Alexandra

For those who have seen this DVD, it's a movie, with real horses for the hunt scene, close ups, scenes inside houses, etc -- I mention that only so no one thinks that's the stage version. The production is the old ABT one, set by David Blair, based on the production the Royal Ballet then had (this is the mid-1960s), which was based on the Stepanov notations. It stars Carla Fracci and Erik Bruhn (and I agree that they're wonderful) but there are some oddities in this film, especially in the second act (where the trees circle the Wilis and change from winter to fall and back again) that weren't in the Blair production. Erik Bruhn staged a production for the Royal Danish Ballet for the 1978-79 season. He made two changes to the dramatic elements of the ballet: one adding an old couple to the village, and having Albrecht change clothes in their house (perhaps she's his pensioned-off nanny and that gives him a reason to visit, perhaps he just bribed them to pretend he's their grand-nepthew). Also, the same woman dances Bathilde and Myrtha (and she's listed in the program as Bathilde/Myrtha). The production also includes the mother's mime scene (in which she warns her daughter about the Wilis). Marc, I've read reviews like that but didn't realize they were pervasive. It puzzles me that there is such hatred of classical ballet. I don't think I've ever read a piece by a critic saying we should only have classical ballet and all the modern dance companies should be wiped off the face of the earth. I doubt anyone thinks that -- I hope not! As for France, I predicted several years ago that there would be problems in the future stemming from their policy of putting all the ballet eggs in the one Paris Opera Ballet basket (not that the company dances that much ballet these days). Many small French dance companies have been turned into contemporary dance companies, which means that this is what most of the population will see. It's only a matter of time before those outside of Paris become totally disengaged from classical ballet, and when that happens, why should we have a company in Paris that should have gone out with the ancien regime?

I don't think there's any more than any other production -- there certainly aren't any reconstituted scenes added. But I don't think this writer is comparing this production to others he has seen. I think he's just reacting to something that seems very strange to him.

First, YAY that you'll ring in on Christensen and Oakland Ballet. And two, re "Filling Station," it's filmed on the Jacques d'Amboise DVD. Have you seen that? I'd love to read your comments on it.

This is Leigh's idea from suggestion to organization -- and I think it's an excellent one. It's the kind of thing I've always wanted to do on the forum. We've had past "special events," most successful being the different forums on each of tlhe big 19th century ballets, and another one on employ. We talk about Balanchine and (less) Ashton a lot here, and we need to remember that there really are other classical/neoclassical choreographers. This seminar is just the way to do that. I hope anyone who is interested in choreography, or ballet's past or its future, will participate in this!!

Being postmodern doesn't mean being ignorant of the past, though (speaking to Mel's answer above). I'm told Merce Cunningham loves "Giselle." He just doesn't want to make another one. Marc, thank you for coming in on this one. I'm curious, would this review be possible in the European papers with which you are familiar? This is really the editors' doing rather than the writer's. American newspapers aren't hiring arts critics these days, and often send someone to review performances/events outside of his or her specialty. I've been told by friends in Copenhagen and Paris that arts criticism is also focused on movies and rock music. In London, this does not seem to be the case. What's your take on the issue?

But Phoenix is a big city, and one that's growing rapidly (I think it's 6th now; not sure about that, but it's definitely in the top 10). And it's trying to upgrade, for lack of a better word, it's fine arts -- museums, the symphony, opera and theater, as well as the ballet. This review probably won't hurt the company -- the writer bends over backwards to say how good the production was -- but for all the people who read it who also don't know anything about ballet, it reinforces the "ballet is old and dead and dumb" idea that was rampant in this country in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. (I spent 5 years reading reviews of companies on cross-country tours. They're written by people who knew nothing about ballet -- but did know, as dirac notes above, that it was their responsibility to explain to the readership why this company they'd never heard of was bringing this thing they'd never heard of. )

I read the review of Ballet Arizona's "Giselle" in the Arizona Republic (thanks to dirac's Link) and was surprised to learn that "Giselle" should no longer be performed. Nothing wrong with the production -- if only we could see them in something meaningful!!!! But "Giselle"? What do you think? In 'Giselle,' worn-out tale undermines impressive dancing

And what if they're all men with shaved heads and pierced nostrils? Will that automatically clear out another segment of the audience? Point being, are we really judging companies by such externals? Sorry, but I can't take that seriously. I'm sure some people do think that way -- there are some who can't stand to see women on point or men in tights, too. What milosr wrote struck a chord: Is this a problem in avant-garde art generally (painting, music)? Tom Wolfe used to lecture on this: that the artist abandons his audience at his peril. There is an audience for work that is genuinely cutting-edge, albeit small (and very dedicated). But is it enough? Martha and her sisters wanted the biggest audience possible, because their art was about an Idea. I've had conversations recently with presenters of modern dance who truly believe if only people knew about the concerts of avant-garde work, they would come and be delighted. The villain is the press that only covers uptown, mainstream, "bourgeois", middle-brow art.

Actually, I had hoped that was one of Mel's little jokes. There's so much more to modern dance than that. As Kirstein, who brought in Martha Graham to work with NYCB, well knew.

I think it's Black Swan, Bart. It's on the Bell Telephone Hour performances DVD (Nureyev and Bruhn's appearance on BTH.)

To DanceView Subscribers, I'm mailing out the latest (Autumn) issue, and several subscribers have moved without telling us where they went. If anyone knows the current address (email or street) of the following people, could you PM me and let me know? OR contact the person and ask them to email their new address? Thank you! The Lost: Elizabeth Johnson (New York) (and if you do see her, please remind her we're here and miss her posts!!!) Susannah Steinberg (San Francisco) Caroline Mitchell (DC) more later

Would you consider Balanchine as a contemporary choreographer?I'd not,if not for a time question.He's a modern-classical choreographer,but still classical.So far from being contemporary in the style! Dancerboy, Balanchine's work might look "contemporary" (in its time) but he's a ballet choreographer by training and vocabulary. He's generally called "neoclassical" (as is the very different Frederick Ashton). I think your comments on "Le Parc" put the problem very well. Some like it, others feel exactly as you described (boring, too much walking, etc.)

I think that's a good point, and well-stated, Sandy. And perhaps the result of that is that you choose to break into new territory and not worry about the audience, then you have to be willing to accept that the audience may choose to go elsewhere. BUT if you're really doing something that's interesting, the audience will come, although it will build slowly.

Re the article: I've seen similar reactions by people at modern dance concerts (not pop, big name events like Pilobolus, but "loft dance," the "cutting edge" work). People who want to like it, who expect to like it, and who are puzzled/unmoved/almost angry. The modern side usually bashes the audience as stupid and/or uneducated, and the "what's to like?" side will say the work is deliberately inscrutable and/or inept. Is there a way for modern dance to reach its audience while still being true to its nature? Regarding taste, in SanderO's post above (the second post in this thread), I think he gets to the heart of many ballet fans' problem with modern dance: they're often more interested ini the dancer than the dance, or, in any case, are ,pst interested in the steps and their execution. Editing to add a response to what milosr wrote: I agree, too, that the big names (Limon, Graham) will always have an audience -- although perhaps not outside of New York these days; at least in Washington, attendance can be spotty), but it's the smaller/newer companies that consistently have trouble finding an audience. Some of their work IS puzzling or off-putting to some, perhaps because the choreographer is still groping to express him/herself, and perhaps because the work is so new. Another perhaps -- that there is, and always will be (?) a small, devoted audience that will want to puzzle things out, but that many who walk in to taste will walk away unsatisfied.

Note for thread readability: I've deleted the quote in my first post after reading "I don't want to take the time to read the entire article, but from the quote provided..." in a post above This happens every time we put up an article -- some only read the quote, which, in this case, was an opening paragraph, not a summary of the article.

Lisa Traiger just posted a very interesting piece in her danceviewtimes blog about modern dance -- and concert dance in general, at least that which is "edgy" or "trendy." What's Wrong With Modern Dance? NOTE: In the interests of thread readability, I deleted the quote originally posted -- the first paragraph of the article -- to encourage reading of the article END NOTE Traiger asks how modern dance can keep its audiences (educate audiences) and keep the balance between being personal work, and reaching audiences. I'm curious to know what you think -- if you don't like modern dance, why? Would you enjoy the pieces Traiger discusses? (Why or why not.) What is the path for new dance -- be it ballet or modern?

Male dancers. A company tradition is for these roles to be taken by aspirant boys (16-18)

Yes [ referring to Mel's post above; zerbinetta and I were posting at the same time], she makes a gesture of warming her hands when asked, "What are you doing here?" There was a custom iin The Good Old Days that anyone was entitled to warm him/herself and have a meal. One. James breaks the code of hospitality.

I never had a sense of regret from Englund's Madge. I always got the feeling that she had been scorned by men all her life and was taking her revenge on this one, who had insulted her -- but also rejected her. (I never asked Englund this, so I don't know what her intentions are, I hasten to add.) She spits at James, and I don't think someone would do that if they were feeling regrets. Her final gesture is definitely triumph -- the raised arms. The other Madge of this time was Kirsten Simone, outlaw to Englund's outcast, and she was definitely triumphant. (I add that because during this period, the ballets were directed, in the way that plays were directed, and the casts were usually in sync.) The idea that Madge and the Sylph were sisters, that Madge was in love with James, etc., comes from Danish critics rather than dancers -- or at least had at the time of that filming. How do others read this scene?

Lisa Traiger has two pieces up this week in her danceviewtimes column: One, a preview of events in DC this weekend: Choices, choices and the other a report on arts funding woes: Maryland Arts Funding Under Fire from Governor

Amen, Mel

Thank you so much for posting that, Treefrog! It might have seemed more exciting with a different cast? I hope if others saw it they'll post as well. There were several newspaper reports that the opening night cast -- Victoria Jaiani and Temur Suluashvili (from The Other Georgia) -- were quite good. Although I was puzzled by one sentence in Jennifer Dunning's review -- was this a compliment, or the reverse?

I think it's safe to say that M. Bejart is, and has always been, very controversial. Doing a ballet about Mother Theresa taking barre didn't help There are some who adore Bejart, and in his heyday he was considered by many The Great Choreographer (I have a dance encyclopedia from the mid-70s that list many more Bejart ballets than Balanchine ballets, for example.) And there are just as many who would agree with Leonid. (Re Joanna, it always fascinates me when we have someone zoom in to post a very strong opinion on someone and is never heard from again...... I hope she comes back to join the discussions.)

Thank you for posting this -- I look forward to regular reports about Colorado Ballet all season! I think your view of "Le Corsaire" would be shared by many. It's been "enhanced" and changed by so many hands that even when the Kirov does it, it looks, to me, like an old Romantic ballet constantly interrupted with bravura numbers. And the audience always loves it! I was curious if the company has changed -- often with a change of director, the look of the company, or its attitude or orientation, can change. Did you have any feeling of that? As far as the ticket woes, I sympathize! We had a venue here that, I swear, filed the tickets completely randomly, and it seemed to take 2-3 minutes per person to find the tickets. Once, I showed up 20 minutes early to find a very long line, and missed the first ballet. I hope they straighten this out. You're right -- it's not good for business!

Thanks for this. I've seen only one performance of Cambodian dance, several years ago, but I also remember the serenity and feeling of peace. Also, from what I remember about the Khmer Rouge's destruction of Cambodia's classical dance community, it's wonderful to learn that some of it, at least, is still alive.