Alexandra

I think Silesia is now part of Poland! My geography is a bit shaky, though, so someone who actually knows should answer So I've always thought of it as a borderland. The Danes called him "Albert". I don't remember what he was called in the original program. So the multi-culturalism may be posthumous I've seen so many different spellings of Myrtha/Myrthe/Myrta that I don't know which came first, and how the divergence came about. I hope someone else will! Thank you for the questions, bart!

Yes, Mme. Hermine. He's Count Albrecht masquerading as humble peasant Loys -- thank you for the clarification! Jane, thank you for that. Is he listed on the cast list in the program as Loys/Albrecht or just Albrecht?

Originally, Giselle's duplicitous lover had two names: Loys and Albrecht. As late as the mid-1970s, he was listed that way in the programs. (Loys/Albrecht) Then suddenly, Loys disappeared. No explanations, no complaints. This raises a couple of questions. First, why? Second, when? (For balletgoers who knew Loys, do you remember when he disappeared from your company's production? For those who came to ballet in the last 20 years or so, did you ever see Loys?) And third, does it matter?

Perhaps an example of how "classical line"....morphs over time.

bart, re the high heels, I thought about that when I was reading (and, truth to tell, skimming, because there are a lot of quotations that say more or less the same thing). This was the time that Camargo ripped off the heels of her shoes; I'm sure men followed suit, and that would have thrown the line off, in the same way that women going on pointe in the mid-19th century caused some adjustments to be made in the height of the arabesque when dancing roles created in the earlier part of the century. But I don't know I've never read mention of it, though serious, detailed research in this era is still in its infancy, and we may learn more. Re the spotting -- one of the mysteries of life. It's probably why Bournonville had trouble with pirouettes! the Danish story is that Hans Brenaa went to Paris in the 30s and studied with Egorova and brought back the Trick of Spotting. Bruhn said that he always spotted naturally. (A maximum of two pirouettes in Bournonville remained an article of faith in Copenhagen well into the 1950s; it was considered part of his aesthetic.)

I think it came from the idea of the necessity of verticality, of reaching for the Heavens as a metaphor for ballet as an idealistic (rather than realistic) art form, and it was mostly danseur noble (based on the "18th Century Dance Styles" book; this isn't my period, but the author quotes widely from contemporary sources, mostly descriptions of dancers.) It was a male grotesque dancer, Malgri, who claims, in his own writings, to be the first man on pointe. He did it as a trick, and it didn't much interest him. My conversations about this with dancers were among Danish dancers and very provincial The Danes had been so isolated in the 20th century that they had missed quite a few technical advances, including spotting. Some dancers "got out" in the 1930s and brought back some steps, but then there was the war, and they were really locked in. Several Danish men (Bruhn, Stanley Williams, Flindt among them) went to London as soon as they could get there after the War and came back with lots of new knowledge, but I heard no mention of Gilpin or Blair's dancing on high demi-pointe. Not saying they didn't, just that it didn't make a dent. It was when Nureyev came there to take class with Volkova that Bruhn started using it and it became de rigeur. And then there were two men who said Bruhn had always danced on high demi-pointe.)

By the mid-1970s (when I started being interested in ballet) Nureyev's sexuality was discussed, publicly and privately, although, as has been pointed out, not incessantly. I can remember reading that "pansexuality" was part of his appeal, and one of the first things I read about him, in Ballet Review, was a comment by Violette Verdy (meant in the nicest possible way) that he was a "great big Muslim whore." That said, I agree with leonid that this wasn't the focus of articles in the world before People Magazine. People discussed Nureyev as a dancer. One might ask, "Is he gay?" and get a "Oh, God yes" as an answer, but that was the end of the conversation, at least in my circles. (Nureyev was interviewed by John Gruen for Gruen's gossip book, "The Private World of Ballet" and asked why he wasn't married. His answer was, "Why should I make some girl miserable?" and I think it was taken by many to be a reference to his justly famous temperament.) I'm looking forward to the PBS special, especially the dance footage

Thanks for that, bart! For a view of Nureyev (and Kavanagh's book) that's more judicious than Mr. Segal's, try this one by by Matthew Gurewitsch in today's NYTimes: The Nureyev Nobody Knows, Young and Wild

I'll echo bart's thanks, Azulynn. I very much agree with what you wrote: "I think training and experience may also play a great part in being able to present line." There may be some people who walk into ballet school with perfect line, but I don't think it happens often. I think classical line is a product of classical training.

Bart wrote: I think this could be a good overarching rule (and very well-phrased!) BUT it changes depending on place and time. So it's totally the same and totally different Which is why we have such interesting discussions! (I would say that neoclassical ballet also has a sense of balletic line, and that the definition of neoclassical has changed from century to century too. Yet we all have at least a vague idea of what it means!)

Bart, I don't know, but I'd hazard a guess it had as much to do wiith his (and his teacher, Pushkin's) knowledge of classical ballet and art, especially the statue to which Leonid referred in the thread on classical line (quoting Leonid): "the Flemish mannerist sculptor Giambologna’s (1529-1608) "The Flying Mercury" created in 1564 as it beautifies the harmonic line in a pose of the god who flies through the air." (and is on high demi-pointe, part of the illusion of flight). As I've written above, this wasn't a new invention, but was known in classical ballet at least as early as the 18th century. There are many references in the literature to it. It may have been new to that generation, or group of young balletgoers who were watching Nureyev and wrote about it, but he didn't invent it.

Thank you for this, Leonid -- and Amen! I especially loved this line in your post: "I do not agree that the appreciation of line is "subjective" I would say it is a shared aesthetic of knowledge." I think that is very true. Unfortunately, there is little or no dance education in schools, even at university, and so we're not given, as we are in art or music, this shared aesthetic of knowledge. We have to find it on our own.

bart, I think it was considered effeminate, at least in the West. (real men don't point their feet, I guess.) I'm speaking specifically when the man is standing with both feet on the ground, partnering (think of the fish dives in Western productions of "The Sleeping Beauty") and one foot is extended -- and planted on the floor, rather than arched. I think anything that looks "refined" is considered "effeminatei" in some circles -- and in some companies today, I'm seeing less stretched line, less tautness of line, in male dancing, as though the dancer is "just one of the guys". It's a line that's fine in modern dance, but looks odd, to me, in classical ballet. Point of that being that, like most things, the pointed foot goes in and out of fashion according to time and country. innopac, I've read what you quoted, too. It could be that Nureyev was simply doing something different from what had been done in recent memory in St. Petersburg.

In Gennady Smakov's "The Great Russian Dancers," he says that Nureyev's going on high three-quarter point caused impassioned discussions among the balletomanes. In Denmark, there was a question of whether it was Nureyev or Bruhn who brought in the high three-quarter pointe. Haven't read anything about Nijinsky Point being that this has been around since the beginnings of ballet, and has come in and out of fashion.

Thank you for the clarification, bart -- and my apologies for misunderstanding you! I've discussed this issue with students, and (not surprisingly) they're divided. Some don't want to dance in the corps and others are thrilled at the prospect, and aim for companies that do "Swan Lake" because they want to dance "swans." Whether they expect to dance Swans for life, I can't say But I think Leigh is right -- in cultures where the collective is the norm and not individualization, it's a different story. I saw a clip from a film about Korean gymnasts, focusing on a young girl who was an Olympic medalist, and she was training for a mass showing (I think one of 10,000, or was it 100,000?) with the same intensity that she applied to her Olympic training, and seemed genuinely thrilled to be a part of the celebration.

I'm reading a book called "18th Century Dance Styles" and there are several drawings of men on three-quarter pointe. It existed in folk dance and the fairgrounds performers and the noble style of dancing. Nureyev may well have been the one to bring high three-quarter pointe BACK, though. I've read that, too, and know from talking with dancers of the '60s that it was an issue, in the West, after his defection. (Also the extended, pointed foot; you can see this in photos.)

Natalia, I'm sorry. We were posting at the same time -- very good points (especially about the political considerations, which do happen ) I agree. We don't complain when it works!

That's about as clear and succinct a summary of the issues here as I've ever seen. Thanks, carbro. Sometimes I wonder about the limited rep for the corps. The choreography in big classical ballets is circumscribed and limiting. So much effort seems required to do relatively little -- with the real work being doing it as an ensemble. And there's no corps work at all for so many 20th century and contemporary choreography. I agree with carbro -- today, too many dancers are being pushed prematurely. Sometimes a dancer is very right for a part (this might happen by accident ) and the artistic staff decides s/he's principal material and puts them in everything. The art of developing a dancer, which used to be part of the job description of artistic director, is one of the many things that are lost. Bart, I can't agree that "the choreography in big classical ballets is circumscribed and limiting." I know that many people think this (and that's fine!) but there's also the view that the corps work in "Giselle" Act II, "Swan Lake" and "La Bayadere" is the heart of the ballet, and that the classical corps is the heart of the company. It's very difficult, as you say, and I guess it's in the eye of the viewer whether it accomplishes a little or everything. Bart's point -- "And there's no corps work at all for so many 20th century and contemporary choreography" -- is quite accurate, I think. And the revolution that is going on in ballet now is getting rid of the corps. Rather than small companies trying to become great ones by acquiring the great Russian classics (the old Royal Ballet model) they're after an eclectic repertory (meaning all kinds of dance) danced by a company of soloists (the old Harkness Ballet/Joffrey Ballet model). This is appealing, and much much much less expensive, but the problem is, where do the soloists come from? These comments are really OT for this forum, because the Kirov isn't going down this road. Yet. It's calling card is its corps.

Lots of good questions! SandorO, it's different with different companies. In the old European companies, whether the dancers starts in the corps (mostly) or not, the company teachers and ballet masters know, from an early age, who is is likely to be a principal and who is a corps dancer, and train accordingly. A likely principal will begin to be groomed to dance principal roles at an early age. He or she may spend a few years in the corps for seasoning, but people knew that Asymulratova was going to be a ballerina. The Danes also promoted early -- male stars usually achieve principal status at 20, 21, 22; the women a bit later, in the mid-20s. (different roles, different traditions). And again, they've known who was going to be James or the Sylph by the time the student is 14, 15, 16, sometimes earlier. Another way to do it was Balanchine's. He knew which 15 or 16 year old was ballerina material and often gave them big roles at that age -- different kind of ballets, different requirements. (To do "Sleeping Beauty" you need to be able to carry a three-act ballet, how to be the focus of attention for that period of time, how to build a role, how to be different from act to act. Many of Balanchine's ballets were, deliberately, made for sprinters rather than long distance runners, as it were.) Being a good corps dancer does require different skills, and it is hard, I'm sure, to dance in a line for most of the month and then having to be an individual for a solo one day, and then go back in the line again. There was a very good TV film on the Royal Ballet School about a year and a half ago (on British TV) that interviewed corps dancers, soloists and principals about this.

Thank you very much for posting this, Teo, and welcome to Ballet Talk! Could you post the season's repertory for us? This is a company we don't read much about on these boards (or in the American press, at least) and I'm sure there are those here who would be interested in news -- and reviews, when the season starts.

Actually in "Dancer's Dream," it says that Nureyev considered reconstructing the last act, but ultimately chose the "gentler" ending of having Solor and Nikya reunited in the dream. In this sense Nureyev's version is almost identical to the Kirov version (except in the Scarf duet, Solor pirouettes along with Nikya. But really, that's it.) So it seems as if ending the ballet after the Shades act was an artistic choice. And hasn't the Kirov dropped the "new-old" Bayadere? The "new-old" Sleeping Beauty has remained in the repertoire but I haven't heard reports of the "new-old" Bayadere being staged in years. Yes, that is on "Dancer's Dream," but that isn't necessarily definitive. Other people, in interviews, are more in line with what rg posted above. (There are several contradictory statements about other things by artists interviewed on Dancer's Dream, which happens when you talk to artists )

I never saw her dance, and it's one of my regrets. I agree with rg that the Sylphide is gorgeous. She's also on DVD coaching several POB principals in La Bayadere.

Yes, sometimes the steps do have a specific meaning, or suggest a specific meaning, and sometimes they're like snowflakes. Each one is different and beautiful, and they don't mean anything in the sense that they're sending us a message in a snowflake verdict of morse code. Re 4mrdncr's question: "Returning to original topic of "line". Line to me has always been a technical knowledge expressed artistically. That is, a true artist knows how to use an inherent technical knowledge of line continuously to express and enhance the presentation/performance/viewer's understanding," I think line is geometry. Someone without classical line -- Nijinsky, say -- could be a consummate artist and expressed the choreographer's intentions beautifully (we can see that in the photos). People who have line have it. It's the way their body makes shapes. It's possible that someone with beautiful lines could be totally uninteresting as an artist -- unless all you're into is geometry. (And there are empty vessels that I've enjoyed watching, simply because they make such beautiful shapes!) They're two different things.

Leigh and I were posting at the same time, and I'd like to second something he wrote in the post above mine: "The ballet's meaning is independent of the dancer. Some of that has to do with the shape of the choreography." I agree with that -- some would not, believing that it's all about the performance, and that the ballets should serve the dancers and not the other way around. That, as much as personal taste in leg length and hair color, may well be why there are disagreements about this and other aesthetic issues.

Thanks to scherzo for a very good question. There have been several very good answers here. I second what Leigh and Hans have written about line (and the quote from Ballet 101, of course) -- it's more than having a pleasing body. It's how the body is used. (I once was given a very interesting example of how line -- the harmonious arrangement of limbs, the way the upper body of a dancer in arabesque was tilted a bit forward, the harmony of his extended leg with the opposite arm -- was also a demonstration of that dancer's musicality.) I think the "any dancer can dance any role and it's just a matter of opinion" is one of the biggest problems in ballet today, and it's happened because there isn't a real leader, either choreographer, dancer or company, in classical ballet. We've gone through times like this in the past, and it always gets sorted out when a leader emerges, yells at the children, and everyone gets back in line (that's the other kind of line, the line you make at a grocery store). At a certain level -- Baryshnikov, Makarova -- any dancer should be able to dance anything they want; they've earned the right. And they'll know in their heart of hearts whether they're suited to the role or not. But generally, the major classical Schools know exactly what their school demands in line, placement, turnout, how high the leg should be extended and how the little finger should be crooked, or not. What to many viewers might seem a tiny detail is cosmic to a dancer -- or should be. Many dancers don't understand line, I've found, especially if someone has told them have don't get to dance X or Y role because they "don't have the line for it" Line is a part of employ -- the 17th century idea that there are three (or four, depending on the country and decade) general types of dancers: tall and elegant, dancing slow and stately measures; slightly smaller and quicker, though still elegant; shorter and comic; forceful and rather coarse. These categories were never iron clad and have slipped around over the years. In recent years, for example, the "ideal" Odette has changed a great deal. I remember when Lesley Collier danced the role in New York for the first time in the mid-1970s, the NY Times wrote, "We will probably never see anyone with her line in this role again." She was rather short-limbed, and the role was becoming (and now has definitely become) a role for long-legged ballerinas. As several people have mentioned, we've had several discussions on this forum in the past about employ, and why it matters that a dancer fits the role. Dancers usually recognize this -- we've had comments here, and I've had them, and read them, in interviews, of a dancer saying how roles by one choreographer or made on one dancer or type of dancer suited them perfectly, while others weren't quite a fit. If you ever see a ballet cast as the choreographer intended it, you might see a difference in the way the ballet looks: the geometry of the work is clear, especially in a ballet -- like Balanchine's "Midsumner" of "Stravinsky Violin Concerto" -- where height is a subtext. As for scherzo's original question, I don't know Ms. Cuthbertson's dancing well enough to comment on the comment. Some critics don't know what they're talking about, but some actually do They can't write a detailed explanation of what line is because of space -- we've had that comment made here time after time, and it's true -- and also because a review isn't a lesson in ballet appreciation. I learned much of what I know about dancing from reading reviews and trying to figure out what in the *** the person meant -- take Croce's comment that the ballerina role in "Theme and Variations" was an adagio role made for an allegro dancer (Alicia Alonso). That's about line and employ, and it took me a couple of seasons to decode. Another help to me was Nancy Reynolds' "Repertory in Review." While reading through it, I noticed that, for example, Bart Cook was being cast in all of Jean-Pierre Bonnefoux's roles, and I didn't see that they were alike physically. I figured Balanchine probably knew what he was doing, though, and realized it was the key to something I was trying to understand. So I started to look for other similar pairings, and traced roles back to their origins, through several generations of casts. I was also reading at the time about "the McBride line and the Farrell line" -- another kind of "line," the line that connects dancers within a similar repertory. All of these things were very helpful in figuring out what both kinds of "line" mean. In today's anything goes world, there are very few models. We don't have the chance to look at perfectly cast ballets very often, and so it's harder to get one's bearings, I think. None of this is to say that there's anything wrong about liking a dancer who "shouldn't" be dancing a role -- that's personal taste. But there *is* something to why ballet masters cast certain dancers in