mbjerk

Following on to Leigh: I think of American dancers as "just there". We love to dance and do not necessarily concern ourselves with minute details. Yet we do absorb differing styles readily and as we grow as artists we are infinitely curious about such details. Energy is a key element of American dancers, more so than speed in my opinion. And the influences of movies (Cagney, O'Connor, Astaire, Kelly, Charisse, Rogers, Bacall, Kaye, Ustinov, .....) brings a more "entertain" - informal perspective than that of a "royal" training with its roots in court etiquette and formality. Great topic - I know in my time Americans were sought after in Europe because we learned fast, took chances and were willing to try anything once. The flip side was a reputation that Americans were unschooled, played to audiences and all about legs.....

If you look at businesses such as General Electric, there is an artistic director of sorts (Jack Welch)whose inspiration builds new and exciting products (dances) and trains employees (dancers) in his style. Most successfull businesses began as someone's passion to build a better mousetrap (or make a better dance). In earlier times (much government/private dance funding)the pressure to succeed from a financial standpoint was greater in business than dance earlier. This is changing as the arts lose funding sources and find revivals keep the seats full. Our loss is that dance makers no longer have the opportunity to create and create. Today there is often a one shot mentality - if it works, change the wrapper and make more. If it does not, then bring back something that did. Here we can learn from businesses. They bring new products (ballets) using the funds from older reliable products (Nuts). They must grow audiences or lose out to the competition. In dance we often overlook this aspect due to the use of such funds to operate versus create. Or at least sometimes fail to see how new work and better marketing can increase audience. Sorry to ramble....

Alexandra you are correct. "Weight" comes from how one chooses to use a plie and control the tempo of one's movement. Walking with a soft foot on the floor in a measured tempo gives elegance and weight to a male dancer. Same in ballon for jumping. Danes are wonderful at this. Even how one looks around the stage can add weight to a dancer. All of these can be coached, but as with life a natural feeling goes a longer way.

Dancers do not look to conductors nor executive directors for artistic development, inspiration and leadership. Although both musicians and ED have given me much, the thought of having that type of person direct my artistry on a daily/career basis is painful. I think it is the same for choreographers, ballet masters and teachers.

Stagehands are much too practical to run a ballet company! Besides they often have taste.

This may be off topic, but as a dancer who was often miscast I want to convey some ideas. First, most dancers know they are miscast in a role. An artist will try to make it work or at least give a different perspective on the role, one that incorporates the artist's gifts. The street walker Giselle might find some ways to bring out her inner child and justaposition it against her street smart veneer. Second, as a dancer I often asked to try roles I was not suited for as a way to grow. Or directors will cast to grow dancers. One example for me was Gremio in Cranko's Shrew. Usually a shorter dancer, my 6'4" was not seen as ideal. Another was taking on Baryshnikov's role in Configurations. Here I felt extremely miscast, but the choreographer would have none of it so the audience had to endure me in it. I learned a great deal and apologize to those who had to watch. Some felt I was miscast in classical roles yet I had moderate success in these performances (certainly on the acting and partnering sides). Choreographers may also cast in a different light. We as viewers may not understand why, and feel those dancers not right for a role. Now are critics supposed to understand all internal workings in a company. NO! They should point to miscastings as they see it. All we can ask is an open mind and in my experience the great majority of critics had one.

Great topic! As a dancer, I always felt statements that I was bad or good in a role without explanation or comparison were unfair. I wanted to learn from a critic and often enjoyed the different perspectives on my dancing. I never minded comparisons to other dancers, especially if it was in detail. One pet peeve is a review that describes what went on without critical (good or bad)comment on the art presented. This to me is unfair to the art and the public. Th final unfairness is the lack of space for reviews and consistent critics. It is nice to read critics over time and develop a sense of their respective tastes.

Will the Europeans chime in? I think the last fifteen years have the ballet choreographic center shift from the States. I agree with Alexandra that both Clark and Philip showed promise, unfortunately taken away. It does seem here that choreographers have not been given the time to mature - so many one shot attempts or the same shot in mulitple venues. But I digress... the question remains.

Forward does not imply progress, only direction. On that note I would play devil's advocate to your diagnosis, but very half heartedly. You must admit there are some ballets and choreographers since the eighties (19 not 18) that have produced works to be seen more than once.

Alexandra I agree that one should begin with what one knows best. Yet given that Ms. Farrell stopped dancing long ago and that dance has moved forward it seems limiting to me to focus on a single person's historical repertoire. I would love to see both Balanchine and Bejart staged here in DC. I love the idea of a ballet company. But I would grow weary very quickly of only Bejart and Balanchine. Different tastes. I am always looking to use current dance to learn more of older ballets and vice versa.

What will Ms. Farrell use for rep when she finishes those ballets she danced? Bolero is a star vehicle dependent on the centerpiece (literally in the middle of the table).

Or she could be a catalyst for an annual Balanchine celebration at Kennedy Center. It was wonderful to see so many companies represented this past fall. I think this fits more into the center's role as a performing arts national monument. Imagine an annual Taylor, Robbins, Balanchine, ..... festival where companies come together and we get to see how each company presents these works. The audiences love it as do the dancers. It will be interesting to see how Kaiser works this through as I believe Wolfenson created this opportunity for Ms. Farrell.

Can I forward the idea to Jerry Springer? Sounds like a prime time special for UPN during sweeps week.

Can I forward the idea to Jerry Springer? Sounds like a prime time special for UPN during sweeps week.

Balanchine educates dancers, audiences and musicians. I cannot imagine a company not wanting more Balanchine in its repertoire, unless expense or skill is a constraint. As an audience member, I enjoy one Balanchine work on a mixed bill. I know I will see a work with wonderful phrases, delicious musicality and intellectual challenges. Repeat viewings of one ballet allow me to explore further the choreography, an enjoyable exercise. Yet, a full evening of any one choreographer leaves me somewhat unsatisfied - save the full lengths.

I would define it as someone whose performance makes you forget to look at technique, body shortcomings or choreographic negligence. On the male side I nominate Gary Chryst. It is nice to leave the theater inspired by a mesmerizing performnce versus technical ability or physical perfection (although I love both).

I remember seeing Erik Bruhn in class doing a single attitude turn - perfection. The final go round he did six. Quality and quantity. This is a fad thing that goes in cycles and varies with traditions. I was always taught that a piroutte differed from a spin and it did not matter how high you jumped if you could not land. I was also taught that partnering was more important than solos, but that may be a new thread. I fear that with so much competition - sports TV, ice skating TV, movies, etc. that audiences like to "participate" in the event by feeling every move. I was taught to strive always to let audiences enjoy the event by never showing stress or strain. The point is whether today's audience wants to know how hard it is. I do not, I want to see how well executed it is. Quality to me means that technique is used as words to convey a language - ballet. Do we enjoy watching someone struggle with the articulation and projection of Shakespeare?