Alexandra

They don't have an elephant -- I asked. No tiger either. They do have children, but these were left at home.

Where's Jeannie?

Jeannie, is there a Vegas window open for betting on ballet competitions If not, you could start one! (New forum, Ballet Alert's off track betting. Only kidding, Moms.)

Anyone else go?

(Sob) NO! It's on my top ten list when I get to Heaven I've seen the Diana Adams excerpt too, Glebb. I don't care if little bits of FintheC have gotten into this or that ballet, I want to see it.

Perhaps we read different reviews, but I the ones I read (of the ballet when it was new) were of the "nice third act, but the rest is filler" variety. They may have liked some of the dancers, but not the ballet, I thought. If it had been a huge box office hit, it's odd it hasn't remained in repertory. Croce supported the ballet when it was first done, and made it clear that she was arguing from a contrarian point of view -- she was a MacMillan supporter in the early 1970s and wrote that maybe it was a failed experiment, but at least it was an experiment, he was trying to do something different with the three-act form. (This was in the context that "Manon" was a retrenchment, a retreat from the failure of "Anastasia" and a much more conservative "traditional" three-act. Perhaps some of our London readers -- or Mary, who was in London at the time of the premiere -- can put this in context? Editing -- sorry, Mary. We were posting at the sames time!

I'm writing this on the run, but, in brief, I think it was a stinker It was revived a few years ago to no great acclaim. The one-act, a very expressionistic work, was considered very strong, and when MacMillan took over the Royal he added two acts to make a full-length. From what I've read, that was not considered a good decision. Didn't ABT revive this a few seasons ago? Or am I dreaming that?

Estelle, I can't answer that, I'm sorry to say. I could be misremembering -- the question came up long ago. I can't remember the year, but Julie Kent was his ballerina, and she was 15! (This is a local college that has a ballet department and they have a guest choreographer every year.) It's also possible that the story is more complex. Is Bonnefoux a usual spelling in France?

I think that's a good point -- critics usually try to stay away from blatant advice giving. But I suppose it's irresistible. I'm sure someone wrote "Petipa should think again! Obviously Siegfried has learned his lesson and they should be allowed to live happily ever after!" Having just read a good chunk of American and British (not to mention Danish) criticism of the past 50 years, I think there is more viciousnous now. (I don't mean to say that I think Barnes' piece is vicious.) And more overtly political criticism. A reviewer may really not mind this new ballet that much, but saying so might give Maestro A a boost and Maestro B, my friend, or the person I support, won't like it, or will look bad in comparison, etc. I've read several New York reviews from the 1950s that are virulently anti-Ashton and there's a distinct undertone, to me, that it's because they perceived him as a threat. (Strange to think now, but Illuminations and Picnic at Tintagel were big hits at NYCB and that, and the acquisition of a Tudor repertory, was not liked by some.) They didn't suggest how he should choreograph, though, just that he should go away. One I remember -- B.H. Haggin -- dismisses the entire oeuvre as mere baubles and says that the one thing Ashton can't do to save his life is make a pas de deux. (!!!!) John Martin did give Balanchine a lot of advice, but it was mostly "go back to Europe where you belong and take those frothy little ballets with you." He later became appreciative of Balanchine's choreography and had the decency to say so. There was a lot of anti-Balanchine sentiment in the 1950s and '60s from the modern dance wing of the dance world that, as in the Ashton case, seems, to me, to be created wholly out of resentment -- he got the crowds, he got the money, our native art form is unappreciated, it's not fair. The criticism of Balanchine was that "all his ballets look alike" meaning they were put into the "divertissement" slot and few people looked further to see the differences. Our atm is an exception ) I'd like to spin off of Callipe's question and ask what people think about advice giving. If a critic thinks a new work is good, but this or that is wrong with it, should s/he say so? Where is the line? Is saying "the work needs a pas de deux" okay? Or "Either make a literal work or an abstract work, but pick one?" How could that be phrased so it's useful to both reader and, perhaps, choreographer?

The Bolshoi is so big that sometimes another wing of it is touring elsewhere, so often one tour only gets two or three principals. I don't know if that's the situation here or not, but it's a possibility. Thanks Ari and Jeannie for posting. I have to add something. I just have to. You guys did a great job but you forgot to tell everybody how Volochkova furiously fanned herself every fourth fouette in the coda of Don Q!!!

I won't be able to post on this, at least until the weekend, because I'm covering some of the performances, but I wanted to put up a thread to start a discussion. The Bolshoi opened last night with a mixed opera-ballet gala (no sopranos! odd). I know one, and I think two other, Ballet Alertniks went -- what did you think? (I'm posting this here instead of in the Bolshoi forum because my idea was that the company-specific forums would be the "home base" for those companies, while the Recent Performances forum would be the "outsiders" view. I'll probably move any Bolshoi threads into the Bolshoi forum after the run. Well, it made sense at the time )

Estelle, I can answer the Bonnefoux question. I asked it when he was working at Goucher College (a local college) several years ago. Bonnefoux is the correct spelling. When he first came to America it got changed to Bonnefous (I forget why -- I think it was simply an error on the poster that didn't get corrected, but I may be wrong.) He didn't feel he could change it while he was dancing with NYCB, but when he retired -- and began to choreograph and direct -- he changed it to the original spelling.

I'm sorry no one's gotten to this Watermill. I don't think this has been released on video. As far as I it exists only as a film -- and I THINK it can be viewed at the Dance Collection in New York. If anyone has any further information, or if this is incorrect, please add/correct.

CASTING FOR SEVENTH AND EIGHTH WEEK ANNOUNCED The * means it's a debut. (Yes, Bocca is making his debut as Hilarion!) (+ means a NY debut) SEVENTH WEEK Mon. Eve., June 24, 8 P.M. GISELLE Jaffe, Carreño, Murphy, Bocca* Tues. Eve., June 25, 8 P.M. GISELLE McKerrow, Belotserkovsky, Abrera, E. Brown Wed. Mat., June 26, 2 P.M. GISELLE Herrera, Gomes*, C. Corella, Saveliev* Wed. Eve., June 26, 8 P.M. GISELLE Ferri, Bocca, Murphy, Graffin Thurs. Eve., June 27, 8 P.M. GISELLE Ananiashvili, Carreño, Wiles, Saveliev Fri. Eve., June 28, 8 P.M. GISELLE Kent, Malakhov, Murphy, Graffin Sat. Mat., June 29, 2 P.M. GISELLE ?McKerrow, Stiefel, Abrera, E. Brown Sat. Eve., June 29, 8 P.M. GISELLE Tuttle, Corella, Wiles, Graffin EIGHTH WEEK Mon. Eve., July 1, 8 P.M. SWAN LAKE Ananiashvili, Bocca, Malakhov Tues. Eve., July 2, 8 P.M. SWAN LAKE Tuttle, Carreño, Belotserkovsky Wed. Mat., July 3, 2 P.M. SWAN LAKE Kent, Corella, Torres+ Wed. Eve., July 3, 8 P.M. SWAN LAKE Herrera, Gomes, Molina+ Thurs. Eve., July 4, 8 P.M. SWAN LAKE ? Ananiashvili, Belotserkovsky, Torres Fri. Eve., July 5, 8 P.M. SWAN LAKE McKerrow, Stiefel, Gomes Sat. Mat., July 6, 2 P.M. SWAN LAKE Murphy, Carreño, Belotserkovsky Sat. Eve., July 6, 8 P.M. SWAN LAKE Kent, Corella, Gomes -30-

Good question, Helena. I haven't had time to do more than quick answers (on other forums) and don't have time today for a lengthy one, but I wanted to make a few points. Mendlssohn's music was not initially a score, but individual pieces meant to be played at intervals during performances of the play. So, while I'm not a fan of Lanchberry generally, he can cobble it together in any way he wants; he's not violating a symphony. And the pieces were put together so that Ashton could handle the story in dance. I don't understand the "there's no depth in the Ashton" point of view at all. To me, that's like saying there's no depth in Keats' "To Autumn" because it's just about fruit. Depth is what goes on below the surface, not what's readily visible. I also have trouble understanding what I've heard (more than read here) from aficionados of both ballets that The Other One isn't musical. I think they are two of the most musical choreographers who ever breathed -- but they use music differently. I think this must mean that the viewer has a particular association with a particular passage in one version or the other and finds the other version lacking because this passage, this way of matching a particular step or gesture to that particular musical phrase, is done differently in one version or the other. i I'm the exception to the "whatever you saw first you like" rule, because I saw the Balanchine for years and never liked it -- didn't hate it, just never liked it -- and saw "The Dream" (first on video!) and loved it instantly. I do not think story ballets are Balanchine's metier. ("Harlequinade" is also at the top of my Don't Like It listl) To me it's bare, rather than spare, and pre-Fokine, steps set to music linked by a story rather than story-telling. (One thing that has always grated is the way he repeats the mime when there's a repeat in the score.) There's a lot of filler and although I like the dances in the second act, I don't want them there I understand the heaviness of the fairies -- Mendlssohn was German, hence, these are Germanic fairies -- but Shakespeare was English, and I prefer the Victorian fairies (matching the music in that way) of the Ashton. I think this is a key difference -- Balanchine's vision, as (almost) always is keyed to the music, and Ashton's is to the poetry. Although there were always individual dancers I liked in it, the first time I loved anything about "Midsummer" was Darci Kistler's Titania. A colleague of mine wrote about her mellifluous dancing, and I couldn't better that. As in any Balanchine ballet, there are individual dances that are breathtakingly beautiful. What convinced me that Midsummer could be an interesting ballet was the staging by PNB -- refreshed, recostumed and very well danced. (I haven't seen the video; this is from the company's visit to DC 6 (?) years ago.) I think Ashton's "The Dream" is a poem more than a "story ballet" -- it wasn't intended to be a play or a novel. I also thnk it's is a very rich and wonderful work, and one of the masterpieces of the 20th century while, for me, "Midsummer" is a relatively minor work in a great choreographer's oeuvre. The bottom line, for me, is that Ashton's is tighter, more of a piece. I'd say the same thing, in reverse, about the two choreographer's "La Valse." I enjoy watching Ashton's version, it's a good ballet, there are beautiful things in it, but it doesn't have as tight a frame as Balanchine's and I think Balanchine's ("La Valse") is the better ballet. I hope I'll have time to write more about the Ashton later, or tomorrow.

Good question, Helena. I haven't had time to do more than quick answers (on other forums) and don't have time today for a lengthy one, but I wanted to make a few points. Mendlssohn's music was not initially a score, but individual pieces meant to be played at intervals during performances of the play. So, while I'm not a fan of Lanchberry generally, he can cobble it together in any way he wants; he's not violating a symphony. And the pieces were put together so that Ashton could handle the story in dance. I don't understand the "there's no depth in the Ashton" point of view at all. To me, that's like saying there's no depth in Keats' "To Autumn" because it's just about fruit. Depth is what goes on below the surface, not what's readily visible. I also have trouble understanding what I've heard (more than read here) from aficionados of both ballets that The Other One isn't musical. I think they are two of the most musical choreographers who ever breathed -- but they use music differently. I think this must mean that the viewer has a particular association with a particular passage in one version or the other and finds the other version lacking because this passage, this way of matching a particular step or gesture to that particular musical phrase, is done differently in one version or the other. i I'm the exception to the "whatever you saw first you like" rule, because I saw the Balanchine for years and never liked it -- didn't hate it, just never liked it -- and saw "The Dream" (first on video!) and loved it instantly. I do not think story ballets are Balanchine's metier. ("Harlequinade" is also at the top of my Don't Like It listl) To me it's bare, rather than spare, and pre-Fokine, steps set to music linked by a story rather than story-telling. (One thing that has always grated is the way he repeats the mime when there's a repeat in the score.) There's a lot of filler and although I like the dances in the second act, I don't want them there I understand the heaviness of the fairies -- Mendlssohn was German, hence, these are Germanic fairies -- but Shakespeare was English, and I prefer the Victorian fairies (matching the music in that way) of the Ashton. I think this is a key difference -- Balanchine's vision, as (almost) always is keyed to the music, and Ashton's is to the poetry. Although there were always individual dancers I liked in it, the first time I loved anything about "Midsummer" was Darci Kistler's Titania. A colleague of mine wrote about her mellifluous dancing, and I couldn't better that. As in any Balanchine ballet, there are individual dances that are breathtakingly beautiful. What convinced me that Midsummer could be an interesting ballet was the staging by PNB -- refreshed, recostumed and very well danced. (I haven't seen the video; this is from the company's visit to DC 6 (?) years ago.) I think Ashton's "The Dream" is a poem more than a "story ballet" -- it wasn't intended to be a play or a novel. I also thnk it's is a very rich and wonderful work, and one of the masterpieces of the 20th century while, for me, "Midsummer" is a relatively minor work in a great choreographer's oeuvre. The bottom line, for me, is that Ashton's is tighter, more of a piece. I'd say the same thing, in reverse, about the two choreographer's "La Valse." I enjoy watching Ashton's version, it's a good ballet, there are beautiful things in it, but it doesn't have as tight a frame as Balanchine's and I think Balanchine's ("La Valse") is the better ballet. I hope I'll have time to write more about the Ashton later, or tomorrow.

Thanks very much for your discretion. It's really best not to post names -- what if the dancers want to retire -- or leave -- but haven't firmed up plans yet, and management sees the names? Not a good situation. We'll know at the end of the season. It is difficult, though, because usually the company doesn't send out a press release with the names of corps dances who retire. If you'd like to email me or PM me with the names, I'll email NYCB press office and check -- but not until after the season and you're sure. How's that? To others who read this, no names, please. Thanks!

Interesting -- thanks for the alert, sneds. They do these shows from time to time -- interesting that this one was to promote the NBA. Usually it's dance people trying to show a connection to sports. I remember one from the late '70s-early '80s where Twyla Tharp did a dance for Peter Martins and Lynn Swann (the latter a famous football player of the day).

This whole issue, to me, is another reason why dance can never be a mainstream art form -- and isn't supposed to be.

Doris, this is a very appropriate place to post this issue. I hope it draws a range of responses -- from audience members as well as teachers and students -- and parents! I've seen the same recital once or twice, I think How it's advertised and how it's priced makes a difference to me, too. If it's Dolly Dinkle Academy Spring Recital, please come -- that's one thing. If it's La Grand Ballet du D. Dinkle in Swan Lake -- that's another.

Here's a link to the Letters to the Editor about Ms. Homan's article. (Ari also posted it on Links.) (The first letters are about the Kinks!) It was interesting the way they ran them, to me. The first three are positive -- and all from people associated with the company, like it's chairman -- while the last three aren't. They usually mix 'em up. Any comments? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/09/arts/09MAIL.html

Here's a link to the Letters to the Editor about Ms. Homan's article. (Ari also posted it on Links.) (The first letters are about the Kinks!) It was interesting the way they ran them, to me. The first three are positive -- and all from people associated with the company, like it's chairman -- while the last three aren't. They usually mix 'em up. Any comments? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/09/arts/09MAIL.html

Lolly, Dowell did coach the principals in Dream, at least, for ABT. (And Grant coached the principals for Fille.) The credits were Anthony Dowell with Christopher Carr -- which usually means that Carr set the corps.

I wonder if Renaissance virgins were consigned to white?

I'm bumping this up -- it's slipped so far down I thought some might not have seen it. For those who've joined our board in the past six months, especially, please chime in with your favorites