Alexandra

That was a smart teacher, and a valuable lesson, but I think many people draw a simplistic conclusion from that experience. Namely, if A and B disagree and both are "critics" then the whole idea of criticism is stupid. (Obviously, I have a particular perspective on this question ) Whether it's arts or politics, one learns to tell which writers know what they're talking about, or are grinding an ax, or may disagree with you but have a sound perspective. Of course two reports of a baseball game can differ -- which team does the writer secretly (or not so secretly) prefer? Does the editor want to emphasize strategy, or the exciting, crowd-pleasing highlights?

Treefrog, if you were really content just to enjoy the forest as FOREST, you wouldn't ask the question I think there are also different levels of appreciation/critiquing -- and a lot of this is about "being right" and its opposite, the fear of "being wrong." If one accepts that, aside from misidenitying a dancer, or saying that "Swan Lake" was choreographed in 1923, there is no "being wrong," it helps. It is useful to find out what one likes, and why. Why do you and a friend who agree on 9 out of 10 things about life in general look at the same dancer and have two completely different reactions? How can you site there, transported, caught up in the atmosphere of a ballet, while the fellow across the aisle is snoring? Why do I think that last night was the nadir, the pits, the absolute worst possible performance of a ballet, when I read in the paper the next day, "Never before has Ballet been dance with such divine delicacy?" If your friend asks, so how was it? By this time s/he knows how to take your reviews, in the same way that you know whether or not to "beliieve" a particular critic -- this one hates story ballets, this one only likes modern choreography, this one seems to have a thing about Dancer Y. Etc. I understand what you're saying about scientific verification, and I agree. But there are differences in art, too. One very useful lesson I learned as an undergraduate was from a political science professor who said, when we were all being good little relativists and saying, "well, how can you judge him? It's all a matter of opinion?": "There are things that are matters of fact, and things that are matters of opinion." I think any observations can fit into a scientific model, any theory (or art or science) is only as good as the data. And so if one has only seen the Death Valley Ballet dance "Swan Lake" and thinks it's a 10, one may chance one's view when one sees the "Kirov." Now there are two samples, and one can compare.

There are occasionally courses here at the Smithsonian (I taught one last year), but they don't draw the turn out of 100-plus that is necesary to make money, and so are not frequently offered. Treefrog, I sympathize completely. I took a criticism course (with no intentions of being a critic) long ago because I wanted someone to teach me how to see. Actually, I wanted to learn how to see what wasn't there -- I thought I was doing fairly well on what WAS there, but kept reading "she's no Fonteyn," "the ballet is in total disrepair this season" -- there were times when I could SEE this, or sense it, but often I couldn't, though believed in the possibility. (I have to say I did not learn any of this from the course. The instructor, an excellent critic, taught it was a journalism/writing course, but didn't go into the analysis. He encouraged us to learn how to express what we were seeing. I had to do the rest of it on my own, and I did it by reading reviews and trying to see what the reviewers were seeing -- often I would dismiss them, sometimes wrongly, but often I learned something.)

It's definitely possible to separate out the elements, and using the same analysis that one would bring to a book or a painting. (I loved the book. Is it a good book? Is the writing -- imagery, style, use of the language -- fine? Is it a good plot? Does the setting advance/enhance the plot? Did I like the book most because I liked the main characters? Did I think it was good because it was a page turner, but it's not really literature? etc.) None of this is necessary in either viewing or reading, of course (as Calliope noted), but it is possible. I think the way to do it is to separate out these elements in your mind afterwards -- that will raise questions. And then, when you watch, be conscious of the process of watching. What are you seeing? Literally. Where are you looking? At the set? At the dancers? At THAT dancer? (And where on the dancer? Head, torso, feet, whole body?) Could you describe the choreography afterwards? If not, next time, try to focus on the choreography. What are they doing? What does it look like -- does it look like anything else you've seen? This will drive you crazy until it become second nature, and, truth to tell, you will miss some performances, in a way. Whenever you look at the leaves, you miss the pleasure of the forest. But if you just look and see "huh, forest. I've seen a forest before" (not saying YOU say that, treefrog) you miss the wildflowers at the base of the trees, the trees, the birds on the trees, the fact that there are, gosh, 55 different kinds of trees per acre, and the way the needles make a carpet underneath.

Thank you, Mel! I didn't realize that was the origin of the "B movie." I thought it was an analytical hierarchy (like "A list"), not a question of billing. As a historical note, slightly before Reagan's day (i.e., in the 19-teens) my aunt told me that going to "the pictures" cost 25 cents. This included 5 cents for the streetcar to go, and another 5 to come home; 5 cents for that double bill with the newsreel and short subjects; 5 cents for candy in the movie (bought from a vending machine attached to the back of the seat in front of you), and 5 cents for an ice cream soda on the way home.

To quote the late Senator Moynihan from a different context, "Terminological exactitude, gentlemen! Terminological exactitude!" I think Reagan is now remembered by the young only for "Bedtime for Bonzo" (which would be a B movie?) and not the others. This raised the question to me, what is a B movie today? Is there such an animal?

Mary Cargill interviewed Shelkanova for Ballet Alert! a year or two ago -- she had quite a story. (I was interested in her dancing, too, and, like Manhattnik, admired her in "Lilac Garden.") Mary, correct me if I'm misremembering, but she left the Kirov and lived in New York -- waiting tables. Had no hope of a dance career. But she would take class, and Baryshnikov saw her in class and encouraged her to dance again. I've always felt ABT would be a more interesting company if it used dancers like Shelkanova in solo roles -- and quite possibly ballerina roles -- than constantly looking for Whiz Kids. I was sorry she left.

I agree that "racism" wasn't a "crime" 150 years ago, but I also think that they weren't consciously acting with racist motives. In his description of "Far From Denmark" (in My Theatre Life) Bournonville was quite proud of the fact that the "Negro servants" in the Danish colonies were NOT slaves, but free servants. And the impetus for the ballet was from Gottschalk's "Negro Dance;" he was interested in its rhythms, and had to work to create a ballet -- a Danish ballet! -- that could use that tune. But it wasn't his intention to denigrate anyone, so I would argue that it wasn't, and isn't, racist. I have seen Africans -- or African-Danes -- in the audience at "Far From Denmark" performances, and those I remember were with a Danish friend. I thought that was interesting, too -- and something that wouldn't be possible here. I think it's possible to view those works within their own contexts, and hope very much that they stay alive until a day when we DON'T see them as "racist" because that very concept will be passe. Perhaps a vain hope....

Flemming Ryberg -- it was in an interview, so it's okay to say That's a good question, and I can't answer it, I'm afraid. I thought it was an interesting point of view, though, because the Bournonville ballets are controversial with many foreigners who find them "racist" (I don't; I think you have to view them in their time, but I think most people would disagree with me).

They use "Abdallah" for school education programs, I was told by one of its producers. There are a lot of Turkish families in Copenhagen, and there were field trips for Turkish children to see the ballet. "So that they know there is a place for them, too, in our society," as the producer said.

The turnout may have been wonderful everywhere, but there was not the same demand for tickets in New York. See the article posted on the first page of this thread, from the Stuttgart press: I think we've exhausted the topic, and am closing the thread.

CDM, your friend's experience may have resulted from a box office freeze -- when a house knows the season is in trouble, they may freeze sales for a few days before a cancellation announcement is made. All reports have been that the season was not selling -- including the company's statement.

Thank you, Calliope Why the ballet repertory has been reduced to A: A Thousand and One Swan Lakes and, B: Works Whose Only Notable Attribtue is That They Were Choreographed Last Week is one of the great mysteries of mankind. And says much more about the, er, breadth of knowledge of the current generation of artistic directors than about the ballet repertory.

Again, Doug will KNOW this and I only think I know it But I've read that Sergeyev wrote the ballets down before he left Russia. (And I've always assumed that the notes refer to the ballets as they were being staged in the teens, not the original productions.) Mme. Hermine, I think this was a 19th century balletmaster practice. They wrote down what they needed to; they weren't writing it down for someone else to stage. (And may well have guarded the notes very jealously; in the goodolddays you got to stage ballets because you could remember them) In Bournonville's case, many of the male roles are not notated, because Bournonville created them for himself and danced them, so he could rely on his memory.

Clive pointed out something on a panel discussion a few years ago regarding both Ashton and Balanchine, that when looking at their choreography for men, it must be remembered the level of male dancing generally -- beyond the stars, but at the soloist and demisoloist level -- that existed during the '40s', '50s and '60s. Meaning, when they had good men, they used them. I think the "speedy leg" problem is more related to tradition than gender-specific anatomy, and related more to selection of dancers than male musculature generally. For nearly 100 years, men were chosen to be porteurs; it became a self-fulfilling property. I think the reason that so many Danish men have been useful to NYCB is because the Bournonville training was the one Western tradition in which the men were NOT porteurs -- and have very speed legs, indeed -- and that's all related to citibob's point about muscle differences.

I hope Doug will answer, but regarding the Royal's versions, they werre originally SET by Sergeyev, and since they're his notes, I assume that, as was the custom, he wrote down what he needed to write down (Bournonville's notes are the same; there are whole sections of a ballet missing). It isn't that the Royal found the notebooks and took them as a text.

You're entitled Eifman does have a following. It's interesting that in England, opinions don't seem to have been so polarized. He was in the B-D range rather than A+ OR F.

The tradition had a reason behind it -- not all women were on pointe at the beginning, either, and there was a distinction between demicaractere work (which was often on demi-pointe) and character work (which is in shoes or boots). Only fairies and other worldly creatures were on pointe; there was a point to it. As pointework developed, it became associated with the feminine -- part of "feminine beauty and delicacy." (Look at all the old lithographs with a tiny little thing balancing on a flower.) There is, too, the theory that men, being heavier (usually) than women, have trouble working from so small a base. It may be because they start pointe late, but I've never seen a man in one of the drag companies whose pointework was something I'd like to see outside of a humorous context It was Balanchine that made put pointework (nearly) everywhere, and he also is quoted to have liked a "speedy leg." "Boys don't have a speedy leg," he said. [curiously, I just read the exact same quote attributed to Bonfanti 100 years ago; it must have been part of the tradition. Boys are made to jump and lift; have bulky muscles. Girls have speedy leg.]

Good question! Sometimes there is epaulement in the choreography, and sometimes there's epaulement in the choreography that's ignored when it's rehearsed I've been told by dancers in two American companies that in rehearsal, there isn't time to do more than learn the steps, and all attention is paid to feet, so that's one reason. There are some companies, though, who have epaulement as a part of their style. The Kirov still does, at least in Petipa. (Should one intrude epaulement into one's Neumeier repertory? Interesting question....) I haven't seen Paris enough to know whether epaulement is really slipping there. The more contemporary work a company does, though, the more foreign epaulement is goinig to be to the dancers' bodies.

I don't think they were trying to be topical. That was one of Frank Andersen's acquisitions the last time he was balletmaster, and was out of repertory when he was out of power. Now that he's back, the ballet is back.

The Balanchine bio ballet story has also been in print -- in Dancing Times.

You might do a search for Bournonville, Maria. We've had many discussions about his ballets on this board (And it's fine to start a new one too, of course. The search button is at the top right of the board.)

That's an interesting comment, Mel. I've been thinking it's the opposite -- that when I first became interested in ballet it was usual for dancers to continue into their mid-40s, even corps dancers, and Balanchine was chided by some for losing interest in dancers at 35, now it seems that dancers are retiring earlier and earlier. Perhaps it's a bit of both? Less crippling injuries early on, which would go along with what you're saying, but fewer opportunities for mature dancers in today's pedal to the metal choreography?

I've copied this over from Links: Robert Greskovic reviews Eifman's latest opus in today's Wall Street Journal. Rush out and buy a copy The text is available online only to subscribers, but here's an excerpt: The review also mentions that Eifman has been commissioned to do a ballet for NYCB next year in honor of the Balanchine centennary and concludes: "Whether the outcome will be one of Mr. Eifman's lighthearted creations or one of his more tragic depictions, the chances that it will be a ballet worthy of Balanchine's memory are about as likely as those for dodging the bullets of mobster hit men in gangland fiction."

I agree with Mel, but I also understand the interest in who will be The Next Big Thing. It's human nature. We're always looking for a new talent, and then yesterday's "new talent" (now all of 18) gets shoved aside, and by the time the Hot Ones are 24, we're tired of them. Still dancing Giselle? Gosh, she's been doing that for eight years! But we'll all keep on doing it