Drew

10 hours ago, lmspear said:

I get the impression that the board of directors should have done a thorough study of the history of ballet in Washington.  Their goal seems to be to recreate the National Ballet of Washington, that was directed by Frederick Franklin and Ben Stevenson.  It lasted from 1963-1974 doing the classics and standard repetory.

I'm only aware of this company because as a child I was taken to a performance of Cinderella with Margot Fonteyn when they performed at Brooklyn College.  I kept the souvenir book for years.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ballet_of_Washington,_D.C.

If the current version of the company rejects it's own heritage for the standard model they may end up succeeding into oblivion.

This was the company I attended regularly as a child. I still remember Franklin's wonderful performances as Madge in Sylphide (in which Fonteyn also appeared as a guest artist with Desmond Kelly) and Coppelius in Coppelia. The Franklin Coppelia production for ABT seemed to me close to what I remembered of the National Ballet production, though he staged it many years later.

Prior to the opening of Kennedy Center in 1971 D.C. didn't get big ballet companies doing substantial visits --though sometimes companies came and made do with problematic venues.  I just looked up when Wolftrap opened--the theater that is--and that was also 1971. Just some examples: I remember a group of Bolshoi dancers performing a highlights program at Constitution Hall in the 1960's--NOT a dance venue; New York City Ballet coming to Carter Barron (an outdoor theater) is another very distant memory.  But it's hard to exaggerate how transformative Kennedy Center was for Ballet in D.C. especially as it opened at a very exciting time for ballet fans--the era of Fonteyn/Nureyev; Sibley/Dowell; Fracci/Bruhn; Makarova's defection; Balanchine's Stravinsky festival right around the corner; Stuttgart's early U.S. appearances; Bolshoi "golden age;" and a few years later Baryshnikov's defection and early (still happy) partnership with Kirkland and Farrell's return to NYCB etc. etc.

So the National Ballet, which had made do with Lisner auditorium on the George Washington Campus prior to Kennedy Center's opening, was really filling a need on the arts landscape for some years--and then suddenly faced extraordinary competition. Stevenson actually became co-director at about the same time and he raised the level of the dancing overall.  (Regarding that last point, I am going on childhood impressions mixed with memories of things family members said.)

When the company folded Stevenson spoke in an interview about the challenges the company faced performing at Kennedy Center even as top companies from around the world were performing there in multi-week seasons, and I remember it as rather angry about the role Kennedy Center played in the company's demise. (I did a google search and couldn't find the interview, but I'm confident that I'm not imagining that I read it.)

I don't remember exactly what Stevenson said but he probably felt the Center should have supported the company more, giving them more resources, and I know he defended the company's unique strengths; I specifically remember him pointing out in the same interview that two of the company's leading men, Kevin Mckenzie and Kirk Peterson, were as talented as top leading men at ABT etc. He wasn't wrong about that and, of course, they went on to careers at ABT.

I have always thought Mckenzie was partly shaped by his time at the National Ballet so the flow of influence between the Washington ballet "scene" and ABT perhaps has gone in both directions. Many here must remember McKenzie had ABT stage Stevenson's Snow Maiden (which had been created for Houston) in addition to having Franklin stage his Coppelia. As far as earlier National Ballet/ABT history goes: according to his NYTimes Obit, Ivan Nagy was invited to dance in D.C. by Frederic Franklin, and it was those appearances that led to his defection and career in the West, including at American Ballet Theatre.

The National Ballet performed some old stalwarts that have largely fallen out of repertory including Lichine's Graduation Ball as well as the eclectic mix referred to in the Wikipedia article. They also had Stevenson's own stagings/choreography including his Nutcracker and the Cinderella Imspear mentions.  

We once were discussing the company on this site and someone commented they were in a lineage with the Ballet Russe touring companies--not just via Franklin, but also both Andrea Vodhenal and Eugene Collins had danced with the Ballet Russe.  (Very probably others whose backgrounds I don't know.) And that lineage also was reflected in some of their repertory.

In memory of a childhood crush I have to add to all of this that one of their leading dancers was Dennis Poole, who later went on to dance with the Joffrey and several other companies--though his name seems missing from the Wikipedia article.

Edited to add: Another google search turned up quite a bit of information on the company and, so to speak, the role of Kennedy Center in its demise in Leslie Norton's biography of Frederic Franklin (which I haven't read and hadn't known about--though now it is most certainly on my list).

Let me add that Gottlieb in the Observer published a very mixed, often critical review of the Balanchine Don Quixote that still concluded in favor of reviving it from time to time:

"The lesson we just learned in Washington is that although we didn’t know we’ve been missing it since it vanished almost 30 years ago, Don Quixote does still matter, both for its own sake and because of its unique place in the Balanchine canon. When you’re dealing with a supreme master—a Shakespeare, a Mozart—you need to be able to revisit his entire corpus of work. You need King Lear all the time, but every decade or so you also need Timon of Athens. Otherwise your understanding of a genius like Shakespeare––or Balanchine––is diminished, and so are you."

https://observer.com/2005/07/farrells-revival-of-don-q-balanchines-gift-to-his-muse/

Edited to add that this post and the one below are responses to L'Histoire asking if I had read/seen reviews that wrote about Balanchine's Don Quixote as something "other than a curiousity" or as a work that was genuinely worthy of revival:

Here is Alexandra Tomalonis--"a very rich complex work;" not an unequivocal rave certainly (though she goes so far as to write in favor of the score), but seems to me to be far from writing the ballet off as a mere curiosity:

http://danceviewtimes.typepad.com/where_were_you_sitting/2005/12/a-nearly-lost-m.html

John Rockwell also gave The National Ballet of Canada production quite a positive review in the NY TImes (and also speaks up for the music): "On Wednesday [the ballet] looked and sounded very good indeed, well worthy of a revival, even beyond the notion that anything Balanchine touched should be preserved." He also mentions the value of time's passage in enabling one to see past the Farrell/Balanchine dynamic:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/arts/dance/balanchines-don-quixote-revived-by-his-dulcinea.html

Here is a link to discussions had by fans on this site (not professional critics unless they were incognito): 

26 minutes ago, l'histoire said:

IIRC, one of the constant features of the reviews of Farrell's revival of Don Q was that "hey it's nice to see the genius not at his best, in an emotionally important moment" (someone upthread I believe described it as a "time capsule" - it does seem so, when looking for the transcendent). But, I think of Acocella's review of it from the New Yorker ("Backstory," 25 July 2005), where she is discussing the solo we are all raving over & how Farrell  ("She") differed from her ("they") dancers:

Anyways, as a cultural historian who has to spend a lot of time reading *really not good* cultural products (far worse than Balanchine's Don Q, I assure you), yes, there is much to be learned by things that don't quite work (or don't work at all). I've built my career on studying things that weren't terribly successful, actually, because they are often more revealing than the "hits." As I like to remind my students, "I don't care if you LIKE it, that's not why we're watching or reading it." But obviously, someone going to ballet for an evening of pleasure is not going to want to pay money to see something they aren't going to like for some educational reason. The big problem is, unlike the plays I deal with (which I can just read in script form - it loses something, but I can still take in something the original author wanted to convey), you can't just "read" a ballet without having it in front of you, with dancers. Even if you have notations: way different than dealing with a drama script. What IS the answer for ballet? I really don't know.

But ultimately, they CAN'T "revive" it without her permission, at least as far as I understand. 

The last point is the reason I was hoping a new director might be able to make it happen at NYCB.

You can't expect audiences to sit through productions as a scholarly duty, but is that all Balanchine's Don Quixote was with National Ballet of Canada or all that it would be at NYCB today? Responses at the time of the former revival, including on this site, gave me the impression that at last some audience members found it to be considerably more than that...(Perhaps I also have an overly idealized view of the potential interests of NYCB's home audience.)

I would add the "compared to what" meter. A flawed Balanchine work--even a very flawed one--with a problematic score that includes, nonetheless, some fabulous choreography (I'd never seen the Morris variation before!) and is of certain interest to anyone seriously interested in Balanchine...seems a more compelling artistic gamble for a ballet company, especially for New York City Ballet, than a lot of what gets produced--and just maybe worth reviving every now and then even if I agree with Quiggin that

13 hours ago, Quiggin said:

All in all it sounds exceedingly difficult to revive, except with a master theater director who could carefully rebalance the parts to whole, and a great cast. (Croce thought Luders was the best Don Quixote after Balanchine.) And who is there who could do the Farrell role today?

When I say "worth reviving" -- I don't have to make the practical calculations of a ballet company director. But ideally...yes, and I would love to see it. I was please the National Ballet of Canada produced it, though I wasn't able to see that production and hoped they would revive it so that I might get a chance. And New York City Ballet seems an obvious home for the ballet--perhaps under a new director Farrell would be interested? But again, I don't have to make the practical calculations involved.

(I like to see the Royal Ballet reviving Ashton's Ondine from time to time for similar reasons even though it has always gotten a mixed reception that even includes some of the same problems -- eg the score. And, in fact, the Royal has revived it from time to time. Not often.)

2 hours ago, dirac said:

I don't blame her, either, but the opportunity was lost, perhaps permanently, to have "Don Quixote," with all the difficulties it presents, restaged with the resources of one of the world's great companies behind it -- and Balanchine's own company.

The 1965 footage of Farrell's third act solo is astonishing.

Not the same thing as New York City Ballet, but at least it was staged with the National Ballet of Canada....

The footage you mention is astonishing.

A beautiful ballerina--unfortunately she was not with the Bolshoi when they last came to New York in 2014. as I would have loved to see her then. I did see her in London as Phrygia in a lovely and touching performance a few years earlier and often watch videos of her performances including recent ones. Count me as another person who was, let's say, disconcerted by her demotion.

I have found these near(ish) where I live and would love to attend, but they are always scheduled during the work week making it very hard. Since it is not live anyway I wish they would opt for weekends 

Thanks for posting the curtain calls.   What a great occasion!

I sometimes give up and just use the telephone in cases like that...do they have telephone sales?

Anyway, however you do it...good luck!

3 hours ago, miliosr said:

In and of itself, Play would be a harmless one-off. But given how the POB now performs contemporary or semi-contemporary spectacles like Pina Bausch's Le Sacre du Printemps, Maurice Bejart's Bolero and Crystal Pite's Seasons' Canon better that they do some standard works of classical and neo-classical repertory, the company's dynamism (and they are dynamic) in Play should be concerning.

 

 

Thank you for your detailed review. The issue seems one of long standing...Very few companies have the POB resources for the classics and/or works in the classical tradition. From the outside looking in at least, it seems a shame they aren't more interested in directing those resources in that direction.

Congratulations to all the dancers.

1 hour ago, canbelto said:

I'd like to know what he considers "sadly distorted and mannered" about Balanchine classes nowadays. If he runs NYCB he will also be in charge of SAB and it won't start off well if he basically tells the whole faculty "you're doing it all wrong."

I'm a big fan of today's NYCB and think Martins did many things right, but it was still disconcerting to read on Hyltin's instagram that she felt couldn't even make use of everything McBride was telling her in rehearsal this season because she had been doing it so differently for so long and didn't have time to integrate it properly. ...I don't think Clifford will be next director of NYCB or SAB (and if I were a betting person I'd bet that isn't what he's after) but I'm all in favor of bringing back dancers who worked with Balanchine to the State Theater. I know it's not without drawbacks -- especially since different dancers learned things differently...and at different moments in Balanchine's trajectory. And presumably tact may be called for in certain situations...But still, bringing in Villella and McBride especially is one of the things the interim team has done that has most caught my attention. And having recently seen fantastic results with Farrell's own company shortly before it folded, I'm hoping Farrell can be brought back as well. That is, Clifford may not be wrong when he says "so much has been lost over the years." What may be wrong is imagining that change is not inevitable no matter who is doing the coaching--because "times are racing." But why not preserve as much knowledge as possible not just on tapes by the Balanchine foundation but on the bodies of dancers at NYCB?

5 hours ago, melissaga said:

There has been a somewhat steady stream of former NYCB dancers who have visited the company to teach class, coach or set choreography this season. I read somewhere (perhaps here or the NYT or maybe Pointe Magazine?) that Peter Martins tended not to invite his former colleagues, those that danced in his time, back to the company. I have wondered if some of these former dancers are actually quietly being considered for the AD position or one of the other new and yet to be named positions. 

Examples would be Debra Wingert, Patty McBride, and her husband, Jean-Pierre Bonnefoux. I'm sure there are others. Those three were mentioned on social media from various dancers within a few days of each other. 

 

I have also seen mention/discussion of rehearsals with Villella and Baryshnikov on social media and in the case of the former, the NYTimes.

Thank you. I am starting to catch-up though I expect I won't watch everything, but I have now at least seen the PNB Dances at a Gathering studio run-through  (and a studio run through almost feels an ideal way to watch that ballet even if it was only a portion of it), the Dutch National Ballet segment (chosen because Youtube directed me to it, but also worth watching if one admires Neumeier's Dame Aux Camelias), and the first two hours or so of the Royal Ballet video....

I also took a quick look at the Royal Swedish Ballet segment to see if I could catch a glimpse of newly joined company member Alessa Rogers -- much missed at Atlanta Ballet -- but unfortunately she didn't seem to be part of the rehearsal they were showing.

I also prefer watching on youtube.

May she rest in peace....

Thank you for writing. Some highlights of this performance made their way to youtube and I watched them thinking how wonderful it must have been to see this performance in the theater, especially Novikova’s Odette.

I doubt Clifford thinks he is going to get the position (assuming he has really applied) which also may be why he’s not concerned with proprieties. He may be putting his name out there for other reasons—the way people run for president to publicize a particular cause or perspective.

This turned up on youtube today...no date of performance given but it's described as a guest appearance in Perm. Many people reading this thread may have seen the video already, but if anyone who likes Obraztsova's dancing --or is just curious about her dancing--hasn't seen it ...well, I can't recommend highly enough:

Thanks for the detailed description @FPF -- this account coheres with my more superficial impressions based on video. (Still kind of great that you got to see the broadcast.)

23 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Would not feel comfortable because of allegations vs. finding out the facts?

Expressed dismay that the union was contesting their removal?  I'm sure they wouldn't be in dismay if the union was contesting on their behalves... union is for all, not for few.

lots of hypocrisy going on, as usual.

Following up on balletwannabe's post: I don't know exactly how this played out but I assume the dancers are taking the company's internal investigation as having established facts sufficient for decisions about employment, and giving their perspective on those facts and the original suspensions. 

I suppose it's possible or even probable that some details may have come out because of the lawsuit--which is full of allegations only, but may have at least let people know what the company's internal investigation involved.  That is, I assume the company hadn't publicized the results of their investigation beyond the suspensions, but in the wake of the suit more became known about the company's investigation and dancers expressed concerns. The standard in that context is not "beyond a reasonable doubt."   (The union has issued a statement making clear its aim to take all concerns, expressed by all parties, seriously--the issue of employment/firing and the issue of sexual harassment/safe workplaces.)

31 minutes ago, abatt said:

[...]  I found it astonishing in the above article that some dancers were upset that their union was challenging the firings.  That's the core function of the union - to make sure management deals fairly with employees.

Is it astonishing given the particular circumstances? I mean even if one thinks the dancers are wrong to feel the way they do and the union is doing its job, it seems clear why this particular case might be divisive.

5 hours ago, ABT Fan said:

From the Times today:

At the Koch Theatre's stage door, "a very different sort of message was posted there anonymously in September as the company was preparing to open its fall season. It demanded “justice for the accused men of City Ballet,” called for a boycott of the company and urged people to “stop believing the word of jilted whores,” along with even cruder insults."

And:

"But as more details of the texting allegations emerged in a lawsuit, a number of women in the company made it clear to management that they would not feel comfortable dancing with those men again, and some expressed dismay that their labor union was contesting their removal."

Also, the article states that Finlay was actually suspended over the summer after showing up to a matinee in Paris hung over. And, before that he had been given a warning after damaging a pipe in a hotel in D.C. which caused flooding (that explains the large fine).

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/arts/dance/new-york-city-ballet-metoo.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Very disturbing all round.

I can't help but feel for the women mentioned in the article--not just sympathy, but respect-- 

San Francisco Ballet tweeted that they didn't do it this year because of scheduling issues (by which I'm guessing they mean their upcoming tour) and that they will be involved again next year. I hope that is so.

Very grateful the Royal put their stream up on youtube which (for me at least) means a bigger, better picture!  Hope it stays up there at least a week or so--long enough for me to make my way through all of it. Per usual the company class--the one part I have seen so far--was wonderful to watch.

Looking forward to catching up with some other segments as well (PNB; parts of the Bolshoi I missed etc.).

Yes, the old days were easier. Also, I think, had fewer pre-packaged materials...I never watch everything so it's just an impression.

Would love to see ABT or NYCB involved.

I will look out for your thoughts about the production. Duato redoes a lot of the choreography, but in the short video excerpts I have seen keeps the ballet just within throwing distance of the Petipa he revises. I found it a little disorienting (neither fish not fowl as far as tradition goes)  but seeing the entire production might make a big difference.