Alexandra

I think actually that was what Sarah Kaufman meant in her Something Else Besides Balanchine, please, article. NOT that Balanchine was responsible for this, or less than a great article, but that we're still stretching him, exploring (to an absurd degree, sometimes, which is why I call it Mannerism) things that he did so beautifully. Re classroom steps, as I wrote, there are times where it's appropriate, but today, I think if a new Petipa did a new-style, but classical, Jardin Animee, and it was the same level, with genius as well as steps, most of the critics writing today would say it was just classroom steps. If a company danced Jardin Animee in bicycle shorts (because then most people wouldn't recognize it; I know I'm being cynical), they'd say it was just classroom steps. I don't think the current critical climate is helpful -- and it would be equally unhelpful if critics wrote that anything that had classical steps in it was great art (and I don't mean to imply that that's what Leigh is suggesting, of course.) papeetpatrick, I'm sorry thet I wasn't clear. The "musical comedy" reference was mine, not Balanchine's, and I didn't mean that he was referring to Broadway or that genre, but I gather he did not approve of the 1940s version of the Ballet Russe programs, and was worried that the emphasis on drama at the expense of classical dancing was killing ballet and he wanted to get it back to choreography and a cleaner technique. Re Forsythe, there have been several "choreographers of the decade" that haven't become The One -- Tetley in the '60s (with his consciously crafted blend of modern dance with ballet); Jiri Kylian in the '70s, who was always a blender; and Forsythe in the '80s. I was less enamored of Forsythe than many others because I'd seen some of his early work, where he tried to deal with content, and I thought it awful (his "Daphnis and Chloe" and "Orpheus" for Stuttgart; he tried to tell a story and, to my eyes, couldn't.) I thought (think) he had nothing to say except steps. The all Forsythe program that the Kirov brought was the same ballet four times over, the Work for a Ballet Company ballet. Not to bring up another contentious topic

I think that's a good point. It's always easier to be in the first generation (same in modern dance). There's no basis for comparison, for the audience. It's often pointed out that the Royal Ballet became what it was because there was no competition, and no point of comparison, during the War years. Petipa is one exception. Granted, it was a year or two ago. But he succeeded two very great choreographers -- Perrot and Saint-Leon -- and both built on what they did, and changed it ("Giselle"). Bournonville came in after a very highly respected choreographer (Galeotti) and worked in a completely different style. Can it happen in the 21st century? Perhaps because there's been such a drought, it will. There aren't direct comparisons -- Balanchine has been dead for a long time (and, as has been noted, few have tried to imitate Ashton or Tudor). In some ways, I think we've regressed back to the 1940s, when few here understood ballet, and Balanchine said, looking at an art form that was becoming increasingly like musical comedy, "Someone has to save ballet." I do think ballet companies are open to classical work and have tried to commission it. It hasn't helped that critics, over and over, have shot such attempts down with the "it's just classroom steps!" attack. Once a relevant comment, back in the early Sons of Balanchine days, when tyros were making works that followed Balanchine's rules without understanding the context or the spirit behind them, but is now thrown around if someone makes a work using the vocabulary of the danse d'ecole.

Oh, well. There's always his 96th birthday.....

Money, of course. But it would also help if writers would stop writing that ballet is dead, praising nonballet choreographers for "daring" to make a ballet that didn't use pointework -- if ballet was valued in some way. (I worry about creativity in dance generally, of course, but limiting remarks to ballet, I'd say the above.) I would be very interested to read what others think about this.

There have been a lot of interesting points raised on this thread -- I'm coming in late to it, regrettably. I was away when this thread was started, so I'll simply post my view, briefly. I didn't take the question as meaning another Balanchine, meaning a Balanchine clone. I agree with those who've said that won't happen, and if you did have someone who was exactly like Balanchine, they would be derivative rather than original artists. Some posters have raised comparisons to music, and I see Balanchine as a Stopper, much as Beethoven and Stravinsky were. There are some artists who are so complete that the next generation can only copy, and things stall. Unless, of course, the next generaiton has a Fokine, who can look at Petipa and say, "Oh, thank goodness he's gone. I can do better." That we don't have. I'm not looking for a Single Genius, and I've never considered Balanchine that solitary. I put Ashton on the same plane, as have others in this discussion, as well as Fokine. I can't speak to Massine, because I haven't seen enough. I haven't seen enough Lavrovsky, either, but I'll bet if there were Russians taking part in ithis discussion, his name would be in the hat. In the 19th century, there were quite a few choreographers of the first rank. We have Bournonville because he had a company that saved his work, but Perrot was at least on his level, and there was Paul Taglioni, Arthur Saint-Leon (the one who put "too much dancing" in things), and several others. The first year I was interested in ballet, Clive Barnes wrote an article in the Times (on Jerome Robbins' birthday, I think) saying that there were only five living ballet choreographers (Ashton, Balanchine, Cranko -- who had actually died the past year -- Robbins and Tudor) and that the youngest of these, Robbins, was in his 60s. I remember feeling rather panicked -- this was not good news. During the 1970s people were always writing that this one or that one was going to be the next genius -- not necessarily the next Balanchine, just the next really good choreographer -- and somehow, nothing happened. Ballet has been its strongest when there are a lot of good choreographers. I very much enjoyed ABT performances in the 1970s, with programs of works by Balanchine, Robbins, deMille, Loring, early Eliot Feld. I think variety is good. I have no interest in those claiming to be ballet choreographers when they're not, or saying that it doesn't matter any more and that ballet is dead. (And I founded this board so that those who understood that concept would have a place to talk about it.) I would be equally disturbed if someone went to Paul Taylor, or Trisha Brown, and said, "Dearie, all you need are some good Balanchine classes and then your work would be really great." I like variety.

[Mioderator beanie on:] At this point, I think if any posters have anything to say to each other as individuals, they should do it by email or PM. Please return to the topic under discussion. [Moderator beanie off]

A colleague of mine told me, in response to my question if Kirkland was like any ballerina before her (people usually said "Sibley") that there was one thing about her that reminded him of Fonteyn, and that was that the dancing of both ballerinas was "as pure and clear as water." I kept thinking of that when I read about the possibility of her dancing "Ondine" and was also sad that she did not.

Washington Ballet did it in the 1980s sometime -- I remember, at the time, wondering why this long-unperformed ballet suddenly popped up, and imagined some grand, underground fair of old ballets that only those in charge of companies knew about. It looked very dated to me. That's really all I remember about it. Without star personalities, and dancers in minor roles who can wring every ounce of character out of them, this type of ballet often looks negligible -- but I'd love to see someone try it again. Keep 'em around long enough, and one day they'll meet the right cast. (lots of horsey movements, bart: pawing the ground, pawing the air, pattering about in pas de cheval. I know there's much more to it than that, and I don't mean to be disrespectful to the ballet or the dancers I saw.)

Thank you so much for posting this, tutu, and for telling us about the video on youtube. I think if you watch that, you'll have a very good idea of what Gelsey Kirkland's dancing was like. (Dowell, too, is beautiful here.) I'm especially grateful because I just mentioned to a friend a few days ago that nothing could drag me to see the MacMillan "Romeo and Juliet" again unless Kirkland and Dowell were dancing it! I did not see them in London, but read everything about it. Everything I read said indicated was very well-received. Kirkland was one of the finest dancers I've ever seen, and she danced a lot in Washington (the company visited here 7 weeks a year then). Her "Giselle" was extraordinarily poetic. She could become a Wili for a split-second in the mad scene (anticipating her fate), and the dancing was as strong as the emotions. She was a very careful artist, preparing her roles and thinking them through as well as working on technical difficulties, and it showed. She was wondferful in "Other Dances" (also with Dowell), and many other roles, and we looked forward to 20 more years of wartching her -- but that was not to be.

Here is the inadvertently deleted post, bu SIMON G. (Note that originally it preceded Leonid's post above, and many thanks to our poster who forwarded us the text. It was in the email notification sent to those who'd subscribed to the thread.) Here's Simon's post: Leonid, I think it's kind of unfair to lay so much blame on Bussell, I do agree that she never became what she could have done, but she came to prominence in that incredibly difficult period of Dowell's directorship when he didn't have a clue what to do with a company which had been bruised and battered by previous artisitic mis-management and sadly Dowell himself seemed equally clueless as to developing talent. All those Royal ballerinas you mention had one thing in common, Ninette De Valois who had a genius of finding and nurturing ballerinas. Bussell wasn't the only casualty of Dowell's regime and indeed she faired considerably better than most; Dowell was in thrall to Guillem at the expense of his own dancers, he never hot housed talent or pushed them technically in any meaningful way, the quality of male dancing deteriorated to rock bottom and he destroyed the Royals classical heritage, or what was left of it by production designs of such egregious excess for the classics - and I don't think it was intentional on his part, he just didn't have the cujones or eye to lead the company properly. Bussell was a potential ballerina in a company led by a man who didn't know what to do with ballerinas. Guillem got to do whatever she wanted and indeed the success of her career with the Royal was down to her micro-management - she didn't put up with any crap, whereas Bussell by her own admission felt obliged to be a good girl and do whatever was asked of her - her career was no less aimless than the company itself. The only other ballerina of note promoted of Dowell Sarah Wildor had been so neglected in terms of developing her technique she was unable to dance the classics. ---Simon G

This is indeed sad news. John Goding was one of the original Washington Ballet dancers, one of Mary Day's pupils. His whole career was with that company, and he remained to stage ballets and choreograph after he retired from dancing. He created leading roles in several of Choo-San Goh's ballets. The company must be devastated by the loss -- sincere condolences to them, as well as to Mr. Goding's friends and family.

There must be SOME "Romeo and Juliet" fans out there. Any other suggestions for the triple bill?

Maybe it's a typo. Maybe they pushed the "Romeo and Juliet" button by mistake? Seriously, I understand that these are desperate financial times, and the Center has to fill seats, but this one has been here a lot. At some point, everyone in Washington will have seen it.

I got an email two days ago that they were sorry, but they had no release date, did I still want it? And I got an email yesterday saying it had been shipped. I'll keep you posted.

There's almost nothing available of Kronstam on film. He's on the old "Black Tights" tape as the Toreador in Carmen and in the Disney "Ballerina" film, but he missed videotape, as he was finished as a classical dancer in 1969. He's on a few Danish TV programs in mime roles, and there are a few private shot-from-the-wings tapes, but that's it.

I can't answer either, I'm afraid. All I know is that they were coached in this by Vera Volkova (who also coached Fonteyn in her classical roles in the 1940s). I was also told, by Simone, that the floor of that studio was extremely slippery. The stage crew proudly told them when they arrived: "We've waxed the floor TWICE just for you!!!" How nice of them! From several videos, both of Western and Russian performances of that period, I think the tempi were faster generally before the 1970s. There's one Bayadere Shades from about 1940 that's positively peppy. As we've become obsessed with line and stretching and extensions, we've slowed down. I'd point out one aspect of Kronstam's dancing on this tape that it took me several viewings before I saw it, and then I became fascinated by it -- watch his arms, the way they cross the chest, and how musical the arm movements are.

Thank you, atm. That was a wonderful tribute. And happy birthday to Mr. Franklin!

Ouch. Thank you for posting that, bart. Any company that goes out of business is sad news -- but this one is in your neighborhood, and so my sincere condolences.

Well, there are certain ballet "players" who might be better off trying soccer......

This is indeed sad news. I admired her work very much and there's no denying her influence -- it has been enormous. I had a European cable news program on (Euronews) and they did a very nice brief feature, with several dance clips. Can you imagine any American TV station doing that?

Thank you leonid, and thanks for posting the excerpts, bart! I realized that *I* had not been clear. When I wrote "The audience laughed heartily at the loud chord that accompanies his entrance" I meant at this series of performances, NOT when the ballet was new.

I'm very glad Macaulay wrote it! Ashton gets very little attention these days (part of his point, of course). It is troublesome -- we've lost Massine and nearly lost Tudor and Fokine. Ashton had a brief revival in 2004 (the birthday year) but now he's a very small part of his home (Royal Ballet) repertory. I was interested to read the institutional situation (who owns what). I knew most of it, but am still glad to have it in one place. I wish the article could have been longer -- after you deal with all the things Macaulay mentioned, there's still the problem that Ashton's ballet are so delicate that if you miss one nuance, you're not really seeing the ballet. Of course, Petipa might say the same thing about his work, if he had the misfortune to stumble upon it today Thanks for posting this as a discussion question, bart!

The word from the company via the press people is that the phrase, in this production at least, is "All aboard." Regarding audience reaction/length, etc., I went both Tuesday and Wednesday, and Wednesday night, the left side mid-orchestra was not happy. Several people left after the second act, one man YAWNED loudly -- really, as though he hoped they would hear him and stop -- at every mime scene, they didn't clap for the character dances, and one heard, "Don't worry. These things are always over by 10." Part of it could be that the weeknights here are usually triple bills, and the subscribers could be of the I Hate Full-Lengths persuasion, and part of it, I think, is that our audience here is simply not used to full-length productions and especially mime scenes. We seem to hate character dance here -- not sure why (back in the bad old days of the Cold War, when the Eastern Bloc national companies appeared here regularly, they danced to full houses in the Concert Hall, but perhaps those people don't like ballet.) Tuesday night's audience seemed happier -- I was closer to the front, right side.

Thanks for posting this, and I'll second your GOOD LUCK, OLIVIER! (One of our earliest posters )

Like many of you, I've been sad about this all day. Like Makarova Fan, I remember her debut on "Sherlock Holmes" -- she was one of the most exciting contemporary actresses, I think.