Alexandra

Here's a link to the Ballet Nacional de Cuba web site -- interesting repertory, including Apollo, Theme and Variations and Lilac Garden. 1940 versions of those ballets might be interesting to see There are lots of photos of the dancers here -- head shots without the make up. I was shocked at how young some of the people I thought were 35 really are!!!! http://www.cubaescena.cult.cu/balletww.html [ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Thanks for posting that, LLM and welcome (or welcome again) to Ballet Alert! I hope you'll post throughout the season about what you're seeing. Please don't worry about whether you agree with the rest of the audience, or other posters here My sense of the audience yesterday afternoon was that it wasn't predominantly a ballet audience. As often happens when a foreign company visits, people from that country who live in the area attend performances for a taste of home, and I heard as much Spanish spoken during intermissions as I did English. (And good for the Kennedy Center that this is so; another reason to bring the company back for frequent visits.)

Victoria, I think the problem with keeping a corps disciplined today is that it won't matter what a teacher does, it matters what the direction tacitly or directly encourages. There can be signs on the bulletin board that high extensions are forbidden in this or that ballet, or even fines for wrist flicking But if the Sky Kickers and Wrist Flickers dance every opening to screams from the audience and kudos from the critics, it won't matter. (Society is to blame ) So in that sense, I admire the Cubans tremendously. They're isolated, but they're not in a cave; they know what's going on in the rest of the world. Yet they stick to their guns. And the audience here has accepted them. I've heard intermission comments about some of the dancers being "too heavy" (not my term) but no complaints that there isn't enough virtuosity. I think it's possible to preserve values without ossifying them, and I hope the Cubans will have a ballet master who can do this. I don't think they can cance in Brigadoon forever, and it's more likely that there will be a wrenching change with a new generation of directors than that there will be someone who knows how to enliven what they have without destroying it. After having seen Giselle again, I have a clearer view of what I thought after opening night Why it matters that this is a 1940s staging is that the 1940s have as little to do with the 1840s (when Giselle was made) as the 2000s do. Every generation reinvents Romanticism, produces a Romanticism that's acceptable to its audience. (Acknowledging that not every company does that; some of them just get out there and dance, and to hell with style.) There isn't a continuous performance history with Giselle, as I'm sure most people know. The French threw it out after a few decades. It survived in Russia -- rechoreographed by Petipa, Mr. Diagonal, so a lot of the roundness disappeared very early. It was brought back to the West by Diaghlev and, when that company died with him, found its way into the new companies that sprung up in the 1930s and 1940s. If my older friends who found much of the Cuban's production familiar are right, there's a lot of Dolin in there, and Dolin did not learn his ballet at either Petipa or Perrot's knee. (The ending of act I where Albrecht's indecision about whether to leave the stage or not -- should I go? should I stay? Wilfrid, what do you think? Can we take a vote here? -- and then with one huge, desperate belly flop lands, sobbing, at Giselle's feet (which both Albrecht's did with a great deal of dignity, I must say) and the second act ending, where Albrecht nearly dives into Giselle's grave before realizing it's too small for him and he'll probably get stuck have to be Dolin, and perhaps Dolin after Lifar). So there's no more reason to preserve a 1946 Giselle than a 1952 or a 1971 Giselle. Mary Skeaping's 1972 (?) production for London Festival Ballet, which I saw several years later, was judged very authentic stylistically (she reconstructed or rechoreographed a few segments) without looking archaic. Another aspect on line, historically, is that the 1940s were part of the Ballet Russe-influenced demicaractere era; the change to the neoclassic era that lasted until whatever is going today -- The Freefall Era? -- began in the very late '40s. Line -- in the sense of line for the sake of line and an emphasis on the limbs rather than the whole body -- is not a characteristic of the demicaractere genre. This used to be one of the demarcations between demicaractere and classique style, and is part of the reason that demicaractere dancers were mistaken for "bad" dancers (because they didn't have line). (In the 1940s, "Giselle" was considered a demicaractere ballet, and there are many French and Danish, at least, great Giselles and Albrechts who were demis. Including Alonso and Dolin.) [ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Here's a link to Tobi Tobias's review of Pina Bausch at BAM http://www.nymag.com/page.cfm?page_id=5412 Did anyone from the board see this? I haven't seen Bausch in years, but I'm always interested in what she's doing, and I don't find her negligible. Do you agree with Ms. Tobias? If so, has Bausch started to slide, or is it just a question of one is either attuned to Bausch or not?

Another view of the Cuban's Giselle, by Jean Battey Lewis for the Washington Times: Jean Battey Lewis on the Cuban Ballet's "Giselle" 'Giselle' dated but able http://www.washingtontimes.com/arts/20011124-264339.htm Leigh, I've been wishing we'd gotten the gala

I really hope someone else is going this weekend so that there will be more opinions on this company!!!!! Saturday matinee -- Giselle I still think it looks like a 1940s (rather than 1840s) production that's been so carefully preserved, but I've gotten used to them now After five performances (and this is the last I'll attend) I'm finding the company rather uneven at the top -- not surprising, again, for its size. This afternoon's Giselle (Galina Alvarez) was perfectly acceptable -- and actually rather good in the second act, I thought -- although I didn't sense any affection in her for Albrecht (Victor Gili), which didn't help Act I. What this performance had, though, was one of the finest Myrtha's I've ever seen, right up there with Martine Van Hamel and Mette-Ida Kirk -- Viensga Valdes, who was much more suited to this role, I thought, than to Swanilda. (Samba, you want intimidated puppies, send them here ) It was exquisitely danced -- and, because she's such a strong dancer, the details, mostly in arm positions, really show -- and beautifully mimed. She was a queenly demon. In general, I think the company mimes as clearly and intelligently as any company I've ever seen. I admire its artistic integrity. You're getting the Giselle the producers want you to see, and every dancer takes part in it. Some of the old-fashionedness I admire -- the upper bodies, the miming -- and I hope they keep this forever. And of other companies want to imitate this, please do. Something that I don't think has anything to do with being old-fashioned, but is what I didn't like about "Giselle," especially the second act, is this carefulness to the point of eradicating risk (Zulma overreached a bit in her variation and I wanted to cheer!) as well as individuality, and to give an external copy of arm and head positions that, to me, seem two-dimensional raher than three-dimensional. It also dawned on me this afternoon that one of the reasons the company's dancing seems old-fashioned (in addition to the fact that I don't think they've added a single step invented since 1940 to either of the productions seen here) is that line is not a primary concern. (I'd date the concern for line to the mid-1950s.) I wonder if our preoccupation with line, with stretching the body out, is part of why there's no longer attention to upper bodies? One disappointment, considering the care and the attention to mime, is that neither of these ballets seemed very dramatic to me. It's as though all the attention goes to the details, and nothing to the big picture. The company has gotten a very good response here generally. Except for last night, all the audiences I've been part of have been quite happy -- not just by the applause meter, but by the sense one has when the audience is involved in a performance. Please, if anyone saw these, or will go tonight or tomorrow afternoon, I hope you'll post.

I do hope someone's emailed that one to Boris E It should be the hit of the season!

rg, I've been dying for someone who actually saw PAMTGG to post something -- THANK YOU! Back to the turkey question, I didn't see "Pied Piper," but it meets my definition of a turkey. It was very much hyped, it was calculated to be a hit, both critics and audiences disliked it -- one might say saw it for what it was -- and I don't believe it's in repertory this season. In New York, anyway.

Friday night was a let down after the strong performance at the afternoon. It's impossible to understand the history and politics of a company with which one is not acquainted, but I did not understand why the evening's Swanhilda, whose identity I will not reveal, was given the role. She had: no sparkle, heavy legs (and danced heavily), a rudimentary technique--she simplified several sequences--and no turnout. She was older than the very boyish Frantz and they couldn't overcome this. They went through all the motions and mimed all the right things, but I didn't believe for a moment they were an engaged couple. The flying-missile-launch-leap-to-the-shoulder sequence -- the best reason to stay for the third act -- must have been choreographed back when the men were sturdier with those wonderful Soviet tree trunk thighs. Now, it's terrifying to watch. The dancers look as though they're consigning their souls to the gods before each take off. Without a ballerina, this production of Coppelia looks very threadbare. Valdes, on Wednesday, took the "I'm going to ignore the story and turn, turn, turn" approach, which at least gave you something to look at. (And the Ricky Ricardo interpretation of Frantz from Gili helped, too.) Hormigon, at the Friday matinee, took gentle command of the whole procedings and the ballet was fun. Friday night it was just dull. (And in this comparison, I think I'm in tune with the audience. At the matinee, there was a happy, spontaneous standing ovation. On Friday night, there was a nice round of "thank you" applause and then a hushed shove to the exits.) What Friday night's ballerina did have was schooling; that's what marked her as the product of a worthy company. I continue to be astounded by what the Cubans have accomplished -- that a tiny company that (thanks to us, sorry) is so terribly poor can put on ballet at this level is quite remarkable, even if the company is not as strong as it was during its heyday. It's still a national level company. But it really is stuck in the 1940s, and the dancers need coaches that can make that look alive. I don't mean they need to be shaken up, kicked into the 21st century, etc. etc. They don't need anything cosmetic (tricks, grins, flash -- no thank you; they have integrity, and I hope they keep it). The style needs to be renewed from the inside, so that the dancers look as though they're dancing in Today rather than dutifully copying Yesterday.

A belated answer to Estelle's question (and perhaps a ;reminder for the rest of us): a turkey means a big, expensive, usually over-hyped and unexpected, flop. Not just something I don't like, or that critics panned, but something that books a house for a month and sells 10 tickets, it's that bad.

Just got back from the matinee of Coppelia -- don't worry, Victoria and Samba. You didn't miss a thing. I loved it -- ergo, I'm sure you would not! Today's Swanhilda was Wednesday's Myrtha (Laura Hormignon) with Nelson Madrigal as Frantz. AND four different -- young! -- Swanhilda friends. The whole performance was younger, fresher, lighter. If this had been the opening night, I'd have a very different view of the company. Comparing last night's with this afternoon's Coppelia, I wonder if last night's cast was the Senior Stars, the state occasion cast, by seniority rather than.....well. Hormignon reminded me a bit of Evdokimova -- the same sweet, intelligent smile, the same gangliness (long legs). I thought she was especially fine in the second act, where she really owned the show. She outwitted Coppelius and was a worthy adversary -- not in mischievousness, but in wits. She's not a strong technician and the last act pas de deux lacked bravura, but she had such beautiful feet and hands I didn't care. This performance had what I've missed from the other evenings: softness and grace. Today, I also saw only the "old-fashioned" virtues, especially from the four friends. Gorgeous upper bodies, nothing external about them. And there isn't a stingy jump in the company. Nelson Madrigal, the most contemporary looking of any of the dancers I've yet seen, was simply...dear. And a lovely dancer. Slight, long legs, huge jump, very controlled. But also an excellent mime and an attentive partner. One thing about Hormignon that interests me -- and that I've never been conscious of with another dancer -- is that she breaks down movements into parts. She did this in "Giselle" as well. In an attitude turn, for example -- and she has a beautiful attitude -- you'll see the leg go up, see it be raised, poised to become an attitude, and finally become an attitude. She did this with Myrtha's ports de bras, too. It's not that she dances in slow motion, and it's not that she's jerky. She just makes two steps into four. It's interesting, and I'm wondering -- pure speculation -- if this is what was going on technically when Alonso, an allegro dancer, danced adagio -- this was her way of stretching a movement out? I'm sure this isn't clear to anyone who hasn't seen this dancer, but for those who had, I'd be interested in your comments. The house was happy, I thought. A bit tentative at first, but by the second act, Hormignon had won them over, and there was a real rapport between the cast and the audience in the third act, I thought. It was the kind of performance where dancers and audience waves at each other during curtain calls, and it's totally genuine and very sweet to see. More later If anyone else saw today -- or Tuesday or Wednesday and hasn't yet posted -- please jump in.

Jean-Luc, I don't think there is a complete Abdallah (I may be wrong). I've only seen the third act. There were two videos made of "the Queen's" Folk Tale from 1992, but I don't think any of the others -- except La Sylphide, which has been videoed often, as the Queen often requests it for state galas.

Hmmm. Myrtha. I thought she was an able soloist, not a ballerina. I'd agree with "kiddo" that she wasn't particularly authoritative. The only thing I really remember was that the jumps weren't what I'm used to seeing -- they were standard jetes, not the peculiar Myrta-jump, a kind of hobbled grand jete en avance where she goes straight up and comes almost straight down (I always think of a helicopter; I'm sure it has an official name). (Another thing that bothered me was that the corps very nicely performs several deep plies in fourth position a/k/a a curtsey -- and it's supposed to be to Myrtha, but she's offstage at the time. Another example to me of a detail out of context. Samba, if all the little girls in Washington think this is the way they're supposed to do Giselle corps to be romantic, I'll be very upset! I am puzzled by remarks by many people of how consistent and well-drilled the corps was because I didn't see that. I thought the "Wili's hop" was a mess. The one precision moment was Hilarion's death scene, where the line of Wilis ripples as one, and I thought that very effective. Perhaps it's that different people are comparing different companies, across time as well as space, and coming up with different conclusions? I'd certainly agree that in every American Giselle I can remember, the corps looks as though it's a) doing class and B) wishing it were doing something else. But I've seen European companies where this isn't so. And with that, I'll bow out of this one until I've seen another performance I'll look out for tomorrow's Myrtha, Samba.

Dang, Autumn, you beat me to it. That one gets my vote, although if I get to vote more than once, I'll also vote for Victoria's choices -- both "Swan Lake" and "Nutcracker" were unfortunate for ABT, which generally has solid productions of "the classics." I remember MacMillan's "Isadora" which died a sudden and quiet death with some fondness and wouldn't mind seeing it again. It was considered a turkey in its time, but you never know.....

I'll play the contrarian on the Cubans I love old-fashioned aesthetic values as much as anyone, but I want to see them on dancers who look like they're dancing in 2001, not 1940. I don't mean I want them Guillemized, by any means, but what I see, watching the Cubans dance, are dancers caught in a time warp. It's as though nothing -- save the odd trick or two that Manhattnik mentioned -- has happened SINCE 1940. I did like the upper bodies in "Coppelia," but I did not like the "Giselle" at all, especially the corps. Romantic style, to me, is SOFT. These were spiky, jerky, wiry dancers. The arms were held in a round position, but not rounded. When they bend over -- nearly double -- and charge Hilarion, or held their hands to their ears, all I could think of was the Trocks, who dance "Giselle" very much the same way. I think the style does look like it's copied from old lithographs, but to me, that's not a good thing. I think it looks like a very external copy, and it's so exaggerated it misses the essence of Romantic loveliness. I remember the military precision of the Wilis from the production the company brought here 20 years ago. I hadn't particularly liked that -- although it is pretty astounding; the corps looks like a centipede -- but I'll accept it as a valid and original point of view. (I do like the way the Wilis appear as shadowy figures in the forest at the beginning of the act, and that they come on through a gap in the back cloth rather than always from the wings. There's a lot of detail in both productions seen here (Giselle and Coppelia, if you haven't guessed) but I don't think the productions are well-directed. There's a detail, another detail, and yet another detail -- not necessarily related. I was distracted by a moment of byplay in "Giselle" where one of the corps girls, handed Giselle's crown by one of the corps boys, looked as though she were Juliet, and Romeo was handing her his mask. Nice touch, wrong ballet. It distracts the eye and has nothing to do with the story. In Coppelia, several standard scenes were thrown away. Frantz is environmentally sensitive and doesn't stick the butterly with the pin (drat; my favorite moment), the ear of wheat scene is barely there -- Swanhilda shakes the staff at Frantz. He seemed confused. More importantly, the byplay between Swanhilda and Frantz, which appears in both the Danish and the NYCB productions (both created from different 19th century sources) where Frantz does something Swanhilda doesn't like, so she retaliates, which makes him retaliate, etc -- isn't there. They just romp around, acting childish, the way adult dancers playing children often seem. The miming has been generally excellent, very clear. But there's no context to it. [Editing to say that this is apparently a cast problem, not a production problem. While Valdes used the ear of wheat as a prop, Hormigon, at the Sat. mat., made a scene of it, and the byplay between Hormigon and Madrigal was much more clear. Saturday evening's cast was back to the fuzzy version.) I was looking forward to the Cubans partly because of what I'd read as they made their way here -- how wonderfully old-fashioned they are -- and partly because I remember them fondly from their appearances here in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I think the company is weaker than it was 20 years ago -- this may be very understandable, considering their economic situation -- especially among the men. Alonso had the world's greatest affirmative action program ever in ballet to start this company. She went around to the orphanages in Cuba and picked little boys whom she thought would make good dancers -- and she chose extremely well. The Cuban men were on the highest level then. Big, strong fellows who won medals at every competition. The corps was strong -- and the most well-integrated corps I've ever seen; that's gone, too. What the company had was a ballerina problem. There were several able soloists, but all looked not only that they were imitating Alonso, but that they were frozen in that imitation. What I do admire about the company this time is that they do not condescend to their material -- they take it seriously. They dance their hearts out. The couple dancing Coppelia DEMANDED that you love them and won me over for doing it. There's an innocence about them that I find tremendously appealing. It will sound paradoxical, perhaps, but there's nothing calculated about this demand. The Coppelia, I was told by those who were actually around in the 1940s, is a very 1940 production. (Swanhilda did wear a short tutu then; both Alonso and Danilova.) There were some poses that made old photos flash in my mind -- an innocent lasciviousness that's totally gone now, and that the dancers did carry off very well. Back to "Giselle," I agree that the production has a vision -- the dancers are doing, stylistically, exactly what they're being told to do. I just think there's more to Romantic style than tilting the head and bending forward, and I think both the Danish and Kirov ballets have a very correct and consistent Romantic style that's also soft and lovely, and unexaggerated. What I find so interesting about the reaction to the Cuban company is not only is it polarized -- in just a few intermission and post-game-show conversations, I've found four friends who would say pretty much what Victoria (and Sarah Kaufman in the Post) wrote, and four friends who'd be more in agreement with what I wrote. Often, differences of opinion are of the "oh, she could not turn" "could to" "could not," etc. but in this case, what fascinates me is that we all seem to be seeing exactly the same thing, yet seeing it very, very differently. I hope anyone in the D.C. area reading these posts will go see for yourself -- what do you think? I'm going back for two more Coppelias and one more Giselle. [ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

When I did a weekly quiz, Ballet Turkeys was the Thanksgiving offering. I thought I'd revive the thought this year. What ballets have you seen that would qualify as gen-u-ine ballet turkeys? No pardons possible, gobble gobble?

Jean-Luc, there are. I have several from the 1970s, but they're about seventh generation copies in very bad condition and they won't stand another copy. There are, I believe, three broadcasts a year from the Royal Danish Ballet. You'll have to find a Danish source for those, I think.

Thanks for posting that, Victoria! I went both Tuesday and Wednesday night, too, but I'm reviewing tonight's performance and won't post here until that appears. I did want to say to Washingtonians that there are very few tickets left, I've been told, except for the MATINEE on Friday! (I don't think I remember a Friday matinee.) So if you don't have anything planned for Friday afternoon and want an excuse to slip out on the relatives, go take in a ballet

I'll echo LMCTech's thanks. Now, please keep it up! Not only New Yorkers -- there are a lot of people here who see performances. Why keep them to yourself? Share. It's the right thing to do

4Ts, I agree. Only Merce Cunningham can cut music like that! (I think even Minkus must be respected. After all, he larded his scores with dozens of repeats just so this wouldn't happen.) Manhattnik, I'm almost speechless. I've never heard of throwing flowers on stage and I think the ushers should run down the aisle and drag the offenders out of the theater!!! On the other hand, outrageous audience behavior does not occur in a vacuum. (Donning schoolmarm glasses) If a company encourages a circus atmosphere, it can't blame the audience if it behaves as though it's at a circus. I remember when Bujones was young and in the Great International Star sweepstakes, a small group of fans ran down the aisle at the Kennedy Center at the end of a ballet, YELLING at the top of their lungs stuff like "Go Nando!", waving banners and wearing Nando T-shirts. They only did it once. (And it wasn't the ushers who stopped them.) As for flower throwers, there was a very nasty, vulgar habit during the Rudi Days when people aimed the bouquets at the dancer's crotch and cheered when they hit bulls-eye. We could have another interesting discussion about what is it about ballet that invites this? But let's get all the Favorite Vulgarities out in the open first

4Ts, I agree. Only Merce Cunningham can cut music like that! (I think even Minkus must be respected. After all, he larded his scores with dozens of repeats just so this wouldn't happen.) Manhattnik, I'm almost speechless. I've never heard of throwing flowers on stage and I think the ushers should run down the aisle and drag the offenders out of the theater!!! On the other hand, outrageous audience behavior does not occur in a vacuum. (Donning schoolmarm glasses) If a company encourages a circus atmosphere, it can't blame the audience if it behaves as though it's at a circus. I remember when Bujones was young and in the Great International Star sweepstakes, a small group of fans ran down the aisle at the Kennedy Center at the end of a ballet, YELLING at the top of their lungs stuff like "Go Nando!", waving banners and wearing Nando T-shirts. They only did it once. (And it wasn't the ushers who stopped them.) As for flower throwers, there was a very nasty, vulgar habit during the Rudi Days when people aimed the bouquets at the dancer's crotch and cheered when they hit bulls-eye. We could have another interesting discussion about what is it about ballet that invites this? But let's get all the Favorite Vulgarities out in the open first

But then they're not vulgar. They're outrageously adorable Jude, I think different countries have different rules of applause. I've seen small touring companies of Russian dancers who dance to tape where the applause-time is several minutes; embarrassing, if the audience doesn't clap that much. Applause habits and expectations have always interested me. There's so much conflicting information. One often reads of European companies that they love to come to America because the audiences were so demonstrative -- yet Americans will complain about applause milking (and not just of Russian companies).

But then they're not vulgar. They're outrageously adorable Jude, I think different countries have different rules of applause. I've seen small touring companies of Russian dancers who dance to tape where the applause-time is several minutes; embarrassing, if the audience doesn't clap that much. Applause habits and expectations have always interested me. There's so much conflicting information. One often reads of European companies that they love to come to America because the audiences were so demonstrative -- yet Americans will complain about applause milking (and not just of Russian companies).

Ah, then to you, Albrecht is a villain and a cad. My Albrecht is genuinely in love with Giselle, but things get out of hand.

G -- isn't it possible that Albrecht could lead a saintly life AFTER Giselle is back in the earth? Of course, in the original ending he marries Bathilde and is A Better Man. (I've seen some Albrechts who tear off the stage as though they're going to tackle peasant reform.) But in today's, leave-him-in-the-forest ending, it is hard to imagine what he'll do for the next 60 years. It's hard to see him going after other peasant girls, but you never know. It's the fashion lately to have Bathilde look disgusted as she flounces out at the end of Act I, so that's out. The monastery beckons, I presume. Where is Mats Ek when we need him? Homework assignment: Make "Albrecht, the Sequel." 2 acts, running time under 2 hours, libretti posted here by evensong tomorrow.