Alexandra

Augh! You've scooped me -- or Mme. Theo, actually. We have a similar proposal coming out in the next Ballet Alert! (Mme. Theo is our resident prima ballerina assoluta. She danced for the Czar. She knows Corsaire, Corsaire is a friend of hers, etc. etc. etc.) I noticed that one of the British reviews of the "Enduring Images" program (or was it "Enduring Memories?" they all run together, anyway, the modern one) said she expected to see marks for technical merit and artistic impression flash across the screen. We've all evidently been watching the Olympics

Novamom, I'm sorry. I posted about Saturday on a new thread before I'd seen your post here. (I try to make new threads for different casts, because it's sometimes one of the explanations for why did X think this (on Friday) and I think that (about Sunday afternoon)? Thanks for your comments, and thanks to both you and fondu for posting your reviews.

I didn't go to this one -- I hope others did, and will report.

Some notes on Saturday night's Super Star cast (Ananiashvili and Bocca, with Corella as Ali the Slave. Also Ashley Tuttle as Gulnare and Herman Cornejo as Birbanto). What a difference the lack of a grin makes. From her entrance, Ananiashvili -- bowed, sad and vulnerable -- set the tone, and this performance of "Le Corsaire" had as much depth as the production can support. Bocca's Conrad was touched by her -- her dignity, as well as the air of mysterious sadness -- and wanted to save her, and the plot took off. Both dancers have the authority (as well as, of course, the technique) to remain the center of the ballet. With that strong center, the ballet falls into place. It's a far cry from Petipa's original (as was Baryshnikov's "Don Quixote") but it's enjoyable and certainly moves along at a good clip I liked Bocca during his first two seasons at ABT, but liked him less as he became a brighter star. I hadn't seen him in several years and was very pleasantly surprised to see how he's matured. Unlike some of his colleagues, he didn't try to outshine everyone else on stage, he didn't serve up every trick in his arsenal at every entrance and his dancing had weight, power and shape. The other pleasant surprise was Cornejo, who, I think, is a real artist. He didn't camp up Birbanto, but made the assistant pirate a real man, with real ambitions and real anger. His second act solo seethed with anger and frustration -- it was as brilliantly danced as one could wish, but there was more to it than whiplash turns. Corella, as the Slave turned more, and faster, I'm sure, than any human being at any point in history has turned. During his final final final series of pirouettes, he turned from a bent working leg. He was completely centered, the turns were beautiful. He's supposed to be a slave, assisting in a pas de deux, worshiping, and paying homage to, his master's beloved and this was somehow lost in the centrifuge. Ananiashvili rose to the occasion, peppering her sequence of fouettes with a few doubles AND some dazzling arm changes. Ananiashvili had the best jump, I thought, of any of the women on view this weekend, and she used it as a metaphor for freedom. The second act pas de deux with Bocca was tenderly, as well as cleanly, danced. Ashley Tuttle was a fine Gulnare, very clear, very soft, beautiful arms. Hers couldn't have been more different than Murphy's virtuosic portrayal at the matinee (and different, still, from Herrera's the night before). This is one time when comparisons among dancers are out of place -- each danced her best, each brought different things to the role. Ananiashvili, it should be noted, also brought her own tutus to the role and the other ABT ballerinas should beg for copies. In my fulsome praise of the production Friday night, I forgot to mention the costumes, credited to being "on loan from the Bolshoi" and looking very low budget. Nothing low budget about Ananiashvili's tutus, especially the second act with a blue/blue violet bodice and deep violet skirt. The Jardin Animee tutu (white, with tiny flowers) was gorgeous too. Saturday night's audience was quite different from the others, older (there must have been a party afterwards, as there were quite a few men there in black tie), very absorbed in the ballet, rather quiet (except for Corella's solo in the second act) although they seemed to be enjoying it, and slow to rise at the end. But when they did, they gave a sustained standing ovation. I'm very glad the company brought this -- it was its hit several years ago (we got "Merry Widow" that season), and I'm very glad for the star-studded Saturday night cast. We haven't seen Ananiashvili and Bocca in years. But I don't want to see a pirouette for at least a month. [ March 12, 2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Manhattnik, another good one. BUT, I must protest the addition of additional details. John Neumeieresque revisionists may need that, but with the right ballerina, Marilyn-Giselle could get everything across just by the way she plucks that daisy Happy birthday, dear Bertie..... (I should warn you all that I'm going to print some of these in the next Ballet Alert! )

Manhattnik, another good one. BUT, I must protest the addition of additional details. John Neumeieresque revisionists may need that, but with the right ballerina, Marilyn-Giselle could get everything across just by the way she plucks that daisy Happy birthday, dear Bertie..... (I should warn you all that I'm going to print some of these in the next Ballet Alert! )

Oh, Nanatchka. I'm surprised at you. Le Grand Ballet Sublime would never allow jesters in "Giselle." That would be so distasteful.

Oh, Nanatchka. I'm surprised at you. Le Grand Ballet Sublime would never allow jesters in "Giselle." That would be so distasteful.

Nice touches, Manhattnik. (I can't really put my finger on my inspiration for this. If I were allowed to mime, I might borrow Albrecht's touching of the forehead and gentle shake of the head -- "I had a notion" -- but mime has been outlawed, so I'll just have to give a virtual shrug.) I can just hear Myrthe clearing her throat over there in the corner, and looking, with mute, mimeless pleading eyes, and I just know it's because she wants to do Spring Waters. If Hilarion had to catch all of the Wilis in Spring Waters flying leaps, that would finish him off. Then Albrecht could circle the stage several times with Giselle held in the, er, V lift. I think we're onto something here. Filching the Scherzo from Midsummer is brilliant. It's simply not fair to put Grigorovich and Cranko into these old ballets and leave Balanchine behind. Why, he'll become choreographically irrelevant to the younger generation!!! We could return the compliment by adding some of those nice running lifts from Spartacus to the finale of "The Four Temperaments." Audiences just won't want to see those old ballets -- you know, "Serenade," "Four Ts," "Concerto Barocco" -- after they've gotten a taste for these new ones.

Nice touches, Manhattnik. (I can't really put my finger on my inspiration for this. If I were allowed to mime, I might borrow Albrecht's touching of the forehead and gentle shake of the head -- "I had a notion" -- but mime has been outlawed, so I'll just have to give a virtual shrug.) I can just hear Myrthe clearing her throat over there in the corner, and looking, with mute, mimeless pleading eyes, and I just know it's because she wants to do Spring Waters. If Hilarion had to catch all of the Wilis in Spring Waters flying leaps, that would finish him off. Then Albrecht could circle the stage several times with Giselle held in the, er, V lift. I think we're onto something here. Filching the Scherzo from Midsummer is brilliant. It's simply not fair to put Grigorovich and Cranko into these old ballets and leave Balanchine behind. Why, he'll become choreographically irrelevant to the younger generation!!! We could return the compliment by adding some of those nice running lifts from Spartacus to the finale of "The Four Temperaments." Audiences just won't want to see those old ballets -- you know, "Serenade," "Four Ts," "Concerto Barocco" -- after they've gotten a taste for these new ones.

Two total pans and one rave from Boston. Did anyone go to see Eifman? `Russian Hamlet' shouldn't be quote: Five minutes into the Eifman Ballet's performance of ``Russian Hamlet: The Son of Catherine the Great'' Wednesday night at the Wang Theatre, I had the same sinking feeling I had at Boston Ballet's ``The Hunchback of Notre Dame,'' presented just a year ago on the same stage. I knew I was in for yet another overwrought, pretentious story ballet that would test the limits of my patience and offer little in terms of entertainment or psychological insight. This definite dud was choreographed by the legendary Boris Eifman, artistic director of the St. Petersburg-based company. His most egregious error in ``Russian Hamlet'' is a naive misunderstanding of the scores he has chosen to generate the numerous scenes in both acts. Few choreographers are willing to tackle Beethoven or Mahler; Eifman has taken both and arranged a cheap pastiche of canned music for his limited movement vocabulary.A 'Hamlet' with flash, but lacking soul quote: Russians have never shied away from grand themes in the arts. Think of ''War and Peace,'' ''Boris Godunov,'' and, in the dance realm, the splendid collaborations of Tchaikovsky and Petipa. What Petipa and Boris Eifman have in common is a taste for spectacle. ''Taste'' is also what separates the great 19th-century master from the contemporary choreographer who has brought his 25-year-old St. Petersburg-based troupe to Boston Eifman's work borders on the vulgar. His is a distinctly European sensibility, akin to that of Maurice Bejart. His choreography is full of hyperbole and histrionics; drama and narrative are its core. The American balletomane's preference, in general, is for understatement and musicality. You have to leave America behind to enter Eifman's world..Eifman_Ballet_scores_with_second_offering quote: Most choreographers might find translating the story of Don Juan to the ballet stage challenging enough. In his ''Don Juan & Moliere,'' however, Boris Eifman not only portrays the fictional Spanish rake but the great French comic dramatist who helped immortalize him as well, creating parallel stories that unfold in tandem. The good news is that he pulls it off, and brilliantly at that.

While some of these scenarios are excellent -- I'm particularly partial to Mussel's Wall Street Willies and Manhattnik's dance school angle -- let's think outside the box here. This is the 21st century. Tampering with libretti is so yesterday. It's about the steps. Let's face it. What "Giselle" needs is more dancing for male soloists. Who cares if the corps is male? Let the girls do the dirty work. We need men who turn, leap, turn, leap and turn, leap, and turn. With that in mind, I've made just a change or two to "Giselle" -- nothing to upset the purists -- that will bring "Giselle" smack up to date. Hilarion will have four more solos, Courland, Wilfrid and Bert (Giselle's Dad) will be dancing roles. Because today's dancers do not want to be hidebound by set choreography, they may choose their own solos -- we suggest something from "Spartacus," perhaps, or "The Golden Age". While each solo MUST contain either 32 grands pirouettes a la seconde OR thrice round the stage with jetes en tournant, the rest of the variation -- the filler, if you will -- is up to the discretion of the danseur. These dances will replace all of the mime scenes. There's lots of room. Only a few bars of Drigo will need to be interpolated. Wilfrid and Albrecht can do a pas de deux at the beginning of the ballet where they usually chat about clothes and swords. The pas de deux will demonstrate the difference in status between the two men, as well as Albrecht's wanderlust and yearning for adventure. Courland's solo can fit nicely into the space where Bathilde and Giselle have that silly conversation about clothes and jewels and how she just loves to sew. (Have you never noticed how much superficial chatter there is in this ballet?) It will show his dominance, his masculinity, and be a social commentary on the times. A clever Hilarion will be able to insinuate himself in just about any scene. A leap here, a turn there -- remember, a true danseur never walks -- he'll be all over the place in no time. Albrecht, to show his restlessness, his wanderlust and, if I haven't mentioned it, his yearning for adventure, will, from time to time, circle the stage in a series of brises. While Bert, of course, will do a fierce and anguished solo to demonstrate what will happen to Giselle if she persists on dancing on the Sabbath, cutting grape picking, and lusting after handsome strangers. The peasant pas de deux will be replaced by the Dance of the Twelve Swains, each, armed with (and eventually stomping on) bunches of grapes, outdoing the other trying to convince Giselle that THEY should crown her as queen of the harvest. The biggest change will be in the mad scene. We've had enough of Giselle by now, and Albrecht needs some more stage time. I think this should be Albrecht's scene. Giselle, tired from so much dancing, will fall asleep, and have "Giselle's Dream." Maybe we could put in the mirror pas de deux from Onegin, where Giselle imagines what it would be like if Albrecht really loved her, but Bathilde persists in walking through the dream, like the White Lady in Raymonda. Albrecht would, of course, have to show why he was worthy of such love. 64 pirouettes a la seconde, I think, 32 in each direction, then a few stag leaps ending with the dismount from Spartacus (Act I) to the knee. THAT should finish Giselle off. She dies in her sleep. In the second act, I'd flesh out the underchoreographed dance of the gamblers. They stagger around the stage trying to both chase and evade the firefly Wilis who flit by occasionally. After that, to preserve choreographic integrity, I'd simply suggest adding a few repeats. First Hilarion, then Albrecht, would dance Giselle's solos (after Giselle, of course. We mustn't forget her!) It is crucial to preserve class differences here in the interests of versimilitude: Hilarion gets the barrel turns and scissors kicks, Albrecht is restricted to jetes en tournant and may NOT, no matter what the provocation, kick himself in the back of the head during jumps. Hilarion's death scene needs to be much longer. At least two solos, maybe three. Perhaps the tavern solo Baryshnikov put in Don Q -- he could grab the branches from Myrthe as props. Or the pistols from Corsaire (or is that the same solo?) Yes, the pistols, definitely. He'd consider suicide, but then think better of it and do grand pirouettes a la seconde until he dies. The original ending would have to be restored, of course. Bathilde and Wilfrid would come in, and Wilfrid and Albrecht could have one final Joyful and Triumphant Dance of Reunion. Starting from opposite corners of the stage, they could circle it six times with turning jumps interspersed with quadruple pirouettes before meeting in the middle and, face to face, perform grands pirouettes a la seconde in tandem WITH a progressively deeper back bend. (that's to show remorse) There. That was easy. [ March 10, 2002, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: alexandra ]

While some of these scenarios are excellent -- I'm particularly partial to Mussel's Wall Street Willies and Manhattnik's dance school angle -- let's think outside the box here. This is the 21st century. Tampering with libretti is so yesterday. It's about the steps. Let's face it. What "Giselle" needs is more dancing for male soloists. Who cares if the corps is male? Let the girls do the dirty work. We need men who turn, leap, turn, leap and turn, leap, and turn. With that in mind, I've made just a change or two to "Giselle" -- nothing to upset the purists -- that will bring "Giselle" smack up to date. Hilarion will have four more solos, Courland, Wilfrid and Bert (Giselle's Dad) will be dancing roles. Because today's dancers do not want to be hidebound by set choreography, they may choose their own solos -- we suggest something from "Spartacus," perhaps, or "The Golden Age". While each solo MUST contain either 32 grands pirouettes a la seconde OR thrice round the stage with jetes en tournant, the rest of the variation -- the filler, if you will -- is up to the discretion of the danseur. These dances will replace all of the mime scenes. There's lots of room. Only a few bars of Drigo will need to be interpolated. Wilfrid and Albrecht can do a pas de deux at the beginning of the ballet where they usually chat about clothes and swords. The pas de deux will demonstrate the difference in status between the two men, as well as Albrecht's wanderlust and yearning for adventure. Courland's solo can fit nicely into the space where Bathilde and Giselle have that silly conversation about clothes and jewels and how she just loves to sew. (Have you never noticed how much superficial chatter there is in this ballet?) It will show his dominance, his masculinity, and be a social commentary on the times. A clever Hilarion will be able to insinuate himself in just about any scene. A leap here, a turn there -- remember, a true danseur never walks -- he'll be all over the place in no time. Albrecht, to show his restlessness, his wanderlust and, if I haven't mentioned it, his yearning for adventure, will, from time to time, circle the stage in a series of brises. While Bert, of course, will do a fierce and anguished solo to demonstrate what will happen to Giselle if she persists on dancing on the Sabbath, cutting grape picking, and lusting after handsome strangers. The peasant pas de deux will be replaced by the Dance of the Twelve Swains, each, armed with (and eventually stomping on) bunches of grapes, outdoing the other trying to convince Giselle that THEY should crown her as queen of the harvest. The biggest change will be in the mad scene. We've had enough of Giselle by now, and Albrecht needs some more stage time. I think this should be Albrecht's scene. Giselle, tired from so much dancing, will fall asleep, and have "Giselle's Dream." Maybe we could put in the mirror pas de deux from Onegin, where Giselle imagines what it would be like if Albrecht really loved her, but Bathilde persists in walking through the dream, like the White Lady in Raymonda. Albrecht would, of course, have to show why he was worthy of such love. 64 pirouettes a la seconde, I think, 32 in each direction, then a few stag leaps ending with the dismount from Spartacus (Act I) to the knee. THAT should finish Giselle off. She dies in her sleep. In the second act, I'd flesh out the underchoreographed dance of the gamblers. They stagger around the stage trying to both chase and evade the firefly Wilis who flit by occasionally. After that, to preserve choreographic integrity, I'd simply suggest adding a few repeats. First Hilarion, then Albrecht, would dance Giselle's solos (after Giselle, of course. We mustn't forget her!) It is crucial to preserve class differences here in the interests of versimilitude: Hilarion gets the barrel turns and scissors kicks, Albrecht is restricted to jetes en tournant and may NOT, no matter what the provocation, kick himself in the back of the head during jumps. Hilarion's death scene needs to be much longer. At least two solos, maybe three. Perhaps the tavern solo Baryshnikov put in Don Q -- he could grab the branches from Myrthe as props. Or the pistols from Corsaire (or is that the same solo?) Yes, the pistols, definitely. He'd consider suicide, but then think better of it and do grand pirouettes a la seconde until he dies. The original ending would have to be restored, of course. Bathilde and Wilfrid would come in, and Wilfrid and Albrecht could have one final Joyful and Triumphant Dance of Reunion. Starting from opposite corners of the stage, they could circle it six times with turning jumps interspersed with quadruple pirouettes before meeting in the middle and, face to face, perform grands pirouettes a la seconde in tandem WITH a progressively deeper back bend. (that's to show remorse) There. That was easy. [ March 10, 2002, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: alexandra ]

fondu, of the odalisques, Maria Riccetta (sp, I'm without my program) was the small, dark-haired woman. Gillian Murphy did the turns -- a series of quadruple pirouettes -- and Michelle Wiles did the second variation. Both Murphy and Wiles are blondes. Wiles is a bit taller than Murphy. Hope that helps I'd also mention that the televised cast wasn't the first night cast (when the ballet had its company premiere), so I'm not sure that the televised cast can be considered the company's ideal.

We're obviously kindred spirits. Please get her posting

Not quite a thumbs up -- I still think the production is less than top drawer, shall we say. BUT it looked much better this afternoon -- there were hints of a serious ballet here, if they'd just slow down and let us see it. And some glorious dancing. Gillian Murphy, as Gulnare, had a triumph, an absolute triumph. Everybody was talking about her -- "I loved the girl in yellow." It's by far the best thing I've seen her do, not just beautifully danced but expressively danced. AND she didn't do four pirouettes every time she turned, either. She danced the variations, rather than just coming out and scoring tricks. Dvorovenko is not at the same level technically -- this ballet exposes both Dvorovenko and Belotserkovsky as not-quite-top-of-the-line-technicians. BUT she danced very well, and very graciously, and the two of them together (she was Medora, he was Conrad) actually mimed and made the action, the motivation, in their scenes quite clear. Belotserkovsky can also partner, and can hold the stage standing still. I know that most people can never see too much dancing, but I like the contrast a 19th century danseur noble provides. He was the strong pivot around which a ballet swirled. And so the many solos diluted Belotserkovsky's effect, for me. He's a better turner than a jumper, but he's tall, and these solos, done for short, quick men, don't suit him. Marcelo Gomes, a dancer I'm enjoying seeing grow up, was the slave and danced very well, the phrasing very a la Nureyev (that one is branded in my brain). Why he was cast in this role is beyond me. He's very tall -- a Conrad, not an Ali. Do they just shuffle cards and pull out names for the casting? Since all the men get to do the same steps, it's not a question of, "Ah! Ted does double assembles very well, so we'll give him X, and Pete has terrific cabrioles, so he's suited to Y." One of the many unanswered questions in American ballet. Carreno, who made no impression as Ali (he's also miscast in that, IMO) was very good as Lankendem, both in dancing and in mime. The ballet didn't look as silly today. The principals didn't condescend to it, and the second act actually had a few touching moments. There's still a lot more that could be done with it, and the bumbly, silly Pasha drives me up a wall (not fair to blame this one on the dancers, it must be set this way, as both Pashas have done the same business). But it was enjoyable. The audience cheered at the end -- many more calls than last night. Deservedly, I'd say.

I haven't seen the Taylor company do this, alas, and so I have no right to comment. But I will anyway My guess is that one of the things that makes a difference is weight, the way the dancers use their bodies. Modern dancers use the floor in a different way -- it's not a springboard, something to flee, but something to sink into and use. Probably all the Taylor dancers have ballet training, I'd guess -- not something one would have said 30 years ago. I'd also guess the piece was really done on those bodies and transferred to ABT's dancers (Taylor's usual way of working). If Lisa Viola didn't do the "Big Bad Wolf" number, I'll be sorely disappointed. Now, for those of you who actually saw it.....

p.s. I forgot my manners. Hal, it's been a pleasure. Thank you for taking the question seriously.

Warning: If you liked "Corsaire," don't read this <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Cheap, Cheap, Thrills or Turn, Turn, Turn or Where is the Arab Anti-Defamation League when we need them? I didn't expect much from ABT's "Le Corsaire." I'd seen the TV broadcast. But I thought, if I could block out the fact that this had once been a ballet, I'd enjoy the dancing. I didn't. Inspired more by Pepsi commercials than anything that had once lived in Petipa's imagination -- much less Byron's -- this relentless exhibition of turns and jumps, the "acting" ranging from simpering to leering, looked like the cast of some teen heartthrob TV show putting on a play about pirates with the boy gymnasts invited in to, like, you know, wow the girls. I kept thinking of what Ari wrote last week about Joffrey and Lilac Garden: that they were kids, and Lilac was a grownup ballet, and they shouldn't be doing it. After the first act, I wanted a cleansing program -- Concerto Barocco, Symphonic Variations, Les Noces (Nijinska), say. After it was over, I thought I'd need an entire week of Kei Takei's "Light," something spare, thoughtful, meaningful. The dancing was full of tricks -- everyone does the same tricks, which is why I call it "relentless" -- but the tricks were unevenly delivered, and the dancing certainly not sophisticated. This was more Broadway dancing using classical steps than classical dancing. It's sell, sell, sell. Do every trick you know every time you take the stage. I've never been as conscious of pirouettes as I have this season; it's as though they've just been invented. What was once a classical variation that included pirouettes is now a series of pirouettes with a few minor embellishments. Every step that's not a pirouette or a jump doesn't seem to matter. It's slurred or swallowed, or turned into a preparation for THE JUMP and Look How Many Pirouettes I Can Do. Julie Kent was Medora and either had an off night or her technique is failing. She fell out of turns, couldn't finish the fouettes and her dancing lacked power and authority. Only the "nightie" pas de deux, where she went into her totally irrelevant Juliet-Manon act, was well-danced, and that was so studied I found it hard to watch. Far more serious than any technical failings, Kent did not dominate the ballet. I kept remembering what Ulanova had made of her entrance in Baksischirai -- veiled, carried by bearers, and, through her body, letting the audience know that she was a captive, that a horrible crime had been committed, that she had been violated (and this is from only viewing a video). Kent wears an ear to ear grin. Ain't being kidnapped a blast! Her presence was neither more nor less than that of the odalisques (who are dancing in the wrong act, but who the hell cares?). As Conrad, the putative hero, Ethan Stiefel looked like Colas with a pencilled on moustache. His dancing was off, as well; none of his tricks had any punch, and several landings were quite shaky. Lankhadem was Gennadi Saveliev. He got most -- though certainly not all -- of the barrel turns; the jumps were high enough, but I can't remember seeing someone deliver a virtuoso solo so cleanly, yet producing so little excitement. The audience gave them a screaming standing ovation at the end, but they sat on their hands most of the night, and I couldn't feel any electricity in the theater. That much dancing delivered at so high a level of energy becomes enervating. The dancers don't seem to know how to phrase -- vary the dynamics, show that this step is more important than that one. Exceptions: Michelle Wiles, as one of the Odalisques, and Kent, in her Jardin Animee solo, and -- surprise! -- Paloma Herrera, who had her best night of several seasons as Gulnare, especially the harem pants numbers, which suit her. (Her Jardin Animee solo was the one disappointment. She's working on the arms, she's trying to soften her line, but it hasn't yet been internalized.) The three odalisques (Murphy -- whose turns were thrilling -- Wiles, and Maria Riccetto) danced in such different styles they seemed to come from different continents. The fact that both Murphy and Wiles are tall virtuosos and Riccetto is a slight woman whose dancing has the impact of a flying feather, didn't help. And then there's De Luz, as Birbanto. Well. This is like casting the boy Mickey Rooney in an Edward G. Robinson role. When he pulls out that poisoned flower, we're suddenly watching Puck in Midsummer. Carreno was Ali and his dancing didn't measure up to other memories, either. Carreno's stage presence is like a blinking light -- when he's on stage, he's on, but there's no connection between one appearance and the next. Although all the men looked as though the stage was just too small for them, this was most obvious in Carreno's dancing. Yes, it is smaller than the Met stage. We don't need to be reminded of that in every male solo. Adjust to it. The Kirov did. Isn't slavery fun? Aren't pirates just the cutest little things? Aren't those Arabs asses? Look at the harem girls quake! Wave your arm, free them. Scamper off. There we go, time for SOME MORE DANCING. Why not just do some back flips and be done with it? We'll clap for that. In the early 19th century in Paris, you had your Paris Opera, and you had your Boulevard theaters. The latter attracted an audience who found the POB stuffy and high art rather silly. They wanted more action, more virtuosity. The theaters presented scaled down versions of what was done on the opera stage, often mocking it because they couldn't deliver it straight. This production is a Boulevard production. Why did it bother me so much? Because it's becoming pervasive, and ABT's way of delivering the goods is becoming international standard, and it's seven steps down. I don't care that Houston does "Dracula". If they like it, good for them. I don't have to see it, and the major companies in the world aren't imitating Houston Ballet. These are good dancers, and they can do better than this. They deserve better than this. The Kirov did "Corsaire" here about a decade ago. They brought down the house but there was also electricity from start to finish; they brought the audience into the ballet with them. The Kirov dancers had fun with the ballet, but they didn't trash it. Both Asylmuratova and Terekhova, very different ballerinas with very different approaches, touched the heart as Medora. Who is not a cute little winking thing who's sweet on the boy next door who just happens -- ooh! ooh! -- to be a pirate. I'm going to both performances today and, as always, I live in hope. Dvorovenko and Ananiashvili know the ballet, and they're grown ups. <small>[ March 09, 2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: alexandra ]</small>

Hal, I sympathize. There are many times I wish I'd never read a book about ballet, but just went and enjoyed. I think you've hit the dilemma squarely: In one way, one enjoys it more, because one isn't worried about is this right, is this wrong, etc. It's just what one likes. On the other hand, when one has been bitten by the ballet bug, one wants to know. Although I like dancers as much as the next person, and my first two years of ballet-going were basically following Nureyev's performances (and whatever came to Washingotn in between) from the beginning, I always wondered "where does it come from?" "why doesn't it match the picture in my book?" For technique, in addition to what Leigh recommended, you might be interested in Gretchen Ward Warren's "Classical Ballet Technique." It's got 1600 photos, shooting each step in the basic vocabulary from eight different angles. I think one discovers different aspects of things when one is ready for them. When your mind is open to this element, or that one, then you begin to see more, to rearrange perceptions. If you're interested in musicality, you'll focus on it and begin to see it -- and you'll notice, in those biographies, that the dancer may talk about it and explain what it meant to him, or how she struggled with it. If you become interested in "what is it?" you might find you'd skipped over references to "neoclassical," "romantic style," or "danseur noble," "demi-caractere," or not quite understood them. I learned a lot from reading critics. I read them not to see whether I agreed with them or not, but to try to learn the contexts of ballet. (Critics were more helpful to me than dancers here, as dancers are, understandably, often more interested in their own careers than in what's going on in the world. I read Croce, Jowitt, Siegel and Tobias -- the major ones writing then (late 1970s). I read the newspaper critics, too, of course. And I still envy London, which has eight major newspapers, each with a critic, because then one gets so many different views. For Balanchine, my main "teacher" was Nancy Reynolds "Repertory in Review," long out of print, but still findable. I also learned a lot from reasding Barbara Newman's book of interviews, "Striking a Balance." I was interested in Ashton and Petipa as well as Balanchine, and I learned a lot from reading about the Royal Ballet. My first book (because it was the only ballet book in Brentanos that week!) was Keith Money's "Fonteyn, the making of a legend." I studied those photographs; Fonteyn's simplicity and purity always "spoke" to me, and I would often return to those photos when seeing something that didn't look right on stage, to see how she approached the role. (I totally sympathize with your being dragged away from Manhattan story I was dragged away from Baltimore -- and dancing lessons, piano lessons and an excellent school and public library -- at the age of 9, to move to a cultural wilderness. I've never forgiven them.

Didn't anybody go last night? How was Ananiashvili in Bizet? Did Jaffe dance? Tell, tell.

"Etudes," by Harald Lander, was done for the Royal Danish Ballet. It never became a signature piece for them (basically because Lander was fired shortly after he made it, although not for that reason). London Festival Ballet made it a signature piece, now that I think of it. (Really, truly, it looked different with the Danes. It was originally much more gentle work, and not intended to be a powerhouse, knock 'em dead and trashing it is just fine, kind of piece. Manhattnik's mentioning of "Les Sylphides" for ABT brings up another aspect of signature piece. I think that was, probably until they got "Swan Lake." It was their classical ballet company credential. Chase insisted on opening with it in London rather than with their American repertory -- which is what the London presenters wanted -- because she said if she had done that, they would have thought the company was a modern dance company. So I think "Les Sylphides" was there keep the dancers in shape, show of the stars, ballet. But "Theme and VAriations" was their spanking new super hit, a 20th century classical ballet. Re Ari's point about owning a work -- and I second, third and fourth the comment about repertories being too homogenized; in the old days, back before mass transportation when people traveled, you went to the company to see the works -- I can see your point. City Ballet didn't do "Theme and Variations," partly for that reason, and partly because they had "Ballet Imperial," and the repertories were constructed differently then -- more on the Diaghilev appetizer, entre, dessert model than shuffling pieces in and out in true repertory fashion, I think. When Baryshnikov first took over ABT, as many will remember, he went after Balanchine ballets that NYCB didn't do.

"Etudes," by Harald Lander, was done for the Royal Danish Ballet. It never became a signature piece for them (basically because Lander was fired shortly after he made it, although not for that reason). London Festival Ballet made it a signature piece, now that I think of it. (Really, truly, it looked different with the Danes. It was originally much more gentle work, and not intended to be a powerhouse, knock 'em dead and trashing it is just fine, kind of piece. Manhattnik's mentioning of "Les Sylphides" for ABT brings up another aspect of signature piece. I think that was, probably until they got "Swan Lake." It was their classical ballet company credential. Chase insisted on opening with it in London rather than with their American repertory -- which is what the London presenters wanted -- because she said if she had done that, they would have thought the company was a modern dance company. So I think "Les Sylphides" was there keep the dancers in shape, show of the stars, ballet. But "Theme and VAriations" was their spanking new super hit, a 20th century classical ballet. Re Ari's point about owning a work -- and I second, third and fourth the comment about repertories being too homogenized; in the old days, back before mass transportation when people traveled, you went to the company to see the works -- I can see your point. City Ballet didn't do "Theme and Variations," partly for that reason, and partly because they had "Ballet Imperial," and the repertories were constructed differently then -- more on the Diaghilev appetizer, entre, dessert model than shuffling pieces in and out in true repertory fashion, I think. When Baryshnikov first took over ABT, as many will remember, he went after Balanchine ballets that NYCB didn't do.

Ari, I agree that there can be justification for wholesale changes. For me, if there's an artistic reason -- a real one -- that forgives many sins. The examples you cited are good ones. It can even be as persnickety as "I don't like visible calf muscles" or "I must have highly arched and articulate feet." I think that kind of a balletmaster could make cuts after one class. Dancers with insufficient turnout, or dancers who, when standing in first position, have a space between the calves. There's one major American company that has, in its audition notices, height requirements. It will eventually be the tallest compoany in the world. I think it's women 5'5 to 5'8 and men 5'10 to 6'1. I'm sure dirac is right that this is the way of the world, but "what's good enough for Enron is good enough for ballet" doesn't work for me. (I think it's been terrible in the publishing industry too. Every time I speak with my agent I hear about another group of editors -- with best-selling authors, who have performed well, who are team players, intelligent people -- let go from this or that publishing company because Mogul X has bought Grandfather Books.

Good question. I think it can vary at different times. Once, I've read, "Theme and Variations" was ABT's signature piece -- its calling card, what they had to bring when they travelled. I don't know what ABT's signature piece would be today. I remember Croce comparing the Royal Danish Ballet's "Napoli Act III" and "Konservatoriet" to New York City Ballet's (respectively) "Serenade" and "Symphony in C." She said that although Konservatoriet may be the basis for the Bournonville technique -- it's a classroom ballet, and hence, in a way, a signature work, "Napoli" was really the signature work. She said that "Konservatoriet" was like "Symphony in C" and "Napoli" is like "Serenade" -- "more intimate and hence more revealing." Once, the Royal Ballet's signature was "Symphonic Variations." In the '60s, it was also Shades, I think. Yesterday, it had suddenly become "Manon." I wonder what it will be after two more years of the new regime? The odd Nacho Duato masterwork, I expect Other examples. A small one -- Washington Ballet was known for years by "Fives" and people are still angry that they don't get to see that now. (New directors fire not only dancers but ballets.) In moder dance, Paul Taylor has to schedule "Esplanade" and Alvin Ailey, "Revelations" every time they tour. And that leads to a definition -- it's the work you see that, once you see it, makes you know the company. It's the calling card, the work that encapsulates the company's style and personality.