Alexandra

Oh, the shoebox will always be there! I mean the inside. What did they do? They widened the aisles and put in a cross-aisle about a third of the way back (i.e., the first third of the orchestra is separated from the back of it by an aisle). They widened the center section, adding 5 seats in each row. One of the purposes (I don't know if it was the main one) was to make the theater handicapped accessible, so there's one row of chairs only (right at the cross aisle) and the chairs can be removed so that a wheelchair can go there; there are similar spaces in the back, as there are in the Eisenhower Theater. I think there were also acoustical changes as well, but I'm not sure. I don't know if there are any changes in the tiers. Anyone noticed any?

We've had a few weeks, with different companies and different types of ballets, to get used to the new opera house. washingtonians and visitors, what do you think? Do you like the changes? Are the sight lines good, better, or not so good -- and from which part of the house are you writing.

Michael -- yes, I think you're right. It's not about the corps being together (as I wrote above) but "uniformity in the sense of style of movement, training, placement, bodily development" as you wrote. And as Mike Gunther said, "in Balanchine the corps is as much the "star" as the principals."

I'm with Hans. There are just as many posts here -- not that aesthetics are a popularity contest! -- of people who are quite satisfied with the traditional Act I of "Nutcracker". The problems with declining tickets sales are quite complex, partly due to over-familiarity with the same ballet year in and year out, partly because often that ballet isn't very good nor very well danced if you're not related to one of the candy canes, and mostly now because the entertainment industry has discerned a Holiday Market and are going after it for all they're worth. Re Bourne's "Swan Lake" -- many people do love it. Good for them! Does that mean that we throw out everything else and pander to that audience which is, for the most part, not a ballet audience -- if we're a ballet company? In today's terms --- what is the "product" a ballet company is selling? Ballet? Or anything that can be called dance in the hopes that someone will come and see it, rushing from novelty to novelty? But taking the name "Swan Lake" and putting it on something entirely different to sells tickets is something that's happening more and more and, to go back to the point in Ismene Brown's article that initially struck me, it's driving ballet to a point where audiences don't have a chance to see a real production and no longer know what one looks like, and that's not good for the art form.

Mel, if you'd posted what you did above and not just the one-liner, I wouldn't deleted it, since we wouldn't have been in danger of having a dozen football jokes. We've had discussions derailed in this forum previously when people got facetious, and that's something I want to avoid. Your thesis is interesting -- another way to say that after a master there's rebellion. I'd argue that Borlin was trying to be a Giant, especially the Massine kind, though. And I don't see Forsythe in the same line as Balanchine and Robbins; he's from another house. I don't know about MacMillan. Was he trying to rebel against Ashton, or do his own thing? (I don't have an answer to that.) Now, who are the Buccaneers?

Clara, yours is a very logical question, but I can't answer it, I'm afraid. It isn't that they're not together, it's that they're just not dancing with the stretch and strength that they once had, not dancing each step to the fullest. That's one thing missing, for me, and the other is that the edge isn't there. It was in "Rubies," but not in "Concerto Barocco." They looked....dutiful. I'd look to company class and rehearsal before I'd worry about the school, but that's only a guess. I'd say it was because they were tired after the New York season, but others have noticed this as well.

I thought Weese was wonderful in Emeralds; I didn't find her dull at all. Beautiful, beautiful arms, the best I've seen since Verdy. I didn't know she could be so soft. I liked "Rubies" too -- I've never warmed to Woetzel, but did like him here, and the role suited Ansanelli more than anything I've seen her do. She's definitely in the McBride line (as opposed to dancing the role as Watts did). I'd like to see Kowroski in the "walking solo" in Emeralds; I think she's more suited to that than "Diamonds." Beautiful line, but no glow. The corps in "Diamonds," especially at the beginning, was quite weak. That used to be danced by senior corps, the company powerhouses. Overall, it's the corps I've been disappointed in the most. Some productions are more burnished than others, I like some dancers more than others; that's not a change. But I can see, in the corps, what New Yorkers have been complaining about. They're not as sharp, they're not as fast, they're not as strong -- in SOME ballets. It's been especially noticeable in "Diamonds" and "Concerto Barocco" to me. I'm on the "I hate the designs!" side. Especially "emeralds." It's too specific for me. Rubies is okay, Diamonds looks like the first draft of a stage set for a Disney movie. Harvey's first set was the best.

Thank you for the clarification, Clara, but I don't think think the quote Brown used is a distortion. (Mel, I think he's saying he preferred the Bruhn to the stiff and posed and soulless productions, not that the Bruhn was stiff and soulless.) I read the longer version you've posted that Nixon thinks the traditional productions he's seen are "stiff and posed productions that appeared to be soulless showcases for technique rather than movement and emotion" and he wants to fix them. Brown is taking issue with the notion that anything needs to be "fixed." (Or that, if something is dull, it can be "fixed" by good direction and great dancing, not by a complete overhaul). The point of the thread was to discuss the aesthetic point in her piece in general rather than further criticize Nixon's production, which, as you note, I doubt many people here, if any, have seen. Another quote from Brown's review, that I put it up only to answer the point that the critics have distorted the production. The story has been described the same way in every review I've read. This isn't to question Nixon's intentions -- I understand he's a friend and close colleague and that you want to be sure that his intentions are understood -- but the story has been changed, and that was the point of Brown's review, and of my posting "using Swan Lake loosely" as a topic. Re the dead swan: Judith Mackrell in The Guardian: "Now, about this dead swan. Twice in the ballet Anthony lovingly hauls its feathered carcass from the reeds, and twice a discreet shudder ripples through the audience. Ballet is good at prettying up death, but nothing can stop us imagining the bloating, stink and slime that would realistically accompany such a moment. " There are definitely several divides right now: 1. What is Swan Lake? A name you can rip off for marketing purposes and set any story you want to famous music? Or a ballet with choreography and a libretto, as well as a famous score, that, when properly produced and danced, still excites audiences? 2. When staging a classic, do you try to reproduce the original--as amended over the generations--or do you update it and turn it into a soap opera -- a tendency today in many productions of many ballets -- Sleeping Beauty is a valentine's day special all about love -- that unintentionally trivialize the 19th century repertory; and new ballets that are soap operas. Perhaps we could steer the debate away from this one specific production and to the general points in the article? The divide I mention above and Brown's point, that she objects to the idea "that a ballet's broke and needs fixing if its plot isn't a four-episode soap opera". I see that as part of the high art/pop art divide that's still raging (and that the pop art side seems to be winning). Of course people like them. More people will tune in a soap opera than would go to an evening of classical drama. Those who love classical drama wouldn't want Medea or King Lear turned into a soap opera to attract more people -- that's another part of the divide.

Not integration in our terms today, but Ballet Theatre planned a "Negro Wing" and Agnes de Mille created a work for black dancers back in the 1940s. One could say that there is still not an integrated company; there are only companies with a few "dancers of color" in them. The reasons for this are complicated, and it's not as easy as hanging out a "please, join us! you're welcome here!" sign. We've had a couple of threads on race and racism in ballet (Issues forum), as well as one on black dancers (Dancers forum) so you might want to prowl around a bit. Good question -- glad you're asking it!

In the Beginning had its premiere down here, Liebs, and I didn't think much of it either. I'd hoped that the Taylor Company might be able to make more of it (it was danced, very ably, by the Houston Ballet, but Taylor's own dancers might be more comfortable in his movement.) There are reviews of the opening night gala, the opening night rep (the program lliebs is commenting on), and the second night's rep just up on Danceview Times. Click here for the front page; the links to the reviews are there. http://www.danceviewtimes.com/

Citibob, I agree -- except, perhaps in Russia. I think part of the reason is that while plays and music can stand re-interpretation from generation to generation, dance, by its very nature, needs to preserve, or try to preserve, in effect, blocking, presentational style, phrasing and tone, as well as steps, atmosphere and story. And you'll constantly run into the "they're not doing it the way they did it when it was new" and the "she's no Ulanova!" problem. It takes a great deal of patience, will and money to survive this -- to have an institution that's lived through a number of generations, and has enough of a repertory built up that you can dip into that repertory and revive ballets for those in the new generation that are suited to them. The most creative period in modern dance was the time of Giants. When the Giants began to die off, instead of out-Gianting them, dancers turned to the No Manifesto and created something out of that. To play Devil's Advocate, on could argue that what have been acclaimed as great innovations did not seem like that to traditionalists, and they made a good case for their position -- Levinson in Paris was not won over by Diaghilev's company. There were ardent defenders of neoclassicism well into the Romantic period, despite what Gautier would have us believe. But I think what Paul is writing is that artists get stuck in a Giant Rut, as it were, repeating formulas. (I think that the Sons of Balanchine are repeating formulas, but in a very diminished way. The only thing that is Bigger are the extensions and number of turns.)

I think good coaching is all about letting the dancer find his/her own way in the role. Some dancers, with no imagination -- or perhaps too much imagination! -- might have to have everything shown to them and a coach might insist "No, do it that way; your arm must be in exactly this position" but I think even there the intention is for the dancer to internalize it and, when everything is working and coming together naturally, their own personality and insticts will take over. I think the "just dance it dear" line isn't "that means asbsolutely no emotion; be a stone face" but a corrective to overemoting -- don't be a character, don't imitate anyone else, just do it."

We've been talking a lot about various aesthetic issues over in the NYCB forum, and I thought I'd post a topic that can be discussed in any context. This is the opening of a review Paul Parish wrote for DanceView Times (for the full article, go to Stainless Steel and Angelic Grace Usually, the "after the giants, what now?" question in dance is related to the end of the Beethoven and Stravinsky eras in music. New musicians were frozen by the preceding generation, couldn't compete and couldn't figure out a way out of what seemed an artistic cul de sac. That's probably true -- the Romantics figured out a brilliant work around; Brahms could then come back to the symphony with fresh eyes. But I liked Paul's idea, too, that "what follows is a generation that's hyper-aware of what's been done, and the gifted among them, the Fletchers and the Websters spend their wits making madder mad scenes, more villainous villains, elaborating self-consciously on the affective devices that made King Lear so involving, so upsetting it made grown men cry." What do you think? Paul's theory definitely fits MacMillan, to me, following Ashton: "madder mad scenes and more villainous villains," indeed. I'm not sure I can find an analog for Balanchine; I'm seeing smaller mad scenes and weaker villains, but others may feel differently. Paul, if you see this, I hope you'll join in -- and others, please feel free to agree or disagree.

kfw, what I meant was that it might be a matter of an active change -- the ballet master doing what suits his taste and eye -- rather than sloppiness, or loss of something (although it could certainly be interpreted as a loss, if you loved the other style). I see a lot of Danishness in Martins' company. The small women, two flavors: merry or waiflike. Yes, Balanchine's dancers were exquisitely musical, but it was a different sense of musicality, and his phrases were punctuated, jazzy, punchy, the sense of being ahead of the music, always ready to MOVE. The Danish musicality is more melodic, harmonious in the sense of not breaking the flow; they have a wonderful sense of stillness even when they're moving. Stiff upper bodies doesn't ring a bell? Lovers of the French or Danish style would say, not stiff at all; the upper body should be erect, not flexible like a folk dancer. But the Russian and Russian-Americain upper body is, indeed, flexible like a folk dancer. I think every director reproduces, consciously or subconsciously, the style and aesthetic in which he has grown up. Martins grew up in two styles (1960s Danish, not a high period, and 1970s Balanchine.) I'm copyrighting these remarks I'm going to write a piece about this either this week or next. (And this is obviously purely opinion. No claim to inside knowledge or trying to state that this is a fact. It's just what I see.)

kfw, I think you've hit on what New York company regulars complain about. It's not that the company is BAD (although there are people who can tell you, step for step, what's missing in this or that ballet; that's a different issue). It's that it's not exciting, the edge one remembered from the goodolddays is gone. I sometimes think that this is a deliberate choice on Martin's part -- which he has a right to do, IMO: the works are smoother, the edge has been buffed off, rather than lost. Not Balanchine! you could say, and the answer to that would be, not Balanchine then, but that's the way we dance him now. BUT the sense of smoothness and calm (with some attendant beautifully detailed moments, and attention to musicality) isn't consistent, so it's not The Next New Thing, it's not quite this and not quite that. It's that edge and sense of daner that the Farrell Ballet does have, and why, although she doesn't have first-rate dancers, her productions are admired. I liked Hubbe very much in concerto barocco, but I don't remember ever coming away from that ballet remembering the man -- not that he overdid a thing, just that the others weren't up to him, and the corps just didn't have much juice. kfw, I felt exactly as you did about Prodigal (except I wasn't wowed by Woetzel). We have seen that ballet over and over during the past decade, and I'd like a rest. I thought the San Francisco Ballet production was better all around -- in dancing, staging, and acting. BUT I do think the evening built, and I did like Piano Concerto. I'm interested to see how second performances of both of these programs go. Jewels, the first of three, tonight. We'll have a different take on the designs, having skipped the interim generation ones. "Our" "Jewels" is the original. Other comments on this program? It was a full house, so there should be more of you out there!

Thank you, Herman! Thing is, the two critics I grew up with are 15, 20 years older than I am and still go to see everything -- they're not sour at all, so I don't associate that with age. I know more younger critics who only see this, or only see that -- despite the fact that we're in an age of cross-fertilization, I'm surprised at how many people in their 20s who've sent me clips and want to write, but don't feel comfortable writing about anything except postmodern dance, who've never even gone to a "Swan Lake," good, bad or indifferent and wouldn't have the vaguest idea how to judge one. The "friendly chat" idea can work, but I'd say "unfortunately." I think when critics become too friendly -- or are writing so that they will have that friendly chat, or access -- it can be dangerous. I'll quote Kronstam again: "Critics always say they want to discuss things with you. They don't want to discuss them. They want to give you their ideas, and if you don't accept those ideas, they hate you for it." Harsh, but I know of instances where that's true. I agree with you about re-reading Croce et al. for perspective. She was a very stern critic about Balanchine -- paraphrase: he's going through a period of setting steps to music rather than making ballets. (I think she should have been stern.) I've been very surprised at the favorable reviews of ABT over the past five years; compare them with what was written in the 1970s and 1980s when the company was very harshly criticized for lack of classical style and coaching. Things have not improved, to my eye, yet one wouldn't know that from reading reviews. I think the difference, looking back on what I saw at the tail end of the Balanchine era, is that even when this or that ballet was a mess, or this or that dancer was miscast, people trusted Balanchine. they knew the cause was either an emergency or an experiment, and that eventually things would be put right. There wasn't this gut-clenching terror that, if, say, the jester were cast as the Prince in "Swan Lake" it was because the artistic director couldn't tell the difference, or didn't care, and that this was what we would look forward to in the future, forever and ever, until it got worse. adding: I was posting at the same time as Thalictum and Dale, and so missed their posts -- what you're saying is certainly one interpretation, and the one that most people are likely to draw. I'm seeing the same thing in Denmark. There are people who should be staging Bournonville and coaching other ballets who have been effectively locked out for 14 years. I do think it has to do with the confidence of the director. Great artists generally want to work with other great artists; that's when the creative sparks fly. I will say, though, that there are dancers who think they're great coaches who may not be, or who can only show you what they did, not help you make it your own, and it's very hard to judge that from the outside. Obviously many of the dancers named on this thread are successful coaches, but just because you were great in a role doesn't mean you can pass it on.

Calliope, isn't that like saying, "I have no intention of ever reading a book written before 1990. Get with it. I don't want to hear about any Dostoyevsky or Dreiser -- much less Longfellow. Who wants to write poems like that? Yuck." Fine if someone wants to have that attitude, but I don't think it's fair to criticize people who do look at an art form within its context. As I wrote above, that's what education is supposed to be about: looking at the past, and the present, and always being aware of what goes before. That was what my entire formal schooling was about, anyway. When I came to ballet I heard the same things that people are saying today -- "Well, she's nice, but you never saw Verdy in the role," or, (to show how everything old becomes new again) "Yes, today's dancers in some ways are technically stronger and can do more tricks, but things have gotten lost. They're all jumpers today; no one knows how to turn anymore." This was when the Royal Ballet didn't have a dancer who could do the Blue Boy in Patineurs. Today there would be 50 Blue Boys. I figured out what people were talking about by reading and asking questions and looking at photos and asking more questions. Anyone who wants to can do the same thing today -- and much more easily, since there are videos. If an NYCB dancer thinks that a McBride or a Villella "stunk" then their teacher or director has an obligation to set them straight, pronto. When I interviewed Nina Ananiashvili for my book on Kronstam I asked her if she'd ever heard of him before she worked with him as a coach, since he had retired before her generation was watching performances. "Of course!" she said, explaining that when a teacher at the Bolshoi School mentioned a dancer from the past "we would all run to the library at lunch and look him up because we didn't want to appear stupid." They were taught about their heritage not so they would become "another Vasiliev" or Plisetskaya, but because they would define the art form for their generation, as those dancers had in their time. But they knew what the standard was, in the same way that a young athlete knows he can't say he's the greatest runner if he's still clocking a 4 minute mile. As for an AD's vision, I agree with you. If Peter Martins wanted to throw out every ballet created before 1998 in the repertory and replace it with ballets by himself, or Susan Stroman; or turn it into an experimental laboratory and decide that no ballet could be longer than 5 minutes, must not use music; or hire a battalion of acrobats and make art out of that, that's his privilege. (I don't mean to suggest that any of these are his secret desire!) It would eventually drive out most of the people who go there now to see what they're seeing, and, eventually, attract a new audience who loved what they were seeing. And Gottlieb, or anybody else, would have every right to scream and scream and scream if they thought it was an outrage, and the people who saw something wonderful in the new way have a right to shout halleluiahs from the rooftop and tell all of us why it's so great.

I was hoping to hear a Danish (or regular RDB viewer) voice! Effy??? What's the take on this over there?

I don't think they're supposed to be Giantess v. Shorty, but more like the contrast that's in Symphonie Concertante: violin and cello (except here, it would be cello/violin). I do have a comment on one aspect of balletmastering. The dancers aren't being sized properly -- watching some moments of "Concerto Barocco" was like looking at a mouthful of crooked teeth. It doesn't help that the company body type -- which I hadn't seen so clearly until the Barocco costumes -- has become stringy: very thin, with visible muscles. Yet the dancers, at least in this ballet, are not as strong. My memory of Concerto Barocco (which I haven't seen NYCB do for at least 20 years, so that's my comparison) is a stage full of Ashley Bouders.

Yes!!! I also don't think there's anyone writing regularly about this company that doesn't want the art form to move forward. I've said this so often on this site, but I'll say it again -- it's not that anyone wants the stage to be filled with 2004 Farrells- McBride-Verdy clones. Not at all. It's that those who saw those dancers hold them up as a STANDARD. That's how civilization has always been passed along, and how every art form has been judged. If Danielle Steele and Stephen King are the only ones writing today -- no one else is writing books -- people wouldn't say, "Wow, that's who we have today and they're just as good Jane Austen and Shakespeare. Better even." You wait for writers to emerge who could at least sit at the same table with the greats of the past. You don't want someone writing epic plays in blank verse, or domestic pastoral dramas about mate selection. You want someone with the same level of talent writing about today's dramas. The coaching problem is a huge one today, and many of "those old guys" saw what happened when good coaching disappeared in other companies and don't want to see the same thing happen to their home company. "Fling 'em out there and see what happens. SOMEBODY will like them" has been going on elsewhere for decades. It was good coaching as much as native talent that made dancers like Farrell and McBride. There is so much talent there -- Bouder, Fairchild, Korbes, Ansanelli -- one wants them to reach their full potential, and not ossify.

PUPPET SHOWAnyone go yet? Tobi Tobias writes about it in her Arts Journal blog:

Thanks, Ari! I split this off into another thread, in case other people had yet to weigh in on the opening night. A few brief notes: I thought there were some lovely things in Concerto Barocco -- I thought parts were very musical. But, like "serenade" last night, I thought it was too careful; wasn't a sweep to it. I've seen Baroccos that were both spiritual and exciting. The corps didn't seem very strong -- physically strong -- and the dancing had no force to it, especially in the "bloody toes" section. "Prodigal Son" seemed flat to me. I thought they were illustrating the story, going from picture to picture, rather than telling the story (which is something I often feel when watching a story ballet these days). I thought Kowroski could be very interesting as the Siren. Her body isn't standard to the role. There's a fragility about her, and she could be a spidery, predatory monster. I was grateful to see that the pas de deux wasn't done as a hoochy-goochy number, as it sometimes is elsewhere. But Piano Concerto......I was caught up in it. I liked Weese a lot: beautiful turns, and then BAM, snap to an arabesque, and HOLD. After her first solo, she had the audience, and I always find it exciting when that happens. I agree with Ari that Weese and Bouder are too similar to be ideal, but if the casting was because of an injury, well, things happen. I also agree that the ballets look rehearsed. Perhaps not coached and directed and whipped to a frenzy of artistic perfection, but they're not being sloppy!

The standard isn't past, present or future, it's quality. If you think everything you see is below standard, then you can't lower those standards to accommodate mediocrity. There were first-rate choreographers before Balanchine (and during his lifetime) and if I thought there wouldn't be first-rate choreographers again, I would stop going to the ballet! I'd also say that among the critics I read, I don't find any of them predictable. I'm constantly surprised that someone liked this, or didn't lke that. And I don't have a sense that anyone is saying, "if it's new, it's going to be bad." Often the opposite is true -- people are enthusiastic over any work that could be considered promising because people are so desperate for good new works.

A post on this thread was deleted and the poster notified by email. All opinions are welcome here, but in light of a post that had to be deleted, I thought a quick refresher on rules (if you haven't read them, please check the thread Rules and Policies conveniently located on our Rules and Policies forum) was in order. No personal attacks, please. Keep remarks to the work. Saying "I hated this article and never read anything that guy writes" is okay. Saying someone is a lousy writer, or a blowhard or that a review is predictably pusillanimous puffery is ok (though not encouraged because it's ever so much nicer to be polite!); that's opinion. But saying someone is a liar and a jerk and made off with the silver, for example, is a personal attack and not ok. No gossip -- no hearsay, nothing that we can't verify or that hasn't been in print, please. Saying "everyone knows that he fakes his injuries" or the like is not ok. Saying "The real reason she was fired" -- or hired, or benched, or cast in the lead -- is not ok. Unless this has been in print; if so, please provide a cite. If you have inside knowledge and genuinely wish to correct a mistatement, by all means, please do so! But we'd ask that you sign your post with your real name and state the source of your inside knowledge. If we can verify it, we'll let it stand. Sorry for the diversion. Back to the discussion! This has been an interesting thread. I hope we'll have more comments.

Many interesting points made on this thread, but I had to jump in on this one. Dirac, you've hit on one of the central problems for many people writing today. If you think you're seeing something that you consider an aesthetic outrage, if you feel passionate about it and you're writing about it, what do you do? Make the point once a season and not write about the company more than that (probably have the same effect: "he's always nagging them about x y or z"). Make the point occasionally? Say it once at the beginning of the season and then mention it every three weeks or so? Go out of your way to scream praise at one performance or new ballet that is, to your way of thinking, not an aesthetic outrage? I don't know a solution to this -- if someone has a suggestion I'd love to read it! As a writer, I know from experience that it is possible to look at work by someone whose work you generally detest on difference-of-aesthetic-opinion grounds and say, "wow, that one's good!" or at least "not as bad as it looked last season" and point out what you think are the improvements. But you can't control how people read you. It might be missed, because the writer has developed a reputation of "he's always beating up on poor Drekov!" or it may be considered an attempt at deception -- "Aha! She hates Drekov but she's going to praise the new baby ballerina to let you think she's being fair, but watch, she'll smash the same dancer two seasons from now;" which, of course, might happen, if Drekov performs according to spec! Re Gottlieb, I think it's been pointed out before that he writes for a very specific readership which probably expects both a polemical and a highly colored tone, and since writers adapt their writing to suit the publication for which they're writing, that may be one reason for the difference in tone between The Observer reviews and the Vanity Fair piece. I am much more temperate in what I write for the Washington Post (because the readership is huge) than I am in DanceView, a subscription-only publication read by dance fans, or in posts/conversations here. Because everything looks alike on the internet, distinctions are very easy to forget. You may read a newspaper review, a "think piece" (formerly known as an essay) in a small press literary magazine and a post and they all blend together, but seen in their original context, they sometimes make more sense.