Alexandra

Thank you for that, Jeannie! I've heard reports from several people who were also disappointed in the dancers -- too many competitions so that the talent is spread too thin? This won't add anything, I fear, but here's the official press release announcing the winners, just for the record. June 30, 2003 For Immediate Release NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL BALLET COMPETITION ANNOUNCES 2003 RECIPIENTS OF MEDALS AND OTHER PRIZES AT THE AWARDS CEREMONY/GALA PERFORMANCE SUNDAY JUNE 29, ALICE TULLY HALL The 2003 NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL BALLET COMPETITION came to an exciting conclusion Sunday June 29th with the announcement of the winners and a performance at Alice Tully Hall/Lincoln Center. Medalists this year are: MEN CESAR MORALES CHILE GOLD OGULCAN BOROVA TURKEY GOLD KRISTOFFER SAKURAI DENMARK SILVER J0NATHAN JORDAN USA BRONZE ALEXEI AGOUDINE RUSSIA BRONZE WOMEN NO GOLD LUDMILLA PAGLIERA ARGENTINA SILVER VICTORIA JAIANI GEORGIA BRONZE CAITLIN VALENTINE USA BRONZE KATHLEEN BREEN COMBES, USA, RECEIVED THE LEFKOWITZ AWARD FOR ARTISTIC ACHIEVEMENT LUDMILLA PAGLIERO, ARGENTINA, ALSO RECIPIENT OF A SILVER, RECEIVED THE IGOR YOUSKEVITCH AWARD, A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH AMERICAN BALLET THEATRE (selected by Kevin McKenzie) CYNTHIA GREGORY also received an honorary Gold Medal for her participation,e ither as teacher, coach, member of the Jury, or President of the Jury, in every NYIBC since its inception 20 years ago. Her Medal was awarded by Roni Mahler. TONY RANDALL was host for the Awards Ceremony; ILONA COPEN is founder/director of NYIBC; ELEANOR D'ANTUONO is Artistic Director. The 2003 Jury consisted of: NATALIA MAKAROVA (USA) President of the Jury FRANK ANDERSEN (Denmark), Artistic Director, Royal Danish Ballet BORIS EIFMAN (Russia), Artistic Director, Eifman Ballet KAREN KAIN (Canada), Associate Artistic Director, National Ballet of Canada ELISABETH PLATEL (France), Paris Opera Ballet GUSTAVO MOLLAJOLI (Argentina), Artistic Director, Ballet do theatro Municipal do Rio de Janeiro DAME MERLE PARK (England), former Director, Royal Ballet School RUDI VAN DANTZIG (The Netherlands), former Artistic Director, Dutch National Ballet. During the 2-week preparation period that preceded the public Competition, June 25-29 at Alice Tully Hall, the dancers learned which three pas de deux had been chosen.for this year. They each came with a solo of not more than 3 minutes, which some were invited to dance on Friday night and at the Gala on Sunday night. The three pas de deux were: KERMESSE IN BRUGES by Bournonville, taught and coached by Thomas Lund and Eva Kloborg of the Royal Danish Ballet MAZURKAS by Jose Limon, taught and coached by Roxane D'Orleans Juste of the Limon Company SHADES PAS DE DEUX FROM LA BAYADERE, taught and coached by Martine van Hamel. As always, the Competition was attended by directors of ballet companies all around the country. Even Broadway's "Movin' Out' moved in on NYIBC - the show sent representatives to watch the dancers in class and rehearsal, and offered private auditions to two of the entrants.

Calliope posted: I've noticed that too, Calliope. It could be that the tour presenters get to set the program. But I've wondered, too, if there isn't a Danish twinge to this. The Danes, too, see Bournonville as a calling card, but, more and more in the past 2 decades, something for the international press, not for home consumption. There, both the audience and the dancers will say they're sick of Bournonville. It's a love-hate thing. Every time the company is in disarray, if you do a critic-in-the-street or person-in-the-street interview and say, "What should the company do to get back on track?" the answer will invariably be, "Bournonville, Bournonville, Bournonville." But if they really do go back to Bournonville, then there are screams that it's too much. I don't see the situation in New York that way. I don't sense that either the dancers or the audience are tired of Balanchine. Nor the critics. So there doesn't seem to be an external pressure to put Balanchine into that great, horrid Heritage Bin as is happening elsewhere. My take on the season is that it's disappointing -- and puzzling, since expectations were obviously so high. Perhaps that wasn't realized? I don't mind having new ballets, but my disappointment is that there aren't revivals, nor imaginative programming that would make the company and audience look at Balanchine differently. Do some programs by date order, say, then mix up the ballets by theme. A program that puts three or four ballets that "all look alike" force one to see the differences (presuming there are, and with Balanchine, I think there are). Perhaps the company felt this is what they'd done for the earlier Balanchine celebration and they wanted to do something different. I will say I'm not sure it's fair to blame this on the marketing department. Their job is usually to sell what's presented to them.

For those who are disgruntled at the Balanchine Celebration plans, if you ruled the world, what would you do this season?

I think that's a very good point, and part of the problem that ABT never had a resident choreographer who was interested in the language of classical dancing in the way Ashton and Balanchine were. Bujones was certainly a polished classical dancer, by any standard, but it was a generic kind of classicism rather than a specific one, like the styles that WERE developed, mentioned in the Telegraph article (which must be by Ismene Brown; it sounds like her, she's their main writer, and it accompanies an interview with Acosta that she conducted). I think it's telling that when you ask people to name an American male dancer they'll think of Astaire or Kelly -- both great dancers, certainly, and both recognizably American, but not ballet dancers.

I agree, and I think that whenever a generalization about "English style" or "Russian style" or whatever takes that into account. (There are English dancers who would never be mistaken for Anthony Dowell!) Kathleen, by "presenational" versus "dancing" I was actually thinking of Gene Kelly and Broadway dancing generally -- which is certainly an American style, and the style of some ballet dancers (Jacques D'Amboise leaps to mind ) -- while trying to distinguish this from a classical dancing style. Unfussy -- unpolished. Different way of looking at it. (Kelly is great in Broadway dancing, but when he tried to do ballet, he looked like a soft shoe man to me.)

If you've been following this forum and wondered what happened to the posts on the Red Tent, I've split them off and started another thread. Perhaps at this point, since we've all posted our reading lists, if we have one particular book that we're reading, it could be a new topic -- that would encourage discussion of that book, and more people would notice that the discussion is ongoing.

NYCB will bring a Balanchine-only season to Washington next year -- its first appearance here in many years.

Thanks to kfw for this link to an article by Jean Battey Lewis in the Washington Times about last weekend's Dance Critics Association conference. The NYTimes' John Rockwell spoke about what Howell Raines had meant to the Times' arts criticism. Much to discuss here, I think. Here's a taste: And here's a link to the full article

It's just that they don't suck blood and don't have a neck fetish.

I think that's a good point -- in the 19th century, I'm sure it didn't go unnoticed, although the stage picture was probably pretty rather than ghoulish. As you probably know, there were dozens and dozens of 19th century ballets with different fairy folk as its heroines -- peris, fairies, naiads, dryads, wilis, sylphs -- all different, though we don't "see" that and sometimes use the terms interchangeably for "otherworldly creature." (Not to mention the gnomes, trolls, brownies, elves and leprechauns. Those forests were rich in folklife.)

Miami City Ballet does a Balanchine festival every year, in effect; nearly it's entire rep is Balanchine. San Francisco Ballet will do a substantial Balanchine repertory. Ballet Arizona (Ib Andersen's company) will do two full programs in the spring. One could do very nicely (if one had the time and money) following Balanchine around the country

Re Broadway, Balanchine worked on Broadway; so did nearly every other choreographer of that time. But he influenced Broadway, I'd suggest, not the other way around, and he knew the difference between Broadway and ballet. When he paid a tribute to Broadway -- "Who Cares?" -- it was a ballet. Ms. Stroman's work may well be a ballet too, of course -- we won't know until we see it.

Learn something new every day. I'm reading about the history of New York theaters, and in a book called "Gotham, a History of New York Life to 1898" I learned the following fascinating (to me) fact: In the 19th century, theater owners gave free tickets to prostitutes and they hung out in the "third tier," where men with an interest could find them out and enjoy them during the show. Society frowned on the third tier, and "respectable women" would not attend the theater because of it. The Park Theatre (where Fanny Elssler danced) was the first to clean up the third tier, changing its name to the Family Circle. Others reluctantly followed, eventually. But the person who once and for all made theater squeaky clean was....P.T. Barnum, who deliberately pitched his events to women and families. So when you buy a ticket to the Family Circle, do take a minute to think of what it was like in The Good Old Days. (I wonder what the Fourth Ring Society was like? )

I can't help, John-Michael, but I wanted to say welcome back -- we've missed you!

Agree, Mel. Agree, agree, agree Also, the situation below the top institutional rank is so very fluid. An artistic director moves, a donor dies or puts his money elsewhere, and the situation changes. When doing the calendar for Ballet Alert! we try to include about 40 companies -- not saying they're "the top," just the largest, anything above "We do Nutcracker and a kid's show every spring" companies.

Hans, I think you've made some excellent points -- it would be hard to define an American style for men, even at NYCB. And NYCB doesn't define American ballet exclusively. I also think your point that the schools are more concerned with style than the companies is a good one, although I think the Kirov and Paris still care about company style, especially for the corps. Anna Kisselgoff once wrote a piece about how there's no such thing as national style; it's all related to choreographers, and in a way I think that's true. The Danes' style was related to Bournonville; Royal, Ashton; Bolshoi, Lavrovsky; Kirov -- well, is it really Petipa? It's changed so. And Paris.....well, Paris now IS its style. They haven't had a great resident choreographer consistently turning out works in the native language since 1820.

There are several mid-sized companies not on that Top 20 list, including, in addition to Ballet Met: Alabama Ballet (former ABT star Wes Chapman is director); Ballet Austin (Stephen Mills, director); Ballet Arizona (former City Ballet and Royal Danish star Ib Andersen, director); Ballet San Jose Silicon Valley (Dennis Nahat, director) Oakland Ballet (Karen Brown, former DTH dancer, director)

I can't resist. This calls for a poll. Please feel free to expound upon your answer below, including what you like about the season as announced, what you would do differently if you ruled the world, etc.

Jeannie -- hello! I can't believe you came back all this way to see this Thanks for the information and I hope you give us a full report!

At a press conference this afternoon, the company announced the details of the 2003-2004 season. (Mary Cargill attended the conference and gave me this information over the phone; she'll add more detail later.) There will be 164 performances, 81 ballets. The Winter Season is called "Influences" and has lots of full-lengths: Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty, Harlequinade, Coppelia, Jewels, Nutcracker. It centers on the choreographers that influenced Balanchine -- Petipa, Bournonville, Ivanov, Fokine. There will be a few of Balanchine's early ballets in this part of the season. AND a new full-length by Susan Stroman, a story ballet with Broadway tunes. The Spring Season is "Music" and divided into European, American and Russian sections. The European (25 ballets, 20 by Balanchine) includes a World Premiere by Christopher Wheeldon. The American (14 ballets, 5 by Balanchine) is mostly Robbins and Martins and will include a Martins World Premiere. And the Russian section (25 ballets, 17 by Balanchine) will include a one-act work by Boris Eifman (who attended the press conference) to selections from Bach and the final movement of Tchaikovsky's Fourth Symphony.

At the press conference this afternoon, it was announced that: Sofiane Sylve will be joining the company in Fall 2003 as a principal. Joaquin DeLuz will be joining the company in September 2003 as a soloist.

Thank you for that, Alymer -- this is a company we hardly ever hear about. We do have some members who live in this area, so if you saw this production, I hope you'll chime in. It sounds as though the company has a Prince problem (although you note that, though not ideal, both made something of the role). And I note from the names that this, too, is no longer a predominantly British company, at least a principal/soloist level. I'm curious about the audience -- was the house full? Did they like such an old-fashioned production? (I'm being half tongue-in-cheek with the "old-fashioned." I gather every character was the same gender he or she had been created a century ago, and that Freud took the night off?)

Thanks for this, Terry. It's amazing the number of competitions there are these days! (I wasn't aware of this one, and so was glad to learn of it.) I hope the winner gets a big bottle of champagne

I've always assumed that Acocella is doing what Croce did, especially at the end of her tenure, namely, write only about things she feels are significant, not try to cover dance in New York as Tobias once did at New York magazine -- a broad range of genres, good, bad and indifferent. I understand the reasoning, but I also would like to read about dance more regularly. I agree with Thalictum. I don't think they're saying "No! Only four (six, whatever) dance pieces a year." I remember beiing puzzled about Croce's lack of coverage when she didn't review the Stuttgart. There was the Blast at Stuttgart (in Ballet Review) and one article, that didn't make it into the early collections, in the New Yorker, and then it was as though they didn't exist. I remember thinking at the time that it was a shame she didn't continue to write about them, even if it was to pose a "continuing objection," as lawyers say in a different context. That was the heyday of the Stuttgart in New York, and I always thought people would think it odd if they came, new to dance, two years after Croce had written her Stuttgart Pronouncement Piece and wondered why it wasn't covered. On the other hand, as an editor I'm sympathetic to the notion that there are some writers who are best when they're writing about something that engages their imagination and if you're putting out a magazine where writing, not news or sound bites, is important, then that's a consideration. Back to this article, I thought she made some excellent points. I didn't see it as Martins-bashing -- especially considering other recent articles elsewhere that have been discussed here but, as carbro did, to put him in context. The notion that Robbins was brought in as an alternative to Balanchine was certainly talked about in the 70s. Remember that the NYCB, when at City Center, had all those character and demicaractere ballets that were pretty much discarded when it moved to Lincoln Center, and there was an audience for those works. I think that's why Tudor was brought in briefly, and why Kirstein went after Ashton for two ballets, as well. We now like to think of single-choreographer companies, but at the time, still in the wake of the Ballet Russe, and trying to deal with a multitude of styles and sort out ballet's heritage, it was more of a mixed bag -- but of ballets generated from within, not purchased at Ballet Wal-Mart.

I thought that too, FF -- but a nicely anachronistic article still, to my was of thinking I think there has been a blending, but there are still discernible elements of style. Or is it another generational divide? Those who remember what the stylistic differences were will see vestiges of them, and those who didn't/don't will wonder what the fuss is about? Perhaps if people write about the differences it will encourage dancers and audiences to celebrate those differences? Or is that just dreaming ?