Paul W

I like Leigh's point about the difficulty of translating the emotional and literary sense of the Pushkin poem from the Russian. I had not read the poem until I began to seriously read it as part of my overall interest in seeing the ballet at some point. My thoughts parallet Leigh's; it is not possible through translated poem to convey those aspects of Eugene Onegin which make it great literature to Russian readers. Fascinating that perhaps ballet could do it! Thanks for that thought Leigh. I would love to hear what a Russian language reader who has read the poem and seen the ballet has to say. Sorry to diverge, since I can't really comment on Onegin the ballet. I find the poem (in translation) less than inspiring though.

A great coffee table style book (lots of wonderful historical photos) that I have fun just opening to any page to look at the photos first and then read something about the dancers is: "The Great Russian Dancers" by Gennady Smakov, A.A.Knopf NY 1984. If you want a beautiful introduction to what I'm sure are universally considered some of the greatest dancers of the late 19th and 20th centuries, this is a wonderful book!! It covers 33 different dancers, both male and female. I found the text interesting but can't comment on its historical accuracy. Photos are spectacular!

Well Ismene, thanks for the perspective from a critic herself! Do I sense this thread might get more exciting! My reading of reviews is often to actually get a sense of whether I would like to attend a performance or not. If I don't know what a show or ballet is about, reading the review might get me interested or dis-interested. For works well known to me I would not be looking for this "information aspect" in a review. But, I agree with you, conveying simple information about a production is not what the review should be about, that's too simplistic. You wrote: "My job is to convey my enthusiasm and hope for what I saw, and my satisfaction or not at the fulfilment of my expectations. I.e., did I have a good time? That simple question covers the quality of skills, of idea/story, of atmosphere (visual and aural), of individual artistry, of, maybe, historical significance of the production in a company's current position." That is encouraging, because I would like to have critics describe these elements of that simple question with as much detail as the reviewer has space available. But it doesn't seem to be a "simple" question to me. My critique of a critic would involve forming a judgement about whether the review gave me satisfying answers to these aspects of the performance. So I'm pleased that your answer lists some of the criteria I would hope a critic uses (something I had asked earlier). And I would have expected, as you indicate, that the critic's review would sometimes project the "yes" answer and sometimes the "no" answer for this question of whether she/he had a "good time" at the show, ie whether her/his expectations were met. You go on to say: "... but it must also answer another - the real question: Would or could the reader have a good time at a dance show? And the answer to THAT question must always be Yes." This is where I think it gets fuzzy for me. I would think this question is unanswerable, since it depends on the reader's likes, dislikes, mood, reason for attending the show etc. I don't think this question can be addressed by the critic, but I agree, the reader will formulate an opinion of the show based on the answer to the first question, and will have his/her answer. It won't always be "yes" I wouldn't think.

Very helpful to see your list of criteria Jeannie! This is more like what I was interested in, and it does seem like a logical and appropriate way to evaluate a performance. Thanks. Leigh, I found great insight in your essay "Looking at Dance, Looking at Dancers". Thanks for listing your URL! I think using some of the techniques you refer to will be very helpful in getting myself more tuned in to what is happening on stage as I watch. I appreciate your perspective! I was particularly struck by your position (my interpretation of what you said) that once a piece has been choreographed and is set, it is quite unimportant whether the viewer of the piece being danced actually interprets the choreography exactly the same way the choreographer intended when creating it. I like your implication that the dance is like "fertile ground" for the seed of the viewer's own interpretation. This is somewhat of a revelation to me, whereas I have been inclined to be intent on searching for the exact meaning the choreographer intended. (it's not that easy for a technical person to step back from a problem-solving, precise and regimented way of thinking) This opens up a lot of possibilities.

Sorry again Jeannie, but I wasn't referring to the criteria a critic should meet to qualify as a "good" critic. I'm more interested in the criteria a critic uses in evaluating a performance. Having trouble making my question clear here.

Sorry Alexandra, I did use the wrong word in writing "guidelines", what I intended was more "criteria" which a ballet dance critic might use in judging (evaluating). For instance I've seen a lot of references to "sickle foot" used on these posts. I can picture this as being something a critic would notice, but maybe it would not be high up on a list of "things to look for" that would be influential to the writing of a review. And thanks for addressing this. Perhaps there is some rather loosely constructed set of criteria a critic would be looking for in a ballet performance by an individual dancer (probably would change depending on the ballet) and from the production as a whole. But, I wouldn't be averse to hearing about ethical guidelines also.

Clearly its important for critics to have access to timely information about a perfomance, for deadlines. As Dale implies, a major purpose of a critic's work is to serve readers by conveying information about performances. If access to information is limited to select few, chosen by the producers, a pattern of boosting can emerge. I agree, there's no way to have any sort of uniform opinion on an art form, and I guess individual readers of a critic's columns soon understand, as you suggest Alexandra, where that particular critic is coming from. Access should be freely and uniformly available though, or the producers can use subtle exclusion to shut out possibly more "critical" opinions.

OK Alexandra, I'm definitely not a critic. I've been trying to understand exactly what guidelines critics follow (if any) in writing a review. It's not obvious. I think "professional" critics should receive free tickets to as many performances as they can get, delivered to them by their employers, not by anyone in the production companies (I know, the companies just give the employers the tickets, but I think it is important to maintain as little direct contact with official production staff as possible when writing critically about a performance). But what I think may be even more important is to have an independant volunteer group of ballet lovers like yourselves (those who are not professional critics) rate the performance of critics, by reviewing the critics so to speak after witnessing the same performances. And make these ratings known. I can hear all the gasps. Oh well, I am an engineer (of sorts) after all. And a stickler for consistency in evaluation. Just a thought.

Thanks cargill, Marc, and Jeannie for the Drigo related discussion. I'm on information overload right now! Need to see the four act version of Swan Lake to really understand what you've conveyed. I am going to Ottawa to see Swan Lake by the National Ballet of Canada in May. Kevin, I may have seen Kyra Nichols in that Balanchine version I remember from a few years ago, but at that time I was not focused much on the names of dancers. I do recall the lead ballerina was lovely.

My most vivid memory (5 years ago?) of the Balanchine version of Swan Lake was a ballerina exiting stage far right after a long, long slow bourre across the stage!! I see it in my dreams. That would satisfy me at this point. By the way, cargill, what exactly is "a Drigoesque last act" ?

Thanks Leigh, this is a question I have been struggling with ever since I found this board. The term "classical" is attached to a lot of the discussion, in different ways. It's my impression that "classical ballet" has something to do with Petipa and that era of ballet. But is that "something" associated with the individual positions the dancer takes and how well the dancer moves from the five basic "classical dance" positions (following a set of strict rules?), or is it the overall presentation of the ballet itself? I sense its both; still hard to know what someone else really means regarding this term; eg, when Alexandra and others lament the current lack of good classical ballet productions these days, do you mean the dancers don't know the steps and the movements well enough, or that the ballet itself is produced differently (inferior) from when Petipa presented it? It would be easy if there were a list of elements which must be in classical ballet. Maybe a list should be developed (?). I don't positively know classical ballet when I see it (I think I know it, but....). Its not necessary to know absolutely for my enjoyment of it, but it is necessary to understand the point of a lot of ballet talk.

Well Alexandra, I respect your opinions greatly and defer, on the facts, to your wonderfully broad knowledge of ballet history, but I'm still not convinced to alter my initial opinion. I would like to make clear that I didn't intend to single out Balanchine and lay ALL the blame at his feet. Balanchine is just the most obvious to relate to (for me at least). I'm perplexed however, that there does seem to be this tacit acceptance (particularly on the part of women) of the disparity in numbers of ballet choreographers by gender. When you say that "Choreographers happen" , surely you don't mean that women have never thought about being choreographers enough to make it happen (all things else being equal). Ashton saying that "no one would want to be a choreographer if he could be a dancer" can easily be seen as an example of what I am saying. This is a nice rationalization that plays well. Obviously one would want to dance as long as possible and THEN be a choreographer. Most choreographers that I've read about (Fokine, Nijinsky, Nijinska, Balanchine) started choreography while still dancing. Being a dancer doesn't preclude being a choreographer, in fact it may be a very important necessity. And there are (if my eyes don't deceive me) usually a lot more ballerinas than ballerinos in most dance companies. I don't see any grandiose plot here, all I'm saying is that there appears to be something preventing women from becoming choreographers which goes beyond mere opportunity. I can't believe women are just not interested! De Valois and Nijinska seem to be the examples, that I'm aware of , of women who have been interested. Nijinska's situation was perhaps unique, with her association with Diaghaleff. As I think you mentioned earlier somewhere, De Valois got the precursor to the RB going and then lost effective control to men. Sorry to dwell on this, but there has to be more to it than dis-interest, on the part of women, to being choreographers. [This message has been edited by Paul W (edited 03-06-99).]

I assume this thread is not meant only for the ladies. As a gentleman who agrees strongly with his wife on this one, and we've had some very long discussions about this, here's an opinion (indictment perhaps?). First off, this is not meant to disparage Balanchine's art, it is clear that Balanchine was a great choreographer and created great neo-classical ballet (did I get that right?). But it is what I interpret as Balanchine's attitude toward women that is partially responsible for there being few women choreographers of neo-classical ballet. It seems plausible that to be a choreographer one must be a dancer first. Balanchine's women dancers were just that, HIS women dancers. I believe they subjugated their own creativity too much for his vision, and even after his death, now work only to preserve IT. This attitude of male choreographers appears to be widespread and common, its just that Balanchine represents an extreme example of it. How could any woman, as a dancer for Balanchine, go up to him and say , "Mr. B, I'd like to try this little bit of choreography I've been working out in my head. Give me a few hours of time with some of the dancers and I'll show it to you". After reading about Balanchine, I can't imagine this happening, can anyone tell me I'm mis-interpreting him? I believe this is just a case of, fundamentally, men in power not believing that women can do what they (the men) do. And that women under the influence of a powerful man have few avenues to overcome this barrier. My indictment: most current choreographers and artistic directors in ballet are men, they have the power to allow women to work on choreography, and its not happening. So I guess I sympathize with the frustration of at least one women dancer (nascent choreographer?) that has been ascribed to Ms. Bull, though I haven't seen her TV show and don't actually know her entire viewpoint.

Two things that came up in comments above; lifts and sur-les-pointes. Much of modern dance, even if it has some elements of classical style, seems to be pre-occupied with so many repeated lifts and paired movements. The dance is more of a gymnastic exercise and involves more movement like what we see in pairs figure-skating, without the swift motion that ice allows. This doesn't give much opportunity for watching an individual dancer's body movements in isolation. I guess I do prefer seeing a female dancer on point, because it creates an impression (for me) of the dancer being more than a mere mortal, floating and ethereal. The classical jumps of male dancers are also ethereal and graceful; there doesn't seem to be much use of this type of powerful grace in modern works. I miss that. Lugo, I'd like to hear a little more detail about what you would envision for combining jazz/modern/ballet in a classical style in longer length story ballet presentations. Sounds interesting.

[Edited by A.T. March 2002: libby made a comment that had to be deleted; we had another new person register called Libby, and the new software can't distinguish between capitals and small letters; the software changed the name on each of libby's posts to Libby. As libby, regrettably, has not posted in more than 2 years, I deleted her user name, and this deleted all her posts.] I like Libby's response to this question. Though I have the opportunity to see more and more contemporary dance, I still prefer the classical story ballets, especially the romantic ones like Giselle. However I do like some of the contemporary dance I've seen. The performances of Ballet British Columbia which I saw recently seem to fall in Alexandra's category definition. I loved this company's work. Mark Godden's "Conversation Piece" really impressed me. On the other hand I don't usually connect emotionally with most contemporary dance, many times because I can't see how the dance movements connect with the music. I also dislike the "angst" that seems to be a prerequisite of much modern dance. I just saw the Doug Elkins Dance Company do a set of pieces. Dancing may have been skillful, it was much further from classical style than other contemporary dance I've seen, but again the music seemed to clash with the movement in most pieces. An example, "Center My Heart" was danced to Nusral Fateh Ali Khan, but I couldn't make it make sense to me. After many years in Asia, my automatic reaction to this great music is a completely different dance movement than what I saw with the contemporary company. Still, the dancers with contemporary dance companies are most amazing in how they control their bodies. When I see a piece of this nature with music that hits chords in my soul then I really enjoy it.

I think Ed has hit the mark regarding what had previously caused me to want to respond somewhat contrarily to the discussion of taped music vs live, and the extension of that "compromise" into compromises in other areas of a ballet performing company that came under discussion elsewhere. The discussion seemed to ignore what I felt were more than compensating benefits to such compromises. Ed has pointed out some of those benefits clearly. I'm still not sure I can march to what seems to be the final "tune" ,sorry :-), of the discussion (ie., the idea that "once you've heard full orchestration of a ballet score by one of the select few acknowledged "great" orchestras, playing it right, you will always feel somewhat let-down by less than the best after that"). Ballet presentations of the calibre being described seem quite rare!! As Alexandra says, the standards have been lowered during recent decades. Does anyone have an experience of such ballet performances more than a few times in their lifetime? I hope not to achieve such a critical eye (and ear) that I will diminish the excitement that I currently experience , though I do want to have the chance to see the best , if it can be seen, and to recognize it. This condition of lowered standards seems not properly attributable to the majority of ballet companies which are not well-endowed, not in large cities, and not blessed with many experienced principal dancers. It seems more properly laid at the feet of the MAJOR ballet companies (who aren't seen in the boonies and whose role it MUST BE to uphold and even advance the standards). When standards are lowered, it is not because companies who never achieved these standards are lowering them, it is because the companies who set the standards in the first place let them slide. OK, that's my last word trying to defend all those really small-city ballet companies who admittedly cannot match the three or four companies universally acknowledged as the best, though they still bring a new exciting perspective to many. What I really wanted to say in response to Ed's new thread here is that what he describes is exactly what caused me to become interested in ballet. Ed said: "Keep in mind just how powerful ballet can be to those who have never seen it live--who have never been in the same room with a ballerina as she seems to float forever in a jete or as she turns and turns AND TURNS." For years my wife talked about ballet. I listened politely, and planned the next visit to a concert or the theatre. When my niece began dancing seriously, I went, and... end of story. I have become hooked on ballet. I can't distinguish an entrechat four from a six, nor probably even a fouette from a pirouette yet , but I like them all. I started watching a small-city ballet company and thought what they were doing was magnificent. I've now seen one of the top world-class ballet companies, and I recognize that it was much better. A place for everything, everything in its place. Magic can happen.

Alexandra & Marc, your points are well taken! As I think I implied, I AGREE that a real orchestra is probably always preferable to taped music. And certainly one prefers truly professional sets and lighting to something just thrown together. I guess I have not YET experienced such poor performances or orchestration to feel there is a threat to ballet as a whole. I suppose if I had experienced what Marc describes has happened in parts of Europe, I would be more concerned. Not having a resident ballet company nearby makes those of us with growing interest in ballet hope for as many visiting companies as possible, even if they only bring their tape recorder.

Re: Taped vs Live music & small-time touring ballet companies. I think it is approaching outrageous that the discussion on these topics tends to imply that unless a ballet company has a first rate orchestra and is "judged" to be competant enough (by whom in advance?) to properly represent ballet to the general public, it should stay at home and only invite the local townsfolks. Clearly most companies are second-rate , when compared to the very few which can (or should be able to) present "the highest calibre" dance performances. I'm sure there is no disagreement that having less than the best orchestra (or none at all) or having less than the most accomplished dancers produces less than the best dance performances. The discussion has addressed this truism. No problem there. However: There seems to be a kind of tone in the discussion so far that when "less than the best" dance is presented too conveniently or goes on tour, some grave damage is done to ballet as a whole. If none but the best were to be presented , how could anyone ever judge what is the best? Let the dance-going public decide what they want to see or not, and if a company can survive on what it has at its disposal, then that too is good. The more that is presented the better, is how I would view it. And besides, who will serve on the "dance police" committee to issue permits to allow dancing by only the most qualified companies in public?

This thread gets more depressing than ever. Have we then seen the last of the great classical style dancers? No classical style coaches, no impressarios with classical style commitment, no continuity of classical artistic knowledge. Maybe it's inevitable because artists need to be creative and concentrating on classical style dance is eventually limiting to any dancer or choreographer or company? Somebody say it isn't so. A somewhat parallel analogy that comes to mind is when the Dodgers left Brooklyn. Baseball (if remembered as another classical form of movement and drama) was never the same again.

Sorry, this was a repeat of above message. [This message has been edited by Paul W (edited 01-19-99).]

In my humble opinion: The idea that today's coaching of dancers is somehow compromised from what it used to be strikes me as a charge that has not been demonstrated sufficiently. Jane's anecdote about the Sarah Wildor and Antoinette Sibley dancer/mentor relationship can't represent that unique a situation can it? I think that rather than a change in the quality of coaching, it is the pressures on today's ballet companies (financial primarily) that contribute most to a perceived "less than finished" quality to dance performances. I again refer to the Hartford Ballet's traumatic step backward in the last six months after five years of moving toward more classical ballet productions of ever improving artistry. It was (apparently) too expensive for the management board and (perhaps) did not reflect the current modern world's orientation toward glitz, so Hartford Ballet has now become a company without the word ballet in its title. I don't think there is as much (proportionately) private money supporting ballet today as there was two ballet generations ago. (Am I wrong ??) I agree with Marc's comment that "magnificent, first-rate artists" are still around to mentor new dancers. Why do they seem to produce less artistically finished dancers? I may be naive about this, but my view is that, if this is actually true, it is more likely because the majority of today's dancers are too much influenced by the "fast pace" and impatience inherent to our modern society. Those dancers who are dedicated and have put the effort in with their coaches are probably the ones we talk about on this web site.

I’m surprised that no-one has yet mentioned "Early Memoirs" by Bronislava Nijinska. What a wonderful account of a truly exceptional family! I'm still not yet quite finished with it, but I need to say how much I enjoy it!! This makes Nijinsky (and his family) come alive for me. I only thought of him as "a legend", as an incomparable dancer whom I would never see in flight even in still pictures (tell me where if such exist). Through her very touching story, Bronia, Nijinsky and also their mother Eleanora now exist in my mind as real beings. Nijinsky as Petrouchka in photographs (still marvelously expressive by and of him) has been replaced in my mind’s eye by a most wonderfully airborne Nijinsky the bluebird. Nijinska’s descriptions of him performing the blue bird pas de deux are unbelievably exciting even to a novice. I am so glad I chose to read this book as one of my first ballet books. Most long-time ballet lovers must have read this already. What are other’s impressions of it? A couple questions: Is Bronia considered an exceptional choreographer? I admire her greatly from this account translated by her daughter. Can someone tell me whether the production of "Les Noces" scheduled for late February by NYC Ballet is likely to be similar or the same as her original choreography? Also, does anyone know whether the city called Vilno mentioned often in Bronia's account is the same as the city of Vilnius, Lithuania?

Most enjoyable to me was ABT's Le Corsaire at the Lincoln Center this summer, in which I was able to see Carreno (awesome), Corella, Herrera (lovely), Malakhov and Tuttle all in the same production. I feel encouraged in my assessment since Dale mentioned this production as being his choice of best new production of the year. Even more interesting to me was seeing Ethan Stiefel and other ABT dancers, including Gillian Murphy, as part of "An Evening of Pas de Deux" at a summer performance in a small theatre in Manchester VT. Front row and about 10 feet from the dancing. Stiefel & Murphy did a pas from Le Corsaire. Wow!!

I guess my German side controls my ballet watching, agreeing with Angela, that dancers should emote and express personal feeling. I may be responding more like an "American audience" as Alexandra says, but I DON'T wish to see a constant grin on every dancer's face. As someone trying to understand WHAT is considered "classical" in the way that dancers perform, I have to admit I am a bit confused. In the ballets labeled as "classical" that I have seen I recall most all the dancers expressing themselves through their facial emotion. The dancers I most immediately connect with are those who seem to sense the audience. My tendency is to want to see a connection between the dancer and the audience, a contact that shows emotion in the face (I'm not saying eye contact, but something saying the dancer is HERE with us). I think a dancer must look happy in dancing a happy role, must NOT be smiling when dancing a sad role, etc. In the few modern dance programs I've seen (what I would describe as abstract) the dancers often gave me a sense of remoteness if their expressions were not related to the emotion the movement seemed to be portraying. If classical ballet is also supposed to be danced in this way I confess I may never really understand what good classical ballet is supposed to look like.

Giannina, NOT that it's out as a video mind you, but since you are on a Nutcracker overdose already; before Hartford Ballet's management went ballistic last year and trashed the company, Kirk Peterson choreographed a new "American Nutcracker" that was VERY VERY special. I'm not a fan of Nutcracker per se, but this was different and so beautifully done by a small city ballet company that it will be a great shame if it is not done again somewhere. Peterson put the ballet's setting in Yosemite Valley and it involves a fictional meeting between important historical figures at the time of the 1849 gold rush or shortly thereafter. Instead of Clara you've got Lotta Crabtree (renowned actress), and there are figures such as the actor Junius Booth (father of John Wilkes and Edwin Booth), Levi Strauss, a magician Herrmann the Great, Mark Twain etc... !! Sandra Woodall (SF bay area ballet connection as I'm sure you are aware) did the decor and costumes which are all different from the usual Nutcracker. The kids are butterflies , moths, etc, a giant spider comes down on wires (great!, now that doesn't happen anymore except at POB apparently) and there are grasshopper soldiers etc. Sandra's costumes are works of art! Mother Ginger is turned into a giant Queen Bee with all her honeybees and butterflies and sunflower children. The Christmas tree is a giant sequoia. It's different!! yet the same. I think it is a wonderful new presentation of a very nice Christmas story which is getting too familiar to be that interesting anymore (except for kids or the young at heart it is always interesting I think).