Alexandra

The definition I have always used for arabesque penchee is the same as the one in ABT's dictionary. It's also the word used to describe the entrance in Shades in every article I've read about it. http://www.abt.org/library/dictionary/index.html Jane, I think that's a very clear and sensible guideline. Dale made the same point -- lack of dynamics. (Leigh? Where's your Balanchine in Hollywood quote about building to climax?) If you start out screaming, there's nowhere to go. The idea of a ballerina being different in every act, revealing more of herself, or different aspects of herself, in every act, is one of the many things we're in danger of losing. Sometime this weekend I'm going to put up a series of threads on style -- company by company -- in the Discovering Ballet forum, in the hopes that we can have A CIVILIZED discussion of the differences. (And by that I mean, please cut the potshots at styles you don't like. There are ways to indicate stylistic differences without using words like "prissy" "gawky" "monstrous" or "hideous" etc., and we're going to find them ) I may have a thread on stylistic differences, too, and copy over some of these questions and posts. I'd like to chime in Makhalina, since I haven't yet. I only know the beautiful, young promising Makhlina, and after reading this thread, I think I'm glad! I remember her dancing as Medora and Lilac Fairy as being wonderfully expansive -- without distortion -- and creamy, every movement connected. And I saw one of her early Giselles (with Zelensky; I THINK it was his debut, an emergency at the Kennedy Center, when the regular partner was injured) that I admired very much. Very innocent and fresh -- with a weakness in turns, but that didn't matter to me. I count her as one of the lost.

I don't think anyone is saying "back to the 50s." The point is that the Royal Balle t had a continuous, 60-year tradition of dancing the ballet -- whether one likes it or not -- which has been replaced by a 1970s version in the style of another company. I think the reaction might be the same if the Kirov suddenly dropped its "Swan Lake" and replaced it with Balanchine's one-act verison? (They may well, within minutes, of course, replace it with Neumeiers'....) The reports I've read about the Kirov's attempts at restoration from those who dislike it don't look at the company's history with the ballet as a whole. They seem more to be "this isn't the version I grew up with and I don't like it." This is perfectly understandable, but I think there's a difference.

There is a new work by Villella. In a recent interview with a choreographer who had pitched his work there, I was told that the company has put a temporary moratorium on outside choreography while it consolidates its mission and its style. It's not a permanent moratorium. And I'd say this is a defensible idea. I agree on Midsummer II though. This is a bad idea, to me, that's gaining momentum. The second act is lovely -- perhaps too difficult for smaller companies to do? And the first act by itself is not only not what Balanchine intended, but it's not a complete ballet.

Administrative note: Since it came up, a note on "politics" generally. Any mention of the war -- an aside, an "our brave boys at the front" or "the poor beleaguered populace" or idiot/brave leaders; mentions of nationalities and characterizing them in connection with the war; snipes at, or applause of, actions at the United Nations; the validity or nonvalidity of protests -- anything will be deleted. I want this entire subject kept off the board. Like a good dinner party, we do not discuss politics or religion here. Leave your guns at the door. As it were [And my list is not an invitation to find loopholes. Anything means anything, defined as broadly as possible.] A discussion of the derivation of the word is perfectly acceptable, of course. But I don't want it to become an excuse or springboard for a wider discussion, and this includes coy non-mentions of it while mentioning it.

Here's part of what the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition) has to say about arabesque. Note that in Blasis's definition, he cites non-Arabic design sources. 1. Arabian, Arabic. 1842 Encycl. Brit. II. 693/1 The inglorious obscurity in which the Arabesque doctors have in general slumbered. 2. esp. Arabian or Moorish in ornamental design; carved or painted in arabesque (see B2). 3. fig. Strangely mixed, fantastic. 1848 DICKENS Dombey (C.D. ed.) 105 Surrounded by this arabesque work of his musing fancy. 1863 MRS. CLARKE Shaks. Char. xvi. 411 Launcelot is a sort of ‘arabesque’ character. B. n. [the adj. used absol.] 1. The vulgar Arabic language. Obs. 1770 W. GUTHRIE Geogr., Egypt (T.) The Arabick, or Arabesque, as it is called, is still the current language. 1796 MORSE Amer. Geog. II. 580 The vulgar language..is the Arabesk, or corrupt Arabian. [A.T.'s note, before we get hate mail: they don't mean "vulgar" as being coarse or nasty, but common, everyday -- i.e., nonliterary -- speech.] 2. A species of mural or surface decoration in colour or low relief, composed in flowing lines of branches, leaves, and scroll-work fancifully intertwined. Also fig. As used in Moorish and Arabic decorative art (from which, almost exclusively, it was known in the Middle Ages), representations of living creatures were excluded; but in the arabesques of Raphael, founded on the ancient Græco-Roman work of this kind, and in those of Renascence decoration, human and animal figures, both natural and grotesque, as well as vases, armour, and objects of art, are freely introduced; to this the term is now usually applied, the other being distinguished as Moorish Arabesque, or Moresque. 3. The figure described by the leading lines of the composition, in a drawing or painting. 1883 W. ARMSTRONG in Eng. Illus. Mag. 155/1 The same qualities, but with more freedom and a finer arabesque. 4. Ballet. A pose in which the dancer stands on one foot with one arm extended in front and the other arm and leg extended behind. 1830 R. BARTON tr. C. Blasis' Code of Terpsichore II. v. 74 Nothing can be more agreeable to the eye than those charming positions which we call arabesques, and which we have derived from antique basso relievos, from a few fragments of Greek paintings, and from the paintings in fresco at the Vatican, executed after the beautiful designs of Raphael. 1911 J. E. C. FLITCH Mod. Dancing iii. 42 One of her [sc. Marie Taglioni's] most wonderful attitudes was an arabesque which gave her the appearance of actually flying. 1928 A. L. HASKELL Some Stud. in Ballet 151 Everything in it depends on line, absolute precision of movement and the purity of the arabesque.

Thanks, Danja. Looks like an interesting season!

Yes, carbro, that's what I mean. I'm not trying to promote one national style over the other; I'm greedy. I want them all! And I think it's fine if someone ABSOLUTELY HATES one of them, and thinks that an arabesque MUST be this or that, and has definite ideas about feet, hands, line, heads, etc. The more definite ideas, the better! I do think it's important to recognize stylistic differences, and understand them, and I think sometimes today that's hard to do. So my comments were meant in that spirit.

Do you want to see a 6 o'clock in the entrance of the Shades too? (Gasping here. But that's okay, if that's what you like ) Leigh Witchel wrote about the Kowroski past-6 extension once that there are some dancers who really can't feel when they go over -- I'd buy that, but I'd add that's why God made little ballet masters. Re the height of an arabesque in "Les Sylphides," there had been a mid-century battle that was over just about the time I came to ballet that in "Les Sylphides," "Giselle" and "La Sylphide," one MUST do a low, 19th century Romantic arabesque. That had been Markova's trademark -- until people started writing that that's all she could do. (A lot of things in ballet have been lost, changed or "improved" because of similar comments. Many passages, even solos, in 19th century ballets were once off-pointe, for example, in demicaractere work.)

I have seen no news reports of changes -- staff being let go, etc.

Rachel, I'd argue that this is a difference in style. It's perfectly fine for you to dislike it, but I think it's important to realize that it isn't "wrong" or "bad." The Royal Ballet in that period was an excellent company. One of the differences between then and now -- aside from Extreme Technique, extensions, height of arabesque, etc -- was that the AIM was not to be overstretched never stretch a limb all the way, always leave a bit of room for more movement, otherwise the movement looked dead, finished. This was a conscious decision -- it was the look they wanted to achieve. Feet were also not, as they might put it, constantly "clenched." There was a distinction between pointe work and off-pointe work. Small footwork was emphasized. The torso was relaxed -- again, a conscious decision. It's not sloppy dancing. I don't see a stiff upper body, but a classical, rather than romantic one -- squared, rather than slopping shoulders, a raised torso, though not a pulled up one. Again, a matter of style. Line has been extended throughout the 20th century, from a very rounded one in the late 19th to the stretched-on-the-rack approach of today.

With apologies to both Phaedra and Makhalina, because we've gotten way off topic in the discussion of extensions, when they are, and when they are not, appropriaite, I offer the following excerpt from Alastair Macauley's piece on The Royal Ballet's new "The Sleeping Beauty" (Makarova's production) which addresses the issue very nicely, I think. " In another - more crucial - respect, the production makes less sense of the ballet than most. Until well into the early twentieth century, to raise a leg past hip height was not classical but merely acrobatic. Today, however, the Royal Ballet's women - like the Kirov's, like New York City Ballet's - frequently extend legs way above shoulder-height. The question is: when do we now find these extensions stylish in nineteenth-century ballets, and when not? No ballet company goes in for serious period authenticity in these matters, and yet some degree of period sense is needed: classical tutus, after all, are still worn. At several points in Beauty, even split-leg extensions can make an exhilarating effect; at others, even a shoulder-height extension seems to clash. Ideally, one would like to see dancers who can discriminate nicely: hip-height here, shoulder-height here, above-shoulder here, split here. Alas, Makarova has simply sanctioned maximum height passim - indiscriminately. And so, with most of the Auroras at Covent Garden, we now watch the Wedding adagio start to ludicrous effect. Aurora here takes her bridegroom's outstretched hand and extends her leg towards him. The opening of the leg in this developpe is a slow, formal gesture that need be no higher than waist-height, but which can still be eloquent as an underlining of his extended arm. But here Aurora stretches her leg up above his arm and past his head, as if (a) to give him a close-up of her calf (B) to let him have an unimpeded view of her knickers. Why do these ballerinas dance their romantic heroines in tutus at all, if they think they may as well keep exposing what lies beneath?"

I saw Asylmuratova in "Swan Lake" when the Kirov first came back to the States, on the cusp of glasnost. She was third cast, as I remember it, and we couldn't figure out why. I admired her dancing very much, including her Odette/Odile, although I think she's more an Odile than an Odette, not because of a lack of anything, but because her "voice" is a dark one. Alan M. Kriegsman, former critic for the Washington Post, wrote of her [in "Theme and Variations"] that she was "an orchid and not a rose." A story that some may find interesting. When "Backstage at the Kirov" first came out, there was a lot of excitement here about Asylmuratova, whom the film seemed to annoint as The Next Great Ballerina. The first thing I heard about her was from a colleague who saw the film before I did, and it speaks to how the aesthetic changes over time. "There's a new Kirov ballerina, and she's very liinear," he said. Hans, I don't know which British dancers you've seen with squishy legs and stiff upper bodies, but I don't think that's the traditional English style -- or at least, I wouldn't describe it that way. It may be a different way of looking at things, and in the interests of aesthetic diversity -- that no one style is the only style -- I wanted to quote from Alastair Macauley's piece on Makarova's staging of "The Sleeping Beauty" in the [London] Times Literary Supplement. (Makarova was reproducing the Kirov style of the 1970s.) "British dancers were suddenly adopting the unnatural faux-Kirov posture of stuck-up gymnasts: jawlines pulled up, shoulders and pelvises hiked back. In a complete reversal of the local tradition that was established by Margot Fonteyn and her contemporaries in the 1930s, the line of the wrists was generally broken, the fingers splayed. The bright articulation of thighs and insteps looked very Kirov - and yet it didn't make the impression it should have. Everything looked mannered, nothing organic."

I certainly agree with both Rachel and silvy -- and I think you've hit on something important. It's not the height of the extension, it's the way it's done. There are people who could make a 90 degree arabesque look vulgar, like something in gymnastics. There are dancers who make a plie look like a squat. It's the intention behind the step that matters, I think.

I'm sure there will be changes of some sort, but from reports and interviews published so far, and the statements of the Houston board, the reason they chose Welch is so that there would NOT be changes. They want to continue as things are, apparently -- keep Stevenson's ballets in repertory, and continue a commitment to full-length story ballets. I'm sure there will be differences, but it sounds as though the intention is to retain the framework.

Brody's post-smooch comment that "I bet you didn't know that was part of the goody bag' [paraphrase]. Implication being that Berry should be grateful. I have to say I missed his speech, which I now regret. He started babbling and I thought this would be one of those endless thank yous and oh gosh what am I doing heres, and I've seen enough of those, so I left. Then I read it got a standing ovation and was the most moving of the night.

What distinguishes Les Noces from NBE rep is that it's a classic. Joffrey and Paris, as well as the Royal, of course, have had it in rep before, so Kirov is the only New Kid in this round of Les Noces. I do wonder, sometimes, though, when a piece enters repertories en masse after a brief absence, if it has something to do with availability of a stager -- maybe it's more efficient to set four productions in a year than merely one. There was an explosion of "Rodeos" and "Billy the Kids" a few years ago. There are "Four Ts" all over the place -- as is "Slaugher." It could be coincidence, everyone having the same good idea, but I've often wondered if there's some giant, underground bazaar we don't know about, but They do . Company directors roam its streets, while ballet choreographers and stagers dart out from the shadows saying, "Psst. Can I interest you in a nice 'Les Biches?'"

A sensible attitude, it seems to me.

I haven't read anything in the press -- perhaps someone else has? I did want to put up a brief caution. LMCTech's question is absolutely within bounds, but I'd like to be sure to limit the discussion of this question to PUBLISHED reports, rather than grapevine ones.

You're right on "The Pianist" -- I'd forgotten he hadn't written the script. (I have to say, I didn't see what was so great about that script, and the things I'll remember about "The Pianist" had nothing to do with the words. I do think there was a good sense of time, though -- you knew he had been locked in that room, with no food and a useless piano, for eons. But I'd say that was script, more than acting or direction.) I also agree on the script for "The Hours" -- and editing, as well. As for giving the awards when they're deserved, was anyone else struck by that parade of the living dead -- former Oscar winners, many who could be walking reminders of why face lifts are not a good idea (and others, younger and/or much better, and more naturally preserved)? I'm not remotely an expert on film, but I did live thorugh many of those movies, and I was shocked to remember that Caine didn't get it for "Alfie," nor O'Toole for "Lawrence of Arabia." And Meryl Street, who can have 2500 Oscars, as far as I'm concerned, got it for "Kramer v. Kramer"????? The LOTR team will undoubtedly get an Oscar, but it will be decades hence, and for something else.

Not that ancient -- through the 1970s, even early '80s. When Ulanova was coaching.

Marc, wasn't one of the glories of Russian coaching that the older dancer would take (or be assigned ?) to a young dancer who was not at all like her/him? So that there wasn't the danger of someone trying to produce an imitation?

Good points. I think sometimes it is a matter of taste, but also it can be a matter of the understanding that a coach has of both the dancer and the ballet. There are some ballets where a high extension is appropriate, and some not. And there are some dancers suited to a high extension, and some not. There are some coaches who take pride in being faithful to the choreography, while encouraging dancers to be themselves, and know the fine lines involved, and when and how to cross them, or when not. And there are those who don't seem to give a damn about the ballet, just put in their prize pupil and let them do whatever they think will either get them a medal, or get screams and applause. There aren't any rules, unfortunately. It's always worked by example -- by companies that were recognized as setting a standard for classical dancing, and others imitating, trying to reach that standard. There were high kickers before, lots of them, going way back to the early 19th century, and probably before that. The costumes kept the women from raising their legs as high as they wanted, or could. Bournonville had a fight with his leading ballerina (Grahn) over this issue and Grahn left. He never had a ballerina to equal her, but the ones he had kept their legs down

I thought he was going after a Major Photo Op, but I did think the "goody bag" comment was distasteful. However, I watch the Oscars in the hopes of seeing something distasteful. I saw an interview clip with Kidman after the Oscars, all blushing and embarrassed because she'd forgotten to mention her father. To get back to Sandik's and dirac's posts about auteurs (not unrelated to the discussion about film v. movies, I think) that's a tradition I hope never dies. It's a different approach -- the Hollywood, each section (director, set designer, editor) has its job and the producer puts it together -- rather like 19th century Russian ballet -- or the auteur, who shoots with the script preedited in his/her mind. I haven't seen all of Polanski's films, but some are in one category, some in another, I think. (I'd call "Repulsion" and "The Pianist" auteur and "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown" Hollywood producer.) Or maybe it's nearly impossible to do an auteur film in Hollywood? Sorry. That's far from "...and the winner is..."

Oh, the skykickers won't go down without a fight, but I'm convinced we're at the very, very beginning of a neoclassical revival anyway -- I'm a believer in the pendulum swing theory of history, and we've swung very far in two directions: one, extreme technique; and two, "turning classicism on its ear." Classicism barely has an ear left, short of on-stage human sacrifice, there's not much left that someone can put in a dance that will shock, and extensions, number of pirouettes, etc. have a physical breaking point. But I agree, most coaches encourage the exterme technique -- but not always. Verdy may have thought that the extension was appropriate. I remember hearing stories about Balanchine letting some dancers (i.e., Farrell) do very high extensions, while telling others, "Not right for you, dear." And Farrell's own company last season was positively chaste.

I think the high extensions do occur in Giselle and Bayadere as well, Rachel -- and the argument for them is what you wrote: if the dancer can do it, why not do it? But I'd argue that high extensions are quite out of place in the Rose Adagio. Zakharova actually touches her face with her leg. You've hit on al chicken and egg thing -- students today are practicing this BECAUSE of the ballerinas, it's in imitation of them. And so of course, then they want to do it. And it takes attention away from other aspects of classical technique. I've seen some dancers with such a natural high extension that, as one teacher I talked to about it said after we'd both seen the same performance, "it's not an issue." The leg just floats up, it's not presented as a trick. But when you have a dancer swatting the side of her face with her leg over and over and over again, OI think it's an issue. I think there has been criticism of both Bussell and Lacarra for this (some saying that they, and this whole SkyKicker movement, is in imitation of Guillem). Personally, I don't find Bussell's extensions extreme or unclassical -- or incorrectly used. But others do. I also predict that the high extension movement is about over and a new paradigm is emerging. I'm predicting the next ballerina model will be inspired by the Dance Magazine cover photo of Michele Wiles in an absolutely gorgeous, perfectly classical, arabesque. In the past two years, I've seen several Big Blonde classical dancers coming up, and I'm predicting that's the next paradigm. Check back in five years and see if I'm right.