Alexandra

Who could argue with that? I miss Kirsten Ralov's production very much. I don't think it was strongly directed -- they were sometimes just illustrating the story rather than living it, as they were in Brenaa's productions -- but I liked her trolls, which matched the original drawings, as far as I've seen. They weren't "colorful storybook characters" but hunched, subhuman creatures. I've seen the tape of Brenaa's production, where all the principals (Kronstam, Englund, F. Vlindt) were a little old for their parts, but understood them and so it didn't matter (to me); you could see the ballet. I think there's a general misunderstanding that this is a ballet about trolls, when I think it's about Junker Ove and Hilda. From what I've learned, that attitude seems to come from Lander's time; his productions emphasized the comic elements. There's no other ballet in the world like this -- a look at heredity vs. environment (if you're born a troll, can you ever be a lady? If you're born human, can you ever lose your humanity?) And I wish it were taken seriously. I thought in 2000 it had actually calmed down a bit, Effy, but from what you write, it seems to have deteriorated again. Everything you write about the direction, or lack of it, makes perfect sense to me. Jorgen? Aspirant? KayDenmark? anyone else see this one?

Merci, Francoise! I'm very glad the French balletgoers are letting the management know what they think! There have been many interesting comments on this thread. We're having the same problem here (except our non-classical ballet often tends to be pop dance, dance to pop music). What Estelle wrote about "culture generale" is true in America, too: One of the big problems in American dance writing is that the editors, at both publishing houses and newspapers, are no longer "cultivated" in this sense of the word -- as they would have been a generation ago. It's a symptom of the same problem: there's little arts education; education in the performing arts was once done privately, in families, and that seems to have stopped.

Eric Taub takes another look at the Paul Taylor season for ballet.co's magazine: Paul Taylor

There are two ways to "grow" dancers: choreograph for them or acquire repertory for them; or a mix of both. Dancers need new work made on them, but they also need good roles, and the two aren't necessarily the same. I don't think Tomasson is a very good choreographer, but I do think he is a fine director. I think the "feeding" of dancers is the most important thing an artistic director does -- the repertory has to please the audience, of course, but the knack of finding exactly the right role for a dancer at the right time, of getting a ballet that might seem a bit odd but is acquired because it's right for the dancers is very rare. It's what I've admired about Tomasson the most -- Yuan Yuan Tan in "Bugaku" is just one example. The principals are drawn from many schools but (to address carbro's question) the company does look organic -- in small ballets. I still think it doesn't have a first-rate corps, and that shows in ballets blancs, but that's something that takes decades to develop. I think you have to both build from within and bring in from without if you want to aim as high as Tomasson is aiming (and do what he was hired to do). I remember when he first took over from Smuin, he "tamed" a few of the dancers he'd inherited; their dancing looked more classical. He knew, from the beginning, how he wanted the company to look.

I'd like very much to hear everyone's response to the new piece, and the program as a whole, but I was struck by the reviewer's ending comment that Paul Taylor's "Roses" was a happy ballet about blossoming love. I've always seen it as a very sad ballet -- it's costumed in black and, at least initially, was dedicated to the poet Edwin Denby and was created soon after Denby's death. (The gymnastic elements in the choreography, I think, are a reference to Denby's early interest in gymnastics and the music is a personal reference as well.) I've seen people sob watching this piece -- but dance can always evoke different responses from different people on different nights. I'm curious as to how you found this work, as well.

Here's a review to start off: PNB's "Romantics" program reviewed: 'Romantics' pairings at PNB pay tribute to blossoming love

Would Wayne Sleep, then, be No.4? Nope But I'd vote for Kathleen Moore in a heartbeat.

Too many great RDB character dancers to mention! Fredbjorn Bjornsson, Sorella Englund, Henning Kronstam, Niels Bjorn Larsen, Johnny Eliason, Niels Kehlet, Kirsten Simone; less known abroad, and not principals: Mona Jensen, Erling Eliasson, Tommy Frishoi, Thomas Berentzen, Michael Bastian, (briefly) Alexander Kolpin. Odd. All of these people are either dead or no longer with the company, except Simone. When Bjornsson died, there was a sign in a very odd little dance bookshop window (fire marshalls here would have shut it down; there was a path through newspapers and books from the front door to the back, but that was the only space that wasn't covered with SOMETHING). The sign said, "Our very best troll has died." Now, that's an epitaph! I did see Mason's Carabosse and it immediately went into my Permanent Top Ten. Spewing venom, she was, and beautiful in an odd, evil way. Among British dancers, though, Alexander Grant is 1, 2 and 3 for me.

Yes! That's the point. It's a commentary by someone who has been watching, and wrtiing about, the company -- and other companies and comparing SFB dancers to them, and probably puzzling out what she feels are the differences -- for many years. This isn't something that one could document, and criticism is different from a feature article with interviews and a quote from this or that person of "who meant the most to me." Ballet masters or mistresses may very well be part aof the process, but they're chosen by the artistic director and he oversees the productions. Sorry to be argumentative but this kind of comment -- expecting an article to be one thing when it's another -- comes up a lot in our discussions and I'm responding as an editor and a writer. If I'm doing a feature, I don't expect people to be disappointed or critical because it's not analytical, and vice versa. As an editor and a writer, I don't know how to get around this and so it's a concern.

I think one of the points, though, is that there's also a knack in helping principals develop -- look at other companies, it doesn't happen automatically. A dancer may be promoted on the basis of technique, or because of success in a single role and everyone expects great things, and then, five years later, they're in the "whatever happened to..." category.

I'm of the school that if one does justice to Tudor one cannot do justice to Forsythe, and vice versa. Carlsson, Graham -- they're modern dance choreographers. (An old song here) The dancers aren't trained to do them. Also, when the repertory becomes mostly modern or contemporary dance, the classical repertory suffers. If PNB goes that route, it will indeed change its nature. Why not encourage new BALLET choreographers. That's what's missing in ballet today, and if it is to continue as an art form, this needs to be done. We can't live on Swan Lake and the Balanchine repertory forever.

That's very close to something I read that Makarova said once. Someone complained that she'd danced two "Swan Lakes" very differently, musically speaking, one night to the next. "I dance with the music," she said. But the second night was different. "I dance with the music." There's also the question of what the dancer is hearing; Farrell talks about hearing the undercurrents in the music, and aspects of music that aren't strictly on the counts. But....we're getting far afield. Who are your least favorite dancers and why (remembering to be as kind as possible, since they may read what you say )

I have friends who saw Volochkhova when she was 18 who were convinced she would be the great ballerina of her generation.

Yes, but it's also so specific. It's like another debate we've had here about certain dancers -- Pavlenko for one -- whom some people see as "cold" and others don't. That would seem to be something more quantifiable. I thought I'd figured the Makarova musicality angle out that those who thought she wasn't musical did so because they didn't like the way she'd play with tempi -- slowing things down and then speeding them up. But I've discussed that with people who say, no, that's allowable (to them) but she just wasn't musical. Meaning they didn't think her movements mirrored/coordinated/whatever the music. As for Nureyev, one of my enduring memories of him are the a few moments in several classical variations (Corsaire, for one) where he caught the waltzing in the tempo more clearly than anyone I've ever seen. That's at least one attribute of musicality, to me. (I also thought Makarova was musical, by the way, despite the Extreme Rubato.) To bring this back to the topic -- my least favorite dances are often unmusical

Carbro, the "musical" aspect fascinates me. There are many that would agree with you, I'm sure, and many others who've written about Nureyev's musicality (finding it one of the most pleasurable things about his dancing). It's the same with Makarova. I remember Croce writing about her musicality and British critics writing about how wonderful she was except (and I forget who this was) "the lack of musicality which is her besetting sin." Which just means that there are different senses of what is musical.

Thanks, Ballet Nut -- what do you think of her assessment of Tomasson as a ballet master, as a "grower" of dancers? He's struck me as having that gift, too, but I don't see the company nearly as much as you do, of course.

I also wanted to welcome exballetstudent to the Board -- and thanks for reviving this thread. Re Nureyev, there are almost two dancers. The Before and the After. I caught the end of the Before, and could keep that filter on through most of the After but I can understand how those who only saw the end of his career feel/think about him. I will say that there's almost nothing I've seen on video that begins to capture what you saw in the theater. Video (being TV) is a cold medium (I'm invoking Marshall MacLuhan) and so any dancer who had a very hot performing style is out of sync. You notice Nureyev's breathing difficulties, which were there from the beginning, but which didn't show on stage until the end. The camera can't capture his magic, and he was a very spontaneous performer, so you never saw the "classroom" Nureyev, the one who really was a fine technician. The dancers who show best on video, for me, are the classroom dancers, the ones who were all about technique. (The "posey" ones beloved above look great on film.) The best Nureyev on film that I know is the "Don Quixote," but even there you have to get past the bright pink lipstick; it was the 1960s, his Yardley period.

I'd like to add a hearty Second! to Hans's mention of the lack of plie. I'm seeing this more and more -- it bothers me more in men than in women for some reason. They land with a jolt and the action stops dead, instead of continuing, as it would if there were some give in the knees.

Ann Murphy has a piece in DanceView Times this week she called The Singing Body in which she discusses several dancers in the context of Helgi Tomasson as a ballet master. Any comments? On the piece, the ideas in it, or the dancers?

Yes, it's what we describe -- unhelpfully -- as "magic" Meaning we can't figure it out; they hypnotize us, I'm convinced of that. They make us feel/think what they want us to think -- if we're on that wavelength. Of course, the person sitting two seats down may be bored to tears. I bring up Langer's "Virtual Power" from time to time; I think this is part of it. The great (in the sense of powerful) dancers are shamans. 10000 years ago they're the ones who came back from the hunt and gave everybody nightmares the way they told -- or sung, or danced -- the tale.

Thank you for that, sandi. He was a very spontaneous artist. Your story reminded me of the Bomb Scare Swan Lake, with Paris Opera Ballet here at the Kennedy Center in the late 1980s. The theater had to be emptied right before the start of the White Swan pas de deux. We were told it was a drill -- well, they had to think fast. We were outside for 45 minutes. Nureyev was reluctant to leave, I was told by one of the ushers (I was "covering" that night) saying he was less afraid of the Libyans (who had phoned in the bomb threat) than he would be standing outside. He finally came out, in his bathrobe, with his mug of tea, and sat on a folding chair, all alone, but guarded by the ushers -- they did this on their own. It was very sweet. they formed a semicircle around him. A tour bus came through -- it was all so bizarre; this was 10 pm. by now -- and Rudolf sensed an audience, got up, and began to walk. The people on the bus were leaning out the windows taking photos for all they were worth; I wondered if they knew who he was. When his audience was out of eyeshot, Nureyev sat down again until we were told we could go back inside. All of the dancers were outside, the girls in their swan costumes sipping champagne. They decided to start with Act III, and not redo Act II, presumably because of the lateness of the hour. In Act IV, he and his partner (I believe it was LeClerc, but don't really remember) decided to do the Act II pas de deux rather than Nureyev's own Act IV one. Act II is a falling in love pas de deux, Act IV was a "I'm really sorry I betrayed you, I didn't mean it, I'll die for you if it will help" kind of thing. They realized this about 10 seconds in, and, without changing a step that I could tell, danced White Swan as a dance of sorrow and leaving. It was one of the most moving things I've ever seen.

A perfect birthday story, thank you. My favorite curtain call stories are Nureyev ones - from the days, often with Naitonal Ballet of Canada, when 30 to 45 minute curtain calls happened every night. it was part of the show. One of these. After a Sleeping Beauty with National Ballet of Canada in New York (1977? 1978? It was his last performance before making Valentino) he got a standing ovation after his solo in the third act. now, he did this not only by alternating double tours and double pirouettes in his circle of turning jumps, but by ending in attitude, 3/4 pointe, hold hold hold hold hold, then slam down into fifth and raise the arms, making it absolutely clear that nothing is going to happen until the house rises, which of course we did on cue. I clocked the curtain cals that night -- 50 minutes, up from the standard 30 or 35. The gallery had a sign that said "Hurry back, Sheik!" The two enormous flower throwing ladies who always sat front orchestra right pitched their bouquets with machine-like rapidity and accuracy. There were screams, shouts, bravos. The woman next to me kept saying, over and over, "I've never been to a ballet before! I've never been to a ballet before!" I've always wondered what happened to her -- did she subscribe to everything the next season, expecting the same experience? I should note that the performance, with Karen Kain as Aurora, was excellent top to bottom, right down to the little page (one of two) who did an unintentional parody of Nureyev, following him around on stage, walking like him -- it was an exact copy.

I've always meant to put this up on March 17th and never remembered, but I did today -- Rudolf Nureyev was born this date in 1938. Celebratory remembrances, anyone? (Rudi haters, or those who would like to point out in great detail how he continued past his prime are free to start another thread, but this is for birthday-appropriate remembrances, please.)

Yes, please, Juliette! And Rosalind, thank you for your "intrusion" It is most welcome. If you've gotten to the point that you can write: "As soon as you put yourself in their shoes, as soon as you see things the way they saw them, think the way they thought, regard people the way they regarded them, everything becomes so clear and obvious, you’re no longer left in the dark thinking How could they do that? or How could they think that?" -- at 14! -- then I think you're getting a good education. I don't know how to get around the memorizing facts problem. History should be more than that, of course, but on constantly reads scare stories about college kids who don't know what century the French or Russian revolutions took place in, and have no concept of when "ancient Egypt" was, that there have to be dates in there somewhere, or you're in freefall. But I like the linking literature and social history with history; anything that makes it alive. (I've been interested in the past since I could remember, so I've never understood why history is boring!)

I used to do this, and I'd get, "But we saw "Giselle" last season." Yes, but this is Kirkland and Baryshnikov. "But we saw "Giselle" last season."