Alexandra

Here's the link to Sarah Kaufman's review of the Limon company in DC http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Mar14.html

Esplanade is one of the dances I have trouble watching now -- because I thought the first cast so perfect, and that it died a little each time one left. My favorite Esplanade dancers were Ruth Andrien -- no one will ever do a s-l-i-d-e like Ruthie -- and Carolyn Adams -- her skittering-in-the-dust solo doesn't look like skittering any more. And Elie Chaib, for the way he extended those scooped arms.....

I couldn't go, unfortunately, Boots -- thanks for posting this. I was told by two friends who did go that they were disappointed in "The Moor's Pavane" as well, except for the Friend's Wife. So you weren't alone. (They liked the rest, though.) There should be a review in the Post today. I'm short of time now, but will try to find it and post it later.

Welcome, Ballet Nearby, and thank you very much for your review! It sounds as thought SFB has a hit! Thanks for your curtain call story, Paul. That's one I wish I had seen. I hope we'll get other reports, and views on the different casts, as well.

It depends on what the classes have been like, and, probably most importantly, what the dancers' training has been, I think. Washington Ballet usually looks very good when they do the odd Balanchine or Tudor ballet. There have been problems in "Nutcracker" in the past few years -- mostly because they haven't been recruiting cavaliers -- but at soloist and corps level, it's fine, and there are several female soloists who can give confincing performances in classical/neoclassical roles. So on that score, I think the transition may be easy. SFB backstage may have been uncomfortable, but I saw the company during Smuin's last year, and again during Tomasson's first -- or possibly the beginnig of the second -- and the change was quite clear. There were soloists who'd been of the flash-and-[wrist]flick variety who now were calmed down, serious, classical dancers. The audience is another matter. From newspaper accounts, it's a bifurcated audience -- as is often the case in smaller cities, even medium-sized cities. Not enough ballet people to make up a ballet audience, not enough contemporary dance people to make up an audience. The hybrid company serves neither. Maybe there could be two companies? Anyone who says, "We're a ballet company, not a dance company" gets my vote (Or vice versa. Just knowing the difference counts for a lot.)

I didn't go, and am glad to read your comments. I remember Gumerova as an unappealing Princess Florine i Sleeping Beauty and a rather good Tall Girl in "Rubies," but that's all I've seen of her. I know Korsakov is one of the Wunderkinds, but I haven't been that impressed either -- for exactly the reasons you wrote! Novamom, what did you think of 4Ts and Sea of Troubles? And how did "Shades" look to you overall? (And anyone else who saw this cast, or other performances over the weekend. Please! Chime in. We're getting a variety of viewpoints and differences in seeing ballets and dancers, which is always interesting -- more, please.)

I like your "hitting hard without foreshortening the movement" comment a lot. I thought Penteado's attack was harsh. I wondered if the shortening -- or lack of stretch? are we seeing/saying the same thing there? -- was part of the original concept of the role? That the other three soloists -- all Solitary -- stretch out in their space, but that the two Sanguinics complement each other, and so the individual movements are comparatively shortened. But that may be fancy (extrapolated from comments in "Repertory in Review" that for Balanchine, only Sanguinic could be danced by a couple, and the other three temperaments were incomplete because they were solitary. That's a bad paraphrase of Reynolds but, I think, an accurate one.) As for poor Trividic, by "controlled" I mean that I saw nothing limp about, or unclear in, his movements. Certainly I saw no flailing, nothing that smuged the shape of the role (which "wild abandon" implies, to me), nor, at the two performances I saw, anything I would consider sloppy technically. This is a time when I wish I knew Effort-Shape and could be more precise! To me, this is a "loose" rather than a "tight" role, and Trividic is the first Phlegmatic I've seen who was both flexible -- loose -- and yet performing the steps clearly. I do think his performance was on a larger scale than any of the other principals', but I didn't think it was out of scale with the ballet. He was the only one I thought was dancing at NYCB level. I don't think I'm completely off-base, as this seemed a general impression among older critics I spoke with, including one who had danced with City Ballet in the '50s and knows the ballet quite well. "General impression" being -- it's nice to see it danced that way again. (I don't offer that to imply that other opinions ARE off-base, of course.) Ray, could I ask, do you mean you thought he was technically sloppy -- wild in that sense? Or did you think he misconstrued the role?

Ray, according to Sarah Kaufman's preview piece that ran in the Washington Post a few weeks ago, originally the plan had been for the Royal Ballet to bring "Monotones" and "Five Brahms Waltzes in the Manner of Isadora Duncan." This was scrapped in favor of the MacMillan when Lady MacMillan "reminded" Michael Kaiser (and this is according to Kaiser, who's quoted in the article) that it was the 10th anniversary of MacMillan's death and wouldn't it be more appropriate to do a MacMillan ballet? I believe it was she who suggested this one. Re Phlegmatic and Melancholic, I think the "not a pliant back" comments about Melancholic were from people who saw Bart Cook in that role (I heard quite a few such comparisons in intermission talks). Personally, I accept Cook as a "one-off;" no one will have a back like that again. As for Phlegmatic, I think often the role is often misinterpreted now, and danced as limp. I thought Trividic's dancing was quite controlled, and saw detail in his (and Cox's) performance that I haven't seen in years. I don't think the characterization should be layered on. I don't expect Melancholic to moon about and look like a Romantic Prince, and I don't think Phlegmatic has to be a dishrag. I also like it that in Miami's production, Choleric is not an Amazon on steroids, as it's come to be danced elsewhere. Merely a strong woman. So, as is often the case, perhaps differences in opinion lie in what one's expectations are and which version of the ballet one knows? I heard a lot of happy comments from old-time NYCB watchers that "this is like the ballet used to look." (Now, one could argue, of course, that this means the 1960s, which isn't necesarily the "original," or that the ballet should NOT look as though it did 40 years ago.) I do agree that, looked at in the greater cosmos, the MCB leads were not up to the great NYCB casts of the past (unfortunately, I had to miss Seay's Sanguinic) -- but I think the company shows the ballet clearly. Compared to what is being danced today, I think MCB's 4T's is very strong. They don't have the bodies that NYCB does -- they can't yet; the company is too young -- and they don't have a full set of world-class principals, and so in that sense, I agree that it is in a transitional stage. On "Sea of Troubles," it was just as dull at a second viewing. I tried to like it for the sake of the dancers, who were excellent, and very committed. I changed my mind, too, on calling it "modern dance." It's a ballet choreographer trying to do modern dance, but it's not REAL modern dance. The movement is all in the limbs. What it is is Not Ballet. It's as though MacMillan could never escape from his ballet backgorund, try though he might. He still thinks like a ballet dancer; he just hates the vocabulary, the ethos, the aesthetic, the whole idea of it. As several people have said, what ultimately sinks this one is the lack of a viewpoint. There's no point to everyone getting to dance all the roles, unless it's a deeply cynical in joke about dancers' secret desires (to dance everything.) I kept thinking of Jerome Robbins' "Mother Goose Suite," where the "children" go to the big toy chest and take out costumes appropriate to their fairy tales, and then go dance out the fairy tales. And then they switch roles. 'No fair! You always get to play Ophelia! I always have to play Gertrude because I'm tall!" stamp, stamp. Costume switch. The play goes on. The "you are all Gertrude, you are all Ophelia" idea mighit work if Hamlet/Polonius/Ghost Dad all remained the same characters but no, they all have to try out each role as well. And using different dancers to show different aspects of the character -- now Ophelia is a wispy little thing (so that the men can throw her around like the proverbial sack of potatoes) now she's a big strong mama, just like.. oh no! Mama!! seems so obvious, as does the Red Lined Overcoat of Death that gets passed around. A very brief word on Ekaterina Kondaurova's debut in "Shades" Thursday night. This is a beatufiul dancer, tall, pencil slim (but not scrawny) with an absolutely gorgeous line. I would have been happy to look at her stand in fourth position all night. It was a careful performance, rather schoolgirlish, trying to get each position RIGHT; she hasn't pulled it all together yet, but one wouldn't expect her to. Aside from the pique tours in the coda, she seemed to have trouble with pirouettes. But in that coda, the turns were strong, and -- Victoria, I thought of you -- she had "circular arms"; the arms were brought in to form a circle with each turn. Beautiful, beautiful style -- and nice to know that all Kirov schoolgirls aren't encouraged to do Extreme Ballet! She was partnered by Danilo Korsuntsev, who is not a virtuoso -- he didn't try the double assembles -- but who can present a ballerina and fill a role. And in his first solo, the series of grands pirouettes a la seconde into pirouettes in attitude were very smoothly done. There isn't enough room on that stage to do jumps, and Korsuntsev was very reigned in, as Whiz Kid Sarafanov had to be on opening night.

Sounds like an unfortunate performance! "Carmen" can be fun. Maybe the dancers took it too seriously?

Definitely agree on the last point. Now, may she stand her ground! It will be interesting to trace this detail -- it will tell us something about the company direction.

Wait. It's Saturday. I was slow to awake. BOTH of them? AT THE SAME TIME? No, that's not wondeful! What next? The American Game Show approach -- "And now, behind Curtain Number 3....." offering a third option, a fortuneteller, perhaps, or the daily horoscope? Now, if the Lilac Fairy stepped firmly in front of the little Cupid, blocking the Prince's view of him, then that would truly be guerilla theater

Oh, I hope you all stood up and cheered lustily! That is a wonderful story, Jane. There is hope!

Good question -- what are some others? Going back a bit further, after the death of musicals, there's "Dirty Dancing," "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" "Saturday Night Fever" Not to mention "The Turning Point," "White Nights." I think part of might be that it IS one of the successors to movie musicals. Is this a market need? Or that there are people in Hollywood (or Greater Hollywood) that are geared to this -- the filming of it, editing of it, as much as personal taste -- and continue to make them? One doesn't sense The Public clamoring for yet another dance movie.

I just received word today that Niels Bjørn Larsen, one of the great Danish mimes, and a former artistic director of the Royal Danish Ballet, has died. There's an obituary in today's Politiken, but it is not available on line (that I could find). He was 89.

Melissa, Nureyev's production has the Lilac Fairy in a dress and heeled shoes in the prologue, a mimed role, and so gave her variation to another fairy to dance.

Great! We'll wait to read you with interest

Ah, but kiddo is young and has as yet little experience of ghosts Samba, you raise interesting points. I'll vote for staying in character in an excerpt -- and, like Swan Lake Act II, Shades can be considered a mini-ballet, a work sufficient unto itself. I didn't think Pavlenko was especially ghostly -- but I haven't seen that much of her, so I don't have a broad context in which to view her. The lack of a context is what, to me, was so missing in some of the performances of "Napoli." The Cavallo-Massot-led cast treated it as though it were just a series of solos. The Lund-Gad-led cast (and he was definitely the ballerino, as, in that ballet, he should be) was quite different. Lund and Gad were at its center -- they WERE its center -- not just two people dancing solos 4 and 5. I see the connection you're making -- the structures were similar among the three works, even though the vocabulary wasn't. The endings were especially similar, structurally. Balanchine and Petipa are lines and angles and diagonals. I don't put MacMillan in that company (and I agree with Ari that this "ballet" was modern dance, not just from the bare feet, but in vocabulary and approach) but what was balletic about it, if anything, WAS that structure. There wasn't any of the freedom about it that I associate with modern dance. It was all quite predictable.

Susanne, apologies -- I hadn't noticed, when I wrote, that you were in Sweden. So you're going to see a lot more Ek than Paul Taylor or Petronio! European modern dance has a different history and I don't know of any reading to recommend. But I think the general guidelines could still apply. One difference in American modern dance history and European is, generally speaking, that the American moderns were trying to reinvent dancing. It was an article of faith, for at least four generations of dancers, to construct one's own vocabulary out of one's own body, a la Isadora. So you had manifestos -- "Movement is fall and recovery" (Humphrey) "Movement is contraction and release (Graham)" In the 1970s, I can remember when there was a headline in the Village Voice that Lucinda Childs had added a third step to her minimalist vocabulary, having exhausted all the possibilities for constructing a dance from the first two steps she had used. It may be too coy to say, but I'll say it anyway. American modern dance tried to discover truth in movement, European modern dance tried to discover truth THROUGH movement. Modern dance, sometimes blended with ballet, although usually not for the sake of virtuosity, as it is in the States, was expressive. It must express something, some idea. It's often used for dramatic purposes. (Hence tanztheater.) There are pure movement European moderns, too, of course. There are exceptions to everything. Anyway, watch it, try to figure out what you like and what you don't like, and then why. If you write these impressions down, you may well find they change in a few years.

I think Trividic danced The Hoofer in Balanchine's "Slaughter on Tenth Avenue" during the Balanchine Celebration. He was good there, too, but gave a real star performance in Phlegmatic (completely in scale, though. Not too much of a star.) I'm glad it wasn't just me who thought that Shades without a ramp is like "Deliverance" without rafts and a river. I saw the tiny, impoverished Moscow City Ballet (led by Gordeyev) some years ago in Baltimore do Shades. They had a ramp -- it looked like they'd dragged it away from a handicapped entrance down the street, but it was a ramp. Without it, the entire design of the choreography is lost -- Petipa's love of different levels -- AND the entrance of each dancer is invisible. I was very interested that both Ari and Samba found Pavlenko cold. I'd call her reserved. She reminded me of Elisabeth Platel in some ways -- including the reserve, which is a quality I like in a classical ballerina. (I don't post that to argue -- if one's perception is that a dancer is cold, then that's perfectly valid. But I genuinely find such differences in perceptions interesting.)

No one else has seen Beauty??? Or were you all struck speechless by the production? (Wendy, if you have a different take on the production, you're welcome to post it!)

Look at what they ARE doing instead of what they're not doing (a good rule for watching any type of dance, I think). So instead of seeing the movement as "ugly" -- i.e., bad line or twisted, or flexed feet, look for at the shapes the bodies are making. Think "raw and powerful" instead of "light and celestial." After a time, you will find the beauty in the "ugliness" in the same way our eye has been trained by modern painting to see an old tree, burnt by lightning, as beautiful in a stark, meaningful way. There are a lot of different styles within modern dance, too. You might hate (or love) Paul Taylor but love (or hate) Stephen Petronio, or Susan Marshall. And there's good modern dance, bad modern dance, and absolutely awful modern dance, just as there is in ballet. Reading about it -- reading reviews -- can help steer your own aesthetic. What's important to you about dance? If it's the music, look for choreographers that use music you like. Many ballet fans find Paul Taylor and Mark Morris a good introduction to modern dance because they use steps, and their response to the music is similar to the way many ballet choreographers respond to music. Then, if you like these, you could branch out. Two books I'd recommend are Joseph Mazo's "Prime Movers" (an introduction to the major choreographers) and, harder to find, but in libraries, "The Borzoi Book of Modern Dance" which is so passionate that it will make you want to hijack a time machine and go back to 1940s New York and starve in a garret for Martha! And then there's Sally Banes's "Terpsichore in Sneakers." The second edition's introduction is a wonderful introduction to postmodern dance, to the revolutions in movement that came about in the 1970s. I have a historical approach to everything, I know And what young choreographers are doing today doesn't bear much resemblance to the Founding Mothers -- Isadora, Miss Ruth, Doris Humphrey and Martha Graham -- but the way they looked at dancing and the possibilities of dancing paved the way for everything that follows, and I think it helps to have an understanding of that thinking. Finally, don't just stick to the big names. Some of the most enjoyable modern dance performances I've seen have been by local choreographers. Anyone else have any comments, or tips, or experiences with modern dance.

A very few words to get the ball rolling.... "Four Temperaments" -- Miami City Ballet in a fine performance. Got a scattered standing ovation -- very rare for a program opener, and I don't think they were all Miami residents. I especially liked Yann Trividic in Phlegmatic. Melancholic was a bit on the bland side, but otherwise I was happy. "Sea of Troubles." MacMillan. The world is full of nasty people and we saw six of them, purporting to be characters from "Hamlet" in just about every sexual permutation that can be imagined, including necrophilia. Hamlet loved his mother. Or was it mothers? Polonius is an eavesdropper! Everyone except Hamlet wore crowns that would have looked at home in a primary school production of the play. I liked the Ophelia figure; I have no idea who she was. Now, all that said, much of the movement was interesting and if they'd taken off the crowns, the shrouds and the overcoats I would have enjoyed it more. I'll leave it to others -- I spied several friends -- to weigh in on the production values of "Shades." For me, Pavlenko's performance in the ballerina role is the high point of these two weeks so far. Her dancing is beautifully clear and centered, the high extensions look natural, not extreme, not trying to get attention. But there was also juice to her dancing, fire underneath the calm. Solor was Leonid Sarafanov, who looks about 16 and still has the body of a schoolboy (according to the Kirov web site, he graduated in 2000). I thought he was entirely too light, at this stage, for Solor, and understandably is not a strong partner. But the audience loved him. Others?

Atm, I think that the bench conversation was one of the things that got lost through the years. I'd bet the original divertissement people were strong enough, too, so that the conversation wasn't a distraction.

I think the difference between Crisp and Johnson's remarks is that the former were intended to be humorous, and Crisp's regular audience would understand that, and Johnson's were not.

Bournonville's Valdemar (1840s) had very realistic battle scenes in it, enough to rouse the public -- it was the national patriotic ballet until Lander ditched it in the 1930s. I can't believe that was the first. There are drawings in Marian Hanna Winter's "The Pre-Romantic Ballet" of men with swords, but I can't remember the ballets -- and don't have time to check right now. I have an anecdote that some might find amusing. A friend of mine took her little boy to the ballet from the age of 3 ("Swan Lake"). After seeing the Kirov in "Le Corsaire," when he was about 8, he pronounced it his favorite ballet and wanted the video. When told there wasn't one (at that time), he was chagrined. "Don't the people like it?" he said, having grasped at that early age the basics of arts finance. I asked him why he liked it so much and he replied, "It's got blunderbuses in it." It replaced his previous favorite ballet, "The Nutcracker," which had a cannon, but the cannon only goes off once. Moral: to bring boys and men to ballet, we need more blunderbuses! Forget the swordplay. Big things that go bang and produce smoke. That's what we need! Thanks for the topic, Paul.