Alexandra

Good question, Leigh. Doug said he thought he'd have some time this weekend to post -- I hope he sees this one. I'd also like to know how close the new/old Kirov production is to the old Royal Ballet one (the Serguyev staging). Which, I read once upon a time, was based on the Stepanov notations -- and Serguyev didn't sound like one of those fellows who saw this opportunity as his big chance to tinker.

felursus, I'm writing this without checking, but I think that the fairies returned in the original apotheosis -- wasn't it that Apollo, surrounded by the fairies, appeared on a cloud? (That image, by the way, is an interesting one -- not very pure, to have late 19th century fairies messing around with one of the great classical gods.)

Fairy variations -- and especially, fairy names -- over the years have changed. Some productions even change the numbers of the fairies (I have a vague memory of Nureyev making one fairy a "doubles" variation.) What have you seen? What do you like? I once read a Russian commentary that each fairy has a movement motif that later occurs in Aurora's wedding solo (the idea being, of course, that this is the way to show that she is the sum of their gifts.) What role do the fairies play in the ballet? And, last by not least, who are the super fairies of your viewing days ?

Is the star system good or bad for ballet? There's an interesting article on James Kudelka (director of the National Ballet of Canada) that includes this paragraph: "Ever since assuming NBC's top post almost five years ago, Kudelka has aimed to put the whole before the parts, focusing attention on the collective talent of his admirable troupe. The star system generates cultism with gaggles of groupies fawning pathetically over their favourites and missing the big picture. In many respects it's an unfortunate tendency that trivializes and diminishes ballet as an art." http://www.nationalpost.com/artslife/story...109/778671.html What do you think? (We don't have to limit the discussion to Kudelka, as many of us haven't seen his company enough to have an opinion on that -- those who have, of course, are welcome to express it. But this can be discussed as a general principle, I think.) Do stars trivialize ballet? Is it important for a director to focus on "the big picture" -- and what is "the big picture?" Comments, please!

Hi, Lynette! Thanks for dropping by. I saw this company two years ago, in "Swan Lake," "The Nutcracker," and a mixed bill at the Kennedy Center. Even though I didn't like the Bourmeister and Ivanov productions of SL and N respectively, I'd go see the company again. The dancers are good, if not on the level of the Kirov or Bolshoi, and I thought the company was one of the best directed companies I've seen in a long time -- in the sense of casting, coaching, attention to detail, etc. The ballet mastering aspects. How that holds up on a long tour, I don't know. If you see it there, please tell us what you think. Has anyone seen the company on its recent tour?

I thought Mason was wonderful as well -- both on film and on stage. One of the few performances that's really captured by video, I think. I amended the original question, adding two more issues wiht Carabosse -- didn't want you to think you were seeing things, Mme. Hermine.

Should this role be danced by a man or a woman? Or does it matter? I'm adding this -- forgot it the first time: should Carabosse be on pointe or off? Is it a mime role, or a dancing role? [ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Lara, I didn't see the performance, so I can't comment. (The only work of Rhodon's I have seen, one for Washington Ballet a few years ago, didn't impress me.) I did want to address a comment you made about critics, though. We've discussed this before, but that's no reason not to do it again I've seen this kind of comment a lot on message boards, usually much much less politely phrased than you did, and usually accompanied by the thought that "so those jerks don't know what they mean, and any opinion is as good as any other." When it comes to whether or not I liked the performance and this or that dancer, I agree; any opinion is as valid as any other, because it relates to personal experience and taste, and yours may differen from mine. But in the larger context, is it really so odd that two critics would disagree? Think of it in terms of politics. There are people of both parties, or both ends of the political spectrum, who are educated, thoughtful, and, for the sake of argument, men of good will. Yet a far left Democrat and a far right Republican -- or vice versa -- will see the issues of urban decay, poverty, international relations, nuclear disarmament and school lunches very differently, and propose different solutions. Both politicians may well have Ph.D.'s in political economy from an Ivy League school, both may have 30 years of distinguished public service including stints in the Peace Corps and years of grassworks neighborhood politics. They also have different philosophies. Sometimes differences of opinion may be motivated strictly by politics in the terrible sense -- I have a nuclear power plant in my state, so to hell with world peace; this is jobs. Or, I really think it's right and just to have better school lunch programs, but I have to vote with my party, and besides, if I do, I'll get that committee chairmanship. But on a higher level than that, if you put thoughtful people in a room and said, just discuss, no votes today, you'd have very different opinions. That's the same thing with critics. There are political parties within aesthetics. There are formalists (people who believe that form is essential in a work of art), expressionists (people who believe art is personal expression) -- and that's just one example. We're all shaped by our experience, and if someone is writing about Sleeping Beauty who's never seen it, or only seen a poor production, no matter how many years they've been writing, they're going to see it differently from someone who's been watching Sleeping Beauty for 50 years. Time served does not necessarily equal great criticism, or course, but again, all things being equal, if you've never seen a definitive performance of "Agon" it's difficult to judge what your local ballet company is doing to that work. If you've never experienced a period when truly great work was created on a regular basis, it's difficult to judge new works in a fallow period. Also, there are critics who have a broader world view than others. Some can see a particular performance very clearly, but don't seem to think about it in a larger context. Some people may see the context, but be less helpful on telling you exactly what was happening on the stage that night. Reading criticism is as much of an art as writing it, I think. After you've read a certain critic for awhile -- a year, maybe longer -- you'll not only be able to compare his or her views with yours, but be able to discern his background and his prejudices, or slant, to be more fair. (One of the most useful critics I ever encountered was a man who reviewed film for the Washington Post awhile back. The most consistent reviewer I've ever read -- everything he thought was great, I hated. Everything that bored him, I loved. If he thought a film had too slow a pace, I thought it was beautifully serene and subtle. If he thought it was exciting, I often thought it was vulgar. While I think the best critics are those who aren't predictable, I certainly did appreciate him.) Another comment -- I can't resist. Critics do not make big bucks. There are very few who have full-time paying jobs. The vast majority are freelancers, so even the few among them who are paid adequately for their time and expertise have no benefits. When I started at the Washington Post in 1979, I was paid $25 a review. That's per review, not performance, and I often had weekend wrapup duty (the Post reviewed cast changes then) which meant 2, 3, 4 or even 5 performances for that $25. (They've raised it since, but they haven't added two zeros.) So call us evil, venal, stupid, or whatever (not that you did), but please don't say we're in it for the money [ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Bijoux, I was struck by your comment about a "black or otherwise ethnic dancer getting up and dancing the heck out of something" -- doesn't that happen now? (Albert Evans just danced the heck out of Phlegmatic last weekend as a guest with the Washington Ballet, and everybody noticed.) I'm not trying to imply that things are equal. As has been said on this and other threads here, they're not. But I think there are some excellent "dancers of color" today (and in the past as well.) Since this thread has been opened again -- thanks! -- the really tough question about segregated roles -- beyond who's being given chances -- is breaking a different kind of barrier, I think. In Tudor's "Pillar of Fire," say, could Hagar be black and her Little Sister white and her Older Sister Chinese? (This kind of ethnicity-blind casting has been done in theater for years, of course.) When whites took on roles of other ethnicities, they would make up for the role -- not just the now-taboo blackface, but what Sir Alec Guinness did in "Table for Two" (dirac will correct me if I've got the title wrong ) -- a subtle make up to make him seem credible as a Japanese gentleman. This kind of thing might be considered offensive today. I wonder what the solution will prove to be. To me, a solution isn't pretending that there is no family resemblance among the cast members. How do we get to be color blind and respect dramatic conventions? A Danish example -- the hero of Napoli, Gennaro, is Italian. Danish Gennaros traditionally put on tan makeup and dye their hair black for the role. Is this acceptable today? Conversely, if a black dancer were cast as a blond -- not that there is a Jean Harlow ballet, or a Marilyn Monroe one, but, for the sake of argument, say that there is one. There might be a black or Latino dancer who would be perfect dramatically and technically for such a role. Is any make up acceptable? This problem may be solved when (I have to believe this is a "when" and not an "if") we become color blind, and will see skin color as a distinguishing characteristic, like hair and eye color, and nothing more. What is the best way to handle things in the meantime? A final thought -- I remember reading an interview with a black actor -- I think it was Morgan Freeman, but I'm not sure now; it was several years ago -- in which he said he had wanted to play Hannibal Lechter in "Silence of the Lambs" but the studio thought that the casting would be offensive to many people (Hannibal being a cannibal, as the actor pointed out). To me, this is the bad side of PC -- understandable, but unfortunate, and just as limiting as the Bad Old Days.

dancingal, I think it's only people who are LOUD that will annoy others. If you can really whisper softly, or hold your comments to the applause, that's fine. But -- re Andrew's comments above -- it's good to remember, when making comments about the dancers, that the dancer's mother may well be sitting in front of you!

Welcome, blizzardqueen. Some of my favorite dancers don't dance any more either Why do you admire Farrell? Did you see her dance? What did you like about her dancing?

Unfortunately, no, I didn't Denise. (I didn't want you to think I was ignoring the question ) If anyone else did, I hope you'll post.

Thanks everyone for posting, but I wanted to say a special word for angleterre -- if you haven't gotten an official welcome yet, apologies, and welcome. I hope you'll post more -- you've seen a lot of ballet and I'm sure you have much to share with us

Well, yes, of course it's the age of the actual dancers, but in these productions that try so hard to look realistic, it is rather silly.

Which dancers have you seen dance Florimund? Who has defined the role for you? Why? (It would be nice to include what you expect out of a Florimund.)

Which ballerinas have you seen dance Aurora? Which ballerina(s) define the role for you? (Include what makes a great Aurora for you. What do you look for in an Aurora?) [ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I thought we'd start off with the "what have you seen" question. Please post, whether you've seen None, 1 or 300 versions. It helps if we know where we're all coming from. "Sleeping Beauty" was about the third ballet I saw -- Nureyev's production for National Ballet of Canada -- and I didn't like it! Didn't even like the score. (I don't think I was responding to Nureyev's changes. I think I saw a flat performance.) The next was a very standard, after-Royal Ballet production by the Stuttgart, which was criticized for being too pretty. I stood every night for that, to learn the ballet (this was at the dawn of the video age, and I didn't have a video). ABT's revival of the Messel production -- which didn't work; costumes looked dated. Lots of good dancing, though. All this time I'd been reading about The Great Royal Ballet Version and was dying to see it -- never did. When I got Sleeping Beauty by the Royal it was the Last Attempt To Get Our Tradition Back version (1980?). I certainly liked it better than any of the others I'd seen. After this, I can't retrace it chronologically. I saw the Nureyev one again (NBoC) in a stupendously great performance that made his tampering almost forgivable (it's not as radical as the later version for Paris). MacMillan's for ABT -- I think it's sour and anti-fairytale, and often miscast/undercast. Helgi Tomasson's for both SFB and the RDB. (It was ok for SFB when it was done, but it's a cut-down, simplified version. Watching the Danes deliberately not act -- it was set on them at the beginning of the Video Coach era, and they copied the videos of SFB exactly -- was excruciating.) Marcia Haydee's for Stuttgart, which I think I'd rank the worst I've seen. The Dowell's production for the Royal, which I'd rank second worst (not only the sets, but the casting, the dancing, and the choice of which versions of what to leave in and take out). The Kirov's old production. The Kirov's new/old reconstruction production. Regional productions that struck me as small companies trying to get into the big leagues too soon by Houston and Ballet West. If I think of more later, I'll pop back in. I saw the Royal Ballet so often in my early viewing of classical ballet, that its style became what I thought was "proper" for Petipa. Finally seeing the Kirov was an eye-opener -- very different from the Royal, and very different from itself 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago (from video evidence). I have no idea what the Proper Petipa Style is.

How about Sleeping Beauty now (it seems to have the most votes) and Cinderella whenever we finish Sleeping Beauty? Scottie, there are a few videos out of Cinderella -- there isn't a standard version (as there is for Giselle or Sleeping Beauty) but there is a recently released version of Ashton's "Cinderella" with Antoinette Sibley and Anthony Dowell that is very good, I think. (I admire the choreography, but the dancing, too, is excellent. A rare chance to see great stars in their prime rather than past-peak.) There are also a few videos of Russian Cinderellas -- do a search on Amazon. You'll find some.

For most of the 20th century, in the West, at least, we believed that "Sleeping Beauty" was the one great 19th century classical ballet that hadn't changed very much. It's so tightly constructed (and so matches the score) that it hadn't been tampered with. Well, like many things we all "know," this has turned out not to be quite true. For those interested in history, I'd suggest reading Doug Fullington's article about the recent reconstruction of "Sleeping Beauty" that's posted on Marc Haegeman's web site: http://users.skynet.be/ballet-lovers/Beauty1.html There's also a lot of material on the ballet by Mel Johnson on this site: http://www.balletalert.com/ballets/Petipa/...ty/sleeping.htm

Yes, that's the odd thing. I don't blame anyone for looking through the Guinness Book and saying "Aha! No one has set a record for the most number of boards carried on the top of one's head while bowling!!! That's how I'll get in." (If you care about records, that is.) It's just that it's so hard to believe it's a world's record. Victoria and I can't have, independently, a made up memory of the same thing!!!!! Where is Rowena Jackson? She must defend her honor!!

Not to mention whether she remained perpendicular to the ground and didn't travel!

Drew, I agree. Even though it's a newspaper article, with all the constraints that implies, it just pushes every button without exploring anything meaningful (IMHO ) I think you made a good point that there are a lot of things, and points of view, that are "comfortable." And it's the whole tone of the article, not only the writer, but the quotes, that are so horribly condescending. . . grrrr. Auvi, thanks for posting. I don't think that early ballet -- the court ballet -- was intended as an escape, and I'd argue that making something abstract, or not reflective of the real world, isn't escape. (Not that you said this, but I'd argue that an insistence on realism and an impatience with things that "don't look real" is a cry for comfort.) The earliest ballets weren't escapist but very serious, intellectual affairs. The floor patterns and the colors expressed intellectual and philosophical concepts -- all of this is lost, of course -- and in addition to being very serious and expensive political entertainments, they used myths and allegories to objectify the ordinary. I think that a lot of ballet is escapist -- and silly -- and that that kind of ballet does nothing to help ballet's cause to be recognized as a serious art form. There will always be people who look at "Divertimento No. 15," or "Symphonic Variations," or Shades as "a collection of pretty steps." I hope there were some letters to the editor after that article, but I'm not holding my breath

Picking up on Leigh's point about the difference between what one says and what one does, Balanchine gave his ballets to many, many companies, which insured that his work would continue after his death. I'm not saying that was his motivation; I don't know, one way or the other. But I think often we make a lot of quotes -- that Ashton was always saying his work was negligible. That's good manners, not to brag, not an artistic manifesto. Not surprisingly, I'm on the side of keeping works alive, or as alive as possible. I'm with Estelle. I'll always go to see an old "classic," no matter what shape it's in.

There's a newspaper article today saying that a new world's record has been set -- at 38!!!! http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?secti...&storyId=276207 I remember, when I first discovered dance, looking in my Guinness Book (1975), looking up "dance" and "ballet" and seeing that Rowena Jackson had the world's fouette record -- at 128. Does anyone else have any memories, ideas about this?

As always, Drew, you raise some very interesting points. I agree with you that there is a huge difference between hatred based in understanding and hatred based in misunderstanding. Levinson and Duncan is a very good example -- but I wouldn't want to see what he would have done had he been given the opportunity to direct her (not that that would have been possible). I've seen the "fairytale" ballets directed by people who hate fairytales. They don't buy into the genre, as it were -- which is fine. It's a very defensible position. But they may find themselves in the position of having to stage a Swan Lake or a Sleeping Beauty either because the company in which they suddenly, somehow, find themselves directing has them as a staple of the repertory, or because they sell tickets. I also agree with you completely about the problem being more one of lack of standards than that this or that production of a particular ballet is "new and improved." If ballet (any art form) is healthy, it can take a lot of hits and still stay standing. In the best of all possible worlds -- when men of genius and good faith and love are working together to make art -- the shake ups can do what they're supposed to do -- re-examine tired formulas, avoid anything ordinary or rote. What we've had for far too long, though, is tampering with the externals, the cosmetics, because they don't know how to make the real thing work any more. Worse, the new improved versions become the standard -- because the people watching it, deprived of the real thing, can't find it any more. As for the simpler form of the original question I would argue that if you hate an art form -- if you are not sympathetic to that art form -- you should stay away. Someone who hates musical comedies because they think they're silly, or don't like singing, etc., shouldn't direct one. Someone who hates what's happened to musical comedy, the present form of the genre -- that's a different matter.