Alexandra

Ann, I think several people have described how the movement can be, has been, and is performed so that it doesn't look lewd. Whether the dancers are setting out to be lewd, or "just doing the step" or it's the result of a mechanical matter of timing, the result is the same. It's not just at NYCB. Dance Theatre of Harlem has done it that way, too. But I'm just repeating what Mary and Leigh have said, that the ballet has changed over time.

This was too good to leave languishing in Links, so I've copied dirac's blurb from there: Atlanta Ballet to stage full length production of "Gone With the Wind". As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up....: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/daily/det...0106507,00.html Choreographed by John McFall with a cast of dozens. I'm not familiar with the current roster of the company so I can't cast it, but I thought we might be able to come up with some dramatic suggestions. They're not going to try to redo the movie. It doesn't sound as though McFall is going to do a distillation or abstraction, but The Real Thing. Any reactions?

I'm glad Ann raised the point about Agon Lewd. Ann, I've seen it danced that way too, and I've had exactly the same reaction. I'd argue that this isn't prudery, but simply an instinctive reaction to something that doesn't fit, that seems out of place in the context of the rest of the ballet. When Miami City Ballet did "Agon" here a few weeks ago (staged by Farrell) there was no lewdness. It's interesting -- this could be seen as part of the cleaning process, of saying, "Yes, I know you've seen this done this way, but when Mr. B taught it to me, that wasn't what he wanted." There are also differences in dancers, I think. If Diana Adams had done exactly the same thing, it may well not have looked lewd, because she was not a lewd dancer. (Ann, you're forgiven . I think we all suffer from some strain of the "If I think it, it's OK; if you think it, it's prudery" -- fill in any word you want for "prudery") It all comes from a desire, I think, for other people to see the same things in a work that we do.

Wendy, I can't speak for all Americans, certainly (and I think there are many Americans who are very fond of "Manon") but my objections to it don't have anything to do with the plot or the fact that I can't see the deep subtleties -- I think MacMillan is an extremely obvious choreographer, actually; everything is surface, which is one of my objections. The more I've seen this particular ballet, the less I see in it. I saw Guerin and Legris dance the bedroom pas de deux once, and thought they were wonderful in it--the best I'd ever seen. They were interesting people--multidimensional, but that came from *them,* not from the ballet. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 05, 2000).]

Kip, I saw that performance of "The Dream" too! (Or maybe that's just the way they're doing it now, and there are many such performances.) It was one of the nasty signs, like a dead sparrow in the snow, that all was not right with the world. Note to Salome: I've lost your comment about liking "Manon" and "Edward II" I thought it was on this thread, but I'm obviously wrong. I wanted to encourage you to post WHY you liked "Edward II" over on the "Edward II" thread. That's been very one-sided so far. He sounds as though he could use a friend (And feel free to post why you like "Manon" here, as well.)

It's a broad issue. Two quick comments. We have had discussions before about the current trend to overt sexuality (gay or straight) in ballet. If a ballet has that as its subject, to me, that is one thing. The tendency to sexualize everything under the guise of being "modern" and make anything that had a subtle twinge of sexuality into something LEWD, in neon, is, to me, extremely distasteful. Implying that anyone who has that view does so because he/she is sexually repressed is as offensive as saying it's because he/she is stupid. (A friend of mine once came up with a great retort to this: I don't go to the ballet for sex. I have other outlets.) One of the man misunderstandings in pop culture in the last forty years is that "adult" means "dirty words and overt sexual content." (And it is an OLD concept, from the 1960s. There's nothing new or modern about it.) The second comment is about a detail. I had to think for quite awhile what you meant by same-sex duets in "Agon." I have never considered those segments a male or female pas de deux. To me, they're both parts of a pas de trois. I certainly haven't seen anything sexual in them. The man's "duet" is mildly combative, or at least has suggestions of courtly dueling. I think I must just be blind to sexuality watching women -- the female "duet" is, to me, two dancers dancing. Both Bournonville and Petipa have many dances with the women -- dancing a deux or in a Rockettes line -- hold hands. I don't think that we're just "discovering" a hidden lesbian undercurrent in ballet. I've been, not offended, but estranged by sexual political content in modern dance, by all (gay) male companies that really make me feel that, as a woman, there is no place for me in their world. There are some militant feminist companies in D.C. who can't seem to make dances about anything except child molestation and rape. Without intending to trivialize this issue at all, I find it hard to believe that every company has at least one woman who can stand there and say (our modern dancers have been talking for years) "When I was eight" [twitches head, puts knees together] "I was raped" (bends in middle) "by my FA-THER" [hits self on head three times, falls to floor, groans]. A male friend of mine said he felt a terrible compulsion during intermissions to go up to any woman and start babbling, "I've never raped anybody. I swear. I like women. I...." I do think that, whatever the intent, these dances can be alienating. But, as always, it depends on the viewer. Ken mentioned the Joffrey's "Daedalus and Icarus." I know gay men who found that ballet extremely erotic, and affirming, at a time when it was still barely permissible to be publicly gay.

Ed, I'd certainly agree with your objections. To me, aside from the padding, which bores me senseless, I find "Manon" very simplistic. Mary Cargill has written in "DanceView" and here, I think, that a big part of the problem is that the characters don't grow. To me, that's an insurmountable flaw. It's a problem shared by many "opera ballets" (in this sense of the term, i.e., operas denuded of both lyrics and sense), which is perhaps why people bred on opera find them less appealing than do others.

I'm really glad you got to see "Symphony in 3 Movements," Ken. Yuan Yuan Tan strikes people very differently, I think. I've always liked her, but many people find her cold and/or unexpressive.

Saturday matinee. There was a different cast in "Prodigal Son" -- Gonzalo Garcia and Yuan Yuan Tan -- and for whatever reason (lack of rehearsal, getting used to the stage, etc.) a lot of the blips and bumps in the corps that I saw Friday night had been cleaned up. I thought this performance was stunning, from the split-second timing of the Nine Goons (that was very off Friday night) to, especially, the leads. I like Tan very much, but didn't think she'd be an ideal Siren; she's not physically majestic, like Govrin (who coached this production) or Farrell or Von Aroldingen, three great Sirens, and she's not, well, very sexy. But she did a beautiful job with the role, I thought. She was imperial, and, seductive through her power. Garcia, who looks very young, did this role at least as well as I've ever seen it. He's short and muscular, full of energy and fiery--a born Prodigal. He's one of those rare dancers who seems to live the role on stage, and the impetus for everything he did was simply that he was a creature of impulse, totally lacking in judgment. He has an explosive jump. The big technical weakness is his turns (he's a tilt-a-whirl) but the extremely difficult ending, the crawl home, was beautifully done. He looked like a modern dancer--appropriate here, as there's a lot of 1920s German expressionism and modern dance in this ballet. He began by lying in a twisted knot on the stage, and his awakening--the struggle to regain consciousness and merely walk, after such debauchery, his realization that he had not only been robbed and betrayed, but he had been wrong was done completely through the body's movements, not by surface acting. As he began his crawl, it was clear that every movement required enormous effort (on the part of the Prodigal, not the dancer), yet when he first saw his father's gate, he crawled toward is almost greedily before falling unconscious again from the effort. Ashley Wheater as the father was also very fine, as were the two Servants (Kester Cotton and Ikolo Griffin). "Sympony in Three Movements" (staged by Richard Tanner, who's never on the short list of Great Balanchine stagers) was again brilliantly danced--Lucia Lacarra, Lorena Feijoo, Vanessa Zakhorian, Yuri Possokhov, Parrish Maynard, and Someone Else (the program,, listing all possible cast members, is impossible to decipher). Of all the ballets presented, this is the one that, to me, looked the freshest, as though it had just been created. It pulsed with life (and received sustained applause). Pennsylvania Ballet was, again, very appealing in "Western Sympony," although they threw away a lot of the jokes. They also weren't quite up to the dancing; it wasn't crisp enough, and looked like a technical stretch for them. One of the problems with ballet today is that the companies only have a chance to dance a ballet five or six times a season, and then must rest it for at least three seasons; they never get to really master the ballets.

As always, it's interesting that different people have different ideas of what ballet "is supposed to be," and use words differently. To me, Balanchine is very complex, not simple at all, where something like "The Merry Widow" is simple fare because there's nothing EXCEPT sets and costumes (and I find those particular ones awfully heavy on the tinsel). I agree that there are people, probably many people, who prefer dramatic ballets, full-length ballets, whether it's for the sets and costumes, or dramatic content, I don't know, because I haven't polled them There have always been people who don't like Balanchine, and probably always will be, but that doesn't mean he's not "first-class ballet." The Kennedy Center statistics are that the first week sold at 95% (which is essentially sold out, as there are always seats held back for press and other invited guests). They don't have the numbers in yet for the second week. They think it will be less--somewhere in the 80s--but won't know until Monday. I'll call and report, since this seems to be a matter of some controversy. I had some comments on the Saturday matinee, too, but will make that a separate post. I hope everyone who has comments on the season as a whole will chime in on Michael's overview thread, posted a couple of days ago. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited September 25, 2000).]

Samba, I'm sorry. I had meant to comment on your question about Allegra Kent and forgot it. It's been haunting me I don't know about Kent's history as a stager and coach; if someone else does, I hope you'll respond. It's hard to answer from watching a single ballet, and not knowing exactly what her input was. Farrell wasn't supported (in the sense of people constantly writing that she was an excellent coach, or, in some cases, practically demanding that she should be the one staging Balanchine) for several years after she started. There was interest after she set "Scotch" in Russia, but merely interest. It wasn't until her week-long run in Washington with the Washington Ballet that you could tell that yes, she can do this at a very high level. Before that, there was a lot of speculation, but many naysayers -- ballerinas can't coach, they only know their own roles; how much is she really doing? Is it her assistant and she's just getting the glory? Et cetera. At that Washington season, people were grilling the dancers, saying, "Who's doing what? Is this really Farrell?" etc. So it seems now that everyone jumped on her bandwagon, but it wasn't instant. I've never read anything about Kent that indicated she was interested in doing the same kind of thing that Farrell is trying to do -- teach and stage, manage a small company. That's very different from merely coaching (not that "merely coaching" is in any way fair; "merely coaching" very well is as rare, I think, as choreographing very well).

Oh, dear. I'm the flip side of Jeannie's take this time. I've always liked "Symphony in 3 Movements" (Stravinsky) and I thought it looked terrific, with all the snap and verve and LIFE that "Symphony in C" had lacked. Balanchine always discouraged drill team unison, especially in works like this. I agree that Lacarra was the standout, but the whole company looked good. This is one of the ballets that Balanchine crafted from pop materials, one reads--hence the girls' pony tails, the waves, and the way the dancers hop around at times; they're post-War teenagers. I thought "Prodigal Son" was a misfire. It needs stars, and Nedviguine and Mafre were a bit palid, although Mafre had some interesting moments. There were parts where my Danish friends would say "it looks as though the dancers didn't have the right information" (meaning things hadn't been explained properly). Mafre seemed so unsure with the cape, and some of the props, that it may be new to them--SFB did this ballet in the early 1980s, but haven't done it recently. But I have so many strong memories of ABT, NYCB and DTH in this ballet that SFB's was a disappointment--as much as "Bugaku" and "Symphony in 3 Movements" were wonderful surprises. "Western Symphony" has never been one of my favorites, but I liked Pennsylvania Ballet's take on it. The opening was flat, partly, I think, because there was only a pause between "Prodigal" and "Western." The audience needs a break, too. Intermissions aren't just for the convenience of the stage hands, and the moods of these two ballets are so different that I think an intermission would have helped. But the second movement (Valerie Amiss and David Krensing), where Balanchine has fun with many Romantic ballet conventions -- the mooning partner who has to be coaxed into a pas de deux, who constantly loses his partner, and who is, ultimately, easily consolable when she leaves, was in just the right key. The great thing about Pennsylvania Ballet's performance is that the dancers look as though they like it; they don't condescend to it. Jeffrey Gribler has been on stage as long as I've been watching ballet, I think--this is his last season--so his jump isn't what it once was, but he was the one who convinced the audience it was OK to laugh. Gribler was paired in the fourth movement with a very elegant Arantxa Ochoa (hope these spellings are right; I'm squinting at my program in a dim light ). The finale -- one of Balanchine's most dazzling, especially here, with four squadrons of dancers in different colors--was crisp, deft, and plain good fun.

Thanks, Bard's More quick impressions. Of the three performances of Program 3, overall, I thought last night's the most successful. Serenade--Last night, finally, the dancing was light in the sense of being airborne, not insubstantial. Dede Barfield in the central female role, and Meredith Rainey as the man in the Elegy were especially fine, I thought. Audience opinion seemed divided, from what I heard at intermission. Several people down from New York were quite happy with it, but two diehard NYCB fans (from New Jersey) dismissed the dancing as "regional." I asked what they meant and the answer was a firm "amateurish." (I didn't think it was amateurish.) I will always be grateful to SFB for making me like "Bugaku." Lacarra was wonderful in it, not only for her extraordinary flexibility and delicacy, but because, young as she is (only 23) she's already a ballerina. She glows. She doesn't have a beautiful line, and she's not a strong technician, but despite this, she's totally in control of a role, knows exactly what she's doing, and does it on her own terms. For her, "Bugaku" was Balanchine's Petit ballet, but she made it work. Of the three casts, I preferred Yuan Yuan Tan and Cyril Pierre (Stephen Legate in the man's part was a bit too tender for a Japanese warrior) for their cold, courtly ceremonial detachment, but Lacarra's solo was the "dance of joy" described by Balanchine in his "Great Books of the Ballet" (written by Francis Mason, but on Balanchine ballets, after conversations with Balanchine). "Symphony in C" was also better -- more energy and faster, for one thing, but the corps is still ragged. One woman's version of arms en couronne has been "stick 'em up" arms--straight in the air--three nights running. i've seen companies with very different heights and weights in the corps still give uniform performances, unified by style. It matters a great deal how you "put them up," as the Danes say: who is next to whom. There is a great deal of mismatching here. But some of the soloists were quite good. In the third movement, LeBlanc, who had an off-night Tuesday, was back on form, dancing with a wobbly, though appealing (and high-jumping) Gonzalo Garcia. I liked Yuan Yuan Tan and Cyril Pierre (I hope it was Pierre; that's who's listed in the program, but he was so different from the man in "Bugaku" that I wouldn't have known him) in the second movement very much. They're reserved, but beautifully musical. Vanessa Zahorian has been terrific every night in the fourth movement. Very clean dancing, with snap to it; beautiful turns, clear jumps, what more could you want? The weakness every night, aside from the corps, has been the first movement. I liked Julie Diana more than Katita Waldo (who's too quirky for that role, in my book) but the role needs a stronger dancer.

I'm so glad you all enjoyed yourselves so thoroughly! Manhattnik, think of what Another Choreographer could do with a ballet where a red hot poker figures pointedly--the 21st century jester role.

Jeannie, is there *anything* the Kirov doesn't do better than everybody else There's always been a weight to "Serenade" at NYCB, and some of Balanchine's earthiest dancers have been cast in it (Von Aroldingen did the Girl Who Falls Down for years). I don't mean that it's "wrong" to want it to be light (or faster, slower, etc.), but just didn't want anyone to get the impression that NYCB is wrong for dancing it the way it has/does. Balanchine wasn't very fond of prettiness. He liked strength (if anyone has seen the photos of the first "Serenade" cast, those earnest women in shorts that Balanchine confronted in 1934 look like a shot put team). [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited September 21, 2000).]

Just got in from Wednesday night. Both "Serenade" and "Symphony in C" look more relaxed tonight, I thought. In addition to being light, "Serenade" lacks mystery, or any sense that there's a secret story there. In "Symphony in C," there were some minor casting adjustments (better pairings of demi-soloists, some shifting about of the corps) that made the production look more uniform, although still somehow bare. Lacarra (again, in second movement) was lovely. She's not a killer technician, but she's still a ballerina, in my book. She's only 23, and has both authority and perfume. In addition to her incredible predatory insect in "The Cage," second movement in "Symphony in C" shows her vulnerable side. Tonight, she reminded me of Audrey Hepburn -- dewy and coltish. Muriel Mafre danced the woman's role in "Bugaku" very well. Her long, long limbs make the role more grotesque than Tan -- not good or bad, just different. I've asked several colleagues who saw last night's "Bugaku," and who have been watching that ballet since it was created how the Tan/Pierre cast--and the ballet generally--compared to past performances (I'm always wary when I think a cast is extraordinary if I haven't seen the original) and all said some variant of "this is as good as any cast I've ever seen." Also, that many nuances, small touches, in the ballet that had dropped away had been restored, particularly in the woman's role. With all the attention given to Farrell as a Balanchine stager, it seems only fair to note that Allegra Kent is credited for "additional coaching" in this production.

I agree, Samba. This has also been a lesson, for me, in programming. Last week's programs, on paper, didn't work at all. Program #1 (Mozartiana, Rubies, Square Dance with caller, and Stars and Stripes) was like a menu of caviar, cheetos, hot dogs and cotton candy. But on stage, it worked. Program #2 (Divertimento No. 15, Agon, Tarantella, Four Temperaments) was unbalanced (I don't think Agon and Four Ts should be on the same program unless you're doing a Black and White program). It didn't quite work as well, as #1, but it was more theatrically valid, I thought, than it had seemed. #3 is a great program. Serenade, Bugaku, Symphony in C. And maybe if Symphony in C had gotten a sizzling performance, it would have worked. But.... It's also interesting, looking back, that Miami City Ballet could get by with non-Balanchine bodies (lots of shorties) and no stars. (When I said their performance of Four Ts was the best I'd ever seen, I've seen a lot of soloists who were better than these soloists; I meant the ballet as a whole.) They have the fabled old "no stars, the ballets are the star" look down pat. In contrast, SFB has some very interesting individual dancers, but the overall impression was not, for me, as strong. I also wanted to say -- and this will probably jinx it -- but I'm very happy that we got through one whole entire week without dragging out the NYCB/Martins-as-Balanchine conservator controversy but focused on the companies before us. Side note: Bruce Sansom was in the audience. He must have already started his SFB stint. And if anyone came early and thought that all the TV crews and cops and cordoned off roadways had anything to do with Balanchine, it didn't. There was a Kennedy Bash in the Eisenhower Theater at the same time. I don't have the details. A friend told me that it had something to do with Caroline Kennedy's new book on human rights?

What? No reports? I'll just say briefly that I thought San Francisco Ballet's "Bugaku" was extraordinarily good. I missed Kent (who coached this version, according to the progrram) and first saw the ballet with Heatehr Watts, in an advanced stage of pretzelitis. By that time, the ballet had become lewd (and has gotten worse. DTH's version, the last I've seen, a few seasons back, was hideously vulgar.) SFB danced it was, one reads, it was meant to be danced. This isn't Western Romantic love, but a Japanese marriage ceremony. Cyril Pierre was the husband; a fierce warrior. Yuan Yuan Tan was the bride: Dignified, fragile without being timid. It was a very internal performance; she managed to express feelings while keeping an impassive face, leaving the impression of an independent young woman who had already completely adapted to her society's restrictions. She brought out dozens of nuances, especially in the hands, that I'd never seen before. Different casts tonight and tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if this was just a matter of having a dancer made for a role, or if the other two casts are at the same level. While "Bugaku" (like the company's performance, with Lacarra, of Robbins' "The Cage") was as good as you could find in any company in the world, "Symphony in C" was quite a let down. I don't think this was an off-night (although, again, we shall see) but because the dancers, especially the female corps, aren't up to it. The dancing was both heavy and weak, and, despite some good performances from some of the leads (none remotely outstanding), the corps just plain underdanced it (I thought the male demisoloists were fine). The company seemed more uniform in body and style several years ago, when it first did "The Sleeping Beauty" and when SFB brought the Bizet here a few years ago, I had admired it very much, thinking they were just about to break out of the regional level. Pennsylvania Ballet, long a Balanchine company (and still one, despite several changes in direction) opened the program with a perfectly respectable "Serenade." Lovely in parts, but a bit on the light side. I wonder if last week was the off-subscription week? I forgot to check. While last week one got the sense of many people being new to the ballets, last night's audience seemed to know exactly what it was getting. They greeted the Pennsylvania Ballet warmly, gave "Bugaku" about five curtain calls, and did not seem to be caught up in "Symphony in C."

liebs, you're right. Sorry! "Mozartiana" was shown on PBS (with "Who Cares?" and "Vienna Waltzes," I think) but not available commercially. I can't answer the question for "Divertimento," because any complaints I've heard are from people who don't like particular dancers -- but the complaints are all different

Ken, as I remember it, the buzz at the time was that this was an extremely difficult ballet technically, and it took the dancers a few performances to be able to do it smoothly. (Early performances looked a bit awkward.) I think it's a very good performance on video, but that later ones were better. This had the same cast for a long time. Peter Martins subbed for Ib Andersen for awhile when Andersen was injured, as I remember it, but other than that, it was Farrell-Andersen-Castelli. Other people may have different memories or takes on this, of course. Please chime in.

The Bolshoi Giguer was a bit more....emphatic than the original. I don't think the different people are actually "characters" -- it's more like a poem -- but as I remember Croce's interpretation (and this probably wasn't just a stab in the dark) it was that the Man in Black was/symbolized/suggested the playful, childlike nature of Mozart (which is why he dances with the children), while the Man in White was/symbolized/suggested the celestial talent (he certainly was celestial when Andersen danced it. It was just pure lightness, speed and flow.) I missed the lavender/purple vest (I didn't rememger it as magenta). I thought the colors -- the careful arrangement of black, white, black-over-white was intentional, and a part of the ballet, and so the purple fit in, not only as the one flash of color, but also perhaps the same significance that purple has in the liturgical character (it's one step under mourning, the color of Lent).

Jeannie, I deleted your post. Perhaps you didn't get my email before you posted--I only have your erols email, not your business one. Samba, please check your email, as well. Except for a comment from Samba, which I agree is called for, I don't want this matter discussed further on board. Thanks. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited September 18, 2000).]

Jeannie, rereading Samba's comment, I think she meant it good-naturedly, trying to say that she's as much a fan of Miami as you are of the Kirov, rather than as something pejorative, BUT I can well understand that it could be interpreted as name-calling. Which is why it's best to avoid addressing other posters, or making remarks that could easily be interpreted as a dig.

I've got to ring in on the "fluff" issue too. Feel free to loathe it, of course, but "Divertimento No. 15" is considered one of Balanchine's more perfect works. They're not reviving it, it's been in repertory continuously (not only NYCB, but in several American companies). It's as perfect as, say, the grand pas classique of the fairies in the first act of "Sleeping Beauty." With a lot of Balanchine, I think there's a divide between people who look for obvious content (nothing wrong with that) and people who find substance and content in the choreography -- not just the steps, but the structure, the patterns, the nuances, the musicality, etc.

Glad you liked it, samba, but I'm curious. I have never heard Divertimento called "fluff" before (live and learn ) What do you see that's fluffy about it?