Alexandra

Interesting article -- thank you, Calliope. I'm not wild about either State Theater or the Met for watching dance. I agreed with the author's comment that not having aisles hinders the development of a feeling of community -- "you shuffle in, take your seat, and then shuffle out again," he says. And at the Met, I never think I've seen the ballet. I understand why ABT's style has coarsened since they've been there. Why pay attention to subtleties if no one can see them? There's no point to it. As for the separation among opera, music and ballet people, is that Lincoln Center's fault, or our own bifurcated society? We all know we're not people but "target markets" Those who've grown up with that may well tend to act that way.

A good question from Leigh, and more good quetsions raised by Victoria, I think. I don't think that people paid much attention to company direction until recently -- the emphasis was all on choreography. For most viewers, a director is judged by repertory and dancers: do I like the ballets and are the dancers I like getting roles. To most dancers, they'll settle for "am I getting enough to dance and do I like my roles," I think. (I interviewed many Danish dancers asking them if Kronstam, who directed the Royal Danish Ballet from 1978 to 1985, was a good director and with about four exceptions the answer was, "I can't complain -- I got many good parts" or something of the sort, totally with reference to their own career, which is quite understandable.) To me, a director is more long-term than that -- not what s/he does this season but -- especially a director who's in charge of an institution, which existed before him and will, one hopes, continue to thrive after. To me, a superb director cares for the ballets and the dancers in his charge. This means keeping the core repertory healthy and developing the dancers through the way the company classes are taught, the ballets are staged, and the new ballets chosen. I think experiments and failures, both in casting and in acquisition of ballets, are necessary to do this and should not be held against the director -- even obvious failures sometimes serve a purpose ("See, I told you that novelist you all like so much would be a disaster as a choreographer!") . I give high marks for a knack for casting, a sense for which dancers suit which roles, and also how to "bring a dancer along," as they say -- a sense of which role is a stepping stone for what other roles. I think Balanchine (and Kirstein?) were superb directors. Balanchine is justly revered for his ballets and for his development of dancers, but he also gave space and time to Robbins, and to Tudor when Tudor was without a home, and he had a very good sense of the public, and how to entertain them without pandering. I think Ashton was a superb director as well -- and I think he's totally overlooked in this area. Look at his company in 1969 -- Royal watchers would recognize nearly every name. He hit his peak as a choreographer during his tenure and he brought in ballets -- most notably Nijinska's "Les Noces" that enhanced the repertory. His stagings and fiddlings of the classics were beautiful and the company danced them beautifully when he was in charge. DeValois, of course, who developed a company from nothing and kept it going through three generations of dancers. I'd echo Victoria's comments about Cranko. He certainly developed dancers and built a repertory and an audience. He died while still in his 40s -- too early to judge. Of the Danes, the only company whose history I know well enough to go back before my own viewing, Hans Beck is a saint to me. He preserved not only Bournonville's ballets but his aesthetic -- and did this because he had the sense and the taste to see that there wasn't anything better around and he wouldn't settle for second best, and that included his own work. Instead of throwing out everything, he preserved, trying to keep the company afloat until the next Bournonville came along, and those who'd seen Bournonville's ballets during B's lifetime wrote that Beck's stagings had revivified them after a fallow period. Harald Lander dominated the company for 20 years, was an inspired director by dancers' testimony, certainly developed dancers. If he wasn't a great choreographer, he was an adequate one and fed the company for 20 years. Henning Kronstam brought the company back after 12 years of being directed by a choreographer (Flemming Flindt) who wasn't a great institutional director, in my view, because he was interested primarily in his own work and the dancers he liked and because he turned the company more and more towards modern dance and theater pieces and away from ballet. Kronstam developed two generations of dancers, restored the Bournonville repertory, and was a brilliant stager/director in his own right. He also lead the company during troubled times -- they were homeless for nearly 3 years while the theater was being rebuilt and didn't lose a dancer. I think he's a good example of a director using what he had to the fullest. From the little I've read, I think Konstantin Sergeyev was a very good director -- but I'd shut up in an instant on that one in the presence of Russians who know the company far better than I and lived through his directorship. From what I know, he developed and inspired dancers and provided solid stagings of Petipa's works. Finally, while I don't think I could quite say "superb" for Nureyev, I think what he did for Paris was remarkable. "They're still living off him" a friend who watches the company more than I told me, and it seems true. In several interviews Marc Haegeman has done with French dancers for DanceView, the same phrase comes up -- "Rudolf's choreographies can be discussed, but those ballets keep our technique at the highest level." No mean accomplishment, that. And what amazes me the most is that he apparently walked into the room, looked around, saw exactly who was principal dancer material, who were the good soloists, and made it happen.

Ballet Nut, thank you for asking about Napoli And Estelle and Viviane, thank you for the links. BW, we don't do much Bournonville here. They were a Danish specialty -- there are so many character parts, and they come from such a specific tradition that it's difficult for anyone else to do the ballets. Ballet Nut, you can't buy that video now. Its license ran out, so I'm glad you could rent it. The short version of Napoli: Teresina is courted by Gennaro (a fisherman). Two Unsuitable Suitors (Peppo, the Lemonade Seller, and Giacomo, purveyor of fine macaroni) vie for her hand and try to make trouble for Gennaro. The whole first act is local color and character development in the style of the times. Napoli, the city, is a character as well as the people. (Background: Bournonville was exiled from Denmark for a few months because he'd addressed the King from the stage during a small riot and that was Not Done. One of the places he traveled was to Naples, and Napoli is his "home movie" of what he saw there. Gennaro was the name of ..what do you call the guy who paddles the gondola?) After a silly quarrel, Gennaro realizes he loves Teresina and asks her to marry him. She agrees. They go off in a little boat to discuss their future; life in Napoli bubbles on -- a street singer, a toy theater. A storm comes up; the boat comes back with an unconscious Gennaro and no Teresina. She is presumed drowned. Teresina's mother comes out and learns the news because her two friends turn away from her; she knows something is wrong. She curses at Gennaro. When Gennaro is left alone, he is frantic and beseeches the Heavens and the sea to give him back his beloved Teresina. In despair, he decides to drown himself but is stopped by the sight of the Madonna -- suicide is a sin. The parish priest comes by and gives him a medalion (a symbol of the Catholic faith) and tells him to have faith and go look for her. The second act is set in the Blue Grotto. Teresina (drowned? Merely unconscious?) has been taken there by Golfo, a Sea Monster, where she becomes a nymph and completely forgets her humanity. She doesn't recognize Gennaro (note that Gennaro is not at all interested in the other nymphs. He's not a Romantic hero. He wants his girl back.) They dance together and he tries to make her remember him. He shows her the medalion; it stirs a memory -- she is a Christian, not a pagan! -- and the blood begins to flow again in her veins. They hold up the medaliion and walk around the stage (the music is a Catholic hymn) and Golfo must bow to a higher power and pay them tribute. They go home and get married. The third act is a slice of Bournonville's life (he danced the first Gennaro in 1842!). One day when he was on the outskirts of Naples, eating lunch on the side of a hill, and watching a wedding. They started dancing a tarantella. "I was the greatest character dancer in Europe," he wrote, with typical modesty. "I knew 11 variations of the tarantella." He came down, took of his coat, tossed his hat, and stepped in, dancing with the bride -- that moment, that exact moment, is preserved in the tarantella. The solos, which many think exemplify Bournonville's choreography, are really by Hans Beck, who took those solos from another Bournonville ballet (Abdallah) and made variations of them for this ballet. I think this video is a good performance of an okay production, but not a great one (Villumsen is not at peak form, Hindberg is not an ideal Bournonville dancer. As a production, Golfo was once MUCH more powerful and terrifying, and the production isn't as lively or as poetic as stagings by other Bournonville stagers.) But some of the dancing is quite good, I think.

Thanks for posting that, atm. Liturgical dance is an area that doesn't get very much attention these days. I know very little about it, and have seen only comunity level liturgical dance -- dance groups connected to churches, where the dancers were all parish members first and dancers second. So thank you for posting this -- it's good to know what's going on.

Oh, what a lovely topic If we're sticking to Sleeping Beauty II fairies, some of the ones I've actually seen are: The Fairy of Efficiency. No one can say she doesn't do the steps, dashing them off, one after the other. She doesn't need a wand; she has a remote control device. The Fairy of Greed. Her variation has the MOST steps in it, often stolen from the other fairies. Only the speedy can attempt this variation. The Fairy of Ambition. In slightly over her heard, the FofA plunges forward, often grimly, dancing many of the steps in her variation, slurping others, falling out of turns, but always smiling, smiling, smiling. For Aurora's breakfast, there's either: The Wheaties Fairy -- dressed in tennis togs, she flits here and there, leaping, jumping and turning (often simultaneously), her arm positions inspired by free weights -- or, in a low budget company -- the Oatmeal Fairy -- lumpy and determined, her variation is rather basic and gets the delivery it deserves. p.s. how come there aren't any boy fairies?

Becky, I can understand too many Nutcrackers I checked the web site Ari posted and it's very informative. It seems the company performs mainly in Britain, which is why this may not have drawn that big a response here. There are a lot of reviews on the site, though, as well as info on the dancers and repertory, so it might give you at least a taste of the company. If you see it, be sure to tell us about it!

Thanks for the news, Susan! I admired Garcia's Prodigal Son very much. Powerful dancing, but also very committed. He seemed to be living the role rather than acting it -- it was as though he didn't know what would come next, and that's a very rare quality. This is the season of announcements -- dancers coming in, dancers leaving. It's likely there will be new dancers, in light of recent departures, so we'll probably be hearing something soon.

I'd be interested in hearing what people who've seen her recently think. She was "coming up the ranks" when I was watching the company more regularly (when they graced D.C. with their presence regularly ) and I always thought her beautiful -- beautiful face, beautiful, long-limbed body that was not (to my taste) overmuscled -- but still a bit tentative. I've heard from friends, though, that she's made quite a few roles her own. What do our New Yorkers (or others who have seen her) think?

Darn. I thought we might help out and have a poll for suggested names

Thank you for posting that, Mary. I hope people will go and tells us about it. Graffin comes from the POB mime tradition, I believe, and that's not one we usually hear about. (Mary Cargill's interview with Graffin will be in the Summer issue of DanceView.)

This is interesting so far -- a rather even divide, and far fewer responses than to the Peter Martins poll. ABTers, please check this one out!

This is interesting so far -- a rather even divide, and far fewer responses than to the Peter Martins poll. ABTers, please check this one out!

Thank you for taking the time to post that, Brendan! It's the 10th anniversary of MacMillan's death, I think, which would account for the amount of MacMillan. Ashton is in the dust bin, it seems. Ooops, the Heritage Works Storage Bin. A much more conservative season than this one. Are there the Theme Titles that made everyone so happy this year? Royal Ballet fans -- at home or abroad; there are a lot of American RB fans too! -- what do you think? What's the "take" on this in London?

Viviane, you should be We spent two weeks trying to come up with a name and you hit on the right one right away! As for "Ballet 101" -- first, it's a series of books. There's also an Opera 101," for example. It comes from the way the curriculum is organized at American universities. Courses are given numbers. First level courses, usually taken by Freshmen, are in the 100 series (101, 102, 157, etc.) Then there are teh 200 level courses, 300 levesl, 400, etc. Graduate courses are usually numbered in the 500, 600, 700 range. The beginning courses that you take Freshman year are often the 101 courses. So your course schedule would look like this: World History 101-102 (that means it's a two semester course, a full year) Art History 101-102 Economics 101-102 French 101-102 Biology 101-102 These are introductory or survey courses, often lecture courses. Hope that makes sense

I like The Zamboni Story -- sounds like one of the lesser grand Italian ballerinas of the late 19th century

I like The Zamboni Story -- sounds like one of the lesser grand Italian ballerinas of the late 19th century

I'm surprised at the lopsidedness of this poll too -- I think we have a lot to learn about polls I couldn't come up with a better word than "personality" but this was hard for me to answer, too, because I saw Ballerina A, cold as steel, churning out fouettes, and Ballerina B, skipping across the stage without doing any real steps, but blowing kisses and looking absolutely adorable. (Of course, there are the ones who do fouettes AND blow kisses, but that's another story.) So I guess I read the differences as "robot" and "not a robot" -- which may not be fair.

I'm surprised at the lopsidedness of this poll too -- I think we have a lot to learn about polls I couldn't come up with a better word than "personality" but this was hard for me to answer, too, because I saw Ballerina A, cold as steel, churning out fouettes, and Ballerina B, skipping across the stage without doing any real steps, but blowing kisses and looking absolutely adorable. (Of course, there are the ones who do fouettes AND blow kisses, but that's another story.) So I guess I read the differences as "robot" and "not a robot" -- which may not be fair.

Paul wrote: Actually, yes, I think so. Not from my memory, when retains only the summary, but from reasking the people who (very gently) lectured me then. I remember one story about Balanchine's liking Fonteyn's elbows, which struck me at the time as rather odd. I didn't get the impression he was trying to recruit her just that he recognized her qualities. I think your point about Fonteyn's placement is key. She must have had speed; Ashton choreography is speedy. One Danish ballerina, based on Juliet -- not obviously a speed demon role at all, at least not to my eyes -- told me that Ashton choreography had the fastest footwork she'd ever encountered. I almost wrote "but Ashton is very centered" and then realized, I don't really know that. It LOOKS centered, just as it does not look speedy, but what does it feel like to dance? I agree on the points both dirac and Paul made about the passions of loving dancers -- neither loves nor hates need to be defended, and I think dirac's point about realizing that someone who doesn't share one's opinion does not necessarily have bad taste is a good one. A distinction I'll always think worth making, though, is that there's a difference between saying, "I hate Fonteyn," or "I never got Fonteyn," which is fine, and "Fonteyn couldn't dance" or "of course, she had no technique." Or between "I don't get Balanchine" and "Everyone knows that Balanchine is overrated," say. That's when the troops come charging over the top, although I think we've learned to do it nicely. (I think our teachers got involved in this debate, too, because the original poster was a student, and they felt it worth pointing out all of the matters of technique and judging dancers that they pointed out and I think that's perfectly appropriate and expect it to continue.) I don't think anyone crossed the line in this debate, though. Maybe we should have an FAQ on Fonteyn (and Pavlova and Ulanova explaining many of the points in this thread -- the difference in how technique is defined, the difference in emphasis from one era to the next, etc. I can well understand how someone (especially a young student) would be very confused reading: "She is one of the greatest dancers of the century" and then "she didn't have a jump," "didn't have a high extension," etc. [edited to add the last paragraph 3/27/2002]

I agree. Since no one has suggested anything else, and since we all like Discovering Ballet, I'll make the change. Thank you, Viviane!

Some asked, somewhere on this long thread, what the best video was of Fonteyn, or at least the one that really showed her qualities, and I'm not sure there is one. (I might suggest Nureyev's staging of "Swan Lake" for Vienna.) I also didn't "get" Fonteyn on video at first, and I still haven't found a commercially available video that makes me see what I've read, or even matches the few glimpses I got of her, when she was 57. The best film of Fonteyn that I've seen is a record of her "Sleeping Beauty" filmed by a fan, who snuck a camera into the Met over a 10-year period. The whole company looks wonderful, young and fresh and very confident; the dancers know they're loved. Films of the Royal seem very state occasion, a bit stolid, to me. But this one is as though they're dancing in private. If there were one film I've seen that I wish could be released commercially, this is it. A quick comment on Balanchine. He did prefer Shearer to Fonteyn in "Ballet Imperial" (she made a book out of that) but I've never read or heard that this was a general preference, or that he diid not admire Fonteyn. I remember saying this (that Balanchine didn't like Fonteyn) to an older critic and getting a puzzled reaction, and a few stories about what Balanchine had admired about her. Some stories grow over time, and with repetition, and I think this may be one of them. Fonteyn also was quoted as saying she didn't think she was suited to "Dying Swan" and didn't like to perform it -- once, at least, it was a command performance at Churchill's request. The photos show her looking extremely uncomfortable. Pavlova is another great dancer whose qualities don't quite come across on video -- at least, not to me. I always think she looks like a bunch of flailing feathers -- but I've always understood she was a very great dancer and found it worth the time and effort to figure out why. (Keith Money's wonderful, IMO, book on Pavlova, with a gazillion photos, helped there, and his photo books of Fonteyn are, to me, more valuable than any video I've seen in showing what she was like, at least to someone who barely saw her. It's interesting tracking the "she can't dance" syndrome. When I first came to ballet, I read ad nauseum that "Pavlova had no technique" and "why, any girl in the corps de ballet today can do more than she could." (It was the "why" in that sentence that always got my goat.) About a decade or so ago, I was told a story by someone who overheard, in the corridors of SAB, a miffed 14-year-old coming out of Farrell's class muttering, "Was she ever any good?" I'm curious as to who the next "she had no technique, you know" will be and when that will come.

Keep 'em coming Ballet Nut, I like "Carabosse -- the Untold Story." It would make a nice companion piece to Mme. Hermine's "Bathilde's Revenge." Mary, the prequil to Jewels could take place in a quarry.

Keep 'em coming Ballet Nut, I like "Carabosse -- the Untold Story." It would make a nice companion piece to Mme. Hermine's "Bathilde's Revenge." Mary, the prequil to Jewels could take place in a quarry.

Viviane, your title is MUCH better than "Ballet for Dummies" I haven't seen a book like that. There is, however, an excellent (IMO) book called "Ballet 101" by Robert Greskovic (currently dance critic for The Wall Street Journal). It's written for adults and hits the basics, so it's good for those who are curious about, or new to ballet, but it's also very meaty, and so it's excellent for anyone interested in ballet. I'll often check things in it -- one of its many charms is a very complete videography.

Kristen, thank you for posting that. I'm sorry you can't see the final performance too! Jaffe danced "Dim Lustre" in D.C. opening night, and it seemed as though she was injured -- not limping, of course, but not at the top of her form. She then withdrew, not only from "Corsaire" but from Mark Morris's "Gong." Like many dancers her age, she's been troubled by injuries the past few seasons, so perhaps that is at the root of it. Because of those withdrawals, I wasn't as surprised as you by the announcement.