Drew

Lydia-Diaz Cruz was certainly the most memorable Dying Swan I have ever seen -- but mostly what I recall is that she had the boneless, squiggly arm thing going more than any ballerina I have ever seen. Her arms didn't just ripple, but shimmered and curved in great waves of movement. But I saw this many years ago, and the same performance today might well make me giggle rather than weep...Kirkland gave a surprizingly restrained and pure performance of the ballet at a Carnegie Hall gala. (This was during one of the more troubled periods of her career -- and of all things she had put on weight.) But, today, it is precisely restraint and purity that I would find moving in this role. But this is one question about ballet history that allows of a dogmatic answer. Without question -- the greatest Dying Swan was Anna Pavlova.

Well -- I'm an amateur here -- but I very much like the suggestion that Ivanov's choreography for Odette looks forward to the neo-classical ballerina. I find it especially persuasive because it's a role in which (in my opinion) the neo-classical silhouette, including the high extensions popular today, doesn't seem to distort/change the choreography to the extent it does in Sleeping Beauty. Odette just seems to allow for an entirely different "plastique."

I find Alexandra's comments about classifications being part of Balanchine's "background and education," something that impacts his work even when he's not deliberately invoking it, to be useful for thinking about this. Otherwise, reading this thread, I have been a little skeptical about bringing traditional emploi to bear on his work. I'm partly won over, but only partly, because so much of Balanchine's vision seems to have been organized around his relations, as a choreographer, to particular dancers. The process suggests a very different idea about what a choreographer does, even what he "is" than more generically oriented conceptions. I know Balanchine described himself as craftsman/cook -- but that's obviously a bit of rhetoric and maybe even deliberately obfuscating... I also started thinking about a relatively recent exhibit of Picasso portraits (at the Guggenheim??); it essentially defined Picasso's "periods" as a portrait painter through his relationships to/visions of different women in his life. The portraits did arguably have some relation to traditional "types" in the history of painting -- but the curators made a pretty persuasive case that the types were overdetermined by the more particular creative, and at times personal, relation that unfolded between artist and "subject." Ballerina roles are not just "portraits" but I think something similar occurs in Balanchine's work ... albeit in the context of formal problems specific to ballet. (Against my own argument, one might respond that in both cases -- Picasso and Balanchine -- the way they related to particular women was influenced by the way they "saw" their art, not the other way around.) Certain Balanchine roles "descend" from nineteenth-century ballets. Leight Witchell mentioned Theme and Variations and Sleeping Beauty. But in the nineteenth century ballerina "type" is already a very complex affair in which the individual ballerina/star seems to be put her stamp on the genres to the point of redefining them (pun intended -- think Taglioni). And a great Aurora is not necessarily going to be able to dance a great performance of Theme and Variations -- and vice-versa. With the Bolshoi, Ananiashvili and Uvarov did, in my opinion, dance the second movement of Symphony in C, a descendant of Act II of Swan Lake, as if it WERE Act II of Swan Lake and the result -- not uninteresting to watch -- inadvertently exposed the gap between Balanchine and Ivanov...Ironically, it may be because Balanchine superimposed his own vision so thoroughly on the genres that his ballets allow so successfully of being transformed by different dancers of different types: Marie-Jeanne to Farrell... For the above reasons, I think a family tree of dancers would, in a way, be the most appropriate way to try to figure out what is happening (or not) with Balanchine roles and "type." Ideally, it would include the dancers he first worked with, including the first ballerina-wife, Tamara Geva...and certainly include figures like Toumanova (Mozartiana, Cotillion, roles that point forward to LeClerc and Farrell) and even seeming exceptions like Losch who was not really a ballet dancer. (Perhaps there is a bit of the neo-romantic, Tchelitew designed ballets Balanchine did for her in something like the Elegy that opens Tch. Suite Number Three?) One other aspect that would have to be added to the Balanchine mix -- "American" types! Heroines from movies and musical comedies. Didn't he tell Kirstein he liked the idea of coming to the country that gave the world great girls like Ginger Rogers? (Bit of a joke perhaps, but not entirely.) There may only be a handful of ballets in which this becomes explicit, but certainly it's implicit all over the place...Shades scene in Bayadere refracted through Ziegfield... In trying to think of Balanchine ballets where more traditional types may be active -- I wondered about A Midsummer's Night Dream but quickly found myself confused. I'm confident describing the act III pas de deux as classique, Puck as demi-caractere, Bottom as character or even (with donkey's head) grotesque...But Oberon? short, fast, danced by Villela also seems demi-caractere? Yet with Boal certainly became Classique...If there were such a thing, Titania -- a tall role -- seems like a noble seen from a comic point of view? but perhaps her dancing and her fairy status renders her classique? In tone the lovers seem demi-caractere -- they almost fit with a straightforward eighteenth-century definition of demi-caracter...Hyppolita, though, would seem like another noble. Maybe it's only my ignorance that makes this seem so tricky...I actually thought of this ballet because I do think, whatever the traditional emploi, Balanchine does have a kind of "amazon" soloist that often returns in his ballets ...and in AMND -- and Coppelia -- we get her literally. (Less literally, the tall girl in Rubies...) One other thought. Apollo was mentioned above as a demi-caractere role; I wonder if Orpheus could be considered a noble role...This ballet was revived, not too successfully, for Baryshnikov and then recast with Martins. I have been told by a someone I trust --I'll repeat for a private forum only-- that Balanchine later thanked Martins for his performance. I realize that without more detail, people may doubt whether to trust the anecdote so I'll just add that, in my own opinion, the rather elegant, weighty, and archetypal Martins performance, was considerably more effective than Baryshnikov's. Baryshnikov seemed to give the role a deliberate pathos that is far from "noble" and that, precisely, did NOT work. He "acted." He was ligher than Martins, too, in the quality of his movements throughout the ballet. The Orpheus story does fit the noble mould, since it involves a heroic-human quest that elevates the hero above ordinary humanity. I don't know who created this role (my ballet library and I are separated), but that would, of course, fill out the picture... [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 24, 2001).]

I saw Lezhnina dance Aurora when she was still with the Kirov and quite young -- She was, I think, possibly the most "right" Aurora I have seen. (However, it is NOT a role in which I have seen too many genuinely great, or even successful, performances -- and I missed Fonteyn and Kolpakova altogether.) What I remember most about the performance was the "crisp," and pure, classical lines, the sheer crystalline geometry of it, as well as Lezhnina's youthful radiance. A description that perhaps accords with what Andrei means by "classique-ingenue" (?). For me geometry (literally) is a big part of Sleeping Beauty. Though I don't quite know how that intersects with "emploi." Lezhnina's lines were not really "square" but they were nothing like what we are presently being served up as the Kirov norm!! I don't have the memory or technical knowledge to characterize the look, but as a fan, I felt as if I were seeing something that at least approached the "ideal" Petipa angles. A kind of textbook simplicity, nothing look strained or "extra" stretched etc. The body was harmonious -- you weren't drawn to look at the leg or the torso, but the whole "figure." I would never have thought of comparing Lezhnina with Fugate (whose Aurora I missed) except in the very general sense that Fugate's line was more classical, more restrained than other NYCB dancers. Fugate was also warmer and more womanly than Lezhnina (at the time I saw Lezhnina anyway); I associate "coolness" of temperament with Kirov -- or should I say Leningrad -- classicism and, specifically, the way the company danced Sleeping Beauty over a decade ago. Temperament may be more a matter of sensibility than "emploi" but if classique is a somewhat "hybrid" category anyway, one might say that Aurora grows into a more "noble" type of classique. Even in a "cool" performance, the contrast/development of her three big set pieces -- from the allegro entrance to the grand pas de deux -- is supposed to show differing facets of the dancer. And the choreography/music arguably moves towards a greater 'grandeur' of style or presence in the final act. [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 22, 2001).]

Well, somebody's loss is going to be somebody's gain -- very nice to hear about Terekhova. I never saw her Myrtha -- unfortunately -- but did see her in a very few performances with the Kirov in the early eighties. She was fabulous! In her Paquita variation she managed to seem at once elegantly meticulous and utterly spontaneous. And yes, the jump! Watching her I occasionally felt as if I could better understand the historical connection between Maryinsky/Kirov and Balanchine. As it happens, I did, a couple of years later, see her dance a very engaging Scotch Symphony. Off topic, I know...let's just say I don't doubt she made a GREAT Myrtha.

Well, somebody's loss is going to be somebody's gain -- very nice to hear about Terekhova. I never saw her Myrtha -- unfortunately -- but did see her in a very few performances with the Kirov in the early eighties. She was fabulous! In her Paquita variation she managed to seem at once elegantly meticulous and utterly spontaneous. And yes, the jump! Watching her I occasionally felt as if I could better understand the historical connection between Maryinsky/Kirov and Balanchine. As it happens, I did, a couple of years later, see her dance a very engaging Scotch Symphony. Off topic, I know...let's just say I don't doubt she made a GREAT Myrtha.

Nowadays, too, a different formula for thinking about dance "classifications" inflects a lot of writing/discussion -- one that emphasizes the choreographer. Critics and observers talk about "Balanchine ballerinas" or "Tudor" specialists, "Bournonville" or "Macmillan" dancers. While everyone knows that a Balanchine ballerina includes a Kent as well as a Farrell etc. the phrase does still conjure up certain, sometimes quite specific ideas. I think the shift or difference between talking about a "classique" and talking about a Petipa ballerina is interesting because it's not just a different way to define dancers but reflects a different way of thinking about ballet/choreography. It puts the expression of singular artistic vision at the center of the process, rather than what one might call genre or generic considerations. And it describes the dancer as a vehicle of that vision. (Loosely speaking, it's a more "modern" attitude -- and, of course, "modern" dance far more than ballet has organized itself around a series of singular artistic visions...)

I would certainly call Wheeldon promising -- I would, for example, genuinely like to see Polyphonia again. (Based on what many here and elsewhere have said, I gather that Mercurial Manoevers was a still more successful work...unfortunately I missed it.) There are skeptics like Julip, but certainly "promising" isn't an absurd claim. In the early eighties I saw a whole slew of John Neumeier works (danced by his own company and the Stuttgart) several of which I found interesting/good. Just one example: as a full-length story ballet I thought Dame aux Camelias was considerably more interesting than the Cranko works in whose wake it, more or less, was following. (In the past when I have mentioned a ballet or choreographer less commonly admired on this board, I have been asked to explain myself -- so, here's what I can offer from memory: I thought the drama and dance was integrated in ingenious ways, including a ballroom scene after Marguerite has given up Armand in which each dances with someone else while obsessing about the other. I remember (vaguely) the actual choreography of the scene as simple but musical, with a sort of restrained, repetitive quality that played very nicely against the crazed emotions. I also remember a clever, meta-theatrical scene in which the characters attend an opera and there is a stage within the stage. I have long since forgotten choreographic detail, but I decidedly thought the movements and differentiation of the pas de deux were more sophisticated than Cranko.) Anyway, I haven't seen anything by Neumeier since the early eighties -- and I can't swear my opinions would be identical today -- but I find it hard to believe that he has done NOTHING in the last ten years that I would like... Many don't consider Tharp (even on point) a "ballet" choreographer -- in my opinion a great deal of what is distinctive about her choroegraphy works better w. modern dancers -- but I wouldn't completely banish her from ballet consideration and, specifically, wouldn't mind seeing In the Upper Room again... There are also new works from the last ten years that, without being very distinguished, have at least shown me dancers developing in interesting ways -- e.g. Kowroski in Tomasson's Prism, Hubbe in Martins' Jazz. I'm not a fan of either of these works -- and I'm not waiting breathlessly for the next Martins or Tomasson ballet, but I don't think it was a waste of time for these dancers to have these roles set on them. Their talents were being deployed and developped not just commandeered or exploited. In a way, this is defending merely competent choreography, when the question was about works that are genuinely "good." But the question was raised in the context of a discussion of Farrell's "company," its potential repertory, and a remark about ballet moving "forward." Even traditional or specialized companies need to produce some new works if only to keep their dancers creatively engaged in different ways than (re)stagings can do. The marketing question also arises, but the need for premiers and "events" has led to an OVERproduction of new works -- I don't deny that. But I don't think the last ten years has been an actual desert, just a very, very dry landscape. [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 17, 2001).]

Nanatchka -- very glad you mentioned Calegari. A beautiful dancer and one whose career seemed to end prematurely...

Diaghilev all but pulled that sort of thing off, and even managed to replace one interesting choreographer after another (more or less) while he remained in charge. Come to think of it, Salzberg -- or perhaps you WERE thinking of it -- when asked just what he did for the Ballets Russes, Diaghilev's answer was "je regle les lumieres" [imagine accents] -- that is, "I do the lighting." For the record: I share this board's skepticism (ahem) as to whether the Boston Ballet is about to initiate a whole new era in balletic creativity. (There were complaints about Holmes bringing in Wheeldon? Wheeldon may or may not be over hyped -- I liked the one substantive work I've seen -- but most people would consider getting Wheeldon a coup, especially in any attempt to become one of "the top ten" ballet companies. Royal Ballet credits anyone? NYCB artist in residence? For the next couple of years, Wheeldon premiers almost guarantee some national press coverage. And wouldn't the big bucks audience that supports the Boston Symphony be more appreciative of a ballet company that the national papers felt they had to cover? That came out a bit of a rant...Oh well, whatever my Boris Kochno fantasies, I'm not in charge either...) [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 13, 2001).]

I saw a Fracci-Bruhn Giselle in which Gregory danced Myrthe, but what fragmented memories I have of that performance do not include Gregory. (I do remember that I liked her in the role, but -- though opinionated -- I was a child.) At ABT two seasons ago, I saw Gillian Murphy in the role and thought she was excellent -- not (yet) Van Hamel/ballerina quality -- but a fine performance. [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 13, 2001).]

I saw a Fracci-Bruhn Giselle in which Gregory danced Myrthe, but what fragmented memories I have of that performance do not include Gregory. (I do remember that I liked her in the role, but -- though opinionated -- I was a child.) At ABT two seasons ago, I saw Gillian Murphy in the role and thought she was excellent -- not (yet) Van Hamel/ballerina quality -- but a fine performance. [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 13, 2001).]

I realize people are kidding around a bit, but since the issue has been raised seriously elsewhere, I think one should clarify a bit...The Bolshoi and Kirov ballet companies are directed by dancers -- it's just that the ballet companies are contained/subordinated within a larger structure. Someone has to head that larger structure, and if it's a ballet dancer then, for example, the opera company can cry 'foul.' I assume, that -- one way or another -- the head of the theater as a whole is supposed to be committed to all of its parts. I well believe it doesn't always happen that way...but many big European opera house ballets run on a similar principal, and there's nothing scandalous or ludicrous about it. Presumably, it is partly because those ballet companies are part of larger institutional structures that they have so much of the great history that they do have -- along with the disadvantages that accompany that. (I know nothing about the Boston situation other than what I have read on Ballet Alert, but appointing a conductor to head the company is, one takes it, a stop gap measure, not an institutional reform.) [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 09, 2001).]

Yvonne: At the opening gala, according to what I read in the papers etc., the company only performed the finale of Theme and Variations -- and reports on this may have given you a misleading impression. When ABT does Theme and Variations in an ordinary repertory program, it does the entire ballet. So, if it's listed that way, that's what you will see. (I can't answer, of course, for natural disasters...) As you may know (?) -- decades after Balanchine choreographed Theme and Variations, he decided to choreograph the whole of Tchaikovsky Suite no. 3, of which Theme is just the last movement. When one sees this at NYCB (called Tchaikovsky Suite no. 3) one sees a progression of the suite's movements danced in a very different, quite schmaltzy style -- barefoot women with long flowing hair -- and then the scene changes a bit abruptly for the final movement which is a slightly revised version of what used to be the separate ballet -- Theme and Variations. (I believe the revisions were done for Kirkland -- Manhattnik posted something about this -- and make the ballerina role even more difficult; according to Manhattnik's post, ABT ballerinas -- with the exception of Kirkland -- have always danced the original version of the ballerina role. It's not hugely different.) Although I enjoy Tchaikovsky Suite no. 3, I doubt that I am alone in thinking that Theme and Variations, danced as an autonomous work, is the real masterpiece... [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 09, 2001).]

Estelle -- when you started a thread on Thesmar and Denard some time ago, I posted something about seeing Denard and Gregory dance a contemporary ballet pas de deux, "Unfinished Symphony." I was very young -- so I can't vouch for my judgement -- but I thought they were very beautiful together. However, nothing came of that pairing...Denard did not, say, become a regular visiter with ABT. Godunov was the right "height" for Gregory, and when he first appeared with ABT she gave interviews full of optimism about dancing with him. One rather gathered she was also looking forward to the attention dancing with one of the "defectors" would get as well. (N.B. I do NOT blame her for this.) However, they never became a special "partnership" though they did dance together. I saw them at one of the first performances (if not the very first) of Makarova's full length Bayadere. Gregory was dancing Gamzatti and in the sequences in which she and Godunov had to dance together they were entirely out of sync. At one point in the choreography Gamzatti and Solor are side by side facing the audience and then leap forward jointly towards the audience -- they did not once jump on the same beat. I'm pretty sure I saw them after that...I remember Gregory in Giselle and I remember Godunov in Giselle, so I'm guessing that I saw them dance it together. Certainly I never saw them dance together as awkwardly as that Bayadere which, to be fair, was their first pairing together. Height was, of course, the main problem for Gregory in finding a partner -- but Gregory also didn't have what I would call a porous temperament onstage. That's what made me wonder occasionally (as mentioned above) if she was really open to the sheer "chemical" or "elective" affinity that seems part of what makes a great partnership. [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 08, 2001).]

Yvonne -- I'm pretty sure there was a Ferri thread quite recently...many impressions of her career were aired at that time, so you might check. Ferri may well look beautiful in class -- I envy Cygnedanois's opportunity to see her there! On stage very little classical ballet technique communicates. Even years ago, when she was stronger than she appears now, and even in Giselle, she seemed barely able to fill out the choreography, let alone take command of it. As I mentioned on the earlier thread, however, I don't think she's just an actress or even just a Macmillan specialist but actually a quite interesting dancer. At ABT she gave a very compelling performance in an abstract and even austere Tharp Quartet. It was not, however, a role that taxed her classical ballet technique. But, unless she has miraculously transformed herself in the past year, she is not able to take on the big Petipa/Ivanov roles and certainly not something like Theme and Variations. And, like Jeannie, I'm pretty sure she has stayed away from that type of repertory in recent years, at least with ABT...I also thought she was remarkable in Fall River Legend. [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 07, 2001).]

Mcbride was a sensational Swanilda in the Balanchine/Danilova Coppelia. Just brilliant in her allegro dancing -- fast, sharp, vivid -- and wonderful in the pantomime as well. At one point, she had a series of brises that were about as stunning as Barshnikov's in Act II of Giselle! For years, I could not see this production without recalling her performance...As already said above, though, she was terrific in a range of roles. There is a black and white film of Tarantella with Villela and Mcbride in which their speed and exuberance appear unmatchable -- but I don't know if this has been made available on video. I never saw her in Tchaikovsky pas de deux but an old acquaintance once claimed that in the finale, when the ballerina leaps into her partner's arms and he (more or less) immediately dips her head downwards into a quasi fish dive, Mcbride jumped so daringly that she was already plunging head downwards. (This would probably have been with Villela or Tomasson.) Didn't see this myself...but saw enough of Mcbride to know she had that kind of quality on stage. Balanchine set quite a few roles on her... Gregory doesn't live in my memories as other dancers do, but I'm don't know if that's a reflection on her...I certainly admired Gregory when she was dancing -- including performances of the Russian classics, especially Swan Lake. Towards the end of her career she danced a surprizingly "take no prisoners" performance of Fall River Legend. I did sometimes wonder if Gregory's failure to find an ideal partner was merely a matter of height. She didn't seem dramatically different to me whether she was dancing with Kivitt or Meehan or Godunov etc. (Croce once wrote that she responded well to Meehan, but Meehan's partnering triumph at ABT always seemed to me to be with the much smaller Kirkland, especially in Three Preludes, but Kirkland was a ballerina who often really responded to her partners.) However, I never saw Gregory with Bujones, and I admit that by the time she was dancing with him, I had become more interested in other ballerinas. Gregory sometimes complained in interviews that ABT exploited her sheer technical ability -- casting her in flashy pas de deux etc. Yet Peter Anastos claimed in an interview that when he tried to choreograph something more lyrical for her, she was unhappy with that...(Of course, she may have been unhappy w. it for other reasons.) I did see her once in Giselle and thought that far from looking as if she were ready for Wimbledon in Act I, she had subdued herself unnecessarily -- and danced with a rather pretty and softer than usual quality, though the mad scene was not memorable. (Perhaps she was responding to criticisms of the kind Alexandra quoted!) However, Act II seemed very stylistically "off" to me, very unsuited to her strengths as a dancer. At her best, she had an authority and technical confidence on stage that a lot of the principal women at ABT today lack. In this regard -- though I sound a bit critical -- my overall opinion is closer to Jeannie's... [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 07, 2001).]

I'm quite sure I read a critic some months back (Tobias perhaps?) who suggested that it would be much better for Farrell to be attached to an already formed company than to try to start her own. I am inclined to agree. Building a company is long term work, and work of all kinds -- administrative, fund-raising, coaching, repertory building etc. etc. etc. However, if Farrell is not company building but only doing "workshops," the long-term benefit of her experience and skill as a coach may be minimized -- whoever the dancers are. It seems unlikely the dancers will be able to develop their roles with the kind of continuity that would both benefit them personally and enable them to become a link in the tradition. If occasional workshops continue, dancers and fans may learn a little, but -- in the long term and relative to what Farrell might accomplish elsewhere -- so what? I should perhaps say that I only saw her more inexperienced group, and I did not find it to be the revelation that others wrote about...she had obviously worked carefully with young/inexperienced dancers and the results were that they were dancing surprizingly skillfully for young/inexperienced dancers. I don't trivialize the accomplishment, but I was startled at the disconnect between what I was seeing and what I was reading -- which included some very hyperbolic praise... If Suzanne Farrell really has a vision -- not just tastes, not just connections, not just a gift for coaching dancers, not even just an ability to stage Balanchine -- and she truly desires to build a company to fulfill that vision, then I wish her every blessing and the full support of the Kennedy Center. But I'm a little skeptical. Lincoln Kirstein and George Balanchine (or for that matter Lucia Chase and Richard Pleasant [?]) -- however much they improvised and however many years they spent working with students and pick-up groups -- always had an ambitious project in mind. You can't "play it by ear" and build a company. In my opinion you can't even "play it by ear" and genuinely preserve a tradition...Of course, it's possible the parties involved are all just being coy, but to what end? How can you raise funds and hire dancers by being coy? As I understood the critic I was reading, s/he was suggesting that Farrell should be attached to a company with a substantive repertory in place and, ideally, a school (e.g. San Francisco Ballet, Pennsylvania Ballet, Boston Ballet, Miami Ballet -- you name it; I'd even be intrigued to see her at ABT or willing to see her make a career with a European company). This seems a much likelier setting for her work to have some continuity, then a series of workshops with revolving dancers, whatever their background -- and to involve less "waste" of her energies and talents than company building. If such a scenario is, for various reasons, impossible, then I suppose I think she should be working with top-ranked dancers...although it is hard to know if or how that can be combined with beginning a company from scratch. P.S. I am not a ballet "insider" and I know we try to avoid gossip on this board, but is it really beyond the realm of all human possibility that someone stage a drastic "intervention" of some kind, or "shuttle diplomacy" to re-establish ties between Farrell and NYCB -- not Farrell as competition to Martins' authority in matters Balanchine (which obviously won't fly), but as an in-house ballet mistress or regular coach for portions of the Balanchine repertory? Surely I can't be the only person to have thought about this? [This message has been edited by Drew (edited March 04, 2001).]

I only saw a handful of performances -- some of which I've "posted" about...one that I didn't and that was important to me this season was the revival of Variations Pour Une Porte et Un Soupir. I had never seen this work, and I went more out of a sense of duty than anything else and surprized myself by enjoying it a lot. This was well worth reviving, and the performance I saw, with Kowroski and Gold, was sensational. They maintained an extraordinary pitch of intensity throughout. Kowroski seemed powerful just gazing out at the audience. The ballet is one of Balanchine's works that could (and probably will) get "lost" over time, and that NYCB, more than other companies, seems to me to have an obligation to revive occasionaly. Within Balanchine's works, it's distinctive and revealing -- just by virtue of its bizarre literalness. It's also theatrically striking. Descriptions always make it sound silly (and it's not exactly subtle!), but the sheer directness of its castrating vision, with the ballerina as a phallic goddess, packs a certain punch, particularly in the hands of a choreographer who even at his least subtle is always a super craftsman. (Leigh Witchel, liking the ballet less than I, made a similar point about its craft.) Kowroski made every move an event -- I am not persuaded I would have been enjoyed the work as much if I had seen the ballet with a less gifted dancer -- and one can see the relation between the ballerinas role and other Balanchine choreography; the male dancer's part seemed to me unlike any other Balanchine I've seen and more genuinely "modern dance" than any Balanchine I've seen. (I have not, though, seen the male solo he created for Paul Taylor in Episodes.) So, for me, this was one of the events of the season... I missed much of what's been referred to above (good and bad) but definitely agree with Liebs that a highlight of the season was "Jennifer Ringer in Anything." Plus -- rich, authoritative and beautiful performances by the company's senior ballerinas -- Nichols in Scotch Symphony, and the Schumman Davidsbundlertanze [imagine accents] and Kistler in Duo Concertante. [This message has been edited by Drew (edited February 27, 2001).]

Sizova and Soloviev are quite peculiarly special names to me -- The first ballet I ever saw was the film they made of Sleeping Beauty; I was a very little girl when I saw it but completely ballet mad from that time forward. I suppose it's odd that I don't exactly think of myself as having missed them. I did, of course, and I do wish I could have seen them live. But they seem to exist elsewhere for me in a sort of magic memory-bubble...

Giannina Mooney's remark made me want to write about my first impression of Corella. This was several years ago (Corella's first season w. ABT). I had bought expensive (orchestra) seats at the Met. to see Herrera in Theme and Variations. I bought them the morning of the performance to be sure that she was really dancing...she was. This was my big treat to myself for the season. She had received rave reviews for earlier performances, and I was completely unfamiliar with the name of her scheduled partner, Corella. A few days before the performance someone did tell me that he was a Spanish dancer making his debut with the company and that there was a lot of interest in him...he had done x number of pirouettes in company class etc. So, sure, I was pleased to see the debut -- but, my real interest was in seeing Herrera. About twenty minutes before the performance, I arrived back at the Met. and as soon as I entered the theater I saw a sign saying that Herrera had canceled! Mckerrow was her replacement -- a fine dancer, but not one of my favorites...and I was stuck reminding myself that that's what happens when you treat yourself to a program where you really only want to see one ballet or one dancer... Anyway, Corella made a simply wonderful and even, in a way, extraordinary debut. A young male virtuoso, he executed the choreography, meticulously -- beautiful turns and jumps -- height and brilliance -- clean, classical lines, clean, classical landings. He genuinely seemed flawless to me, though a more expert friend (also very impressed by Corella) told me there was a Balanchine detail missing at one point in the transition to his pirouettes. He danced, too, with presence and elan but without inappropriate showiness. He always maintained the ballet's elegance. Perhaps even more impressive, the pas de deux went wonderfully. He and Mckerrow danced together smoothly and even, I would say, with a kind of naturalness. He presented her, as if it was as important to him as, say, his double tours. Mckerrow, who (in my opinion) never projects adequately, about midway through the pas de deux actually looked at him and smiled and then turned to the audience and just glowed. As the curtain came down, I felt thrilled to to have seen this performance. And, of course, if I had known Herrera would cancel I would never have bought the ticket. The audience, as a whole, seemed very excited. I overheard the a man sitting behind me say to a friend, "a young Baryshnikov," -- hyperbole, of course, and not precisely my own opinion (though I am pleased with how Corella is developing), but it does show the kind of excitement that his appearance generated. And I DID share that excitement. This is an interesting topic -- sometimes with great dancers it actually takes a few performances for me to "get" them even if I see them in big roles...other times I have noticed someone still in the corps who later developed into a ballerina... [This message has been edited by Drew (edited February 24, 2001).]

[Note, I deleted the two posts from this thread that Drew is rebutting in her answer. I'm posting this note so that the thread makes some sense.] BalletDanzer--did you ever see Kirkland dance live? For a fact: those of us who did will never forget her technique or her artistry -- including a wonderful classical line THROUGH her feet, delicate and fluid articulation of those feet as she simply walked across the stage in, say, the vision scene of Don Quixote, and even extraordinary balances on pointe in many of her earliest ABT performances. (John Percival compared her "run" across the stage in Macmillan's Romeo and Juliet to Ulanova's. Kirkland was fluid in every inch of her body.) I don't doubt she did a lot of things to hurt herself, and I would definitely encourage other dancers to avoid such things, but she was a great, great ballerina...History just isn't as tidy as we would like -- the dancing, even when it only lives in memory, is almost always what's most important about a dancer AS a dancer...not the gossip (factual or not) and not even the stories she tells about herself. Final thought: I know Kirkland also has fans who only know her dancing through the very inadequate video record. (I'm referring to what's available outside of specialized libraries.) But I wouldn't be surprised if someone was not won over by this or that bit on video. In the theater, though, I took friends to see Kirkland who had no interest in ballet at all, and after the performance they would ask me how soon they could see her dance again! Many of us who went to the ballet all the time felt the same way only more so. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited February 28, 2001).]

Much of what has been quoted above sounds absurd, but translating the title of a work seems like a legitimate ploy...How many of us -- even hard core ballet fans -- think of "Casse Noissette" as our holiday ballet tradition? Certainly the movie adaptation of Liasons Dangereuses (an English play based on a French novel) must have pulled a bigger audience by translating the play's title to Dangerous Liasons. I do think, though, that some of the NYCB ads verge on soft-core porn, and it truly irritates me when I see one of them...

Cargill -- lesbian or not, I think a Giselle in which the two wronged women decide, 'who needs this jerk?' and then run off together sounds just fine...Think -- Thelma and Louise on pointe.

Cargill -- lesbian or not, I think a Giselle in which the two wronged women decide, 'who needs this jerk?' and then run off together sounds just fine...Think -- Thelma and Louise on pointe.