more critical feelings when I think that much of what I see today is not of that quality. I do agree with Mel Johnson's point that there is some generational ebb and flow. I can't speak to what happens behind the scenes but everything else that has been said seems persuasive to me...I would like to add, though, that at ABT at least a few things actually seem to me to have improved, in particular the level of solo/demi-soloist dancing which in the "good old days" -- despite some heroic exceptions like Rebecca Wright -- was often worse than mediocre. In general the level of what I would call "second" tier dancing, even the quality of the "house" ballerinas etc. seems to me a bit higher than it used to me in a number of major companies not just ABT. I have also felt that the last few years have offered more in the way of interesting and major ballerinas than the decade previous, and it may only be the lack of a major choreographer to feature them more extensively that prevents some of them from joining quite the same pantheon as some of the greats of the past. But despite what I said about my favorite ballerinas all being retired, I have a few new ones on the horizon. Male dancing, interestingly, I have more mixed feelings about. Here especially, good, very good, and even very, very good dancing abounds (certainly at ABT and NYCB), but little that to my mind that compares with the COMPLETE quality of the the really great artists. [ 07-14-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

Perhaps great teachers/ballet mistresses would be worth a separate thread? I think Alexandra recently suggested a book on this topic, and I concur. A figure about whom I am curious in the post-Diaghilev Ballet Russe saga is Rene Blum. At least one of the Balanchine biographies mentions that Balanchine thought well of him or, at least, thought he was a person of taste, and was unhappy when "Colonel de Basil" took over, and I believe he was a relation (brother or cousin?) of Leon Blum and spent (or ended?) a part of his life in a concentration camp...In short, a ballet patron who lived more or less at the fulcrum of European history in the 30's. I usually hesitate to write when my memory is so absurdly blurry, but would be very pleased to hear from anyone who knows more.

Perhaps great teachers/ballet mistresses would be worth a separate thread? I think Alexandra recently suggested a book on this topic, and I concur. A figure about whom I am curious in the post-Diaghilev Ballet Russe saga is Rene Blum. At least one of the Balanchine biographies mentions that Balanchine thought well of him or, at least, thought he was a person of taste, and was unhappy when "Colonel de Basil" took over, and I believe he was a relation (brother or cousin?) of Leon Blum and spent (or ended?) a part of his life in a concentration camp...In short, a ballet patron who lived more or less at the fulcrum of European history in the 30's. I usually hesitate to write when my memory is so absurdly blurry, but would be very pleased to hear from anyone who knows more.

Sorry for my confusion Glebb -- I hadn't realized Hockney was the designer for Varii Capricii -- but I'm glad you brought The Nightingale to my mind anyway... Like at least a few other fans at the Met. premier of Varii Capricii, I was awaiting something more rapturous or, at least, elegantly classical, for Sibley's return to the ballet stage -- and the return of the much missed Sibley/Dowell partnership. Ashton was less pious and offered a bit of a surprize, but I do sometimes wonder how the more deliberately clever or jokey aspects of his choreography will weather over time...(It's honestly a question, and only revivals -- well stage and well cast revivals -- will tell.)

I'm a little late to this, but want to express a bit of reserve on the notion that nowadays anyone can do 32 fouettes (especially, as has been noted above, in the context of an intense full length role). When Mckenzie's Swan Lake premiered at ABT last year, the company went through at least three different casts before one of their ballerinas completed them. (I saw Tuttle -- one year ago -- and she went off kilter not quite 2/3 of the way through and quit altogether around 24.) This year, Kent made it through 32 at her first performance and quite at about 28 at her second. (It's vulgar, I know, but I did count.) Even demon turners, like Murphy, have been known to flub -- at least according to one poster here at ballet alert who generally liked her debut very much, she took a "cook's tour" of the stage during her fouettes...I never assume a ballerina is going to make it through successfully. The fouettes are an iconic part of the role so, ideally, they should be there -- but if an otherwise fine ballerina needs to cut them, it makes sense to let her do so. Maria Kowroski replaced them with Pique turns at NYCB, but just the line of her arabesque, shooting straight behind her in Act III, was enough to make her an exciting Odile. Re. Aurora's balances -- they are a necessary part of the choreography, but even in this case, ballerinas with very differing abilities at balancing approach the choreography in quite different ways. I saw Assylmuratova some years ago at Kennedy Center, and at that performance she barely released her hand more than a few inches from her cavaliers, and rarely had to balance more than a nano-second, very different from other ballerinas who make a show of the balancing or at least raise their arm over their head on each balance. She did not, though, looked rushed or frazzled -- on the contrary, she looked utterly poised and lovely...and I thought it was a good decision on her part. So, even with Aurora, and with the choreography more or less intact, one sees variations...

Glebb-I believe the David Hockney designed work you mentioned was a staging of Stravinsky's Nightingale done not by the Royal but by the Metropolitan Opera as the second portion part of a three part Stravinsky evening. (The Oedipus oratoria with Jesse Norman closed the evening -- I can't remember how it opened.) I believe the Met. was following Diaghilev precedent in having the singers in the pit for Nightingale and the dancers on stage. Ashton did the choreography and the leads were Dowell and Natalia Makarava (not Sibley). Hockney designed all three works on the program. I thought the whole evening was wonderful, and the Ashton ballet magical and beautiful, but I can't remember very much detail. One thing I do remember is that Dowell's dancing had a much "younger" quality than I had ever seen in him, certainly than I had seen in him in the eighties. At this point (in my opinion) Dowell was an extraordinary artist but not quite the quicksilver dancer on whom Ashton created Oberon, and yet Ashton managed somehow to recreate that effect in Dowell's dancing. Anyway, a gorgeous ballet -- one I have often wish could be revived. Ashton's story ballets (I would prefer to say narrative or even character ballets) are by far and away the story ballets that I have found most moving and, more than that, most persuasive in the theater. I especially love A Month in the Country which I was lucky enough to see twice with the original cast and which I remember as a simply perfect ballet. Enigma Variations is another favorite, though the last time I saw it in the theater, many years ago, I didn't think the dancers "got" it. In any case, the trio for Elgar, his wife, and friend is about as extraordinary and nuanced as ballet characterization can get...Ashton manages to be genuinely "balletic" and yet keep the drama as fluid and natural looking as the dance. I have a more mixed reaction to his Cinderella than other posters, but the sequence at the end of Act I -- the variations for the seasons with the shifting scenic effects that accompany it -- seem to me an utterly tranforming renewal of Petipa's Sleeping Beauty: you can see the tradition, and you can see it becoming something totally new and distinctive. (Other parts of the ballet sometimes seem to me to fall back into mere Sleeping Beauty pastiche). P.S. To James Wilkie who began this thread, thanks -- but one caveat: "trusts" and other ways of controlling choreographers' legacies can be a good thing (though not always), but even when they are, problems remain. Legacies in the performing arts are always tricky...And I promise, the presence of a Balanchine or Tudor "trust" does not mean that all the performances you see of their ballets will be "up to snuff"! [ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

BIG OOPS - I wrote this before having realized there was a page 2 to this thread...Now that I have read it, I see some of my points are a little untimely, but I will leave most of it, and just ask indulgence. This is my first check-in to ballet alert in a bit, and I want to offer some support to Leight Witchel's earlier post. I understand that Alexandra's original question aimed at an understanding of audiences and taste formation (as well as "perceptions" thereof), but I think we can't limit the issue of "Balanchine-centrism" to the chance results of where one lives or local favoritism. I grew up outside of New York and was exposed to a range of classical/neo-classical choreography and modern dance at various levels of performance (local and international companies, including top ranked Soviet and British). My ballet tastes were and, to some degree remain, quite eclectic. As for Balanchine, I was taken to see Prodigal Son as a child (with Villela) and hated it, but saw some other NYCB occasionally (incl. A Midsummer Night's Dream) and got my first big dose in the early 70's with programs that included Ivesiana, Stravinsky Violin Concerto and Symphony in Three Movements. I was dazzled (particularly by the latter), but didn't quite know what to make of it or say about it. But I am now completely devoted to Balanchine's work. It is over the years, seeing more and more Balanchine, and, in particular, seeing how much his ballets yield on repeated viewing and, yes, even with different companies, that has confirmed for me personally not only the more or less consensus view that Balanchine is a crucial figure for the history of ballet, but also that a case can be made -- that has nothing to do with geography -- that he is THE crucial figure for twentieth-century ballet, much as one can make a case for Petipa in the nineteenth-century. That does not mean that Bournonville and Ashton lovers can't make their own cases in return, and certainly if one were to speak about "national" schools of dance, one would configure ballet history differently, but it's not just a matter of location and exposure that inspires admiration of Balanchine. I've seen Macmillan ballets danced over and over too -- by the Royal, not just ABT. And, in that sense, "New Yorker" love of Balanchine is not finally the same as, say, Stuttgarters loving Cranko. It may "feel" the same -- I'm sure there are those out there who admire Cranko as much I do Balanchine -- but that's a different matter, and probably a different thread. Geography can affect the formation of tastes, but there is rather more at stake if we are going to make JUDGEMENTS of taste -- which is what I understand Leigh's basic point to have been. At different moments in history certain places do become energetic centers for artistic activity of one kind or another. Theater goers in London around 1600 really did get to see some of the best, if not the best, drama in the European world at that moment -- with a little competition from Spain. Their "Shakespeare-centric" view of drama may have been limited, but it wasn't merely some misbegotten quirk of English taste even if, for a century or so, several French critics liked to say it was and complained bitterly about it... [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

I think there is quite a bit of pre-teen drama training -- I have first hand experience with different types of children's drama classes aimed at children as young as nine. Some were really just improvisation exercises but others involved performances of melodramas written for children, adaptations of children's books, religious subjects, even some scenes from "serious" adult drama, etc. I think this is pretty typical, and would be very surprised if some children didn't "study" earlier than nine. What I experienced didn't involved classical drama (except what I did on my own with friends), but there are decidedly more ambitious attempts at training child actors as well. According to an (unofficial) biography, at the age of 11 Alan Rickman was playing Volumnia in Shakespeare's Coriolanus for a school production. Many professional actors date their first experiences on the stage, professional or amateur, quite early. At various times in history, child actors in serious drama were rather a vogue -- in London during in 1804 you could see an extremely popular thirteen year old actor (Master Betty) play Hamlet. I'm just noting this, not advocating... LMCtech: Trent Reznor as Rothbart? I think he would make a good Siegfried. I say this in the spirit of the thread only of course; though an interesting mime in his videos, he's not exactly a classical ballet dancer. Anyway, he does have a certain romantic/erotic obsessiveness, so perhaps he'd fit one of those souped-up contemporary productions in which Siegfried is an ultra anguished neurotic. Now, Alan Rickman might make a good Rothbart... [ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

I went back to see Julie Kent with Vladimir Malakhov Tues. evening. In my opinion, this is a better pairing than Kent/Corella -- certainly for Swan Lake. Although I am a big fan of Malakhov, I was not quite as won over by his Siegfried as I was by his Albrecht or even his James. The interpretation did, though, have many lovely romantic qualities; in act II his hands seem to linger ever so slightly wherever they touched or held Odette, and the sheer length and stretch of his line seems designed to express balletic longing. He was not having a completely impeccable evening technically (some flubs a the end of his doubles tours in Act III; his spins in the coda not perfectly centered). At other moments he settled for simplicity, albeit simplicity perfectly executed; his multiple pirouettes were, for example, all doubles -- but that aspect I do NOT complain about as I really do mean perfectly executed and the result was at once beautiful and expressive. (I know we are wary of rumors on ballet alert, but my understanding is that he is coming off some sort of minor injury/surgery that caused at least one earlier performance this season to be canceled.) Withal, for my taste, the sheer quality of Malakhov's classical dancing -- underline classical -- just puts him in a different category from ABT's other male dancers, terrific as many of them are. Just one rather obvious example: in his grand jetes Malakhov describes a soaring arc in the air, so exquisitely curved, so beautifully shaped in every portion and proportion of his body, that it is as if one were seeing the step in its essence, at once idealized and intensified. With Malakhov one gets a rare chance to see the ballet vocabulary as it is supposed to look, but only rarely really does -- if you will, the way one imagines it in one's balletomaniac's mind's eye ... and it is just breathtaking.

Katja -- regarding Malakhov: in addition to what has been said above by Dale and Alexandra, I believe that this particular spring season, one of Malakhov's few scheduled performances in a "prince" role (Albrecht) was canceled. I heard that this was due to a minor injury -- though I cannot say for certain. ABT has a very large "spread" of principals, and often each cast only gets one performance of a full length ballet -- especially in New York when guest artists like Malakhov are added to the roster. So if one performance is cancelled...that's often it. Malakhov is also scheduled to dance Siegfried this coming Tuesday, and I certainly intend to be there. P.S. I am delighted to hear about the response he received in Russia -- in my opinion very deserved. He did, perhaps, at one time jump a little more dazzlingly than he does now, but his leaps remain just beautiful. He's just a complete artist in a way very few male dancers today are...

I gather Wendy Whelan has danced Chaconne during past seasons, but I saw her dance it for the first time at tonight's performance (6/16). Since Farrell's retirement I've seen several excellent ballerinas dance Chaconne -- excellent, but not (in my opinion) at all effective at capturing the full range of its qualities. I have always especially loved and admired the ballerina role, and simply mourned its flattening in the versions I was seeing. Well, Wendy Whelan wasn't a Suzanne Farrell -- she was entirely Wendy Whelan and as Wendy Whelan she has restored (in my eyes) a piece of Balanchine I had given up hoping to see again. With Philip Neal (also quite wonderful) she brought back the whole range of the ballet's dynamics, moods, lines, shapes, wit. I'm a pretty wordy ballet-alertnick -- but I haven't the words. I've praised a number of performances this season, so I hope it's clear that I mean this as praise of an altogether higher order. An extraordinary performance...(The evening as a whole, by the by, also included Peter Boal's equally remarkable performance in Square Dance. Should I add that up until about an hour and a half before the performance, I had pretty much decided not to go? Where's Alexandra's "Chinese gentleman" when you need him?! Fortunately, I changed my mind.) [ 06-17-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

I went Sat. night--I enjoyed this for one sitting. The music helped a lot (Nino Rota). The three pas de deux had some ingenious moments, and I thought all the dancers gave very lively buoyant performances. Of the men, I particularly enjoyed Jared Angle's dancing. I would be interested in hearing why AmandaNYC feels "biased" against Taylor's dancing, since I myself have been a bit puzzled by her...If sheer oomph is one's criterion for great dancing -- she's pretty terrific, plus she has that springy jump and pouty sex kitten face, but otherwise I don't quite know what to make of her ... This was my one opportunity to see Bouder in a featured role, and I enjoyed her dancing (and have hopes of someone who might really be able to take over, say, some of Ashley's old roles -- the need for which was in evidence elsewhere on the program). But, in this work, Carla Korbes was the dancer that I was most taken by -- she was the only one of the leading women whose dancing showed some refinement. This may have been an effect of Tanner's showcasing, as Korbes got the one real piece of adagio dancing in the ballet, with elaborated port de bras and gorgeous back-bending poses, but I was impressed. [ 06-17-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

Triple ditto -- no, quadruple ditto -- to Manhattnik's last remark about Malakhov.

I also went Friday night -- I have a lot of problems with this production, but overall enjoyed myself. I have always thought, though, that there is one Rothbart (a magical nature creature) who disguises himself as a nobleman in order to enchant his victims. Personally I find all of Mckenzie's choreography for this production awkward and unflattering (and there's quite a bit of it) and the elaboration of Rothbart's "character" unpersuasive, but, hmm, I do always enjoy watching Malakhov ... I don't think Corella is without substance -- I find his dancing at times quite beautiful (as opposed to just flashy) and I thought he at least tried to make his big act III solos expressions of delight and excitement. I do think he's a little young and temperamentally boyish for this part. There are emotional notes he just doesn't have (yet?). Kent is not an ideal match for him (a little too tall for one thing) which aggravates the problem. The encounters between them definitely seemed as if between a human and an entirely otherworldly creature (more Firebird than Swan Lake), and that skimps some of the ballet's interpretive possibilities. Though I do like the Act IV image in this production in which she is standing atop the rocks and he is below her kneeling on them and looking upwards -- and Friday evening, that about summed the way Corella seemed to relate to Julie Kent throughout. This was the best I have seen Kent -- she WAS lovely -- but not terribly compelling emotionally either. She did bring a wonderful, almost patronizing allure to the final seconds of the black swan pas de deux. (I think it would be fair, though, to characterize the fouettes as determined.) The pas de trois was very interesting. Herman Cornejo was just wonderful -- he has an extraordinary spring to his jumps, but also brings a lot of attention and care to the details of his dancing. You feel he is paying attention. Xiomara Reyes danced beautifully, though she seemed a bit precious. Erica Cornejo has something like her brother's spring and the jumps were remarkably high in a woman dancer. Other qualities of her dancing were more uneven (to me) -- but the jumping, wow! I also enjoyed a number of the women in the character dancing of Act III, especially Stella Abrera and Carmen Corella in the Spanish dance. Otherwise the company dancing as a whole was pretty good, but uneven in patches (first Swan Lake of the season though, so it's likely to get better). And there were some nice details in the miming in Act I etc. -- peasants too nervous to look directly at the Prince etc. [ 06-16-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

Leigh Witchel -- I have found it necessary to say "no" to certain things in order to develop or embrace others, in some cases even things that in the abstract or in other contexts I might admire or find interesting...but in my life this has not really been a crucial part of my dance going. Though certainly as I came to like certain things, I found myself liking or caring about others less. I can't help but wonder if an act, like this, of clearing the ground (something more than 'I don't care for'...or 'not my cup of tea,' but NO) may be more necessary, at times, for someone who is creating or producing something -- e.g. a choreographer -- than for an interested observer or even maybe (?) a critic. In my case, the NO (one of them anyway) was in the service of getting a dissertation written. I look back on it now as partly a pragmatic decision, but at the time I didn't only think of myself as being pragmatic; I did have a touch -- only a touch -- of the absolutist. And that touch did actually benefit the work (in my opinion of course ). [ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

Murphy's not an "ideal" Kitri -- I thought it was, nonetheless, a terrific debut and fun performance all round. I do think she has a somewhat "cool" persona, but as Kitri she showed real charm, using, if you will, that persona. She actually had a soubrette quality, quite distinctive, that I haven't seen in her before...As for her dancing, I did not find it the least bit cold or metronomic. I've always liked Murphy better than Manhattnik -- though there is no doubt that she is still developing as a dancer -- but my reaction to this performance wasn't merely quirky. Clearly, the matinee audience really "responded" (in a way matinee met. audiences don't always do) to Murphy and Corella both. If one wants to see a fully realized, "sensational" Kitri, Dvorovenko and Ananiashvili may well be the best ABT has to offer...(I haven't seen them -- except for Ananiashvili in the pas de deux -- but actually I don't doubt it.) But there is something to be said for the sheer pleasure of watching a gifted young ballerina growing -- and glowing -- before one's eyes. p.s. jcaguioa: I haven't seen the video you mention, but as you can see from the above discussion a number of fans complain about Murphy's "coldness." I have always enjoyed her dancing -- and found her very "watchable" not dull. I have even found a certain quiet charmisma in the "cool" way she dances. But this Kitri did give me, additionally, the first glimpse of Murphy projecting more of an acting/dancing "personality;" it also was the first full length lead I've seen her do, the first role in which she has to pantomime and react to others' pantomime, and she did very well. She's only just starting to be cast in these roles this season, and, in this role, she's starting at a very high level. Among other things, this performance made me wish ABT would revive Coppelia so she can dance Swanilda. [ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

I went to the June 9th ABT matinee -- Gillian Murphy and Angel Corella in Don Quixote -- I thought this was a terrific performance, flawed in a number of ways but so high energy, so "on," that it worked very, very well. As far as I know this was Murphy's New York debut in the role (perhaps her debut plain and simple?) -- and I was delighted, actually a bit surprised, at how well she performed. She danced very well throughout and, often, really splendidly, using her somewhat cool presence to make Kitri seem sublimely self-confident, but at the same time quite funny in her little tantrums...This is not, I think, a "natural" role for Murphy, but she pulled it off. In particular, her very quick, articulate, and expansive leg movements were just wonderful in this choreography...another highlight was her solo in Act III which she seemed to just toss off with an air of almost amusing ease and authority. She and Corella were wonderfully matched -- both brought tremendous energy to the stage and each other. He just gets better and better. His bravura dancing was utterly brilliant, but he also seems to me to have new dimension and depth in the quality of his movements -- his arms are beautiful. And all the passion that he always brings to the stage was here, additionally, focused on Murphy. In the one armed lifts of Act I they were especially fun(ny), as he seemed to hold her up for ever while she, looking quite fearless, kept waving her tambourine. The audience sort of giggled and gasped at once. And when he let her down and ran across the stage and turned to her to set up the next lift, the smile on his face was just gleeful...as if to say, 'we must do that again.' In her fouettes in Act III, Murphy did single single double for the first half with perfect control and when she did the double she raised a hand holding her red fan over her head (a la couronne) and OPENED the fan as she turned. For the second half she did a series of singles very fast travelling forward in a pretty controlled way until the end when she started to travel sideways a bit, but she more or less kept things under control and finished the turns. This was by no means a perfect performance. The character quality of Act I is not Murphy's natural element. The adagio of the Act III pas de deux could have gone better (and probably will in the future). In Act III even Corella had some tiny fudges, turns that went a bit off center. It would be possible to have a more carping reaction to this performance than mine -- but in fact one of the things I loved about this performance was that Corella and Murphy danced with all out panache even through their (minor) mistakes, and kept utterly focused. Whether or not Murphy is a great Kitri, she is certainly an enjoyable one -- and, in my eyes, a real ballerina. Interestingly, the audience seemed, initially a tepid matinee crowd. Many empty seats (I was in standing room and easily found a very good seat during intermission), families, and subscribers etc. They reacted pretty mildly to Act I but by the end of Act II they were genuinely excited and at the ballet's close gave Murphy and Corella an enthusiastic ovation that continued one curtain call past the raising of the lights. As they walked out of the theater, people were notably talking about what a good performance it was. My favorite overheard discussion was between a middle aged couple (I'll guess subscribers): the wife was in the middle of saying "she was adorable" but before she had finished the word "adorable" her husband said "oh she...she was fantastic!" In this case, I think the audience's pleasure was a real gage of what Murphy and Corella brought to the stage. I don't want to exagerate -- even without seeing them, I don't doubt Ananiashvili and Dvorovenko are better Kitris, but somehow it was just a delightful afternoon. The rest of the performance was, unfortunately, a bit uneven and even ragged. The toreodors were absolutely off kilter -- individually this one or that would throw in a high jump, but they never (in Act I or III) managed to dance in sync: even when only two of them were jumping across the stage together they were on different beats. They also had no feel for the "character" quality of the dancing. The women throughout were somewhat better than the men. Though in one sequence (Act II?) four girls in a line facing the audience were doing entrechats and they also were out of sync the first go round; on the repetition they were dancing together, but not very well -- the jumps just looked a bit limp. Molina as the star bullfighter has the right look but not the arch in his upper back that would make the choreography more dashing. Carmen Corella as Mercedes was excellent, though her bourrees in the knife solo were not in themselves particularly lovely. Otherwise, I quite liked her. The Queen of the Dryads, Shelkanova was fine as was the Amor (Ann Mikelski -- I may have the name wrong, I don't have my program). The two flower girls were Michele Wiles and Anna Liceica. When I saw Wiles as one of the two Wilis in Giselle, I felt similarly to Manhattnik; she seemed unable to make her tall limbs fit into the nineteenth-century wili image -- she looked as if she were dancing a twentieth-century ballet. Obviously in Don Quixote, she doesn't have those kind of stylistic demands and yet I almost felt there was an analogous problem. Watching her do the same steps side by side with Liceica, one could see how much more musically and stylistically nuanced Liceica is. Wiles danced very well (as did Liceica), and I am very eager to watch her development, but she definitely seems to me to need honing and experience. (I only mention it, because one can see that she is being groomed for big things -- with a Theme and Variations debut coming up.) As the "gypsies" Herman Cornejo and Erica (?) Cornejo were excellent -- well, actually, he was even better than that. He just has extraordinary height and ballon in the air and the sort of high intensity Corella has. Moreover, he dances everything -- even when it's sheer character dancing -- cleanly. I thought all the mime roles (led by Barbee as Don Quixote) were done well, but I tend to lose interest during the comic schtick in this ballet; mostly I watched Murphy and Corella "reacting" on the sides of the stage...So, from the company overall, it was a good but somewaht mixed afternoon, but the performance altogether raised to something much better by the leads. For various reasons, I am unable this week to be where, as a ballet fan, I would like to be -- at the Kennedy Center seeing the Royal: Ashton repertory I hardly ever have a chance to see, new dancers, like Cojocaru, generating excitement, and one of my favorite ballerinas (whom I also hardly ever get to see), Sylvie Guillem. Well, this year it was not to be...actually I can't even attend very much ballet in New York. But I consider this afternoon a very nice consolation prize. [ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

I was very interested in Jeannie's list -- do we know enough to have a sense of how Petipa developed into the Petipa of Sleeping Beauty? One comment I overheard about Lacotte's Pharoah's Daughter (putting aside, for now, the "steps" question) was that the choreography occasionally looked more French/Bournonvillesque than Petipa, and the person speaking speculated that this was because the ballet was an "early" Petipa spectacle and that was what Lacotte had in mind. This is really third hand information; I'm not kidding when I say I overheard this conversation...but I notice Doug made some analogous remarks early in this thread, and I am curious if ballet historians have a sense of when and how Petipa developed into the distinctive geometry and pointe work of his later choreography? Related question re Vivandiere; I saw the Vivandiere pas de six many, many years ago in a Joffrey II production; I vaguely thought it was St. Leon or some other French, pre-Petipa choreography and it certainly looked (to my eye) somewhat Bournonvillesque, with fleet and bouncy footwork. Is this a case, like Giselle, where the version we have is based on a Petipa revival? Or is Jeannie referring to something different? Croce (to the best of my memory) once alluded to Petipa as having developed the ballerina's adagio (and developed point work accordingly) and she specifically contrasted this to Bournonville. I'm curious what sense we have of when and where this happened in Petipa's work -- of where, when, and how his version of the French tradition diverged from Bournonville's. P.S. I'm a little nervous that I've just betrayed some appalling ignorance of well known ballet history...so apologies ahead of time. [ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

I was very interested in Jeannie's list -- do we know enough to have a sense of how Petipa developed into the Petipa of Sleeping Beauty? One comment I overheard about Lacotte's Pharoah's Daughter (putting aside, for now, the "steps" question) was that the choreography occasionally looked more French/Bournonvillesque than Petipa, and the person speaking speculated that this was because the ballet was an "early" Petipa spectacle and that was what Lacotte had in mind. This is really third hand information; I'm not kidding when I say I overheard this conversation...but I notice Doug made some analogous remarks early in this thread, and I am curious if ballet historians have a sense of when and how Petipa developed into the distinctive geometry and pointe work of his later choreography? Related question re Vivandiere; I saw the Vivandiere pas de six many, many years ago in a Joffrey II production; I vaguely thought it was St. Leon or some other French, pre-Petipa choreography and it certainly looked (to my eye) somewhat Bournonvillesque, with fleet and bouncy footwork. Is this a case, like Giselle, where the version we have is based on a Petipa revival? Or is Jeannie referring to something different? Croce (to the best of my memory) once alluded to Petipa as having developed the ballerina's adagio (and developed point work accordingly) and she specifically contrasted this to Bournonville. I'm curious what sense we have of when and where this happened in Petipa's work -- of where, when, and how his version of the French tradition diverged from Bournonville's. P.S. I'm a little nervous that I've just betrayed some appalling ignorance of well known ballet history...so apologies ahead of time. [ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]

When I saw Kirkland fall in big story ballets she would always pick herself up "in character" -- Sometimes, I found this rather charming. Overall, I more or less have the "Balanchine" attitude. With certain dancers in particular, one can see them "going for it" and it's so thrilling that one supports and applauds them even if they fall. (Certainly, other than concern for injuries, I do not, in those cases, react negatively.) The first time I saw Elizabeth Platel, I had never heard of her, and was just delighted as she danced the Queen of the Wilis with real daring -- big expressive jumps -- but did in the end take a pretty bad fall. As I remember, the Kirov's Chestyakova fell or slipped at the company's Kennedy Center appearances quite frequently; she was usually cast in some top soloist variation and she always was doing, seemingly, the most difficult imaginable version, e.g. triple piroettes where others settled for two, extra beats during a jump etc. However, the Kirov (at that time) had such a surface quality of classical precision that I sometimes found myself wishing she would just do the simpler thing and do it smoothly and accurately. But I still admired her guts. On the other hand -- and concern for injuries aside...if I see a lackluster or problematic performance in which, for example, a dancer is quite sloppy in all of his/her landings and the whole thing culminates with a slip or a fall, I'm more inclined to view it critically. I'll think "x" wasn't in control of the movements and the slip just confirms the larger problem. I think I've even written things to this effect at ballet alert -- 'so and so having an off night and slipped out of her turns' etc. I do very much agree with what has been said above about general audiences. I think, for many of them, a fall does mean that obviously, the dancer has screwed up and that's just bad. I've noticed, too, that when I go to the ballet with someone who really knows NOTHING about dance, there is a certain insecurity factor; when they see a fall they feel at least that they know what they saw and that they know what it means -- a mistake. Although, at the risk of contradicting myself, I do think that in an inchoate way even a less educated ballet audience can occasionally tell the difference between an exciting dancer who takes a spill and a dancer who just isn't dancing well. Don't know about the Miami ballet incident -- and of course with a corps dancer one may not be noticing that dancer in particular until the fall. Occasionally, too, one gets a sympathy response -- you can hear it in the applause when the dancer who stumbled takes a bow. I am interested in Sonora's comment about the audiences lack of experience with live performance -- I bet that IS an aspect of the problem. Everybody is used to the often inhuman and usually manufactured polish of film and video...so they really don't know how to 'see' a fall EXCEPT as a blot.

Lacotte's version of Pharoah's Daughter (or Paquita for that matter) may be wonderful and perhaps Kevin Mckenzie should aquire it -- I have no opinion on this -- but I don't see how it can be called a "revival" or a "classic" when the CHOREOGRAPHY is almost entirely new, albeit "in the manner of" Petipa etc. If ballet is in any respect a serious art form on its own account, the "steps" very much do matter. There was a recent thread discussing an article by Joan Accocella addressing "revivals" of Nijinsky's ballets and discussing this issue...To use Accoccella's example, what would it meant to "revive" Beethoven's Fifth Symphony on the basis of some written descriptions of the premier, some records of the composer's tempi and keys, and maybe some indications of the orchestration but gee...um...er...having almost none of the NOTES. Nineteenth-century choreography may not be as "autonomous" as music (a complex question), but choreography is the substance of balletic art if the art counts for anything substantive at all. Again, this is not an opinion on the artistic merits of Lacotte's productions -- I haven't seen them, though I remember Jeannie's glowing report on Paquita! -- but how can they be thought of as revivals? I admit, though, that I personally find it pretty questionable for a performing art to try to renew itself by doing pastiche versions of its older repertory. If the occasional production works (as Lacotte's do, in the eyes of many), of course that's great. On the other hand, if actual notation exists for some lost "classics" and if an artist with enough creativity and musicality to bring notation to life were to appear on the scene to stage those works (big ifs), the possibility for genuinely enriching ballet's heritage would be greater than some pseudo-revival. I don't mean a pious attempt to make everything exactly as it was (impossible anyway and, in my opinion, not even desirable) -- but stagings that would at least try to give one more of a genuine sense of ballet's choreographic heritage.

Lacotte's version of Pharoah's Daughter (or Paquita for that matter) may be wonderful and perhaps Kevin Mckenzie should aquire it -- I have no opinion on this -- but I don't see how it can be called a "revival" or a "classic" when the CHOREOGRAPHY is almost entirely new, albeit "in the manner of" Petipa etc. If ballet is in any respect a serious art form on its own account, the "steps" very much do matter. There was a recent thread discussing an article by Joan Accocella addressing "revivals" of Nijinsky's ballets and discussing this issue...To use Accoccella's example, what would it meant to "revive" Beethoven's Fifth Symphony on the basis of some written descriptions of the premier, some records of the composer's tempi and keys, and maybe some indications of the orchestration but gee...um...er...having almost none of the NOTES. Nineteenth-century choreography may not be as "autonomous" as music (a complex question), but choreography is the substance of balletic art if the art counts for anything substantive at all. Again, this is not an opinion on the artistic merits of Lacotte's productions -- I haven't seen them, though I remember Jeannie's glowing report on Paquita! -- but how can they be thought of as revivals? I admit, though, that I personally find it pretty questionable for a performing art to try to renew itself by doing pastiche versions of its older repertory. If the occasional production works (as Lacotte's do, in the eyes of many), of course that's great. On the other hand, if actual notation exists for some lost "classics" and if an artist with enough creativity and musicality to bring notation to life were to appear on the scene to stage those works (big ifs), the possibility for genuinely enriching ballet's heritage would be greater than some pseudo-revival. I don't mean a pious attempt to make everything exactly as it was (impossible anyway and, in my opinion, not even desirable) -- but stagings that would at least try to give one more of a genuine sense of ballet's choreographic heritage.

I don't know what kind of dancer she would be, but I've often thought that Isabel Adjani has the perfect face (and temperament) for Giselle...

I haven't seen ABT's production of Onegin, but I'm not surprized people admire the ballet more than I. Many people love this ballet and the first time I saw it I did too. But after seeing it several times with the Stuttgart, I came to feel that the quality of the movement and, if you will, the "translation" of the drama into balletic terms was trivial, and the dancing just taken abstractly (as choreography) dull. At this point, I don't remember a large number of specifics, but I do remember the acrobatic pas de deux that seemed very muddy and inarticulate to me...By muddy and inarticulate, I mean, for example, that it scarcely made any difference whether I was seeing Makarova (as I did once) or Haydee (as I did several times): the movement just blurred into so many dynamically unvaried tosses and throws. Of course, this was just my reaction. I should add that, as I haven't seen the ballet recently, I strongly suspect that if I saw a great performance I would enjoy it...but I doubt I would get much from sitting through it repeatedly. (I wouldn't want to sit through Merry Widow repeatedly either!!) I wasn't part of "Ballet Alert's" earlier discussions of this ballet, but I 'm not surprised that there is quite a bit of disagreement about it. I would reiterate one comment Alexandra made. I am not oppposed to story ballets -- I have admired Neumeier's Dame aux Camelias, to say nothing of Ashton's Month in the Country. (And I was fascinated about a year ago by the Lavrosky Romeo and Juliet.) Etc. etc. But I'm one of those who is not persuaded by Cranko as a great choreographer -- I don't think he puts together ballet steps in an interesting way. [ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: Drew ]