Alexandra

Samba, I don't think the men's dancing in Rodeo was particularly sharp, and especially the Champion Roper's tap solo. (This didn't bother me; it added to the "down home" feeling of the whole production, and made the Cowgirl more special.) This may sound odd, but I agree with both Samba and Ari about Lilac Garden. It wasn't a top notch performance. I enjoyed it more than you all did, I think, because I saw something in it that I hadn't seen before (what I mentioned about the urgency, that it wasn't danced as a series of entrances and exits). I agree that the acting was -- well, I'd put it over-emoted and under-acted. And several people were asking, "Who's Donald Mahler???" I thought the action and motivations hadn't been explained clearly to the dancers -- it certainly didn't come across clearly. Welcome, catlady. I know you've been here awhile, but I don't remember seeing you on recent performances. Disagreeing is just fine I also think of the Joffrey as our Youth Ballet. I don't think it matters how old the dancers are, as much as how they're presented. It's a plus and minus, as is the technical level. I don't think of it as raw technique, as much as bodies -- especially feet -- that might not be accepted by ABT or NYCB. But that also means that you have dancers who really really really want to dance, and have learned to make up for their physical or technical imperfections, so that, like the youthful vigor, can be a plus.

All good points, Tancos, but the software is pretty much yes/no/maybe. You can do multiple questions, but they all have to be multiple choice. (That is, I could have a second question that says: I live in a: A. Large city B. Medium-cized city. C. Small town D. Rural area I think the best way to handle it is to do what you just did -- add a comment here. (Of course, then one's vote isn't anonymous, but that probably won't matter. And only registered members can vote in the polls.)

There was a particularly interesting view in The Independent, I thought. (Thanks to Jane Simpson for mentioning it.) Lots of historical background, about performance tradition as well as steps, and interesting comments about the dancers. Comments on the review? The production? Did anyone go? A Russian Masterpiece Full of Eastern Promise quote: La Bayadère may have kitsch elements, but it's also a superb spectacle. So why, asks Nadine Meisner, does the Royal Ballet's version fall short?read review [ March 06, 2002, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Come on, I saw at least two Frequent Posters there What did you think???

Welcome, v. oh. Jeannie, who I'm sure could answer your question, is traveling for the next few weeks and so may not see this. Perhaps someone else can answer it -- I hope so. (Unfortunately, I can't.) But I did want to take the opportunity to welcome you to Ballet Alert. You might be interested in the Adult Ballet Students forum in Special Groups (as well as other forums here, of course )

How often do you go to the ballet, on average, in a year?

Thanks for the clarification, Calliope. (And sorry for calling you Farrell Fan ) That said, and since the original post included modern dance choreographers, who is the greatest living choreographer, of any dance discipline And then, who is the best, highest ranked, most worthy, whatever, living ballet choreographer? Starting over, I'm still torn between Taylor and Cunningham. If I HAD to pick, originally I thought Cunningham, because he's been the most influential (one could say he's the father of minimalism, of divorcing dance from music, etc. and was very important in the development of American post-modern dance). BUT Taylor has also been influential in that so many choreographers were "schooled" as dancers in his company, and because his works have reached a broader public, through being performed by ballet companies. Since we're allowed to give multiple gold medals in this new age, I'll stick to "Both". In ballet.....I don't think there is a gold medal to award. If I had a gun to my head, I'd say Grigorovich. (And no, it's not because I like his work.) I don't think there's one working today who's in the top rank. Leigh, in the next version of the software, we'll be able to split posts away from threads and start new ones I think, from reading the British reviews, that perhaps one reason the ballet wasn't liked over there was because of the way it was danced. There were complaints that the duets were too alike; that's not my memory of the work when it was first danced.

Thanks for the clarification, Calliope. (And sorry for calling you Farrell Fan ) That said, and since the original post included modern dance choreographers, who is the greatest living choreographer, of any dance discipline And then, who is the best, highest ranked, most worthy, whatever, living ballet choreographer? Starting over, I'm still torn between Taylor and Cunningham. If I HAD to pick, originally I thought Cunningham, because he's been the most influential (one could say he's the father of minimalism, of divorcing dance from music, etc. and was very important in the development of American post-modern dance). BUT Taylor has also been influential in that so many choreographers were "schooled" as dancers in his company, and because his works have reached a broader public, through being performed by ballet companies. Since we're allowed to give multiple gold medals in this new age, I'll stick to "Both". In ballet.....I don't think there is a gold medal to award. If I had a gun to my head, I'd say Grigorovich. (And no, it's not because I like his work.) I don't think there's one working today who's in the top rank. Leigh, in the next version of the software, we'll be able to split posts away from threads and start new ones I think, from reading the British reviews, that perhaps one reason the ballet wasn't liked over there was because of the way it was danced. There were complaints that the duets were too alike; that's not my memory of the work when it was first danced.

Let's stay away from food, and stick to art

An interesting article by Jack Anderson in today's NYTimes about the current (well, 30-year-old) trend of trying to make ballets out of operas: quote: Dance and opera proceed according to different time schemes. Vocal music often needs time in which to unfold, if sung words are to be understood and their emotional points are to register. Operatic composers can even make time seem to stand still in steady outpourings of eloquent phrases. Wagner, in particular, was a master at this. Choreographers, too, sometimes delight in expansiveness. But, more often, moving bodies create emotional effects with unusual rapidity. A few carefully chosen gestures can be packed with feeling and dramatic content.There's much more in the article What do you think of the article? What do you think of the issue?

Thanks, Sheriff. I'm glad there won't be no shootin' (And I didn't mean my post as a chiding, but because I was trying to think like an Expressionist encountering this thread!) I'd love to get into all of these issues -- why the divide? Taste is the most difficult of all. I've read that British critics found Balanchine's "Union Jack" to be in bad taste; I loved it (with its original cast. I understand their reasons, and if someone made a ballet with sailors marching in a dessert singing Air Force tunes, I mightwell make fun of that.) I think Leigh's point about the critics is very important. Croce has defined what we think of choreographers. (It helps to be collected.) I've seen a few pieces (not by Croce!) lately that are reconsidering Cranko -- but in very hushed tones. There's also a comment I read once (Repertory in Review?) by Ruthanna Boris, complaining that Balanchine didn't like the way she was using music in a new ballet, saying, "George, we all don't hear music the same way." Good point, Ruthanna! I also think, along with the reading one does, there's the eye training. I know my eye was trained to Balanchine's sense of music and structure because the first decade of my danceviewing had lots of Balanchine ballets in it. It's hard to break away from that to watch work that doesn't come from the school of Balanchine. (Ashton's "Les Patineurs" and "Les Rendezvous" have a different structure than Petipa/Balanchine that seemed rambly to me for years. I also agree that it's important to understand where both the artists, and those who discuss them, are coming from. Otherwise, if we just say "good" and "bad" we won't understand each other. I once printed a piece by Sybil Shearer, who's a mentor, and big backer, of Neumeier. I'd had several conversations with her, found her fascinating and very intelligent, and wanted to read what she had to say. She didn't convince me, but it was an interesting article [ March 03, 2002, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Thanks, Sheriff. I'm glad there won't be no shootin' (And I didn't mean my post as a chiding, but because I was trying to think like an Expressionist encountering this thread!) I'd love to get into all of these issues -- why the divide? Taste is the most difficult of all. I've read that British critics found Balanchine's "Union Jack" to be in bad taste; I loved it (with its original cast. I understand their reasons, and if someone made a ballet with sailors marching in a dessert singing Air Force tunes, I mightwell make fun of that.) I think Leigh's point about the critics is very important. Croce has defined what we think of choreographers. (It helps to be collected.) I've seen a few pieces (not by Croce!) lately that are reconsidering Cranko -- but in very hushed tones. There's also a comment I read once (Repertory in Review?) by Ruthanna Boris, complaining that Balanchine didn't like the way she was using music in a new ballet, saying, "George, we all don't hear music the same way." Good point, Ruthanna! I also think, along with the reading one does, there's the eye training. I know my eye was trained to Balanchine's sense of music and structure because the first decade of my danceviewing had lots of Balanchine ballets in it. It's hard to break away from that to watch work that doesn't come from the school of Balanchine. (Ashton's "Les Patineurs" and "Les Rendezvous" have a different structure than Petipa/Balanchine that seemed rambly to me for years. I also agree that it's important to understand where both the artists, and those who discuss them, are coming from. Otherwise, if we just say "good" and "bad" we won't understand each other. I once printed a piece by Sybil Shearer, who's a mentor, and big backer, of Neumeier. I'd had several conversations with her, found her fascinating and very intelligent, and wanted to read what she had to say. She didn't convince me, but it was an interesting article [ March 03, 2002, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: alexandra ]

People are bursting with good ideas tonight. This is another spin-off post, from a comment Juliet made on the Dance forum (Leigh's thread about when to cut one's losses and stop seeing a choreographer one doesn't like). She wrote, on the idea of keeping an open mind: "What you understand and respond to when you are 20 is not what you understand when you are 60." While you don't have to be 60 to answer this question, I'd be interested in knowing what you once saw and hated (or loved) in youth, and you had a different understanding of and response to a few years later. If you give at least one ballet, you may also add a book or a film or piece of music My breakthrough into middle-age came at 35, when I reread "Wuthering Heights" and realized that I no longer found Heathcliff a compelling, attractive Romantic figure. I wanted Cathy to marry Linton, who was stable, with superior china and crystal. It was a real shock. I've never quite had so similar a shock in ballet, as it by-passed my adolescence and I don't have a pure basis for comparison, but I do that I'd liked Glen Tetley's "Voluntaries" the first time I saw it (my first season of ballet) and thought it awful the second time, 15 years later. I don't think the performance had deteriorated; I think my sense of structure and musicality had changed. Anyone else want to walk this plank, as samba wrote elsewhere?

This is a spin-off from a comment Leigh made on another thread about this board having a vocal formalist contingent if not a formalist bent (which I think is certainly true). (I define formalism as meaning that the primary element of a work is its form; that without strong form, a work cannot be considered a great work.) And on another thread, we've been talking about Diaghilev, whose aesthetic was that ballet was a harmonious combination of music, dancing and decor; one element should not dominate. A third view puts the drama first. In discussing Neumeier's "Romeo and Juliet" with a Danish dancer, who judged it a "good work" and who I knew had a keen eye for choreography, I got this answer: "Oh! The choreography. Yes, well, that's very awkward." Obviously, the actual choreography was not his primary concern. I'd call that an expressionistic view, but I wouldn't hang my hat on that as a definition We could also split hairs about formalism. What's form? Is it the steps, the patterns, the structure? Composition or vocabulary, or both? Neumeier's work has a very strong structure, though perhaps not a strong vocabulary. I'm using this only as an example, not intending to offend Neumeier's admirers. I'd be curious as to how many "isms" we can come up with, both in general, as well as what people's personal standards for judging a work of choreography are. What's most important to you? Or, take it from the opposite side and tell us, these are two or three ballets I think are absolutely top drawer, and this is why. Either way. [ March 02, 2002, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I'd find it hard to choose between Taylor and Cunningham too. I've always thought of them as the Ashton and Balanchine of modern dance; they're very different, but equal. I would like to say a word about Bejart and Petit. I think the reason they get short shrift in America is because their works aren't seen here often. We don't have much evidence on which to judge them -- Bejart's gala pieces aren't his entire oeuvre. He did several neoclassical works as well as the theatrical works. If Farrell carries out her plans to revive them, Bejart may suddenly enjoy a renaissance I have one older colleague who is a staunch defender of Bejart, ranking him with Balanchine at the top level. He saw a lot of Bejart's choreography in the 1960s and 1970s. And Balanchine spoke well of Bejart's "Sacre." (I've seen very little of Bejart's work, about eight ballets, and most very long ago, so I really have no opinion on him.) Which brings me to an Administrative Aside: While I'm very happy to have a vocal formalist contingent here, I don't want people who appreciate other choreographers to feel blocked out, or laughed out, of discussions. I think we've gotten into trouble in the past because of categorical statements: "He's THE greatest choreographer/dancer" or "He's THE way classical ballet is going." That usually just raises hackles and so isn't particularly useful. But if anyone wants to discuss or defend Bejart, or Petit, or Grigorovich (there are several thousand people in the world, I'd warrant, who would vote for Grigorovich and wonder why no one else did.) Or, heck, Neumeier or Feld, or Peter Martins, or Ben Stevenson, or Kenneth MacMillan, I want them to be comfortable doing so. I think we have to be able to discuss more than our own personal interests, and more than just Balanchine, and recognize that other people -- particularly those in other countries, -- have other views, and perhaps actually have reasons for holding them. And I hope this is remembered when the next Eifman discussion comes up! [ March 02, 2002, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I'd find it hard to choose between Taylor and Cunningham too. I've always thought of them as the Ashton and Balanchine of modern dance; they're very different, but equal. I would like to say a word about Bejart and Petit. I think the reason they get short shrift in America is because their works aren't seen here often. We don't have much evidence on which to judge them -- Bejart's gala pieces aren't his entire oeuvre. He did several neoclassical works as well as the theatrical works. If Farrell carries out her plans to revive them, Bejart may suddenly enjoy a renaissance I have one older colleague who is a staunch defender of Bejart, ranking him with Balanchine at the top level. He saw a lot of Bejart's choreography in the 1960s and 1970s. And Balanchine spoke well of Bejart's "Sacre." (I've seen very little of Bejart's work, about eight ballets, and most very long ago, so I really have no opinion on him.) Which brings me to an Administrative Aside: While I'm very happy to have a vocal formalist contingent here, I don't want people who appreciate other choreographers to feel blocked out, or laughed out, of discussions. I think we've gotten into trouble in the past because of categorical statements: "He's THE greatest choreographer/dancer" or "He's THE way classical ballet is going." That usually just raises hackles and so isn't particularly useful. But if anyone wants to discuss or defend Bejart, or Petit, or Grigorovich (there are several thousand people in the world, I'd warrant, who would vote for Grigorovich and wonder why no one else did.) Or, heck, Neumeier or Feld, or Peter Martins, or Ben Stevenson, or Kenneth MacMillan, I want them to be comfortable doing so. I think we have to be able to discuss more than our own personal interests, and more than just Balanchine, and recognize that other people -- particularly those in other countries, -- have other views, and perhaps actually have reasons for holding them. And I hope this is remembered when the next Eifman discussion comes up! [ March 02, 2002, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Here's a link to the Seattle Times review of PNB's Cinderella (with a lovely photo of Louise Nadeau and Olivier Wevers). Did anyone go? PNB's lovely 'Cinderella' at home in Mercer Arena quote: Last month, Pacific Northwest Ballet made its move to the Mercer Arts Arena by premiering Kent Stowell's compelling, multimedia "Carmen." That high-tech, streamlined ballet was the perfect fit for the bare-bones but efficiently retrofitted theater. Stowell's gauzy, sweetly romantic "Cinderella" poses a different challenge to the minimalist space. Can an 18th-century ballet with elaborate scenery and intimate character relationships play as well in the boxy arena? Happily, Thursday night's opening proved that it can and does.read review

News note: I've posted threads on the Martha Graham issue, and the current Paul Taylor and Mark Morris seasons in New York in the Dance Forum. Any comments on Graham are welcome there. Also, if anyone is going to Taylor and Morris, please tell us!

News note: I've posted threads on the Martha Graham issue, and the current Paul Taylor and Mark Morris seasons in New York in the Dance Forum. Any comments on Graham are welcome there. Also, if anyone is going to Taylor and Morris, please tell us!

Thank you, Jeannie! Some day you'll have to write a guidebook of The Internet Cafes of Russia! I'm glad you've arrived safely, and I hope you'll keep us posted.

Wind-Up Dolls Creakily Evoke a Puritan Soul quote: "Antique Valentine," Paul Taylor's new dance piece, is delightful and deep. Its world is inhabited by turn-of-the- century music-box figurines, surrogates for ourselves. When a doll-like dancer stiffly offers a posy to his sweetheart, she proves allergic: the human condition summed up in one big sneeze. Hopes are deflated but even mechanical creatures manifest a spirit that tries to rise up repeatedly in this witty little existentialist allegory. read review

From today's NYTimes: Despite Suit, Dancers Will Dance quote: The Martha Graham Dance Company will perform for the first time in two years of heated legal battles, presenting a program of Graham dances on May 9 at City Center. The program, called "Indisputably Martha," will be presented by the Martha Graham Dance Center, the umbrella organization for the company and its school.read article

In a Premiere, Lunging, Bouncing and Gazing

Knowing what a stickler I am for terminological exactitude, gentle reader, you will perhaps not be surprised that I might quibble with a program called "Masterworks," which includes "Lilac Garden" and "Rodeo" along with Gerald Arpino's "Kettentanz." That aside, I thoroughly enjoyed the evening. (And "Kettentanz" was certainly very well danced ). I've seen "Rodeo" dozens of times and always grudgling liked it -- admired its craft; it's such a solidly constructed ballet -- but last night, the Joffrey made me love it. I've never seen such an alive performance of this ballet -- with apologies to ATM and others who saw the first seasons; I'm sure this was nothing like them The Cowgirl was phenomenal. (The program listing was confusing, and I don't know the dancers; I think it was Taryn Kaschock.) She's tiny, much smaller than anyone else on stage, and that made her seem like a little girl whom no one realized was growing up, rather than a big, gawky adolescent. The Head Wrangler (Sam Franks) was a big guy -- and not in the least mean or snotty. You can imagine that he, and all the cowboys, saw her as a sweet, slightly annoying little runt who wanted to play with them all the time when they were trying to work. This Cowgirl wanted to be a girl, but didn't know how. The Champion Roper (Willy Shives) was terrific, too. Also an older brother, but a sweet one. What I thought was the real knock out of this performance, though, was how the story was told through dancing. The Cowgirl gets their attention at the dance, not because she seems even gawkier in that stupid dress (the way I always have seen it played) but because she comes in, realizes she's made a horrific fashion error, hitches up her metaphorical britches, and starts dancing. It's her courage AND the fact that she outdances everyone else on the stage that brings her to everyone's attention. They're stunned, not by seeing Cowgirl in a dress, but by the way she moves. In the duets -- to the music now known as "What's for Dinner?" -- she was phenomenal -- playing, playing with her partners, playing with her own femininity, which you could sense that she was just beginning to realize. I do think more could have been made of the crucial last moments when she ditches the newly-interested Head Wrangler for the Champion Roper, but I'll forgive her that for the rest of the performance Everyone on stage was in the spirit of the ballet, and the audience was into it, too. No museum here, but a 60-year-old ballet, bursting with life. I also liked "Lilac Garden" although I talked to someone who knows the ballet far better than I do who had quibbles, especially about the musicality. The production has new designs, by Desmond Healy, and I thought they were, well, pretty awful. There are so many lilacs the dancers should have been choking on them -- I expected the Lilac Fairy, to be drawn to the site and come in and save everybody any moment. The costumes, too, were rather tacky and not really in period. They were just stage dresses. HOWEVER, this, in its own kinky little way, added to the feeling of the ballet that made it work for me. It was more Midwestern American (I'm influenced by recently having seen "The Magnificent Ambersons") than English, but that's okay. I kept thinking of all those Fitzgerald stories about social climbing and trying to be elegant and awful parties. I thought some of the portrayals were a bit overdone, but there was an urgency in the dancing that built as the party continued that I've never felt from the ballet before -- that I've read about, but never seen. I've read that the ballet was about a party held so that Caroline and Her Lover could have one last meeting and they keep being interrupted, but I've only seen a series of entrances. Last night, I saw them as interruptions. Flaws and all, I think they have a solid base to work from. And again, EVERYTHING LOOKED AS THOUGH IT HAD BEEN REHEARSED! Thank you, Joffrey Ballet. I was very cheered by the performance. It's so nice to leave the theater feeling good about what I've seen and not angry The Joffrey once inherited City Ballet's cast offs when NYCB moved into the State Theatre and those ballets were core rep for them for a time (they could come back....) Now, perhaps they can take over the Tudor-DeMille rep that no one else seems to want. Odd. ABT these days seems more and more like the Joffrey two decades ago. Maybe Joffrey can start becoming what ABT was three decades ago. Back to the Future [ March 02, 2002, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Thanks for all the comments. I had a very mixed reaction. I think my abiding impression will be how well-rehearsed the program seemed. And the second one was how the three ballets do not make a program. They might be interesting as a special night in a long season, but when it's one of two programs, I thought it was too much. I didn't find "Jeux" convincing. I thought it was static, and I thought some of the movement was too much like the modern dance of the 1930s (a world away from 1913). This was the one reconstructed from the thinnest of materials, unlike Faune and Sacre. I didn't sense any relationships among the dancers, and I had no sense of surprise. Was the audience supposed to think that the girls, at the beginning, were just two sweet young things? Did the boy think they were interested in him? (They screamed 'WE ARE SUPER CHIC 1913 LESBIANS, WINK WINK' to me from the moment the curtain went up.) Was the boy interested in them? Was it once a surprise when the two girls went off with each other? I'm one of the few people in the world who does not love "Faune" I've never seen a convincing performance of it. By "convincing" I mean that no dancer -- very understandably -- is Nijinsky. He was not only an extraordinary technician, but an extraordinary presence. We've seen those photos so often, nothing on stage will ever match the muscles, the sweetness, the allure, the magic. I thought "Sacre" did work as a performance, although I don't get the sense of primitive justice and inevitability -- why do they choose the girl? Because she falls? So the whole thing is like "Ring Around the Rosy?"? A children's game gone bad? -- and there isn't the ferocious rawness that we read the ballet had. I'm always glad to see programs like this, and very grateful to the Joffrey for reviving the ballets and keeping them in repertory, but this a museum piece evening for me.