Alexandra

I don't know what the situation was in the Royal -- I hope someone can clarify. If anyone hung around with expectations it was Ashton, who was appointed Associate Director of the Royal in 1952. I think there was always someone who scheduled the ballets; in Denmark s/he was called the regisseur. I'm assuming that all the old opera houses used similar administrative models. In Denmark, the appointment also meant extra money snd so would be given to someone who was a good "company man." The regisseur became the Assistant Balletmaster, and then Vice Balletmaster. I can see Jane's point, would a (relatively) young person want to be an assistant without assurance of becoming AD when s/he could get a job now running a company. As several have noted, the future is so uncertain, in every way. The Royal may be a contemporary dance company or a tap troupe by 2007, for all we know. My comments were more from the House side of the question: realizing that often an Assistant is born to fulfill that role and will be at sea in the big job, I still think that if you want to insure institutional continuity, it's better to train someone from within rather than let them go out into the world and learn bad habits somewhere else.

LondonDance has updated their page -- for the latest news on this conference, check this link: http://www.londondance.com/Content.asp?Lev...&SubSection=353 It's interesting to read the list of attendees -- Europe, mostly; Canada, Latin America. But from the U.S., only Kevin McKenzie (ABT) and Mikko Nissenen (Boston Ballet) are slated to attend.

mbjerk wrote: I'd agree with that. But today's AD's are looking to contemporary dance rather than ballet (in terms of language). Putting the need for novelty (as opposed to trying to create what Ninette DeValois called "contemporary classics") aside, is this good for ballet? Is it time for contemporary dance to become a movement of its own? Will it replace ballet? It seems to me that the latter is on the agenda of one wing of the dance party who act and talk as though ballet were as outmoded a notion as Modern Dance (referring to the period in the 1930s, not the broader genre), a style of dance that needed to be replaced, rather than, as mbjerk pointed out above, a language that continues to grow.

I think that's very well put. Somehow the model has changed -- creating a "personal movement vocabulary" is the modern dance model (and it worked very well for modern dance; no quarrel with that) but it's not the ballet model. How do we change it?

What are your personal highlights of the year? Dancer, ballet, company, event -- anything.

The Moderators will be putting up some stuff we hope will interest you around the New Year, so watch this space!

I'm plucking these paragraphs from Ismene Brown's year-end wrap-up in today's Telegraph (delighted to find someone else who thinks the phrase "heritage ballet" is a dangerous bit of newspeak that needs to be squelched NOW). What Brown is writing about, I think, is the first crisis in 21st century ballet. Although her context is the Royal Ballet, I think we can discuss her points in broader terms. The classical/contemporary debate is in danger of becoming a War, with the contemporary side trying to make "new work" exclusively synonymous with contemporary dance, attacking dancer rankings (a/k/a "the hierarchical structure") in ballet companies as "elitist," and painting ballet, at best, as inherently old-fashioned and unsophisticated. On top of this, the word "ballet" has been hijacked to describe works which use modern dance or pop dance (I don't mean to equate the two) movements and aesthetics. Yet these are often described as "firmly rooted in the classical vocatulary." I have no trouble with the idea that we need new work; both the Royal and New York City Ballets, as well as the young Ballet Theatre, made their reputations on new work. I'd also say that we need to maintain the great works of the 20th century as well as the few shards remaining from the 19th. How do we do this? How does "contemporary dance" fit into the world of ballet, if at all? What should the balance between new and existing repertory be, and where should we look for new work?

Thanks for that, Sonora -- all good points, I think. Two years ago, there were newspaper reports that Nutcracker revenues were down. I think another factor to consider is that there are so many Nutcrackers. Twenty years ago (in any city), there might have been one professional company that drew both serious ballet lovers as well as those for whom going to the Nutcracker was a family tradition. Now there are dozens of smaller Nutcrackers, as every studio seems to have one. That, coupled with other holiday entertainment, just spreads the Christmas theater dollars too thin. Also, I think "Nutcracker" turns off many dance lovers. I wrote in a Post review 15 years ago that "Nutcracker" had more in common with Holiday on Ice than it did with ballet, and I think that's more true today. A beautifully staged, well-cast and well-danced production will always be of interest to those who love ballet, but second, third, fourth to twelfth rate versions don't have enough interesting dancing in them to interest the contemporary audience.

Hi Ballet Nut! On a thread about Sylvia, someone had said that Mark Morris would do a "Sylvia" for SFB.

I think theyr'e all different, PP. It started, I think, because some companies (including New York City Ballet) would do something different and "fun" for New Year's Eve -- a subtle change in costume or choreography. And some people would go New Year's Eve just to see what they'd do. Then some companies would twist the story, or have local celebrities come in and do a role, and add other funny bits. Reading about them, a lot of them don't sound really funny, to me, just coarse -- but, then, I'm a purist

I'll support your popularity plea, Hans, but could you add a codicil that making ballet as popular as football won't make ballet look like football?

Fendrock, you're onto something -- not just the number of flakes or swans you can have, but the entire shape of the choreography. There is no standard size stage -- the Bolshoi's is HUMONGOUS which not only allows them to have what looks like the entire Roman legion onstage, but is why their 20th century choreography emphasizes big jumps and runs around the stage rather than small footwork. Bournonville's first stage was 24 feet wide (I don't know how deep) which is why his dancers never make an entrance -- No Princes walking around the stage to take a variation. You enter, often with a grand jete en avance, and take it from there. Balanchine's stage at City Center was long and narrow -- and that's reflected in the shape of the choreography of many of the ballets created there. (Think of "The Four Temperaments") When he moved to Lincoln Center, he changed some ballets to reflect the new size and shape of the State Theater; Nancy Reynolds' "Repertory in Review" said that he'd always choreographed for a big theater in his mind, so that the works could be adapted because he knew he would have a big stage some day. (And, of course, he had the Maryinsky Theatre's proportions to judge by.) I don't know how small the Mercury Theater was -- 18 x 18 sounds pretty small, but it may well have been. There was a staircase, too, which had to be incorporated into the early ballets of both Ashton and Tudor. Ashton later said that he thought the size of that theater shaped his whole career, because his early works were so intimate and so small-scale. When the company moved into the Sadlers Wells Theatre, it was bigger, and without a staircase (I hope I'm not confusing the two; I'm writing all this from memory), but not nearly as big as the Covent Garden stage would be. A large number of Ashton ballets dropped out of repertory when they moved to Covent Garden because the designs would not fit -- they were too small and the scale would be ruined if they were redesigned -- and/or becuase (like "Nocturne") the ballets were too intimate to play in a bigger house. Ashton's style always included small footwork, attention to the kind of details one could only see well in an intimate theater.

It looks as though everyone is 50-plus -- so is this The Last Stand of the Old Avant-Garde? This should mean that there's a new avant garde bubbling around somewhere......

That might make an interesting debate But for those not conversant with Cunningham, I didn't want there to be confusion. I have heard he loves "Giselle," though, and would often watch performances of it from the wings

I don't think he's close to classical ballet, and I don't think he would either! He's a modern dance choreographer. Baryshnikov's public statements go back and forth on ballet -- read his introduction to Robert Greskovic's "Ballet 101." (And I'd also say that "ballet" and "the edge" are not, ipso facto, polar opposites. ) I think Baryshnikov's very anti-ballet statements -- it's boring, etc etc -- date from the time he began losing his technique. I think he'll become less and less anti-ballet as he becomes more removed from dancing.

If you could pin a wish lift/gift list to the chimney Christmas Eve, what would it be? It could be that you wlil see your favorite ballet danced by your favorite dancer, or that your favorite company would do this or that, or anything. Remembering the A.A. Milne poem about King John (who was not a good man) and his long Christmas gift list which remained unfulfilled until he whittled it down to what he really wanted, he got it, I will say, "Oh, Father Christmas, if you love me at all, please send me a ... NEW BALLET!!!!! I wish that in 2003 there will be at least one new ballet. New. Something exciting, something that I'd actually like to see again, many times, that stands up to different casts. Not a retread, or a faux classic. Or modern/contemporary/Broadway/tap/flamenco extravaganza. (Not that we don't need them too, but this is a Ballet Alert wish list). Just a new ballet. What's your gift list?

I don't know the duties of the RB's Assistant Director, but at the RDB it's been, since at least 1930, the person who did the scheduling: which ballets are rehearsed in which studios by which producer, coordinating with the other departments in the theater (so that the opera doesn't sign up for the same studio). S/he also attends meetings with heads of other departments -- costume, production -- and unions. Some have also coached and directed. If I wanted to be the director, I'd take that job for four years with the expectation that if I did it well, I'd have a good shot at the top job. I don't think they can promise it now, can they? Perhaps hint -- but we won't know that. Would Mason have gotten the AD job if she hadn't been the assistant? I think it could be a very good way for someone relatively young to get to know all the people s/he'll have to work with in the ROH, know how the place works, build contacts with artists, get to know the dancers, etc. I think often assistant directors don't make good directors because they would rather be off somewhere else doing their own thing (and making mistakes on their on the job training) so it may not work out, but if the board wants to insure succession and smooth running in the future, it may be a good idea. I did a long interview with Bruce Sansom for DanceView (Autumn issue) in which he was very careful not to indicate that he was interested in any particular job, but clearly had a desire to serve that company in some capacity. There were many things he said that impressed me, especially a worry that the RB audience could become bifurcated unless new works and old works were integrated into the repertory (by which I think he means mixed triple bills, not a New Night and an Old Fogeys Night). I think his time in San Francisco introduced him to a lot of new choreographers, and gave him a model for how to encourage and present new choreography. And he certainly has an appreciation of Ashton and MacMillan.

I think "guest star" means someone who appears for a few performances only and then flies back to wherever he or she came from. Zakharova's appearances with POB last year would be a good one. But there are also "regular guest stars" -- they don't go on tour, they are booked for only certain ballets, not the entire repertory: Ananiashvili and Malakhov at ABT, for example. And then there are the "foreigners" -- those who didn't grow up in the company's school, if there is a school, or who came into the company as mature dancers. To me, it's the reason for the guests that matter. If the school isn't producing enough good dancers, enough potential stars, that they have to be imported, that's a problem. If the management doesn't have any artistic ideas and brings in guests to rev things up at the box office, that's a problem. If the guest is brought in (gasp) because there's a ballet in the rep that really suits him/her, or as a spice -- that can be good. It's always interested me that when the Royal Ballet starts importing men for leading roles it's a National Shame, and everyone looks to the school and wonders why it can't produce male stars (a reasonable question), yet New York City Ballet imported its male stars from 1970 through the mid-'90s, and that caused, and causes, very little comment. (Jean Pierre Bonnefoux, Peter Martins, Helgi Tomasson, Ib Andersen, Adam Luders, Nikolaj Hubbe, etc etc etc)

I've always thought that Baryshnikov's interest in classical ballet would revive when he stopped dancing and no longer looked at dance as "is that something I can still do." Mel, I don't see Merce Cunningham as a part of classical ballet in any way.

What a Christmas present!

Thanks, Grace -- I wondered where those things came from!

I don't have time to check it now (I may later this week) but my memory is -- I THINK! -- black tights, geometric tops (obviously you can't tell the color), so a "modern" look (for 1958). I also have an impression that the ballet had at least comic elements, if not an out and out comedy. One of my Curiosity Triple Bills would be: Serenade (Fokine's ballet to that music) Apollo (Adolf Bolm, danced at the Library of Congress by Bolm and Ruth Page) Agon (MacMillan)

Yes. Haskell's "Ballet Annuals".

grace, I think (THINK) I remember one in the Ballet Annual for 1958. Do you have that in libraries down there?

I thought the "mentor" line was interesting, too, Manhattnik -- and I've never read Tharp herself claiming this. A conundrum: why is everyone scrambling to be called "ballet choreographers" at a time when ballet is at an aesthetic low point? Why the cachet? One would think it would be the reverse. "Ballet? Oh, no. Not me. Not that choreographer I like so much. We don't have anything to do with ballet. No sireebobkins. We're MUCH better, much more hip, more hop, more now." Or is it just that there is no leader, no center to ballet now, and when that happens it's a free for all? Just an idle question....