Alexandra

Thanks for taking the time to post all of that, Estelle. I've clicked on a few of the photos and they don't get larger You asked: Also there is a photo of him instructing a ballerina in Copenhagen (date not given), at: http://search.corbis.com/default.asp?s=bal...a=3&p=2&r=9&m=1 (picture ID BE031545) Does anybody know who that ballerina was, and can you recognize the ballet? Yes. It's Mette Mollerup (and Henning Kronstam, except the photographer cut off his head) in "Apollo." This would have been in the late autumn of 1956. Balanchine was quite fond of Mollerup.

Timon of Athens. Perfect ballet moderne material with a really good muscular, growly part for an aging danseur.

Andrei, you cut through all 1056 pages and got to the absolute essence of that book! (As Mr. O'Hara would put it, "Katy Scarlett, the land is the only thing that matters.") [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 10, 2000).]

Great topic, dirac! I think "The Thorn Birds" is probably on somebody's drawing board as we speak. (But should be scrapped in favor of your brilliant and very funny, outline.) "The Tin Drum" sprung into my mind as the most unadaptable thing I could think of. But it does have a very short hero How about the novels of Edna Ferber? "Ice Palace," a multigenerational saga about Alaskan statehood, interracial marriage and igloos would be glacially unmanageable (Richard Burton was in the movie version, if I'm remembering correctly.) "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" has the advantage of a lame heroine AND dozens of pas de deux, not to mention a stunning finale.

Alastair Macauley wrote an essay on classicism about 12 years ago in which he said that one of the principles of classicism is seemliness. At the time, I thought it an immensely brave thing for a young man to write, because there are very few people today who understand what "seemly" means. I think the way "chaste" and "seemly" and "artificial" are understood in the vernacular is different from what we're talking about here, using the words in an aesthetic context. And, as often happens, we're running up against different definitions. The objection to seeing a leg kicked up to break the classical line is not because the person thinks it's nasty to see underpants. It's because the classical line has been broken. This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual repression or puritanism. I think that "Rubies" was intended to be seductive and suggestive, much more than "Diamonds" or "Emeralds," certainly, but that still doesn't mean the man gets to pant when he looks at the woman. We're talking here of a matter of degrees. There are some dances where sex is more explicit. I haven't seen "Moon Reindeer," but there's a story that when the ballet was being choreographed, the ballerina was given extremely suggestive movements to perform -- there was a pas de deux that could only be referred to as dry humping -- and she steadfastly refused to make it remotely sexy, to the point where everybody in the room was tittering and the choreographer had to say, "Do you know what this means????" That's just as inappropriate. It's a matter of matching tone in performance to intent.

Shish-kebobs our specialty

I hope it's not necessary to say, but just because we're saying "the search is over!" that's a reference to a famous movie line. Please feel free to continue your casting decisions. We may have a "Gone With the Wind" Festival by the time we're through.

Mary, I like your Johnson quote, and may I suggest that MTC, for Minimally Talented Choreographer, enter the Ballet Alert! lexicon, along with Sheesno Fonteyn (courtesy of kip).

Mary, we've been working together too long. I sent this email to Leigh earlier (because we have had several conversations about Kschessinska). I wasn't sure most people would be familiar with her, but since you've put her name in the ring, I'll sure second it! Mr. Selznick, the search is over!!! The only possibility for Scarlett is Kschessinska. I'd have her do the 32 fouettes twice. Once at the barbecue, to the absolute horror of both Mama and Mammy. And then, the second time, at the ball, wearing her widow's weeds. Defiant, scheming, seductive, with a twinkle in her eye and a diamond on every spare patch of skin, Mathilde is our girl. I'd also like to second Leigh's nomination of Kenneth Greve for Ashley. Six foot three, blond hair, blue eyes, very handsome, very charming, capable of doing anything, but.... On Rhett, maybe I'm being too literal, but he was HUGE. Tall, muscular. Not short and muscular. Mukhamedov would be too short, as would Villella. Think more along the lines of Nikolai Fadayachev [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 09, 2000).]

If we open up casting to the dead, I'd go for Pavlova and Mordkin as Scarlett and Rhett. Estelle, most people at the time thought Leslie Howard was Absolutely Wrong for Ashley -- including, reportedly, Howard, who said, "I am neither young enough, nor beautiful enough, for Ashley." Ruined the movie for many, since the whole point of Ashley was that he was perfect: handsome, intelligent, athletic -- best horseman and best shot in the county -- and he just wanted to loll around and read poetry with Melanie. (In my family, Clark Gable was even a worst casting choice, as he "wasn't as gentleman." My aunt was a passionate supporter of Robert Montgomery for the part, but I think this was a minority opinion.)

Salome, that's a good observation, although it would be hard to do. But when what is being run in repertory is "Fille," and "Beatrix Potter," with occasional "abstract" ballets -- which I think are now reverting back to the "divertissement" status they had in the 1930s -- it's easy to see how Ashton is not taken seriously. (I made this comment before and unleashed a torrent of "Fille is a great ballet; it's not the same as Beatrix Potter," which was a charming suite of dances for a children's film absolutely not intended for the stage. I KNOW this But if you're a content person, you'll only see the story, and the two will look quite similar.) Other important parts of Ashton's oeuvre were his dances in the classical ballets, which have all been thrown out -- by Dowell, which I've never understood, as he must realize how much he owes Ashton for his own career. The waltz in "Swan Lake" was a gorgeous piece, and probably put in to uphold the company's classical standard, as you need 6 very good young classical dancers to do it. The fourth act of "Swan Lake" is also very beautiful, as is the Garland Waltz in "Sleeping Beauty."

Mr. B Fan, I was responding to your "nobody gets paid to write here" and the implications of that. I should add that newspaper critics have a fraction of the space that magazine critics have (I write for both) and it is absolutely impossible to analyze a work, comment on the dancing, AND give all of your reasons in a 12 or 15 inch review (which is luxurious, nearly 500 words). Estelle, a few years ago there was an attempt by the European Union to write a history of Europe. The greatest historians for each country contributed material. Then they all sat down together. Napoleon was a HUGE cultural divide. The French historian wrote of a great man of the people, a hero who united France with maybe a few personality flaws here and there, but still a hero. The English had a slightly different view (I don't believe the Russians were invited). France had a different take on Bismarck than did the Germans. Et cetera. I have a European dance encyclopedia -- published by an American publisher, but obviously written by Europeans. It's a summary of the great ballets of the 20th century. I hadn't seen, or heard of, most of them. Late Massine works (in the 1960s and '70s). Lots of Bejart -- much more than Balanchine. Ashton is barely mentioned. It's quite interesting. The great lost French choreographer, I think, is Leo Staats. Balanchine admired him. I have a few colleagues who saw some of his ballets when they were still in repertory in the 1950s. I've only seen (on tape) Soir de Fete -- I hope that's the right name -- that the company revived a few seasons ago. I loved it. It has a totally different structure from Petipa/Balanchine, which made it very interesting to me, AND it's a similar structure to what Ashton used in Les Patineurs and Les Rendezvous, which makes me wonder if he was not influenced by Staats (remember that Ashton didn't grow up in a great academy and had no models for classical choreography.) I understand, though, that it was just seen as a cute little bauble, not a serious revival.

But she's an adagio dancer, and Scarlett is pure allegro. Scarlett had trouble merely sitting still, and Silja is the current embodiment of the Danish classical harmony and stillness. (Scarlett is THE great demicaractere ballerina role, I think.)

Leigh, I have to ask what qualities you see in Schandorff that would suit her to Scarlett??? (In Danish employ, haircolor is not incidental )

Sorry, but I have to intervene here. I don't know where you get your idea of what motivates critics, but I protest vigorously that money has anything to do with it. That's like saying this dancer dances better than that one because she's paid more. Whatever Kisselgoff's faults, they're not related to money, and I assure you that the critics who write on this site write what they think whether they're paid or not. Critics are part of the climate of opinion, surely, but we only have the power you give us. If people want to study ballet appreciation seriously, then they will probably read a number of critics, as well as other sources (dancers' memoires, interviews, biographies, etc.) Put all of that together and you'll have a frame of reference in which to view the daily newspaper coverage. As in all things, perceptions differ. In my circles, the daily critics tend to be seen as saying "everything is beautiful at the ballet" much more than "all ballets are bad."

Salome, first off, let me say that I'm very glad you've joined the fray and hope to see you here often. I especially like that you're bringing in other art forms. It enriches the discussion. My analogy to poet versus short story writer isn't as good as it could be I think Ashton is more than a fine draftsman (more than Ingres, although I can see why you chose him). I think that one difference that isn't qualitative but merely a difference is that Ashton is a classicist and MacMillan an expressionist. But aside from that, I really believe that MacMillan is to Ashton as Robbins is to Balanchine -- not quite on the same level. (I know people who would both raise and lower MacMillan in that equation) and I think that that is the way history will judge him. I don't love everything Ashton has done (the many animal dances, for example, although they're quite clever) but I definitely see depth there. In a way, this is similar to the "Divertimento No. 15 is fluffy" debate we had a few weeks ago. There are undoubtedly many people who go to "Divertimento" or "Monotones" and see only -- hmmm. Dancers dancing. Ir's hard to write about, hard to talk about. (I can't resist adding, this is what Jack Anderson in the New York Times was up against trying to write about Leigh Witchel's work last week. A pure dance tutu ballet to Mozart was reduced to "pretty poses.") This reminded me of something Violette Verdy said in an interview I did with her for my book so I looked up the quote and copied it. She was speaking of Bournonville, but what she said could apply just as well to Ashton (and some Balanchine): "People don't appreciate it [bournonville ballets] because of its happiness. People think that anything too happy can’t be important, when the most important thing is really sheer happiness. It’s the most important thing, but people want to have more drama before they obtain it. Some people can go directly to it. That is true genius." [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 08, 2000).]

I don't have any problem with the notion of refined versus popular taste. I don't mean to advocate categorizing people by their tastes, nor trying to be Charlie the Tuna (the TV commercial character who was always listening to classical music and wearing a beret so you'd think he was a great painting so that he'd be thought to have "good taste.") But I'll probably have a lot more in common, generally, with someone who listens to classical music than someone who listens to bluegrass. The bluegrass listener may well be a far better person than either of us and get to Heaven sooner. It's a different question. (Not meaning to imply that Orzak was saying otherwise.) I do think Americans often have a problem with the very idea of good taste and high culture. I remember when Van Cliburn won the Tchaikovsky Piano Competition (and it made the TV news!) how much was made of it. People who usually said, "American jazz and pop music is just as good as that old-fashioned European stuff" were suddenly saying, "Yeah, so we're better. We've got better schools and soon Americans are going to be winning that competition every year." I was a young piano student at the time, and both attitudes bothered me. What was wrong with an American playing the piano? Why was it suddenly okay if he won? I think we (in the most general terms) still have an inferiority complex about fine art. We're beginning to be more relaxed about it in literature, because we have a lot of very good writers -- though no Shakespeare. (I'm not going to stop writing because I'll never write a line 1/10th as good as Shakespeare did, but I'm not going to try to tell you that my writing is as good or better, either.) I adored the Beatles when I was in high school -- and Bob Dylan and Joan Baez and the Stones, and some lesser lights whom I can't remember now. But I always knew it was "kid" music and not on the same level as Beethoven or even Liszt (to name an out-of-fashion classical composer)--and frankly, that was part of the pleasure. We liked it that adults hated it. I think the cultural divide issue is fascinating, but it's very hard to pin down. It's not country: all French people don't love Bejart, all Americans don't hate him. I know Americans who love MacMillan ballets and Britons who don't. Neumeier, loved by Germans and Danes and often hated by Americans, is an American. It's not age. I know people in their 60s who think "Sleeping Beauty" is dumb, and people in their 20s who think it's one of the great achievements of Western art. It's not class, although it is often a matter of education (not number of years in institutions, but what one was exposed to during education). There are many great artists from extremely poor backgrounds. On an old PBS special on "China," I remember one segment where an 8-year-old boy in the poorest neighborhood in Beijing, without any previous exposure to art, was becoming a great classical painter. He saw an example in school, he loved it, he instinctively understood it, and he began to paint as though he'd been bred in a 14th century Chinese court. In ballet, as I'm sure many of you know, Nureyev, who walked on stage as though he'd been trained by Louix XIV, grew up in a hut shared by three families. I think it's all frame of reference, what you've been exposed to and what you've seen. In dance, we're *all* provincials, even someone who's 85 and has gone to the ballet 8 times a week since he was six hasn't seen everything. Without wanting to get into postmodern gaze theory, we do develop "eyes" -- Balanchine eyes, Bolshoi eyes. We feel most comfortable with the style we see most frequently -- the look of the dancers, the structure of the choreography we see the most frequently, the way the dancers phrase music, dozens of things we don't even think about make up an image that we see, and we match new things against that image. Living in Washington, without a resident company with an insistent presence, I thought I'd avoid having company-specific eyes (ah, hubris), but I'd managed to develop half-old-Royal, half-NYCB eyes somehow. When I started studying Danish ballet, many of the Danish dance photos looked too placid, too static to me. One day, I looked at a photo, and realized I now thought it was beautiful. What I once had dismissed as static I now saw as harmonious (this took three years!) I am now "bilingual" when it comes to Danish classicism. I understand why New Yorkers think it's static, and I understand why Danes think it's beautiful. I think we all have a natural taste -- what we bring to the party when we first come into the room. My background was in theater and film and music. I had been taught to analyze literature and music and to discuss differences in performance in film and theater. I brought those skills and prejudices with me. The first year that I saw ballet, I "naturally" loved Ashton and Bournonville and the Royal Ballet's way of dancing Petipa. I loved it so much that I assumed it was the *right* way to dance Petipa, and disliked the Kirov's Petipa productions when I first saw them -- it took me three days to adjust (intellectually I knew this was silly, but it's the way I saw). I did not love Balanchine at first sight. I liked some ballets very much -- the ones to familiar music. This was fine until I became a critic (far too early). I realized I could not write about Balanchine without making a concerted effort to understand what he was about and why so many other people thought he was a great choreogrpaher. So I went to every performance of NYCB (three weeks worth) and stood and watched, and read about the ballets before I went and read about them again when I came home. By the end of the three weeks, I still didn't love every ballet, but I understood him. (I don't mean to suggest that everyone needs to do this. Just offering it as example of the old taste/judgment dichotomy.) Leigh, I still think Balanchine is a cultural divide. You live in New York and most of the people you know, I'll wager, know and like Balanchine. There's an article in the Arizona Republic today trying to explain Balanchine to a public who's used to Michael Uthoff. There's a cultural divide there. Drew, I definitely think, in New York, there is a cultural divide between ABT and NYCB. I also know people who won't cross that Plaza. However, many old-time NYCBers were rabid Royal Ballet fans what Arlene Croce called "the high 60s." So it's not as simple as abstract ballet versus narrative. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 08, 2000).]

Salome, thanks for that -- it wasn't incoherent at all, but quite interesting. A few points on cultural differences. I think there are a lot of Americans who like "Manon." I don't think it's a question of nationality, really -- and certainly I don't think that most Americans would object to, or care, that Manon is "immoral" and there are a lot of Americans who go to the ballet who understand history and cultural references (and we have our own weirdos and counterculture figures). I think it's more about what people look for in a ballet, and this cuts across countries, although Americans bred on Balanchine may be a separate subcountry. People value different things. Some prefer a narrative ballet and characters and want psychological twists and turns, want to analyze behavior, and they don't have any interest in analyzing the choreography. Some people look at the bones of the ballet, the choreography, the musicality, *how* the choreographer created and the dancers show those characters (and after often willing to put up with rather dreadful performances by dancers who show no personality). That's a cultural divide that's almost uncrossable, I think, although we persist in thinking that if you only saw it 100 times rahter than 99, or sat in the left orchestra rather than the right, you'd see what I see (It actually is possible to cross it, but one has to want to take the time -- and I mean cross it from either, or both, sides -- and have the interest to do it.) I will say something on Ashton, though. Yes, there are people who really truly find Ashton deep and a greater choreographer than MacMillan. Many people (of whom I am one). This, again, depends on your definitions and perception, in this case, of "simple" and again depends on whether you're looking at the clothes, skin or bones of the ballet. (Almost) everyone sees the outer layer first and usually makes judgments, especially of "like" or "dislike" on that outer layer. Many people are quite happy to remain there. Other people, for a variety of reasons, start to see beneath that layer. If you see "La Fille Mal Gardee" as a simple, rather silly story about two young lovers and funny parents, then you won't think much else about it and you'll wonder why anyone cares about it except as an entertainment for children. If you look at the choreography, you'll see it's a masterpiece. If you start analyzing the work, in the same way one would analyze a novel or poem or painting, you'll see that what seems superficially simple isn't. I think that in one way, comparing Ashton and MacMillan is like comparing a lyric poet to a short story writer. They're doing different things. The poet isn't telling you a story, although he may use a story in his poem. You read him for the beauty of language, of the rhythm. Or the game for the reader is how well he follows the rules, if it's a sonnet, and for tryign to decode the poem, find all of the allusions. In the short story, you care about how well it's written, but mostly you want to know how it turns out. (Of course, there are rancid poems and very great short stories. I'm not trying to make that a value judgment.) It's also difficult to compare what is currently in repertory of Ashton with MacMillan--comparing "Manon" to "Les Patineurs" doesn't give a true picture of either. MacMillan made some very ordinary ballets when he was younger -- "Danse Concertante" being my least favorite of several such types. Not bad, just absolutely ordinary. "Concerto" isn't much either, especially if you're used to seeing really first-rate "abstract" ballets. Ashton made some very dangerous works in middle-age -- "Dante Sonata," which has, miraculously, just been revived; "The Wanderer," "Tiresias," "Persephone." The most interesting Ashton works were the most tailored to specific dancers and, therefore, nearly impossible to revive convincingly. The two ballets I've seen where a direct comparison can be made are "Romeo and Juliet," and I don't have any hesitancy in saying that the Ashton is the finer piece of choreography. MacMillan seems to arouse passions, and I understand that. I loved the books of Daphne DeMaurier, but she's not as good a writer as the Bronte sisters or Jane Austen or Virginia Woolf. This doesn't mean that DeMaurier is bad writer, and it doesn't mean she's not enjoyable. (She's much better than Danielle Steele, for example, who has undoubtedly sold the most copies of any of these ladies.) [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 08, 2000).]

Anthony, your last two questions should be another thread, so I'll start one.

I'd like to try to clarify a couple of things. Juliet is right, we do all see differently. And I think in this case, we're using words differently as well. I think what Ken and I are getting at when we talk about "artificiality" is strictly in the Aristotelian sense, that fine art does not directly depict reality. It's not confessional. There has to be something else going on there. Secondly, I'm sure everyone does interpret "sexy" differently -- some people, unfortunately, find Shirley Temple movies sexy. But I still think you have to deal with the work of art in context -- artist's intentions being very important. How "Agon" has come to be seen as intentionally sexy, much less lewd, is revisionism, to say the least. I don't think it's any more intentionally sexy than, say, "Symphony in C." Finally, vulgarity, in the sense that Balanchine used it. (His famous, rather snitty, quote about the British -- "The English, if you are awake it's already too vulgar" -- is sometimes eagerly grabbed as evidence that he loved vulgarity above all else. But this, too, must be taken in context. In ballet, there was a long argument, that lasted well past mid-century, that more than two, or three, or four, pirouettes was "vulgar." High extensions were "vulgar" -- NOT because they exposed the crotch, but because they broke the classical line of the body. Hyperextension was vulgar, a sideways kick that broke the line of the body was vulgar. It's not vulgarity in the sense of spitting in the streets or using obscene language. As far as the performance tradition of "Agon" goes, unless you buy into the progressive arts theory -- that what was danced on the day Balanchine died was THE definitive statement (which I certainly don't) -- this has to be examined, too. As is well known, Balanchine changed ballets (or allowed ballets to change) for different dancers. But we have no way of knowing whether he thought, "Aha! Finally what I've always wanted!" or "Well, Heather is very interesting with that flexibility, let's see how that goes," or "This will do" -- or dozens of other thoughts, contexts, adjustments. During the last decade of his life (the only part of his career that I can speak of through firsthand viewing experience) there were several ballets, usually the old standards that had remained in repertory constantly, that were rather down at heel. They didn't look well-rehearsed, the costumes were even a bit dingy, the casting was...inscrutable ("Serenade," for a time, looked like a parking lot for dancers on their way up, but something happened, or on their way down.) "Symphony in C" could also be spotty, as could "Swan Lake." Balanchine's interest in "Swan Lake" was revived by Darcy Kistler, whom he gave to Danilova to coach and who did a much more "classical," simple version of Odette than had, say, Nina Fedorovna, who had done an extreme after-Farrell interpretation. How would "Agon" have looked with Kistler, had Balanchine had a chance to work with her? We can't know. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 08, 2000).]

Okay. It's irresistible. Here's the deal. You get to/have to produce "Gone With the Wind, the Ballet." You have an unlimited budget. It can be a one-act abstract ballet, or stretch over seven -- count 'em -- seven days and nights. You get to pick the company. You may invite guest stars. CAST GONE WITH THE WIND, THE BALLET. Production details optional. (And remember, there are artistic directors and their staffs who read this board, so if any of what you write turns out to be see the stage, it will be your fault )

Christa, thanks! If you learn anything, like what the music is, or if they're really going to try to tell the whole story (or whatever) please let us know. Re casting, I'm going to put up another thread. It's time for a new game

Hello, David. It's good to see you here. One story of what "Agon" is "about" is that it was created shortly after Tanaquil LeClerq was receiving physical therapy for polio, and Balanchine had been fascinated by watching the therapists manipulate her useless limbs. (I don't mean to suggest that "Agon" is that literal.) David, I object to lewdness or blatant vulgarity in ballet not because of middle-class sensibilities, but because it's against the aesthetic of the art form. Modern dance can be anything -- lewd (or chaste, I suppose) -- but the point of ballet is to be artificial (not in the sense of fake, but in the sense of deliberately not real). The larger point is whether it's appropriate to this particular ballet or not. There's nothing in written or oral tradition that says that pas de deux is "about" sex, or that the woman is supposed to spread her legs and grind her hips. It depends on the performer, and it's changed over time -- and has gotten much more lewd since Balanchine's death. There's a similar moment in "Tarantella" -- the woman does a plie, on pointe, in a wide second position. Some women turn the plie into a squat and deliver it with a knowing look to the audience that is extremely vulgar. Others do it quickly, and it's a witty step. In an experimental piece, the choreogrpaher can do anything he wants (I can still call it tasteless, but I have less ground to stand on ) But in a classical ballet, it's not prudery or pettiness that points out deviations.

The article only said that they would NOT use the Max Steiner score -- meaning the movie soundtrack. (Having had the piano score and played it incessantly as a child -- lots of loud crashy chords -- like many movie scores, it's pretty much that one lovely melody over and over and over and over and over and.....

Leigh, I'm seeing a trend here. Maybe you should do "Citizen Kane, the Ballet!" next year? Back to "Gone with the Wind," the steal-the-show role is Prissy. First runners up, the Tarleton Twins (dirac, I, too, read that book until it was nearly memorized. Many great lessons of life in there, none of which will translate to the ballet stage )