Alexandra

From David Leonard: The spring issue of Dance Now is now available. The contents include: Tetsuya Kumakawa in conversation with Allen Robertson Jann Parry on Tudor revivals at the Royal Opera House Anniversaries at Rambert and English National Ballet Ashton's Ondine reassessed Jeremy James' The Last Fish Finger Eliot Feld's Organon for New York City Ballet Horst Koegler on John Neumeier's new Giselle John Percival on Fille mal Gardees down the years Frederic Franklin interviewed by David Vaughan Aerowaves reviews DVD and CD reviews George Dorris on the new Oxford dictionary of dance You can order a single copy of this issue, or subscribe, by going direct to: http://www.dancebooks.co.uk/new.shtml#9 or you may send orders by email to orders@dancebooks.co.uk, by telephone to (44) (0) 1420 86138, by fax to (44) (0) 1420 86142, or by post to Dance Books Ltd., The Old Bakery, 4 Lenten Street, Alton, Hampshire GU34 1HG, UK.

I think the surprise was the title. There has never been a "resident choreographer" at NYCB, and since there already is a de facto resident choreographer in Martins, I don't think it was universally expected.

I was surprised that this didn't bring more response. I think this was not only an important, but an admirable, move on Martins' part -- whether or not Wheeldon turns out to be The Great Choreographer. Wheeldon is being given a grand opportunity, but he's choreographed enough, and well enough, to have earned it. I think this goes beyond title and a round of media interviews, and reading reports on Wheeldon's new piece made me raise this topic again. One of the (many) problems today for young choreographers -- or any choreographer not firmly attached to a company -- is that there is enormous pressure to produce a Hit. Especially outside of New York, where ballet is presented in the Program I, Program II variety, each ballet has to be, if not a masterwork, an important one. In a company with a huge repertory, this pressure lessens. One can produce a little ballet -- think, with Balanchine, of "Tombeau" or "Divertimento No. 15" (which is now becoming a repertory staple, but which was, at its birth, considered a bon bon). A choreographer also needs to be able to work with the same dancers consistently to develop his style, and their response to it. He needs the luxury of being able to fail. He needs to be able to experiment -- not in the adolescent "Eureka!" mold that some seen to expect (that every ballet has to be an "advance," containing something hitherto unseen), but in the sense of trying comedy, trying difficult music, trying to make a classical ballet, a modernist one, all-male, all-female, using dancers he doesn't usually work with -- whatever. It takes 20 years of doing this to produce a great choreographer. There are few alive today who saw Balanchine's early experiments, or even Ashton's. By the 1940s, when their careers began to take off, they were 40. I don't know whether Wheeldon will turn out to be an Ashton or a Balanchine, but Martins has given him, and us, the opportunity to find out, and I think he deserves a bravo for it.

Please feel free to post on this. For new posters, the question, "So what do you think of Eifman?" has, in the past, have been rather polarizing -- the, "I'll scream if you don't love him" versus "I'll laugh if you do," neither of which encourage open discussion. This may be why recent posts on Eifman have been left untouched. If anyone saw "Don Juan," please comment. (I didn't even know Eifman was there, which shows you how much I know )

Thanks for that, Manhattnik. A quick clarification from one Washingtonian. To my eye, the corps improved in "Giselle" compared to their performance in "Theme and Variations" in the mixed bill this season. I think one reason why "Giselle" may have made a greater impression down here was that the last four times we've seen the company have been, in reverse order, "Nutcracker," "Swan Lake," "The Merry Widow" and "Coppelia." And several triple bills that really did not show the company at its best. That's a long dry spell.

I'm sure there are ballets to Arvo Part -- I can't think of any at the moment, but I'm sure other posters can. For the past ten years, maybe a bit longer, modern dance choreographers in Washington have been using Part's music. Lots and lots and lots of Part's music. (Some of them rather good dances )

After the company's spring program (which, on balance, was the best thing I've seen it do in several years), tonight's "Romeo and Juliet" was a disappointment. The company is not used to performing dramatic ballets, is not used to having to act, and it showed. The production itself is a fifth-generation "Romeo and Juliet" with little pieces from here and there, a few original touches (like having the balcony pas de deux danced in slow motion which sounded e-x-c-r-u-c-i-a-t-i-n-g, as the score was dragged out within an inch of its life; Makarova's "White Swan" was on speed compared to this). I think the company would have been better served by obtaining the Cranko version -- another comparatively small-scaled production, but much stronger dramatically. (I am not generally an admirer of the Cranko production, but everything is relative.) The choreography is very simplistic, but there was enough to show that Michele Jimenez is a beautiful, beautiful dancer. She's tall, with, gorgeous extensions, and she can really MOVE when given the chance. I also admired Jason Hartley as Mercutio. The character is cardboard -- Mercutio as Class Clown -- so he didn't have much to work with, but he tried to give it some depth, and the stage was alive when he was on it.

I hope you stick around for the whole thing if a truly great ballerina is ever in town, because the test for Aurora in Sleeping Beauty is to see her "mature." I've seen several Auroras who were breathtakingly different from act to act. I agree that that doesn't happen so often today, but I live in hope.

I liked Sevillano very much when she was with English National Ballet. She left there to come to Boston Ballet where she danced for a few years, then left, "disappeared," and resurfaced in London, doing a few performances of "Daphnis and Chloe" with the Royal -- and everyone raved about her. I, too, would like to know what she's doing now.

More riches! Thank you all. And a welcome back to Colleen--we haven't read you in a while--and a welcome to tinybooks. (And I forgot to say welcome back to Mike, with his great new name )

Drew, I agree on all counts. I argued quite a bit with the two young writers who were afraid that "everything has been said." I think the real reason was that they admired other writers and didn't think their own writing measured up -- in itself, a good sign, oddly, as lack of confidence in one's talent is sometimes, perversely, an indication of great talent. Commenting on the state of a dancer's emotional health, or love life, in a review is out of bounds, in my book.

Rachel Howard had suggested on another thread (in Links, when she commented on some of my comments on a review she'd written in the San Francisco Examiner) that it might be interesting to discuss trends in criticism, especially among younger critics. She wrote: "Your comment about the Springer reference suggests a worried overall view of young dance critics. I'd love to hear more about what you see as the "trends" (both positive and negative) among young dance critics. It would help me and others to be more conscientious about our work, and at the very least I think it would make for an intriguing discussion." To start off, I think, first of all, in this country, there's a shortage of younger critics who write about ballet. I've run across several people in their early 30s who have been very good writers (I'd read articles about modern dance performances that they'd written) who did not want to write about ballet -- "Everything has been said," "How can you write after Croce, Acocella, et al.?" -- which is not a good situation. Others aren't drawn to it because ballet is not particularly exciting right now. Both are a problem. In London, there was a purge of older critics -- several very good older critics -- because a "younger voice" was needed. Someone I know was told she could stay, but she'd have to change the way she wrote reviews. They wanted reviews that were part feature, part review, and a bit of gossip. (She didn't stay.) There's no question that editors seem to be going along with this "tabloidization" of newspapers. One trend I've seen among the few younger critics I read regularly is that they seem to have bought in to the New is Best idea of the 1960s completely. Balanchine is great because he revolutionized ballet; Tudor is great because he turned the classical vocabulary upside down. To me, this has not only become a very outmoded cliche, but is a misunderstanding not only of those two artists, but of the nature of ballet and what is important within that aesthetic. On the plus side, among many not only young, but middle-aged critics, I see a definite reaction against the cronyism that marked an older generation, those who were very powerful during the glamor days of the Ballet Boom. Some perhaps overreact, avoiding any contact with dancers or choreographers, fearful of perceived conflict of interest, but, while balance is perhaps ideal, I think this is positive. When I read about "perhaps the best young choreographer of our generation," I'd like to think it's a choreographer the writer saw and was struck dumb by, not someone who takes him out to dinner regularly and tells him how good a choreographer he is. I think there is a search for younger critics among editors currently, and I think it's needed. Not to replace the old per se (although there are instances...) but because there should be a balance and a range of views. I think another problem that's looming is that, regardless of age, people who've come to ballet in the past decade or so don't have very good measuring sticks in their experience, and that shows. It's not their fault, but if one has never seen a five-star ballerina, it can't help but affect one's thinking and writing. I've read several pieces by young writers in that situation who either (quite understandably) underrate classical ballet completely, or, conversely, try to make great ballerinas out of lesser talents. They have all these great words and phrases and they want to use them too

Welcome to Ballet Alert, Patricia. I hope you'll post about what you're seeing today, as well. I would have loved to see the Kirov in "In the Night" and "Leaves." They did an all-Balanchine evening in D.C. (which I thought was very fine) and a "Lilac Garden" which was peculiar -- but wonderful in its own way.

I thought it interesting, Andrei, that you count Neumeier as a descendant of Petipa. Syvil Shearer, the American modern dancer with whom he studied before going to Europe and who is a great supporter of Neumeier (and a very interesting woman) has written that she thinks he's in the Noverre-Fokine line -- the story is more important than the steps. (My objections to Neumeier, aside from, as is often written, "He talks a good ballet" -- meaning that the program notes are often more interesting than what's going on on stage -- is that much of the choreography I've seen is so awkward -- in places where, it seems, he's trying to be beautiful.)

Interesting topic, liebs. I think the same thing could be said about boys and men, and perhaps for the reason Manhattnik mentioned: that today, dancers are rewarded for remaining "boys and girls." Maturity, in any sense, is seldom rewarded. It's interesting to look at photos of companies 50 years ago, when there was a much wider range of ages -- some people in their 40s, a lot in their mid-30s. The young dancers are trying as hard as possible to look 30 (I think it was the same in movies). I would put Makarova in the "girl" category, but otherwise my list would be very similar to liebs.

Thank you, all, for posting about these performances and writing in such detail about what you saw. I hope you (and others) will continue to write about the season as the weeks go on -- gives a whole new meaning to "keep you posted"

Manhattnik, in theory, I agree, but in practice, I've had to go to so many programs that I thought I'd hate, and only to be plesaantly surprised, and seen so many dancers I thought I didn't like, or didn't find interesting, only to have them prove me wrong -- or, at least, be miraculously "properly cast" in this or that particular role -- that I'd stick it out (if it were the same cast I'd seen before on a program such as you described, if I were going as a civilian, I might join you ) [ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I agree with Jeff. I'm greedy. If the first one's great, the second one just has to be greater. Often, I can't sort out the "good-better-best-awful" part until I get home, so leaving early (putting aside the fact that it's pretty rude to do if one has press tickets; I know that wasn't part of Leigh's question, but even if I loathe the first one and have every expectation that that is only a taste of what is to come I stay put.) I have made the decision not to go back for a second performance of the same cast in a ballet because I didn't want to spoil my first view. It was a ballet I do not particularly like -- MacMillan's "Romeo and Juliet" -- with Nureyev and Park (who took the "Doomed Youth, struck down by fate" approach) one night and Seymour and Wall (the "young lovers who have no idea that it will all go wrong" approach) I was so caught up in BOTH performances, found both so perfect (yes, I'm sure that Park was nothing like Fonteyn) and so different that I passed on an opportunity to see those casts again. Of course, not going means you don't know whether you made the right decision. What Jeff said reminds me of a regular balletgoer in D.C. whom we called "The Chinese Gentlemen" because we didn't know his name. He went to every performance (with a stopwatch. He clocked every ballet and wrote down the results). Once a friend of mine overheard someone asking him why he went every night, and he replied, "Because it is impossible to predict which night will be great." Very wise words.

Paquita usually fills us in on Toronto doings. I hope she, or someone else, can answer your question. I"m sorry, but I have to nix images for space-eating reasons. Also, they slow down sites to a crawl if everybody starts doing them. So, sorry, but I'm going into your post and delete that one.

There are a lot of interesting points here, I think, and several divisions: full-length/one acts; old repertory/new repertory; indigenous repertory/borrowed ballets. I'm all for new repertory, but if it's a ballet company, I want to see ballet. I think a case could be made that Nureyev's productions (love 'em or hate 'em) are native to POB -- the one great company that stays in the top rank without a strong repertory of creations by virtue of its schooling; POB, on its good days, can make anything it dances look like classical ballet. I'd like a mix. The full-lengths attract the Saturday Night Outers (casual balletgoers), people who really like classical ballet and go to see the dancers, or how the dancers present the choreography. I don't think it's always an age thing, although one generally likes to be able to continue to see the repertory one grows up with and loves. But I know people in their 20s and 30s who love the full-lengths (and classical ballet) and some in their 60s and 70s who prefer contemporary (in the sense of crossover, ballet-moderne works). The first time POB came to Washington they did bring a "native rep" program and it was a total bomb. Almost on one had heard of any of the pieces, (Lifar's "Icare," "Suite en Blanc," and Petit's "Les Rendez-vous.") The people who were there seemed quite happy; the dancing was splendid, and to us, these were "new" works. But the house did not sell well -- but then, "Bayadere" didn't do well either.

Not to let the Left Coasters off easy, hasn't anyone seen Paris Opera? What did you think? What was the audience reaction? Et cetera

Come, ye laggards. Let us know how the season is going j Post!

Colwill! The whole point of the site is to discuss classical ballet. You're hardly a minority of one! atm, I think your point that the company has (or at least is) squandering its heritage is a good one. I think I'd disagree that no other company's repertory could compare, though. ABT's glory days were very short -- its first few years. Very concentrated, but very short. If we were drawing up a list of masterpieces, both the Royal and NYCB's list would be longer, I think. [ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

It may cost more (see the Tech thread) but companies make decisions about how they allocate funds. The Royal performed mixed rep (short ballets) at the Met for decades. (As mussel pointed out, the Met does work better for full-lengths, if it works well at all for dance, and the City Center suits smaller-cast works, but I think atm's and Giannina's point is that ABT doesn't perform its core rep at City Center either -- just a token not, one Tudor, maybe a DeMille or Robbins -- and it's only two weeks long. This really is a question, not an editorial in disguise, but how much money is spent on education and marketing and development and advertising rather than on the dancers and the repertory?

Since they give no hint as to what really happened, there's no way of telling whether this was really as cruel as it seems. Here's a link: http://www.pantagraph.com/news/news0503-06.html Read on until you see the salary they pay in St. Paul. (Unless it's a monthly salary...)