Alexandra

Thanks to Paul Parish for these scans of Valentine Hugo's drawings of Isadora that he scanned to use in the Isadora Duncan Awards program book (an awards program in San Francisco with which Paul is involved).

Andrei, I think that's a good point. We do think that hard work can achieve anything -- and we also want it NOW. None of this "study for ten years" stuff. And we don't educate people to be audiences. Perhaps this is part of the 18th century philosophy of the time of our Revolution -- Rousseau's idea that children will become educated when they want to. We learn a bit about poetry and painting and music in school -- at least I did -- and we are taught that Shakespeare, Beethoven and Rembrandt are considered great artists, and we're taught at least a bit about why. But we're not taught the same rules and systems of judgment for dancing, and so we're left to our own devices -- and I think that's the main reason for some of the disagreements that ballet fans (both on or off-net) get into. As is often said here, in one form or another, in a quote usually attributed to Balanchine: "Ballet [and this could be any art] isn't for everybody, but it is for anybody."

Hans, I think Isadora's use of barefoot was part of the going back to nature, shedding as much clothing as possible, feeling the earth; that was what I meant by being more honest. (I just read what Bonfanti thought of Isadora, and it wasn't pretty ) Ann, in America, Isadora is a Goddess, the First Mother. At American colleges and universities, a two-semester dance history course dispenses with ballet during the first semester; it takes dance from whenever to the death of Diaghilev. Then in the second semester, it begins with Isadora, and goes through the Moderns. So your view of her may have been colored by geography, as has mine. There is one Duncan scholar who has her classes notated; can't get them published (she called me once, to see if I knew a publisher who would be interested). I believe the reconstruction that I saw was from notes of one of the Isadorables, but whether they were contemporary or from memory, I don't know. I agree with Mel, though, that there are Duncanites who can reconstruct some of her works with some accuracy, and it's done periodically. There are also several solo performers who specialize in Duncan dancing.

Interesting point, mbjerk. I think because until recently both the popular and the serious sides of the art/entertainment divide understood each other and respected each other. There are hierarchies. Shakespeare is better -- deeper, richer, better writing, higher aspirations -- than a TV sitcom. I don't understand the point of hurling "elitist" at this viewpoint. Balanchine, Robbins, Tudor and Ashton all worked in popular theater, and respected it, but they knew the difference between what was appropriate there and what was appropriate in an opera house. I think today there are people whose background in the arts is so poor -- because of the education system, because mbjerk is the unusual parent, and because of the incessant hammering of popular culture -- ARE ill-equipped to deal with high art, and that is a tragedy. What is it now, 30 percent, 40 percent, of Americans go to college, but are they better educated? In high school you learn how to ace standardized tests, in college you learn how to make big bucks. The creators of the Flintstones obviously had higher aspirations and better backgrounds Calliope, I think teachers are responsible for making Shakespeare make sense to you, or to at least impress upon students that it's important to try to find a way there. I remember being horrified in GRADUATE SCHOOL, in a seminar on Renaissance literature, a discussion of "The Fairy Queen" drew this response from a classmate (who had graduated from St. John's, arguably the most classical education in America): "He should, like get a life. Who wants to read this crap?" The professor was not nice. And when he was finished, at least half the class clapped.

Perfect Performer, yes. Isadora thought the dancing she saw (in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) was sterile, and wanted to go back to the beginning of Western civilization -- which she saw as the Greeks. She wore loose-fitting costumes -- which was considered scandalous at the time -- modeled on Greek dress and danced barefoot, because that was "more honest." She also danced to already composed, symphonic music -- another scandal. She danced solos. She was one of the most astounding performers ever. She wrote an autobiography -- if you're young enough for your parents to check what you're reading, let them see it before you read it There's also a book about the early American modern dancers called "Where She Danced," by Elizabeth Kendall that I think is a good and easy read. Isadora had taken ballet lessons, but there wasn't much ballet in America then, and what she saw probably wasn't very good. Her claims that ballet was inexpressive could be debated (and have been). When she went to Russia and saw Pavlova and Kschessinska, she could see that they were of a calibre of dancer that she had not seen before, and found that they were expressive. Some say she was a great influence on Fokine's choreography -- he said no, that he had been working along the same lines before Duncan, and saw her as a kindred spirit. She started a school and eventually had a company (the dancers were called The Isadorables). At the beginning of this century in America, girls took "free dancing" classes. For a long time, she was regarded mostly as a dancer and social influence (she wrote editorials; there's a terrific one, saying that if men dressed in togas there wouldn't be any more crime!) rather than a choreographer, but that's been debated recently, too. She was such a powerful performer it LOOKED as though she was improvising, but many Duncanites feel that there was a strong structure there. I saw a reconstruction of a group dance last year, danced by college students, and I thought it was wonderful. Very simple, and very powerful. Wave after wave of women in red (tunics, of course) crossed the stage, carrying red flags. They all died, slowly, magnificently, and as they died, someone would rush on and take the flag. The dance continued until they were all dead, the flag down, and then they rose up and rushed to the front of the stage. Isadora believed in Lenin and the Russian Revolution, as did many intellectuals and artists of her day. She wanted everyone to be free, and to dance free. Her line "I see America dancing..." has become a mantra for American modern dance. It's kinda hard not to love Isadora Read about her.

I liked it that Plagen didn't try to defend high art -- doing so admits the battle is low, and he's not ready to do that yet, it seems. I think newspaper/magazine editors should be shamed into covering the arts, that those with the voice to do so should castigate them for turning Arts sections into People magazine. I wish all of the arts institutions with education programs would, IN ADDITION TO their outreach programs for the underprivileged would try to reach out to college students, make it easy for them to get to performances, make it affordable, provide informational material to try to shore up their backgrounds. That's where the next generation of editors will come from, and they will be clueless.

Ari put up this link on Links, but I wanted to put it here, too, for discussion. Peter Plagens in Newsweek writes In Defense of High Art I certainly have no problem with either Plagens' definitions or observations (although I'd say that much of the new ballet and modern dance I see is much more pop than fine art, and many of the pressures to be Kewl and Non-Elite are being played out within the fine arts too). What do you all think of this? Are we trodding down an eternal Pop Art highway? Is there a way to save fine art? Does anyone here ever have to apologize for liking ballet, or opera, or reading serious books?

I do hope we'll get reports of these performances -- Van Dantzig's "Romeo and Juliet" is not often performed here, so I'm quite curious to hear what people think of it, and to get an idea of what it is like.

Blackbird Ballerina, Isadora would not be happy being called a "ballerina." She hated ballet, saying it was inexpressive (she hadn't seen very much of it) and is widely considered the Mother of Modern Dance, so you should take her remarks in that context She was a fascinating woman -- you might be interested in readiing about her. She was the most famous dancer of her era, and one of the greatest dancers of the 20th century.

We have a mystery -- there was a thread on the upcoming SAB workshop that had several responses, and it disappeared sometime yesterday evening. It was not a problem thread, and it was not deliberately deleted -- nor even accidentally deleted by someone trying to edit a post, or move or split a thread, etc. We don't know what happened. I'm putting up this first, to allay fears that someone had made an imprper post -- no! no problems -- and secondly to try to restart the discussion. I forget who started the thread -- I think it was Dale -- but if someone could repost the program, we could start discussing it again. Thank you!

Thank you, Sergey

I think in the 19th century it was less difficult for several reasons. One, the company's existence was secure. They had horrible problems, never enough money, etc. It wasn't at all Nirvana. But if the ballet master was hired on a five-year contract, he had the job for five years. And the people doing the hiring seemed to know what they were doing -- you don't have the fiascos that happened in London or Copenhagen in the past decade. They knew the taste of the audience and what they wanted the company/theater to be, and there was a reliable network of people to advise (some of the letters are quite funny. "I am sending you M. B----. He is an excellent character dancer and teacher of the youngest students. He will tell you that he is a premier danseur noble and a teacher of the class de perfection; do not believe him." And they didn't. But the other thing is that there was a generally accepted formula for what ballet was -- the story ballet, whether it was Classical with mythological characters and heroes, or Romantic with fairies and/or character ballets with local color. That's what the audience expected, and that's what it got. I don't mean to minimize the talent that it took to fulfill these repertory demands, and there were hacks then, as now, but a barely competent choreographer could do this. Someone else wrote the libretto; he basically just followed orders -- the way, now, so many people who could not make a ballet from scratch churn out new improved Swan Lakes - or Romeo and Juliets and Nutcrackers. The structures of both are iron; you need to add dances, and anyone who teaches can string steps together. Also, of course, in the 19th century they stole unabashedly

Thanks Baletoman. I'm not sure how many people we have from Manchester, so if you don't get a fellow audience member's response, that's why -- but we're very glad you posted your review, and hope you'll keep us informed of what you're seeing. Welcome!

Historically, the ballet master was the company director until very recently -- Balanchine was doing what every ballet master had done for centuries: trained dancers and furnished the repertory. The advantage is exactly what treefrog noted -- unity of style, and (at least in theory) the ballets are danced exactly as the director wants them to be danced. In the old European theaters, fundraising was not an issue, management was done by the theater staff. Ballet shared a theater with opera, and, in some places, theater and orchestra as well. When a new ballet master was hired, he (very rarely a she) threw out anything in the rep he didn't like, rechoreographed what was there to his liking, brought in whatever were the hits wherever he had just come from, and created his own ballets. (As late as 1950, the Royal Danish Ballet was run by one man, the director/choreographer, his regisseur -- who did the scheduling -- and a secretary. The director took company class as well as a class for the 16 to 17 year olds every day, attended the administrative meetings, chose the repertory, choreographed new works and maintained his own, kept up the traditional repertory, and handled all internal administrative matters. And they danced as many performances as they do today.)

Watermill, I love your Shakespearean horrors. They bear witness to the fact that, no matter how bad you think it's gotten, They are out there, working tirelessly to insure that you are wrong. I wrote a Swan Lake piece once (several computers ago, so it no longer exists) in honor of a Kennedy Center season which boasted no less than SEVEN productions in one season. (The person who programmed the dance offerings then obviously believed in the "Swan Lake Sells" school of thought.) It seemed funny at the time, but everything I wrote has come true in the intervening 15 years, except that the Bring Back Benno! movement has stalled badly. (The piece was about a Swan Lake convention with Swans from all over the world as delegates. Several were "interviewed" and told about their very own home versions -- and how they got to the Kennedy Center.)

Welcome, Camille! Thanks for posting -- and I hope you'll report on other performances you see, and take part in our discussions. Has anyone else seen this one? We're having a few Degas ballets here, too, because of a recent exhibit of the paintings that's been traveling around.

I'd explain the difference this way. When the Kirov dances these ballets, they're dancing in their native language; they grew up with the ballets, and they still believe in the technique and style associated with them. They've adapted the ballets over time to suit their tastes and the tastes of their audience. They've become so concerned with the technique and style, that it has become the central point (and beauty) of the ballets. When ABT dances them, they're dancing in a different language, and having to deal with different traditions. The dancers themselves come from many schools, not one school, so they're all learning something new. There isn't the same time spent on the style of these ballets -- and the company's trademark is that it does practically every existent style. The look of the two companies are very, very different -- see the threads in Discovering Ballet on styles of the different companies.

When I taught aesthetics, I had my students keep notebooks, and this might be something that some of you might want to try. I had them write down, on day one, what their aesthetic was. What they liked -- not examples, but principles. "I like modern dance." "I hate story ballets." "Structure is important to me." "I cannot tolerate sloppy technique," etc. I also asked them that if this were their last night on earth and they were in a city that had 1000 theaters, showing anything they could possibly imagine in dance, past or present, what would they choose to see. (One of my favorite students gave a terrific answer: "If this is my last nigiht on earth and I know it, then I will want to see something that reaffirms my humanity." He's a choreographer now, and his dances affirm his humanity.) Then they kept notes on what they read throughout the course, and what they saw. I didn't care what the notes were, just that they were to become conscious of what they were thinking. The final exam was to write their aesthetic. On the last day, we discussed the whole process. They got a lot out of it, or at least they said they did. And although the aesthetics got more specific, and they had to deal with WHY they liked this or didn't like that, they didn't change. They could just verbalize their preferences more precisely, and more easily. They also found out a lot about themselves. One young woman, a rather didactic sort, who worshipped the Early Moderns, especially Graham, came to the conclusion that she was a classicist, which disturbed her -- how can you be a modernist AND a classicist? Well, what was Graham? And learning that made her more relaxed about her likes and dislikes. (Before, she'd worry that it was odd she liked something that others would label "classical.") To me, the labeling is important WHEN YOU'RE LEARNING or building your aesthetic. I would say, "Be able to put everything in a box with a label on it for the movers. You might take things out of one box and put them in another, or break one box in two, or merge them. Fool around with this until you think you have a systematic view of the world of dance/art. THEN you can store those boxes, or smash 'em and mix everything up, do whatever you want. But you'll always know where they came from, and that will help you see things more clearly. For what that's worth

It is quite variable. I had one piece, a very long one, published the quarter after I submitted it, and another waited for two years. I think that's a general experience. Reviews take precedence, I would imagine, because they are more time sensitive, but interviews aren't. It's all part of Ballet Review's charm

I just got an email from the Eifman PR person noting two unannounced cast changes from last night, as well as the casting for today: There were a couple of cast changes last night due to injuries: Natalia Povorozniuk played the role of Antonina Milyukova, and Sergei Zimin played the role of Youth/Prince/Joker. There are some additional cast changes for today's performance, in case you are interested: Tchaikovsky Albert Galichanin Tchaikovsky’s Double Alexey Turko Nadezhda von Meck Maria Abashova Antonina Milyukova Nina Zmievets Youth, Prince, Joker Sergei Zimin

I agree on both the thinness and the clone aspect. Their legs really did look like toothpicks.

I come to Eifman late. I've been hearing and reading about him for about ten years now, and nothing could live up -- or down -- to my expectations. How critics around the world can acclaim him as a great choreographer is beyond me, but I've also seen much, much worse. Maybe he was over the top once, but there wasn't anything in Tchakovsky, The Mystery of Life and Death that was new to me. Actually, it all seemed rather Seventies. All through the performance, I kept thinking, "But it's not as bad as"... Not as bad as Ben Stevenson's "Dracula" or Septime Webre's Sweet Honey in the Rock piece, or much of the New Now dance I've seen in the past 15 years. Not as bad as Neumeier at his worst, or even at his mid-range. A friend said it was "a poor man's Bejart;" probably an accurate assessment. But great? The second half added nothing to the first; it was as though he'd told the story and liked it so much he wanted to tell it again. And his musical sensitivities aren't mine (watching the "Serenade" section was especially rough). I didn't read the program notes before the VERY LATE curtain (and still haven't). I had heard so much about the Birds of Black Thought that I expected to see Big Black Birds flapping big black wings, and so missed them (I guess they were the black-clad lads that had a brief dance in the first half; I kept thinking of Massine's symphonic ballets during that bit.) I couldn't tell the Nympho Bride from Mme. Van Maeck when they were unclothed. I lost the story thread of the Doppelganger (equally tortured). And Eifman's idea of Tchaikovsky as a tortured, party boy with a stevedore's body isn't mine. The whole approach was rather simplistic, to me -- lots of psychological material without any real depth. And the choreography (a blend of classical and character dance) was simple, too. Lunge, turn, kick, turn, LIFT. The dancers. I've also read about how excellent the dancers are. I thought they were excellent performers, but not very good dancers. You couldn't have asked more of Albert Galichanin (Tchaikovsky). He held the stage, he had extraordinary stamina. I haven't seen anyone of the current generation of Kirov or Bolshoi -- or ABT -- dancers who could have been convincing in this role, or this mature. But he has a rather tight line, not very flexible in the legs and hips, and that could be said about most of the other men as well. There's no school; the Swans held up their right hands as though halting traffic, and splayed the fingers of the left. Turns were iffy throughout. But one could say that classical niceties are not Eifman's concern, and I will say this for them: I did not see a single dancer counting. They danced. Demographic note. It was not sold out, but there was a good turn out. I've never heard so much Russian at intermissions, including at performances of the Kirov and Bolshoi. The audience didn't seem very into it -- perfunctory applause, I thought. There was a very slow-moving, rather reluctant standing ovation at the end. Did anyone else go?

CASTING ANNOUNCED FOR FIRST TWO WEEKS OF AMERICAN BALLET THEATRE’S 2003 SPRING SEASON AT METROPOLITAN OPERA HOUSE World Premiere of HereAfter Scheduled for Friday, May 16 at 8 P.M. Guest Artist Alina Cojocaru to Make ABT Debut as Nikiya in La Bayadère on Saturday evening, May 10 Casting for the first two weeks of American Ballet Theatre spring season at the Metropolitan Opera House was announced today by Kevin McKenzie, Artistic Director. American Ballet Theatre’s spring season opens Monday, May 5 with a special opening night gala featuring ABT’s Principal Dancers. The program includes classical highlights from the season’s ballets and a performance of Within You Without You: A Tribute to George Harrison. The first two weeks of the season will be highlighted by the World Premiere of HereAfter on Friday evening, May 16 featuring Julie Kent, Ethan Stiefel, Ashley Tuttle and Angel Corella in the leading roles. Choreographed by Stanton Welch and Natalie Weir, HereAfter will include 120 members of the New York Choral Society performing on stage. Set to John Adams’ Harmonium and Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana, HereAfter features scenery and costumes by Santo Loquasto and lighting by Brian MacDevitt. Xiomara Reyes and Julio Bocca will dance the leading roles (Carmina Burana) in HereAfter at the Saturday, May 17 matinee. The ballet will be given seven performances through May 22. On Saturday evening, May 10, Principal Guest Artist Alina Cojocaru will make her debut with American Ballet Theatre in the role of Nikiya in La Bayadère. A principal dancer with the Royal Ballet in London, Ms. Cojocaru will dance opposite Angel Corella as Solor on the evenings of May 10 and May 12. Other role debuts in La Bayadère include Carlos Lopez as the Bronze Idol at the Saturday, May 10 matinee and Stella Abrera as Gamzatti on Saturday evening, May 10. The first of two repertory programs will be performed May 6 through May 8. The program will include Antony Tudor’s Offenbach in the Underworld, Stanton Welch’s Clear, Within You Without You and the Diana and Acteon Pas de Deux. On Wednesday evening, May 7, John Gardner, guest artist and former ABT Soloist, will perform the pas de deux from Tudor’s The Leaves Are Fading with Amanda McKerrow. Tickets for American Ballet Theatre’s 2003 spring season are on sale at the Metropolitan Opera House box office or by calling 212-362-6000. For more information, visit ABT’s website at www.abt.org. Casting subject to change. FIRST WEEK Mon. Eve., May 5, 6:30 P.M. OPENING NIGHT GALA LA BAYADÈRE, (Pas D’Action) _ Dvorovenko, Stiefel THE LEAVES ARE FADING Pas de Deux (adagio only) _ McKerrow, Gardner ESMERALDA Pas de Deux _ Herrera, Gomes HEREAFTER Carmina Burana (Estuans Interius) _ Corella DIANA AND ACTEON (pas de deux and coda only) _ Murphy, Carreño DON QUIXOTE Grand Pas de Deux, Act III _ Ananiashvili, Tuttle, Reyes, Bocca SWAN LAKE, (Act I Waltz) _ Belotserkovsky WITHIN YOU WTHOUT YOU: A TRIBUTE TO GEORGE HARRISON _ Corella, Kent, Stiefel, H. Cornejo, Reyes, Wiles, E. Cornejo, Tanatanit, Part, De Luz, Molina, Salstein, Reed, Hallberg, Stiefel, Murphy Tues. Eve., May 6, 8 P.M. OFFENBACH IN THE UNDERWORLD _ Ananiashvili, E. Brown, Abrera, Gomes, Reyes, Lopez CLEAR _ Kent, Corella DIANA AND ACTEON Pas de Deux _ Murphy, Stiefel WITHIN YOU WITHOUT YOU: A TRIBUTE TO GEORGE HARRISON - Company Wed. Mat., May 7, 2 P.M. OFFENBACH IN THE UNDERWORLD _ Dvorovenko, Saveliev, Abrera, Gomes, E. Cornejo, Radetsky CLEAR _ Kent, Corella DIANA AND ACTEON Pas de Deux _ Herrera, Carreño WITHIN YOU WITHOUT YOU: A TRIBUTE TO GEORGE HARRISON - Company Wed. Eve., May 7, 8 P.M. OFFENBACH IN THE UNDERWORLD _ Ananiashvili, E. Brown, Riccetto, Molina, Reyes, Lopez CLEAR _ Murphy, Gomes THE LEAVES ARE FADING Pas de Deux _ McKerrow, Gardner WITHIN YOU WITHOUT YOU: A TRIBUTE TO GEORGE HARRISON _ Company Thurs. Eve., May 8, 8 P.M. OFFENBACH IN THE UNDERWORLD _ Dvorovenko, Saveliev, Meunier*, Molina, E. Cornejo, Radetsky CLEAR _ Murphy, Gomes DIANA AND ACTEON Pas de Deux _ Herrera, Carreño WITHIN YOU WITHOUT YOU: A TRIBUTE TO GEORGE HARRISON - Company Fri. Eve., May 9, 8 P.M. LA BAYADÈRE _ Kent, Stiefel, Dvorovenko, H. Cornejo Sat. Mat., May 10, 2 P.M. LA BAYADÈRE _ Ananiashvili, Bocca, Murphy, Lopez* Sat. Eve., May 10, 8 P.M. LA BAYADÈRE _ Cojocaru+, Corella, Abrera*, De Luz SECOND WEEK Mon. Eve., May 12, 8 P.M. LA BAYADÈRE _ Cojocaru, Corella, Abrera . Tues. Eve., May 13, 8 P.M. LA BAYADÈRE _ Herrera, Carreño, Wiles Wed. Mat., May 14, 2 P.M. LA BAYADÈRE _ Kent, Stiefel, Dvorovenko Wed. Eve., May 14, 8 P.M. LA BAYADÈRE _ Ananiashvili, Bocca, Murphy Thurs. Eve., May 15, 8 P.M. LA BAYADÈRE _ Herrera, Carreño, Wiles Fri. Eve., May 16, 8 P.M. HEREAFTER (World Premiere) Harmonium _ Stiefel, Kent, TBA, Gomes; Carmina Burana _ Corella, Tuttle, TBA, Kent, DeLuz, H. Cornejo Sat. Mat., May 17, 2 P.M. HEREAFTER _ Harmonium _ Corella*, TBA, TBA, TBA; Carmina Burana _ Bocca*, Reyes*, TBA, TBA, Carreño*, Gomes* Sat. Eve., May 17, 8 P.M. HEREAFTER _ Harmonium _ Stiefel, Kent, TBA, Gomes; Carmina Burana _ Corella, Tuttle, TBA, Kent, De Luz, H. Cornejo -30- *Editors please note: first time in a role: Thurs. Eve., 5/8 _ Meunier (Queen of the Carriage Trade) in Offenbach in the Underworld Sat. Mat., 5/10 _ Lopez (Bronze Idol) in La Bayadère Sat. Eve., 5/10 _ Abrera (Gamzatti) in La Bayadère Sat. Mat., 5/17 _ HereAfter Corella in Harmonium; Bocca, Reyes Carreño, Gomes in Carmina Burana +Editors please note: first time in a role with ABT: Sat. Eve., 5/10 _ Cojocaru (Nikiya) in La Bayadère

I don't think you're seeing things, Mary J. Danilova tries and tries to show her, but Browne (or Emilia) doesn't get it. This is one scene to remember when you hear, "But she doesn't do it nearly as well as Danilova did."

It's the most interesting, though, if one permits one's own thoughts to be considered interesting I think, too, if we know our own Why, it helps in understanding that everyone else has a Why of his/her own. I do think that repetition -- and time -- are the only ways that that comes through. (Although I encountered nearly all the dancers in my Pantheon during my first season; I was very lucky to come to ballet when I did.) I hope others will join in in this discussion. Do you have measuring sticks? How do you make judgments? Sticking to the forest analogy, do you care that there are different kinds of trees? Or that a tree is different from a bush? (And that some of those mushrooms are poisonous ? ) And if so, how did you go about making those distinctions?