Alexandra

Not forgetting for one second that Frederick the Great of Prussia was a big ballet fan Seriously, good points, Jeannie. I was thinking of the Pope, too. When I was growing up, I remember editorials written during John Kennedy's campaign for president about how the Pope would be calling him every day, giving him commands, telling him how to govern. I think this is all part of a very understandable Fear of the Unknown, or Fear of the Other. But what about from the other side of this question? Are there those who would hesitate, or boycott, a company because of its sponsorship? Felursus and atm both expressed concerns earlier. Let's hear that side, too.

It is a sticky question. Leigh makes a good point, I think, about corporate sponsorship. There's one Major Tobacco (and food) Company that has a long record of sponsoring the arts, including ballet, and makes no secret of the fact that they're doing it so that they become indispensable to one segment of society. As in many areas, I have no trouble accepting the principle -- it's only art that matters, who cares who foots the bill -- and yet am squeamish on some of the particulars. I don't know enough about the Universal Church. Is it just a religion -- a nonmainstream, and thus suspect religion, as the Quakers once were (the only intentionally nasty satire in Galeotti's Whims of Cupid, I maintain, is the Quaker dance)? Or will Rev. Moon turn out to be Hitler? I don't know. Religion is different from politics. In theory, no matter how "kooky" or "quaint" I may think a religion is -- what does that matter? Politics is different. I wouldn't want to have praised The National Socialist Ballet to the skies. But I've certainly loved enough dancers supported by Stalin, and Castro -- his lovable side -- has been an ardent supporter of the ballet. One New York critic wrote, after a very successful tour of the Bolshoi in the 1980s, the very success of which seemed, to me, to upset some writers, that the audience was mostly aging liberals basking in the afterglow of nostalgia, there to support what was left of Red Art. I had a vision of squadrons of little old matinee ladies, otherwise completely uninterested in the ballet, rushing the theater with placards saying, "See the Bolshoi! Remember the Rosenbergs!" I will say that I don't think seeing the Universal Ballet will support them. From my observations in Washington, the company is barely supported by box office. If Mr. Park were a nice Virginia Episcopalian with billions to spend on the ballet and willing to do so, I wouldn't care. If Bill Gates decided to adopt PNB as long as every subscriber used Microsoft products, we'd probably bless him.

Absolutely, Leigh, but no one makes them. And there seems to be no penalty for having written a Revenge Review and being exposed for doing it. There's a kind of "haha, gotcha" attitude. We should be surprised? There's no honor left anywhere else

Stan, I agree. There certainly are times in dance criticism, too, where critics grind axes for personal rather than professional reasons. But there are some cases (and, I think, the Gottlieb-Croce-etc. cases are among them) where a critic's objections to, or comments/criticisms of, an artist's work, or a director's administration, are unwavering for good reason. To take a hypothetical example, if a critic has a formalist bent and a choreographer he/she has to review regularly makes ballets that are structurally flawed -- not trying to create a new form, or experimenting, but just plain grammatically incorrect, choreographically speaking -- he/she will mention that every time Maestro unveils a new work. And I understand that it could well seem to someone who doesn't have the same concerns that it's a case of "X is out to get Y," but it's not quite that simple. I've seen the book review examples you've cited as well; another sign of cultural deterioration. Once upon a time, a book review editor would have known where the fights were -- who beat out who for a job, or who panned whose last book. I've seen revenge reviews, too. They continue to astound me, because it's not only petty and despicable, but unprofessional. Yet it continues without penalty.

And I'd like to clarify -- since it was I who called Christine Johnson "classical" that I didn't mean at all the way she looked or her skin tone, but the way she danced classical roles; it refers to the discussions on employ that we've had. But thanks very much for your mention of Boston dancers, bijoux -- you're right; they don't get mentioned often. Skin color is another delicate matter -- in DTH, though, there were quite a few dark-skinned women -- Abarca, if I'm remembering correctly, and Karen Brown, for example. To compound the delicacy of the question, skin tone often changes with lighting. I often think that some Ailey or DTH dancers are light-skinned while they're dancing and realize during curtain calls, when they're out of the stage lighting, that they're not. (I don't mean that I think it matters, but that this is another area where perception and reality are often different.)

Marc, I think that's a good point -- although they may, too, be excited by something "exotic." I think I'd rather see the Bolshoi in something by Gorsky -- I'd be curious, for one thing. Perhaps we could have an Endangered Species list for ballet choreographers.... Brendan, do you have any more cheery news?

Theoretically, I agree with Leigh (especially as to the points made by Bart; he's so utterly confident of POB classicism that his "let them dance anything; they'll make it look better and they'll come back to the classics refreshed" not only makes sense, but actually works in practice. I picked Spartacus and NYCB not to insult either (please) but that the aesthetics are so diametrically opposed that it doesn't make sense for them to mate, I think. I think the New Bolshoi would make a better stab at Ashton than the old, and one might make the point that since there's no convincing Ashton style left anywhere, except in a few chance performances, it doesn't matter. But somewhere, there's a line. It used to be clear in ballet, as clear as the thought of an the Ailey company doing "Beach Birds" or Cunningham dancing "Esplanade." Now, the Bolshoi just might be able to get away with "Revelations...." The Old Bolshoi, anyway.

Oh, goody Mel. Just what we need, another armed conflict It's a good question, though. There have been "black roles" in certain companies, and I've never been sure whether the roles are seen as racially specific and so dancers are recruited for them, or a black dancer is hired and seems to be placed in those roles. There is one school of thought that the "Agon" pas de deux was meant to be black-and-white. Yet other Arthur Mitchell roles -- Puck, for example -- were certainly not racially specific. "Othello" is one that has certainly aroused controversy. I remember the Joffrey Ballet, when Christian Holder was a star, cast him as The Moor in "The Moor's Pavane" and the Blackamoor in Petrushka as a way around the blackface problem. When DTH did Smuin's "Song for Dead Warriors," they did the police in white face (no one objected, at least audibly).

The thought of the Bolshoi dancing Ashton brings us back to internationalism. Although "Fille" may stand the translation, to my way of thinking, the Bolshoi dancing Ashton is like NYCB doing "Spartacus." It's not that they can't, it's that I don't want them to! In the old DanceView, when it was Washington DanceView in tabloid format, I once did a column on funny ballets -- most of them have since happened -- and one was to propose a "Sacre de Printemps" festival, matching the least likely Sacre choreographers (Tudor, Ashton) with the company most likely to do justice to such a work. I forget whether I gave Tudor or Ashton to the Bolshoi, but I think it was Ashton Your sidelight about Gergiev and the Kirov and Bolshoi operas is relevant to ballet in these troubled times, I think, Alymer, as criticism of the opera -- if it's justified and if it will ring true at home -- may have an effect on who will manage ballet companies.

Felursus, maybe it should be called The Rocky Giselle? Gosh, I hope this one avoids Washington. Nureyev did the entrechats too. Maybe it's just a question of what one sees first, but I liked them better than the brises. More in period for one thing, and for another, Nureyev would keep the legs flashing, brilliantly, while the chest sunk lower and lower, making it seem as he were dancing through magic, as though Myrtha was controlling his legs. As for Durante, anyone who would dance Carmen wearing a ballet bun....

This one will never die, it seems. Like the Kirov Academy, the company is not sponsored by "the Moonies." It's funded by one Moonie who seems to genuinely love ballet. If he were a Born Again Christian, a Muslim, or a Greek Orthodox Catholic, would we care?

Just a word, as a critic, re bad blood. This doesn't mean that Gottlieb (or Croce, or any of the other critics who are perceived as being anti-Martins, or anti-anyone else) writes in revenge.

Taglioni influenced fashion -- hairstyles, dresses (sorry if someone has already mentioned this). The descriptions of the early Ballets Russes performances in London are wonderful. There's one in Nesta McDonald's book (about the BR in England and America) that describes the audience as being completely black and white -- the men in white tie, the women in white evening dresses -- except several boxes of Indian Princes, dressed in bright colors and bejeweled. And then the curtain went up on that black and white world, with all of Bakst's colors, and it changed the world. (At least, their world.)

A slightly belated thank you -- that was beautiful, Manhattnik

Not that I'm a fashion plate now, but in my standing room days I went for standing room comfort, and that included running shoes. (I was young, then :-) ) A colleague chided me -- rightly -- saying it wasn't proper to wear running shoes to the ballet. Well, lo and behold, who should sit in front of us that night but Jerry Robbins wearing...running shoes :-)

No, no, Manhattnik! I wasn't making an analogy (and I won't give Martins credit for inventing the U-turn; I'm sure that was Noverre ) Just making the point that, in the abstract, chaos doesn't have to be exciting.

I thought that, too, Nanatchka. Chaos -- objectively speaking, when one isn't in the midst of it -- should be exciting. Asteroids hurtling themselves through space, landing here there and beyond, explosions, fireworks, fun! But then I thought, no, that's Chaos speaking through it's PR representative. Real chaos is simply when the power fails on the hottest day in summer and you're in the subway -- no air, no light, no escalators -- or on the street -- no traffic lights, honking horns, cars making U-turns in the middle of a street or going onto the sidewalk because the cops are all on strike.

I know we're getting away from the Famous 32, but on the octuplet casting concept, I think it actually damages box office. When there are three casts, many balletomanes will want to see all three -- it's doable. When there are eight casts, very few people could afford to see all eight, and I suspect few people would want to. So you'll choose your one or two favorites. It narrows the view. (In addition to what's already said about the harm it does to both dancers and ballets.)

Giannina, I've heard dancers comment that Guillem has always simplified choreography. I was surprised by that, because she's usually put in the "supertechnician" category, but dancers should know Lara, I genuinely meant what I wrote -- thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed review. It was not intended to be a sarcastic comment meaning "write shorter next time." [ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

You're brave and honest, Sammie, so that must count for something! Welcome -- have you "delurked" yet? If you'd like an official welcome from The Welcome Lady (Giannina), please tell us something about yourself on the Welcome forum.

Dancefan, of course, we can have the discussion again, but you might want to look in the archives for a thread entitled Racism. It was an interesting discussion here several months ago. Maybe we could start a new thread for that? We had gotten OT, although it was interesting. I had put up this thread to celebrate the black dancers who havegraced ballet.

Thanks for posting it here, too, lara (and for taking the time to write such a nice, long detailed review). I'm certainly in your corner when it comes to new versions of the classics. I think your statement: "It seems to me that when a choreographer is going to rework a classic, the resulting work should be more than just different" should be embroidered on a pillow and sent to several artistic directors! I'll be interested to see if the Orange County reviewers did as much homework as you did

We don't know for how many generations Balanchine will redefine the art yet. One of my questions for dance history finals is this: It is 1940. You are a balletomane and adore Massine, as does much of the ballet world. You find you have a rare disease, but you have lots of money and choose to take part in an experiment, to be frozen and revived later when a cure is found. It is 1960. Thawed and cured, you clutch the hand of your doctor -- also a balletomane -- and your first question is, "Tell me, how is Massine?" You are the doctor. What would your answer be? One 19th century choreographer that's seldom mentioned is Jules Perrot -- who, by contemporary accounts, was very broadly revered and, for many, defined ballet -- and rightly so. One of the questions Ivor Guest postulates is, what would have happened if there had been a Ninette De Valois in the 1850s in London? What would ballet look like today? This isn't to denigrate Petipa (or Balanchine) but to point, again, to institutional and historical influences -- chance or Fate or both -- on what survives. Lest what I've written causes a misunderstanding, I try to look at dance in a broad context, often through a historical or political lens. This is by no means the only way to look at dance, but it's mine. When I say that we don't yet know what Balanchine's effect will be, I don't mean to suggest that future generations will say, "Boy, what did they ever see in that guy?" but that Balanchine is still influential because his aesthetic is still alive and that, to go back to Jane's opening question and Manhattnik's early response, is largely due to Martins' not replacing it with anything else, whether by accident or design. There were rumors at the time of Balanchine's death that Kirstein wanted a Great Choreographer and was thinking of offering the company to Paul Taylor. What would that have meant? What if the company had gone to Twyla Tharp or Mark Morris -- both have been mentioned occasionally, though not officially, as far as I know -- or Eliot Feld? Or El Drecko (consort of La Sublimova, a choreographer so vile that all of us would look at his work and run yet who may be a great man of the theater, or circus, or synchronized swimming, or something that's the antithesis of Balanchine but that would find an audience. It's all totally unpredictable, I think. [ 07-14-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Thanks, Victoria!

Thanks, Victoria!