Alexandra

Dale, I don't think you wrote a jumble at all, and it makes a great deal of sense (also what justafan wrote). I'd make a comment on the "true Kirov dancer" aspect. I don't have a problem with that; I think, like college football teams, there should be pride and a sense of identity (and I don't mean to imply that Dale meant anything else.) When Nureyev first came to New York he grandly stated that he would dance "Giselle" for Balanchine and then go back to London. At that time, a "true NYCB dancer" wouldn't have wanted to dance "Giselle." (The comment provoked some merriment.) I'm sure he was shocked by that -- who wouldn't want to dance "Giselle?" I think we all have to have some attitude as a starting place; we all view dance within a particular context and that context is shaped by what we've seen. I think if there's any point to raising and examining this topic is to air it so that we're conscious of our contexts. On the critics/audience question, sometimes critics assume they're at one with the audience. In the famous anti-Cranko/Stuttgart piece, Croce writes "We, New Yorkers" and the point of view of the piece is that something terrible was foisted upon her city. "New York was raped in its sleep," as I recall it. Denby wrote a wonderful piece about national attitudes, the way different people view ballet (from a very partisan point of view, I might add, and I think a Frenchman or Englishman would read that article very differently from an American. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that). If there are any grad students reading this, ballet audiences might make a very good thesis or dissertation. I remember one Croce essay that was a real eye-opener for me, in which she wrote that the City Ballet audience turned out to be a City Center audience, and that many stayed with City Center when the company moved to Lincoln Center. "The Joffrey inherited the City Ballet audience and much of its repertory" (the "Filling Station" wing of its repertory). True? False? What are the reasons? Economics? Did the audience really vote for "Filling Station?" There was a double-edge to her comment, partly that the audience that stayed behind liked the lighter works, but also that the new audience was more Broadway (at that time, at that time). I have friends of the generation that Dale wrote about who've said, "It was all over by the time they moved to Lincoln Center." Nostalgia? Did something change? I definitely think it's possible to love more than one choreographer, and also to have "eyes" for more than one style/choreographer/company. My theory has always been what you see is what you see. I think you have to see a body of work well performed, in a living, breathing state to love it -- or at least, it's easier to do that way. I can appreciate what I've seen of Massine intellectually, but not viscerally. It's like seeing an exhibition of beautiful costumes, but on racks, not bodies. One thinks, "My, the clothes were so much heavier/lacier/more elegant way back then." If you had people in those dresses, laughing, talking, giggling, gossiping, "way back then" wouldn't seem so far away. One more point. I think a "West Coast sensibility" is developing -- no, not one that would be shared by everybody living there -- but it's very visible, representing the audience (on message boards) and the critics, from recent reviews -- recent, in the past few years. Much more tilted to contemporary dance than classical ballet, much more wanting diversity in every sense of the word. (A friend visiting from L.A. the last time the Kirov was in Washington stunned me by saying -- his first comment after seeing the Kirov do "Shades" --that "That's the most lily white company I've ever seen." I think that comment might seem puzzling to someone who'd grown up in St. Petersburg.) [ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

PBS did a show on black dancers (!!!!) this season and there was some footage of Janet Collins, who had been just a name to me before. I thought she was beautiful -- very lyrical, gorgeous line and feet. I didn't forget Virginia Johnson. I'm one of about three people in the Western world who didn't love her dancing. But she was an important dancer and anyone who did is free to rave about her

NO7, I'm stealing your good idea NO7 did an end of season wrap up on the Kirov Fokine Programme thread (it's several posts down, not her first one) where she listed her "bests" of the season. Could we have the same thing for NYCB (and I'm going to put up the same thing for ABT). If anyone in another city would like to do the same thing for the home company there, please do so. I'm only picking New York because we've had so many posts already on ABT and NYCB.

NO7, I'm stealing your good idea NO7 did an end of season wrap up on the Kirov Fokine Programme thread (it's several posts down, not her first one) where she listed her "bests" of the season. Could we have the same thing for ABT (and I'm going to put up the same thing for NYCB). If anyone in another city would like to do the same thing for the home company there, please do so. I'm only picking New York because we've had so many posts already on ABT and NYCB.

Thank you for that, NO7. I liked reading your summary -- that must have been fun to do (And a huge thanks to all of you for giving us a thread on the Kirov performances A word on the staging Fokine question, we published an interview with Isabelle Fokine by Robert Greskovic in DanceView several years ago, and while she certainly sounded sincere and reverential, she had not actually had much experience coaching or staging. That's an interview I should put up on the main site, and will some day

I think this was the old school way of learning roles, when the steps, music, characterization and mime were all taught at once (before the poor dancers were sent home with their video homework). I've also heard coaches try to give words to dancers so they "don't look blank on stage." There's a bit in the film "Ballet" where Somes is coaching "Symphonic Variations" and he says, very impatiently, something to the effect, "Oh, could you think something? I don't care what it is, just think something so that you don't look so blank???" (I don't know what the "words" for "Symphonic" were.)

Thanks, Sneds. That's certainly a roster of alums any school would be proud to have

Mel, I didn't say anything about the Joffrey crowd. That must have been someone else. (Hard to keep who said what straight on a long thread.)(My apologies - it was Jeannie. - Mel) To try to keep this to the theoretical question, I'll give two examples of THE PERCEPTION. The first was a fascinating interview piece that was on Voice of Dance when I first got on the net -- I don't know if it's still there. It was by a San Francisco writer, and the interviewees were company directors and choreographers, most not based in New York. Many of the comments were directed at the New York critics -- Croce, Tobias and Kisselgoff seemed lumped together as one huge New York Critic, as though they spoke with one voice -- and others at the East Coast establishment, etc. Right or wrong, there's a perception that the reason other choreographers don't get fair treatment is not because they're not as good as Balanchine, but because they simply aren't Balanchine, or their work is of a different aesthetic. Now, some would say, "Yeah! You tell 'em" and others would say, "Oh, please, sour grapes," but whatever your take on this position, it's out there. The only European company I can speak about is the Royal Danish Ballet. I've read (literally) everything written about them by American or British critics of their various foreign tours from 1951 to 1995, as well as reviews by Americans and British writers who saw them at home. I've also talked to somewhere between one and 200 Danish dancers between the ages of 15 and 80. Except for the 80-year-old, every single Danish dancer, at some point in the conversation, said, "We know you Americans only like Balanchine." If the answer was "No, that's really not true," the question, very politely came, "Oh? Who else do you like?" (which is why I posted that query in an earlier post) And I have never met a Dane, dancer or otherwise, who would want only Bournonville to be danced, or who wanted to see only Bournonville. That aesthetic is dead there. While there are exceptions, of course, the vast majority of the American reviews from the company's first tour to its last contained the opinion that nothing the company did besides Bournonville (and the Ashton "Romeo" and the Beck-Brenaa "Coppelia") was worth seeing; that you saw great dancers making dreck look good, but it was a waste of talent; and that they had to find a contemporary choreographer on the level of Bournonville. By the 1970s and 1980s, reviews from New York critics, whether writing for the dailies or the magazines, often contained the advice that the company should be dancing more Balanchine. They actually had a large Balanchine repertory, but usually danced only one or two ballets from it a year. When the company did dance it, of course, they were told they couldn't dance it properly. While this view isn't held by all New Yorkers, by any means (I always assume that "New Yorkers" means the critics, but then, that's my bias. Who else would people be talking about? ) [ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Mel Johnson ]

I always get the Patty Pink Sugar Cone (That's a great shot, Manhattnik. Thanks!)

I thought I should say that Leigh is out of town this weekend and, as far as I know, without internet access, and so can't respond for awhile. Jeannie, I just meant "New Yorkers" in any definition -- audiences, critics, the dance world, however one thinks of it. I think this could be a very rich discussion -- about "climates of inspiration" and cities and who makes up a point of view and how one develops "eyes" --and that was how it was intended. [ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

We've had several discussions on racism in ballet, and the fact that African Americans are not well-represented in American ballet. There have been, however, quite a few excellent black dancers who HAVE had good careers. Although I hate to lump dancers of any ethnic group into a thread, because these are dancers that are good because they're good, not for any other reason, I thought it might be interesting to come up with a list. Off the top of my head (and I know I'm forgetting some people) -- and ballet only -- In DTH: Lydia Abarca, one of the most lusciously elegant dancers I've ever seen; Eddie J. Shellman (I always thought it a shame he didn't dance Spartacus) and Ronald Perry, two of the finest men dancing in the 1980s and early '90s, in my book. Christine Johnson, one of the few truly classical American ballerinas I've ever seen, and I still want to know what happened to her. Alica Graf, who, in the roles that Arthur Mitchell cast her (I missed him, alas) was superb (and I hope to see her again). Lorraine Graves, a giantess (and wonderful Myrtha). Christopher Boatwright, of Stuttgart and later San Francisco Ballet. Debra Austin of New York City Ballet -- one of the best jumpers I've ever seen. She created a solo in "Ballo della Regina." I'll think of more later. Anyone else?

Sorry you're offended, Leigh, but this is a "charge" that's made frequently by dancers and, especially, choreographers in interviews, and is a topic that's frequently discussed in newspapers and magazines. There might well be people in Perm who think that St. Petersburgians are biased, but we're not in Perm. My intention was to address the perceived bias of critics, although the interviews/articles I've read extend that to others -- not so much the audience, perhaps, but to other professionals. It's a very prevalent perception, right or wrong -- and it's perhaps natural that New Yorkers think it's wrong and others think it's accurate -- in American ballet, as there is a school of thought outside New York that Balanchine centrism blocks the eye of critics, grantmakers, and other people of importance to the dance world to the detriment of other artists. I want to state quite clearly that this is not intended as an attack on Balanchine nor those who think that he's a great choreographer, which is probably most of us here. I'm sorry it's been taken that way, but that really wasn't the intention. Like Juliet, I'd quote Terry's: "I think that if you're born in a certain city or a cultural center in which the people around you have also grown up seeing a great Choreographer X, then I think this "centrism" is likely to happen. I think that many Londoners will always like Ashton/MacMillan, and many Stuttgartians (?) will like Cranko, and many Danish will like Bournonville, so forth." I think it goes beyond just "liking" -- if you see something that's first rate consistently, you'll insist on the same quality in everything. I'd argue that this is a good thing, and it's how standards evolve. It is understandably frustrating for "outsiders" to always bump up against this standard. I've always had faith that when something truly fine happens, people -- no matter how X-centric they are (and that wasn't intended as a pun) -- will recognize it. New Yorkers (again, generalizing; there are exceptions to everything) once had Massine and Tudor and Graham eyes, one might argue, and they welcomed Balanchine into that company. [ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Thanks for a Left Coast take on this, LMCTech. I'd never heard the "too Balanchine" in the context of "not relaxed" before. Interesting take. More please (And thanks to all for making this a model of civil discourse )

Jeannie, this is only a perception, but I've always found the non-NYCB fans to be more specific-dancer-fans. I've certainly never done any scientific surveys, but as long as I've been going to the ballet in New York, I've been told about/seen/heard about this or that person who has seen every performance of NYCB, or this group that goes every XYZ night, or this group that never goes to anything else. There were definitely the Rudi Groupies (anyone who saw one of his performances in the late 1970s will remember the Flower Ladies), and Cynthia Gregory's fans who were famous for shredding their programs, like confetti, and others, but I never had the sense that they were ABT Or Die! I think the Balanchine-centric question though is more a perception, right or wrong, that non-New Yorkers have that "New Yorkers" see everything through Balanchine eyes, and that's what I was after -- whether people thought that was an accurate or inaccurate perception.

I think Jeannie's point that there is another NY audience that isn't Balanchine-centric is a good one. I certainly have met people who don't like City Ballet and prefer to go to ABT. But it's my perception that there isn't the same kind of tightknit, go every night, Fourth Ring Society there. Re Eifman at City Center -- and this is not intended as an anti-Eifman post, but as a demographic comment -- some may remember that there were several requests for comments on the most recent Eifman season and no takers. I asked several of my friends in New York who are "wired" to groups of avid ballet fans, and, although they'd attended Eifman in the past, they didn't this time. The comments were all "he hasn't hit the balletomanes" (you're free to add the "yet") and that, very similar to the recent Universal Ballet performances in Washington where the audience was overwhelmingly Korean, that company seems to draw people who aren't part of the general dance audience. Whether they'll cross over to other companies will be interesting.

Welcome, Patricia I think the "the British hate Balanchine" idea stems from the 1950s, when many of the British critics were skeptical, but I agree with Jane that it's not the case now. Generalizations are difficult -- while there are a lot of Americans headed by ex-NYCB dancers, there are a lot headed by dancers who aren't NYCB, and even some of those (like Tomasson at SFB) don't have a Balanchine-centered repertoire, although your point about Balanchine being danced brilliant by other American companies such as Miami is one well worth making. So far, we've gotten lots of posts with points worth making and well made -- please keep 'em coming. Some from people outside New York, too, please.

Argh, I can't believe I dropped Nijinska! She's hard to place, though. "Les Noces" gets a gold medal in my book, and "Les Biches" is nice, but I haven't seen anything else. I guess I'll put her on the cloud with Tudor Diana, I'm sorry, but I'm going to toss out Martha Graham -- ballet choreographers only, please. I forgot DeMille, too. She's always ranked about two notches down from Robbins, but I'm not sure that's fair. His best is better than her best, but she's got a good solid middle.

Thanks for being brave, Victoria, but my post must not have been clear. I wasn't looking for a thumbs up or down on Balanchine, but rather to address the perception (which often appears in print) that Americans, and especially New Yorkers, are Balanchine-centric and not only look at other companies and choreographers from that vantagepoint (which would be only natural) but not only don't recognize any other choreographers and style except Balanchine's. I hope that's clearer. I was hoping not for "Yeah, I don't live in New York and I hate Balanchine" but "That's certainly the view from Topeka" (or Paris) or "I've lived in New York all my life and love Balanchine but I love other stuff too." (please give examples

Melissa, I saw this production many times and should know this, but I don't -- I was hoping someone else would respond. I don't remember your posting on the Welcome forum; forgive me if I missed it. But I don't think you have been officially welcomed, and so I'll do it now, albeit a bit belatedly. You've brought up quite a few interesting ideas and asked some good questions, and I hope you continue doing both!

This would have been a far less difficult question 30 years ago. Since then, there have been so many versions, there's little left except the second act that hasn't been tampered with. There are probably at least a half-dozen variations for Odile, and men have often choreographed their own variations. (How could I complain, as this is merely keeping alive a venerable tradition ) Thanks for asking, Leslie -- and welcome to Ballet Alert

What a lovely, imaginative post, Luka! Thank you. I'd go for the simple, classical approach (surprise!) How about a look of sweet repose for Odette, and enticing sophistication with the slightest undertone of evil for Odile?

Thank you, Alla. Welcome to Ballet Alert! Since the link isn't on line and many of us won't have a New Republic close to hand, could you tell us a bit about the review? (And the book, if you've read it.)

This is a companion to the Balanchine centrism post I just put up. I'd be interested in knowing how you rank the major 20th century choreographers. Either, who you like, or who you think are the greatest. If possible, please state why. For me, the Big Three are Fokine, Balanchine and Ashton. Fokine is mostly on faith, I'll admit, for I've just seen shards of his work, but they're solid shards and I once read extensively about him. For me, these three are equal. There are some ballets that are better than others, but on balance, I think they're, all three, top of the line. One a separate cloud, over to the side, are Tudor and Massine. Tudor, because he produced so little, in comparison, and, although he was associated with a company later in his career (unlike Fokine) he was fallow for a very long time. Of what I've seen of Massine, I think his craft is first-rate, but I just haven't seen enough. The next level for me is Robbins, MacMillan, Cranko. I find all of them problematic, I think they've all produced some fine, and some less fine, work, but compared to their peers, not to mention successors, they're solid second-rank very good choreographers, in my book. I would put Grigorovich in here as well, although I haven't seen anything of his that I really like or admire, and I think much of his work is wrongheaded. Despite this, there is a craft and an artistry there. There are some European choreographers whose work I haven't seen enough of to really judge. Some Bejart is good, some, I think, is absolute schlock, but that's based on less than a dozen ballets. Likewise with Roland Petit. Some of his ballets at least provide very good performance opportunities and are solidly constructed, others are often called "merely cabaret," and I think that's an insult to cabaret. I once admired the work of Hans Van Manen a lot, but have only seen about a dozen of his ballets, and I don't think he developed into a truly top of the line choreographer. Of the other -ines, like Lichine, and choreographers like DeValois, Robert Helpmann, Andree Howard, I cannot speak. Well, at least I'm brave How would the rest of you divvy up the prize money?

This is pulled over from another thread (The Kirov in London) so that if it turns into a discussion it will have its own place. In a discussion of how some Kirov dancers reportedly don't love dancing Balanchine, which drew some surprised comments, I posted that outside America, or perhaps particularly outside New York, people are not monotheistic and, although they rank Balanchine as a good, very good or great choreographer, he's not the only choreographer. This drew one "what do you mean? We do not!" response, and I thought this deserved further discussion. Discussion, please Not a food fight. It would be interesting to hear from people all over (including, of course, New York) and a variety of opinions, but perhaps we could just state the opinion and not argue over it, at least until a few opinions had been stated. (Arguments often discourage the less pugnaciously inclined amongst us to stay away.) I've lived in Washington all my ballet-going life, and have usually, though not always, felt a Balanchine-centrism in New York reviews, especially of the Ballet Review branch of the trade. In reading earlier reviews, especially when ABT was young and vital, and the Royal was ruling the roost where the classics were concerned, bringing what we thought was first-rate Petipa, as well as new Ashton works, there was a more pantheistic view. For a long time, I've seen not so much an intolerance of anything that wasn't Balanchine as viewing ballet through a very Balanchine lens. (I'm going to put up a companion thread on who are the great ballet choreographers?) What do you think?

They don't make 'em like that anymore Wit and chutzpah. Everything Odile needs.