Alexandra

Kirkland was a great Giselle; I don't think she would have been as well-cast as Myrtha.

Kirkland was a great Giselle; I don't think she would have been as well-cast as Myrtha.

Estelle, thank you for that very thorough listing and analysis of the current POB roster. When I said that I didn't think good partnering skills were necessarily important for promotion, of course, they would be if the dancer were cast in roles that required partnering. But there are roles that don't. I also meant that, IMO, principals shouldn't all be danseurs nobles, or classiques; there needs to be a mix, and a first-rate demicaractere dancer could just as well be a principal -- and remain in his "line" of repertory. Being a principal shouldn't mean doing every star, or Prince, role.

Yvonne, Myrtha's vulnerability is one of the things that's often missing -- and a quality that all of the great ones named here had in abundance. I've seen lesser Myrthas for whom one could feel no pity -- no wonder she was jilted!!! And villains are always more interesting if you can see that they have a "side" too. There's been another recent trend to give these very young Myrthas the authority they don't yet have by making them look very stern, with lots of black mascara, so that they look like biker molls. Another Danish Myrtha I forgot to mention was Kirsten Ralov. I never saw her, I've just seen photos and a tiny bit of film, but she was another short Myrtha with tons of authority. She first danced it at 18, when she was very beautiful (another nice attribute for Myrtha to have) and her authority leaps off the page. (She had the same kind of authority as a mature woman in rehearsals ) Just to say that typecasting ain't always a bad thing! I wonder who the great French Myrthas were? p.s. to 4Ts, I had heard earlier in the year that Terekhova was going to go back to Russia in any event. This is from a very fuzzy memory, but I thought it was to work with the Bolshoi (out of the frying pan....) Perhaps someone knows more about this? Alexandra who believes it's just fine not to "get over it" where history and art are concerned [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited March 13, 2001).]

Yvonne, Myrtha's vulnerability is one of the things that's often missing -- and a quality that all of the great ones named here had in abundance. I've seen lesser Myrthas for whom one could feel no pity -- no wonder she was jilted!!! And villains are always more interesting if you can see that they have a "side" too. There's been another recent trend to give these very young Myrthas the authority they don't yet have by making them look very stern, with lots of black mascara, so that they look like biker molls. Another Danish Myrtha I forgot to mention was Kirsten Ralov. I never saw her, I've just seen photos and a tiny bit of film, but she was another short Myrtha with tons of authority. She first danced it at 18, when she was very beautiful (another nice attribute for Myrtha to have) and her authority leaps off the page. (She had the same kind of authority as a mature woman in rehearsals ) Just to say that typecasting ain't always a bad thing! I wonder who the great French Myrthas were? p.s. to 4Ts, I had heard earlier in the year that Terekhova was going to go back to Russia in any event. This is from a very fuzzy memory, but I thought it was to work with the Bolshoi (out of the frying pan....) Perhaps someone knows more about this? Alexandra who believes it's just fine not to "get over it" where history and art are concerned [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited March 13, 2001).]

atm, never fear saying "You should have seen." It keeps us all in our place

atm, never fear saying "You should have seen." It keeps us all in our place

Now I'm sorry I missed Terekhova! I think what Marc said is important -- that the authority comes in the quality of the dancing. It's now the custom to give the role to a tall young soloist, because the "star" dances Giselle. Grrrr. When Myrtha is danced by a star (and Giselle and Albrecht too, of course) then you get high drama!

Now I'm sorry I missed Terekhova! I think what Marc said is important -- that the authority comes in the quality of the dancing. It's now the custom to give the role to a tall young soloist, because the "star" dances Giselle. Grrrr. When Myrtha is danced by a star (and Giselle and Albrecht too, of course) then you get high drama!

I agree, Sonja. It's certainly possible that that could happen in dance. One of the many bad things about the net is the dark side of its good -- that everyone has equal access. A partisan of one artist (whether it's a relative, friend, or whatever) could well put up a site that attacks someone else, could make the rounds of the message boards spreading rumors, and could sound very credible. The web doesn't really make everyone equal. Someone who can write well has an enormous advantage and can often seem more knowledgeable than they really are. And for someone who enjoys attacking people, the net is a huge playground. We had one very nasty incident here early on that was a bit frightening. It was late Saturday night, and luckily, both Leigh and I were on at nearly the same time and caught it. I could delete the post and block the person before he did more harm. But someone came on and just started attacking dancers, using extremely foul language. He started small, as it were, just calling somebody a "bitch" and each post got nastier, until he put up threads with the dancer's name and every gripe he had about that person. It seemed like a dancer or former dancer (I hope a drunken one ) who came on and wanted to vent. On the sites that aren't moderated, this kind of behavior could be quite upsetting to the victims. The internet is often touted as the way for "truth" to get out -- and often that can be true. But it also give a license to anyone with a grudge, and it can be difficult to sort out someone with a legitimate grievance from someone who just wants to settle a score.

I'd forgotten when I posted yesterday that Alexandra Danilova was one of the great Myrthas of her time. Not a success as Giselle, I've read, but absolutely wonderful as Myrtha. I also saw Silja Schandorff in Copenhagen when she was very young (19). It was still a bit sketchy dramatically, but beautifully danced. When the Danes dance Giselle, especially the act, oddly it looked more French than Russian -- more bound than free, in the few words of "effort/shape" that I can use with any confidence.

I'd forgotten when I posted yesterday that Alexandra Danilova was one of the great Myrthas of her time. Not a success as Giselle, I've read, but absolutely wonderful as Myrtha. I also saw Silja Schandorff in Copenhagen when she was very young (19). It was still a bit sketchy dramatically, but beautifully danced. When the Danes dance Giselle, especially the act, oddly it looked more French than Russian -- more bound than free, in the few words of "effort/shape" that I can use with any confidence.

Great examples, Ed. They may be fun to read but no, I don't want vituperative attacks on dancers on the board. These really aren't fair or unfair criticism though, in the sense that I meant, because they're not published. At least at this point, internet or email list reviews don't have the effect of printed reviews. Fairness and unfairness on the internet is a whole 'nother story. The ethic seems to be that anything goes. I have a friend who's a football fan, especially a fan of Doug Flutie. There's a whole web site -- Doug Flutie, World's Greatest Quarterback. And its counterpart. I forget the title, but to the effect of World's Absolutely Most Horrible Quarterback. Neither site aims for objectivity or fairness!

I didn't see Gregory's Myrtha and always wanted to, because she could be so icy and imperious. ABT, and many other companies, downgraded the role of Myrtha to soloist in the late 1970s. They don't cast it as a ballerina role (originally it was the "classical" ballerina contrasted with the "romantic" ballerina). I was lucky enough to see Van Hamel many times and I loved her Myrtha (still do) but when I saw Mette-Ida Kirk in Copenhagen, it changed my idea about the role. Kirk was small and fragile and a demon. An absolute demon. (Myrtha has become a "tall girl" role, probably because the part needs authority, but it wasn't originally.) She had a huge jump, was really like an arrow shot through the air every time she jumped. But she was also vulnerable; you could sense that under the ice.

I didn't see Gregory's Myrtha and always wanted to, because she could be so icy and imperious. ABT, and many other companies, downgraded the role of Myrtha to soloist in the late 1970s. They don't cast it as a ballerina role (originally it was the "classical" ballerina contrasted with the "romantic" ballerina). I was lucky enough to see Van Hamel many times and I loved her Myrtha (still do) but when I saw Mette-Ida Kirk in Copenhagen, it changed my idea about the role. Kirk was small and fragile and a demon. An absolute demon. (Myrtha has become a "tall girl" role, probably because the part needs authority, but it wasn't originally.) She had a huge jump, was really like an arrow shot through the air every time she jumped. But she was also vulnerable; you could sense that under the ice.

liebs, there are definitions. I've finally found the most complete one I've ever seen (by Joan Lawson) and will post it later, I hope this evening (I'm on deadline now). I don't think a dancer has to be a good partner, nor able to dance every role, to be a premier danseur. I'd much prefer a roster of premiere danseurs where each one was a specialist than this all-purpose-principal now. Danseurs nobles were always rare. They were the rooster in the hen house, as it were. Kenneth Greve, currently dancing, is one. I can't believe there aren't at least three in Moscow and St. Petersburg. I think the danseur noble was pretty well drummed out of Paris in the late 18th century, and the semicaractere classical (sometimes called classique) became the "hero" -- Albrecht, James. When the Petipa ballets were imported (which do have real danseur noble roles, Siegfried, Florimund, Jean de Brienne) the classiques moved into that repertory. I also agree with those who have said that the term is so abused now that it hardly has any meaning, and most people think it simply means "star dancer" or "good dancer" -- or, as Marc did, apologize when they use it correctly. I cannot claim to have decoded all of it, especially with women; there are subspecies that I can group, but cannot name (like lyric sopranos and dramatic sopranos, etc., in opera). More later (not that that anyone will be sitting by the net, panting for the "official" classifications )

I found the article confusing in exactly the same ways. Good for Holmes to have brought in "Dracula" for the young (why do they always think young people are dumb?) but bad because it was schlock. And very very bad for dancing classical ballets. (But don't forget, we want to be in the world's top ten.) The statement that, essentially, "the age of the choregrapher is over!!!" is very scary, but I'm really afraid what's happening in Boston is a bellwether. I was especially struck by the crack about hiring Christopher Wheeldon. I found that very revealing. For the past decade or so, the explanation of why there aren't new classical ballets is because there aren't any choreographers interested in doing them. This isn't true, and I know several choreographers who have wanted to create a classical ballet for a company and been told, no, we want something "contemporary." (In one instance, my favorite, the director said that it wouldn't be possible because the dancers that were assigned to the choreographer weren't really that good at pointe work. This was a ballet company, and not a negligible one.) BUT Wheeldon -- thanks to Martins and NYCB -- has gotten visibility as a classical choreographer; one exists who can't be ignored. For someone in charge of a company to imply that this man is a liability says as much about his "aesthetic" as anything. American companies are becoming big businesses, and big businesses, with big budgets, attract people who are not artists. The same thing has been happening in Europe for years (read "The Theatre Crisis" in Bournonville's "My Theatre Life." It's a long wail, from a choreographer's point of view, of how the theater's bureaucracy stands in the way of art.) The artists are only a small component of the whole now, not the central point. I think one of the reasons for this is that the average age of dancers is so much younger. Fifty years ago, in Europe, at least, you had a goodly portion of the company over 35. It's harder to push around grownups, especially those with families. It's much easier to push around 18 to 25-year-olds. (Yet another reason to bring back mime ) What interested me about that article (thank you, felursus) was how much of the current situation it explained.

I read the article (lovely photos) and wondered the same thing, that they thought he had too limited an employ to be promoted. If so, it's a pity, I think. "etoile" doesn't mean "danseur noble," or "danseur classique," and there have always been great danseurs de demicaracteres. I would think they could still promote him and still cast him appropriately. Nice to see passion in a critic

I don't think anyone was blaming McPhee, and I can see the utility of using the expertise of someone who's dealt with contracts, and the other messy paperwork of repertory setting. I'm not so worried about who's running Boston Ballet as that this will be a trend. I'm afraid more and more ballet institutions will think they can just run things themselves, without the messy assistance, or interference, of artists. Sorta like the people who think all you have to do is stand up in front of an orchestra and wave a little stick and the music just happens.

Agree on the "fighting wars over dancers' bodies" On the situation kip mentioned (a professor's book being attacked in a review by someone with an ax to grind) that's certainly unfair -- one might say despicable -- and Drew can tell us, I'm sure, how often it happens. I can remember seeing letters to the editor in the Times Book Review and other places occasionally with similar situations -- one was that the reviewer had previously been unfavorably reviewed by the now-victim author and there seemed to be battles fought beyond the book at hand. It's the kind of thing that shouldn't happen, because the editor who assigns the book should know the background. Of course, anyone in a situation that even has a whiff of conflict should disclose it at the time of assignment. I don't think this does much damage, though. It might to a first-time novelist without a track record, but in the academic world, I would hope that the work could stand on its own. Also, that world is so small, anyone who mattered who read the review would probably know the situation and smell a rat. In such cases, the author's colleagues may well come to his defense. I've been in a similar situation several times. People whose articles I haven't printed, one person who was kicked off this site. In all cases, the attacks were so obviously personal they were perceived as such. As far as dancers and choreographers are concerned, I think the same thing does happen if the person has somehow slighted the critic. I think this is also despicable, and it's less obvious to people reading the review. They'd have no way of knowing that the critic was, say, snubbed at a party. One final example -- one of the blatantly unfair things I came across -- was a critic who had wanted to make a film of the Royal Danish Ballet from out takes of another film that had been successful (Dancing Bournonivlle) and the artistic director said no, he'd chosen the footage very carefully and what was left wasn't as good, and he wouldn't do that to the dancers (there was a lot of film of class and rehearsals.) The critic seems not to have taken the refusal well, shall we say. He had been commissioned to write a company history for that season's program book and did so, completely ignoring the artistic director (Kronstam) who had been the company's dominant dancer for two decades. He simply didn't exist. This is the worst example I've ever seen, but I can't believe it's an isolated one. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited March 10, 2001).]

I think this is one of the problems -- everyone on this board could select a repertory. Many might be very interesting, very good repertories. That's why the Babcocks of the world think they can do it -- cast it, too. We all have our likes and dislikes. But there's so much more to it than just choosing the repertory. Of course, there's how do you find the choreographers -- pick from some Top Ten list? -- and the people to stage existing repertory -- lots of snake oil salesmen out there. But far beyond that, there's how do you build a season. You can't start off with, say, Balanchine's Symphony in 3 Movements if the company's strength hasn't been built up to do it, no matter how good the music, or the ballet, is. Building a season (beyond, of course, clever marketing and seducing subscribers) is one thing that really needs a balletmaster, someone who knows ballet from the inside. What dancers are suited to what roles? What about a long-term plan. These two dancers could go very far, but how do you bring them along? Throwing them into star parts the first season may not be the best thing; there are stepping stone roles. There's so much to building a season beyond personal taste or curiosity. If the new wave of conductor-managers produces good, new danceable music -- 21st century music -- then that will be a blessing beyond price, for one of the things that is holding back ballet is the lack of good, serious music that reflects our own time. Because of its lack, choreographers have had to rely on music of other eras or today's pop and movie music, and neither is completely satisfactory.

Drew, your points about the conductors at the Bolshoi and Kirov being more theatre chief than balletmaster is well taken (although we don't really know what the power structure is, and how "hands on" they are. Early reports at the Bolshoi, especially, were that the conductor was setting repertory.) But I think it's quite likely that, if Boston is looking there for guidance or a model, they're not looking at the subtleties.

I think the whole "miscasting" question deserves a thread of its own, and so I'm going to copy all of these posts over to another thread in News, Views and Issues. http://www.balletalert.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000499.html More on what you think of as unfair criticism? [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited March 09, 2001).]

I think there may be a misunderstanding of how critics use the word "miscast." It doesn't (or shouldn't) mean "I don't like." It means that Arnold Schwartzenegger (sp?) is miscast as Peter Pan, or Vanna White as Lady Macbeth. They're wrong for the role. Sometimes a critic may not "like" a dancer in a role for a reason that goes way beyond persoanl preference. One director of the Royal Danish Ballet often cast his wife, a very interesting performer who was excellent in modern and character parts, in classical roles. Whether you liked her or not, she was miscast in those roles. If she was so miscast every night, the critic might write that every night. It doesn't mean he doesn't like her -- he might write a rave of her in a modern role -- but that she had no business being in a tutu. That said, I think, as the ballet world crumbles, therre are more and more critics who are writing without the background to make many of the statements they make, including miscasting -- and they may be using it as "I don't like." Sometimes, novice critics will use terms they've read other critics use without really understanding what they mean. (Unfortunately, some "novice" critics remain unenlightened for long careers; they keep repeating what they think they've learned.) I've read people who say, "She is unsuited to the role" merely because their personal taste is for very skinny dancers, say, and anyone who doesn't look like a bag of bones is "unsuited" to the role. (Or the reverse.) But there are real physical reasons for saying someone is miscast -- this role needs a very flexible body, that one needs a turner, or a jumper. It might be momentarily interesting to have a Giselle who looked as though she'd just come from a nightclub in L.A., but she wouldn't be Giselle. And one of the reasons critics scream about "miscasting" is because if that nightclubber -- perhaps the most popular dancer in the company -- is cast as Giselle long enough, the next time a Makarova or Kirkland comes along, people will write/think, "simply unsuited to the role: not nearly sophisticated enough and far, far too innocent to convince us as a peasant girl who goes slumming after strange boys." I don't know a way around this. Like mbjerk's very good point about wanting a critic to explain what s/he means not just say "he danced well" or, more likely, using one adjective that the critic desperately hopes will communicate several sentences, it's nearly impossible to do in a newspaper review because of space limiations. (I don't mean that to be "poor critics," but just that if you only have 300 words and there are ten dancers who should be mentioned, it's very hard. I had much more than 300 words to do Washington Ballet's "Peter Pan," but because it was a premiere, I had to deal with the whole ballet. Dancers got a paragraph, and each dancer got about three very general, probably not at all useful, words.

All principals are not treated equally (Yes, I agree it's a pity.)