Alexandra

I've been rereading Ivor Guest's histories recently and keep coming across this name. He doesn't provide much background information -- she taught ballet classes in a studio around the corner from the Opera, and her pupils included Livry, Grantzow and Bozzacci. I'm curious -- was she THE great late 19th century French teacher, or did she just get lucky? Estelle, if you have the time, could you check Guest's French history? He may have more detail in there. Have any of our other posters come across her? There should be a history of Great Teachers, come to think of it.

Thanks for posting that, petitallegro! It's being shown Wednesday night on "Great Performances" in D.C. I'll have to miss it (but I have the video, so I've seen it.) IMO, this is the best commercially available footage of Nureyev, so I hope people (especially those who saw him only during the Long Decline) will tune in.

I saw Mazzo in Diamonds after Farrell returned. I believe she was left in it for more than a token number of performances.

Kay Mazzo danced "Diamonds" while Farrell was away, and continued to dance it (alternating with her) after her return.

I'd second both Drew's and Cargill's comments. "Onegin" has always fascinated me because it seems so dependent on its cast. I began by mildly liking it and not understanding what all the fuss (about it being a BAD ballet) was about; I thought that criticism harsh. Then, like Drew, I saw some absolutely dreadful performances by the Stuttgart in the period right after Haydee and Keil had retired and they had a serious ballerina problem. With no help from the dancers it was so skeletal as a ballet I understood the negative reviews I'd been reading. Then I saw it in Copenhagen with Arne Villumsen and Heidi Ryom in Copenhagen in the very last days when that company could turn straw into gold by its commitment, musicality, attention to detail, ability to create a character out of nothing, etc etc etc and it's a performance I'll treasure. Villumsen did a lot more than walk around and glower -- and in that tiny theater, the absurdity of his playing cards at the birthday party was an insult as acute as a slap in the face. Was there a lot there that the Danes found? Or did their century of being without a choreographer and sense of theater give them the skills to transform it? (I often think of them as a band of very poor migrants, going from empty shack to empty shack, having nothing but an exorbitant flair for decor and a few shreds of cloth, and making those shacks not only habitable but hospitable.) I was interested, with ABT, how Graffin would do as Onegin. I think he might be interesting.

Thanks for the update, Kate. The next time I update Links, I'll include yours -- I think it's a great idea, and will be very helpful. You can make a signature and put that web site in your profile, so that every time you make a post it will show up, if you'd like. Check the faq link to see how

Ann, I'd suspect that was a typo (or "thinko"; I make them all the time ) You're right. It was MacMillan, for Stuttgart. As felursus posted, he had intended it for Covent Garden. As I remember it, the board wouldn't let him do it because they felt the music was unsuitable for dancing -- an interesting point to remember. Meddling boards aren't a 21st century phenomenon.

Yes, it is odd, Doug, and there must have been a reason for it. It isn't really a Prologue, dramatically; the real story begins with that christening. I know that there are many different ways of presenting these ballets today, but that wasn't the question. It was trying to get at the origins of the structure in the 18th and 19th centuries.

I hope Drew will answer this, but I thought I'd put in a word first. We've discussed "Onegin" and the controversy over whether it's a great or a lightweight ballet quite a bit, so there may be some material in the Archives or in other threads -- if you're interested, try a search in Aesthetic Issues or Recent Performances. Those who hold the view that "Onegin" is not a masterpiece are not against story ballets, per se, but story ballets with a weak structure or choreography, or that concern themselves only with superficial aspects of the story; the difference between a good movie, or TV movie, and a great play. Personally, I think "Onegin" is quite a cut above "Merry Widow," which, to me, is nothing more than tinsel. Operettas aren't slight; there's a wit to them, and a sophistication that this work misses completely and its choreography is so repetitive and the characters so buffoon-like it sets my teeth on edge

Dear little Giuseppina. I've wanted to start a thread for her and I haven't had the time. What I remember from Guest's accounts is that this was very popular (although people left throughout the divertissement, and so it was trimmed, as noted elsewhere here). The Opera was closed during the War. Giseppina died from smallpox partly because she and her family were penniless and starving during the few months between the closing and her death. When they revived the ballet it was very different -- almost no one connected with the original ballet was alive, or still at the opera. Saint-Leon was often criticized for putting too much dancing in his ballets, so it may well have been that, since he wasn't around to scream, they just lopped the divertissement off then. (I haven't checked that last statement.) BTW, Mel, thanks very much for your contributions on these threads, for reviving them over the past few days

I've seen perfect performances that weren't at all boring, actually I once saw two weeks of them, night after night. I thought "Diamonds" did not hang together Friday night. I enjoyed it, but it wasn't as good as it could be -- and as I think this company can be. (By "hang together" I mean my sense was that I was seeing a series of entrees and solos, not a complete ballet. The "through line," the structural tautness, was missing.) I thought "Emeralds" was the ravishing one. If I've seen it done better, I don't remember it (I saw this, with Verdy, my first season at NYCB, but I only remember Verdy. I saw it with Merrill Ashley many, many, many times I was told that Mimi Paul dropped in Friday afternoon and coached the dancers for several hours. (Mimi Paul was a Washington Ballet graduate, long ago.) [ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Samba, I think "Les Patineurs" (and "Les Rendezvous") weren't about line; they were about shape. Our vision of ballet has become so limited that we forget that there are other ways of making ballets (and watching them). I read a review of the first cast of "Les Rendezvous" once that wrote of the dancers looking "soft as balls of cotton." One of the problems with Miami's "Patineurs" (which I like much less in retrospect, the glow having worn off) is that there was no softness in them at all. What softness there was was in those costumes, but they were worn over wire. Several older friends, who remember the Sadler's Wells Ballet's performances of "Les Patineurs" told me they thought it was the dancing that was heavy. This is a demicaractere ballet, and I think the dancers (except for The Lovers) are supposed to be very light, walking or running in high demi-pointe. Not that any of this would make one like the ballet any more, necessarily, but I'd argue that showing it in practice clothes would be showing something other than the ballet, as it was intended to be seen. [ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

"Jewels," indeed. This ballet has played the Kennedy Center in at least seven seasons that I can remember, and I've never witnessed a reaction from the audience was tonight. Spontaneous standing ovation, bravos, cheers. Like the triple bill, this was imperfect but God, it was alive.

Thank you for that, Doug. I think the point about variety is one that might spark an interesting discussion. I think all audiences want variety, and Petipa gave it to us all in one ballet. Now, we'll have a wildly varied mixed bill, but without the unification of style and aesthetic that made Petipa's ballets both diverse and harmonious. The differences in the actual variations I find fascinating, and I'm sure others do, too. I'd be perfectly happy for you to teach us about them

Thank you for that, Doug. I think the point about variety is one that might spark an interesting discussion. I think all audiences want variety, and Petipa gave it to us all in one ballet. Now, we'll have a wildly varied mixed bill, but without the unification of style and aesthetic that made Petipa's ballets both diverse and harmonious. The differences in the actual variations I find fascinating, and I'm sure others do, too. I'd be perfectly happy for you to teach us about them

According to Horst Koegler's Oxford Dictionary of Ballet Anderson was born in Milwaukee in 1935 (Koegler is sometimes a bit off on dates; I don't know if this is accurate). He did his undergraduate work at Northwestern and has a master's from Indiana Univeristy. I don't know what field, but I'd guess literature, as he also writes poetry and has wriwtten on dance and poetry.. He's been writing about dance for a very long time, but I don't know how he got his first job. He's been a Times critic since 1978 and also co-edits Dance Chronicle (a scholarly, historical publication) with George Dorris. His most well-known book is probably "The One and Only," about the American Ballet Russe company, and I would suspect that that was his door to dance. (The company, not the book )

Thank you for this, Sylvia. I think Ashton's "The Dream" is one of the great ballets of the century, so I'm always happen to find others who like it This sounds like an interesting double bill. I also admired "Song of the Earth" (that, and the "Requiem" that he did for Stuttgart are the only two of his ballets I've ever loved). I have a "Song of the Earth" story that might be of interest. In 1976, the Royal did "Song" on a double bill with "Shades." One evening, Nureyev did both Solor and the Messenger of Death (with Monica Mason and Donald MacLeary). Nureyev was coming back from an injury and was not good in "Shades" and people were fussing during intermission. He looked tired and heavy. Then the curtain went up on "Song" and there he was, ten years younger and ten pounds slimmer (the black tights, of course), and the performance was simply phenomenal. The point of this story is that at the end, there was an audience reaction the like of which I've never seen, not in D.C., nor anywhere else. In D.C., the audience stampedes for the exits because it's so hard to get out of the garage, and because Washington is an early-to-bed town. That night, there was a great deal of applause and many bravos, of course, as there always were for Nureyev performances, BUT huge chunks of the orchestra audience stayed for a few minutes afterwards, really stunned, as if they hadn't believed what they'd just seen. They were talking about the ballet -- really, the ballet. Nureyev, yes, and how different he seemed, and was it really the same man, but also asking each other what they thought it meant, trying out theories, pointing out that this movement seemed Chinese, or someone who knew German giving the gist of one of the poems. It was one of the most beautiful experiences of my ballet-going life. (The next night Dowell did the Messenger and was just as marvelous.)

"Les Patineurs" was never intended to be more than a curtain raiser, and I'm sure Ashton would be puzzled that it's lasted. I think it has because contemporary tastes run to "just dancing" (some day, someone is going to do it in practice clothes, and Americans will love it. I sincerely hope I'm dead before then). But I wish "The Wanderer," "The Quest," "The Lord of Burleigh," "Mme. Chrystantheme," or any of a dozen other Ashton ballets had survived -- most did not because he couldn't stand having anyone in them but the original cast and so they weren't put back in rep after two or three seasons.

Quite possibly, Jack, and if I had to choose, I'd rather see the the other virtues Guerra has -- attentive partnering, sense of style, etc. -- than a string of tricks, of course. But it is a bravura role, and that wasn't there. I wish I'd been able to come back and see it tonight (Thursday). My sense Tuesday night was that they would only get better. Opening nights are notoriously shaky.

Jack, I meant by "(appropriately) different styles" is that everything didn't look like A), "Agon" or B) "In the Middle, Somewhat Elevated," not that I thought each piece was stylstically pure. The whole question of whether a ballet should be danced in the style of the choreographer, or the company, is an interesting one, and I can argue both sides of it I don't think "Les Patineurs" looked very Ashtonian -- and the older critics I knew who had seen it danced by Sadler's Wells DEFINITELY did not think it looked very Ashtonian. On the other hand, it looked very MCB, and in that sense had stylistic integrity, and so this bothered me less than when I've seen Ashton danced by a company who tried its darndest to dance it the way the Royal once danced it and failed; (I once wrote, if I may commit the unpardonable sin of quoting myself, that watching a particular ballet was like "listening to Keats being read with a stutter") or just dancing it without a thought in the world that the style just might be something different from "Great Galloping Gottschalk," or whatever they'd just danced yesterday. I thought it was too fast in places -- especially the Girl in White -- and too sharp. But on the other hand, they were dancing it and not praying to it, and they weren't telegrpahing: "We're cute! We're charming! We're English (not)!" the way ABT did it when I first saw it in the 1970s. (The Joffrey Ballet had a more natural approach, too, I thought, and a wonderful, very young Blue Skater, Mark Goldweber, when I saw them do it). Other faults: MBC's was sloppy, but it's a very hard ballet. There wasn't enough difference between the Blue Girls (real bravura parts; they'd be competition skaters if the ballet had been set in 1987 and not 1937) and the Red Girls (who just got on skates last week and are there to be sweet). The Boy in Blue had some very good moments, but wasn't very centered -- off night? I don't know. My impression, though, was that, in this ballet and for the whole program, the OUTLINE was there. It's the way ballets used to be staged long ago, and the way jigsaw puzzles are solved today. Get the outline, and get it firm and solid. Then fill in the bits in between. I thought there was a solid outline, and a lot of respect and, more importantly, a lot of joy in the dancing. So I was happy. For the whole program, I knew that there wasn't one dancer on the level of the originators of the roles, but I didn't care When I was leaving, the woman behind me said to her companion, "Did you ever see Cyd Charisse and Gene Kelly in that?" -- "that" being "Slaughter." She was right, but.... In general, I thought everyone was dancing as well as he or she could on that particular night, and that the management cared that the ballets and the dancers looked their best. (I don't know this. Everyone could have been a last minute substitute, and they could have rehearsed for on, but it didn't look that way.) Just briefly, because I'm on another deadline, I especially liked Jennifer Kronenberg in "Duo Concertante" and Deanne Seay in "Sylvia." Kronenberg's dancing was clear -- the same kind of flash card effect of Merrill Ashley's dancing, though not as strong -- and yet not at all antiseptic. There was a languor to it, a sense of luxuriating in the steps that I liked very much. Seay's "Sylvia" was a witty, sophisticated French cousin of Aurora. Again, very clearly danced, especially the coda, and I especially liked it that she looked at home in a tutu and didn't make this look like Just Another Balanchine ballet. I didn't love MCB during the Balanchine Celebration or performances I've seen over the past few years here; they've performed quite frequently at George Mason or Wolf Trap. I always liked them, but I wasn't completely won over. They won me over last night I sense that Jack was perhaps not so pleased? Diversity is the spice of life....

ballet buff, Darci Kistler in 2nd Movement Bizet at 16 was divine Thanks to everybody for the interesting wish lists -- and keep 'em coming. And WELCOME BACK, Jonny

Doug, I thoroughly agree with you. I understand why the smoothing over in subsequent generations happens, but it could be prevented if the people running ballet companies wanted to do so (I put "Petipa's" in quotes in my post because I doubt that his line was as sharp and angular as we make it today.) Your post could start a new topic -- would you do that? I'm sure there were obvious stylistic distinctions not only between Petipa ballets -- "Sleeping Beauty" and "Swan Lake" once looked very different -- but WITHIN the ballets (the distinction among character, classical and demicaractere dancing). Most people going to the ballet today would have no way of knowing about these differences -- could you give us a few examples (on another thread, something like, Petipa's Ballets, or style, or whatever you'd like.)

The fourth piece was "Duo Concertante." I went last night and will put up a review on the main web site sometime later today. Jack Reed went (he mentioned this on another thread) -- anyone else? (The quick version is that I thoroughly enjoyed the program. There was some fine dancing AND it was wonderful to see four very different ballets danced in (appropriately) different styles -- one time where everything did NOT look alike ) I'd urge Washingtonians to see this program. The "Sylvia" pas de deux is rarely seen now, and "Les Patineurs" and "Duo Concertante" aren't everyday fare, either. The season is selling well, but it's not nearly sold out. The mixed bill repeats tonight and Thursday.

Drew, I think you're right about the controversy over Baryshnikov's version -- I believe it was his (the Poet's) solos that had been changed in Russia. Supposedly, every version of this ballet is a little bit different, because Fokine was an inveterate tinkerer. Not surprisingly, I agree with Drew that: "If ABT were to revive it now, I think it should stick with the version that belongs to its own history, and also gives Fokine's last thoughts." There's a very interesting section in Charles Payne's ABT book that discusses the style of "Les Sylphides" that helped me understand why the "oldtimers" when I started seeing the ballet felt that it had deteriorated. I would often hear, "They dance it as though it's second act 'Swan Lake.'" I think this is one of the naturally occurring aspects of balletic erosion -- unless it's stopped by a coach or director. Everything "old" gets lumped together in the "old" bin. "Romantic" and "Neo-Romantic" become blended. Fokine's soft arms and curly line (and curved lines, in the choreography) become straightened to be "Petipa's" straight line (for the dancer) and straight lines and diagonals (for the choreography). And so when audiences say that "all those ballets look alike," they're not wrong -- but it doesn't have to be that way.

The company Kevin describes sounds very like a company that was in Washington a year or two ago. I thought it was exceptional. They did a dance that was mostly for the hands. It was the oldest piece in the repertory -- several hundred years -- and was a comic dance. Two women were trying to dance "properly" but could not, and their ineptness was shown by making their hands grotesque. They were imitating the dancing of their "betters" (who, of course, mocked them). The detail was extraordinary. I'm going to move this thread to the Dance Board, as it isn't a ballet company. I hope the discussion will continue there. http://www.balletalert.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ult...c&f=26&t=000010 Alexandra [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]