Alexandra

Ken, I had the same feeling about "Divertimento" that you did on Friday night. BUT for me, I think it was mostly because I had the Video Version in my eye and it took awhile to adjust to the full version that Farrell is presenting this year. For whatever reason, the ballet didn't look very taut. This afternoon, however, I thought it looked fine. Whether this was me, or them, or the fact that I was watching it from a slightly different angle....who knows? Lots of children this afternoon, many balletic looking preteens. Despite that this wasn't a "children's program" -- "Agon" AND "Four Temperaments" -- the ones sitting near me seemed quite happy. One of the pleasures of this week (aside from the fact that there are No Bad Ballets, of course ) has been the audience reaction. It's obvious that for many people the ballets are new to them (you can tell by the applause patterns) you can also sense that people actually *like* "Agon" and "Four Ts." I thought Miami City Ballet's "Four Ts" was the best I've ever seen that ballet danced--at least, the best I can remember it. No harshness, no overselling, no rushing anything. The tone, the phrasing, the whole approach to the ballet was beautiful. It was a pleasure to see.

Anybody go Friday evening? If so, please post comments on Program #2: Divertimento No. 15 (Suzanne Farrell Ballet) Agon (Miami City Ballet) Tarantella (Joffrey Ballet) The Four Temperaments (Miami City Ballet)

Sorry to interrupt, Dancer 26, but we try to keep this a discussion board and not a chat room. (Nothing wrong with chat--conversations between two people about their backgrounds, or what they like, etc.--but a bit confusing when there are as many people on a board as there are here.) This thread has gotten a bit long and meandering. I'm going to close it. Any more questions or answers about Dancers in the Eighties, please start a new thread. Thanks! Alexandra

Well, we can bet all we want, but Glebb will know I only saw the old Square Dance once, with Dance Theatre of Harlem here about 10 years ago, so I couldn't tell you. My memory of Square Dance II, though (which I saw on the Ken Cen stage several times when NYCB used to come here regularly), was that it was very opened up -- the space was different; not so, well, tight and square. (The band doesn't take up that much space.)

Leigh, the program notes give the history of the ballet and say that the Joffrey includes the man's solo from the 1976 version. (Meaning, I suppose, that it's the old version plus the solo.)

Whether the caller cried "uncle" when confronted with advanced rhyme choices, or for another reason, the cast scheduled to dance in "Square Dance" tonight did NOT dance; first cast repeated. I hope someone else went tonight who can provide a full report. A NOTE TO THE KENNEDY CENTER STAGEHANDS if anyone is reading this. Yes, when you move boxes around, or play catch with the props, or whatever you were doing last night during "Square Dance," the audience CAN HEAR YOU!!!!!!

The solo works beautifully in the 1976 version, but sticking an introspective, solitary solo in the middle of such a public, social ballet just doesn't work. I would imagine that's part of the reason why Balanchine dropped the caller in 1976. (I'll bet the original caller didn't need another break )

I think the origins of square dancing are country dances-to-court dances-and back to country dances again. The idea of patterned dances wsa very much a part of French court ballet -- the seats were along the sides, and raked, like bleachers, so they were looking down at the dancers and jumping didn't count for much Estelle, a lot of the words are corruptions of French terms. I.e., "dotsey doe" is derived from dos-a-dos. Does "allemand left, allemand right" refer to turning? Turning steps were identified with Germany for a long time (I think that's why pirouettes were considered vulgar by the French for so long), and "allemand" is close to the French word for Germany. I think this is in Repertory in Review, but Balanchine didn't want the caller to use ballet terms -- hence "make your feet go wickety-wack" instead of "entrechat." (I think the interpolation of the Bart Cook solo into this version is a big mistake. It sticks out like a sore thumb and breaks up the rhythm of the dance. Sorry. I couldn't resist ) [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited September 13, 2000).]

My friend and colleague Robert Greskovic read this thread and kindly emailed me with some information about Elaine Kudo and Rebecca Wright: Elaine kudo is still in princeton, she stayed after Septime Webre left and is now working w/ Graham Lustig. She too worked w/ the abt summer prog. in nyc, and staged the mov. of 'push' the students put on, w/ tharp's blessing (it was the 2nd mov. [of the haydn] the section for 2 sets of corps women, i.e. the blues and the golds. Rebecca Wright, who did indeed run the abt sum. prog. in nyc 2/3 yrs running. She now, has just be appointed to replace Kathryn Posin as administrative head of the joffrey-ballet-school/new school academic/degree program nyc's new school for social research in greenwich village. Thanks, Robert.

Nikiya, I don't think they were either too short or too fat, but the other young women who were pushed were taller and thinner. I don't know their heights and weights. They did not have the body line then in vogue (Susan Jaffe, Amanda McKerrow, etc.)

I don't think either Raffa or Carberry got the guidance at ABT that they needed. They were both a bit unusual -- the bodies didn't quite fit the mold. Raffa was an old-fashioned dancer, even when very young. I remember the first time I saw her, in the corps of Bayadere, and she was the only girl on the stage with a working upper body. Two older friends were ecstatic -- "She's a baby Danilova!!!!" "She must do Raymonda!!!" No chance. She was too short, too fat, too...interesting. She danced with Makarova's short-lived company. Makarova knew how to use her and how to coach, and there were quite a few people who thought she'd become a great ballerina. This goes to several of our "care and feeding of dancers" topics. It's not just talent. It's being at the right place, and the right company, and catching the eye of the right people. She wasn't tall and lean and long.

Cheryl Yeager and Cynthia Harvey became principal dancers at ABT and have since retired. (IMO, Yeager was more interesting in her promising stage than as a principal. I liked her Amor in Don Q and Throw Up Girl (in Rodeo) more than anything I saw of her later on.) The last I heard about Deirdre Carberry was that she was in Miami, but I don't know if she's still there (I liked her very much, too. She and Nancy Raffa were my favorite "baby ballerinas" in the early 1980s.) We had some news of Sevillano on this board a few weeks ago, but I forget the specifics -- sorry She had disappeared for a few years -- disappeared from English or American ballet, that is; she'd gone from English National to Boston to a few performances with the Royal -- but I think she's starting to come back. Anyone else with better info ?

Michael, I think Macauley means "ballet master" in its original sense. Balanchine was the company's "ballet master." It's the person who gives the artistic guidance: casting, coaching, choosing repertory, choosing the company's mission.

liebs, that's a good point. There was a real anti-Balanchine movement in the last '60s and early 1970s from both the modern dance side (what is this old guy doing making ballets in tutus?) and the ballet side (he hasn't made a masterpiece in two years. He's over the hill). There were the Sara Leland and Kay Mazzo years. where Balanchine had to work with dancers who weren't quite top of the heap. It is interesting to speculate why these things happen. Sometimes it's that there is no model for young dancers to follow. Sometimes it's because one ballerina is so dominant that the next generation gets squelched. Sometimes, in companies that rely on their schools to fill the ranks, there's just a dearth of good talent. Sometimes there aren't good teachers. Sometimes the director doesn't know how to use the good dancers he has. I didn't follow City Ballet casting that closely ten years ago, so I can't speak to how Martins developed dancers with anywhere near the authority of someone who was watching it every night. But it's just possible that he's gotten better at casting and that's one of the reasons that Somogyi, Ringer, Kowroski and Weese are developing -- they're in the right roles most of the time. (Croce's point, I do remember, that there were squadrons of talented young dancers who never seemed to grow up. She called it "Martin's kindergarten." This was right around the time she switched from being pro to anti.) Ari, I think sometimes, too, when there's a polarized debate, the readers become political as well. If I love what Martins is doing, then I'll see the anti-Martins stuff as pervasive. Conversely, if one thinks that he should be ridden out of town on a rail, then every time the NYTimes says, "Never has there been such an exciting season with so many ballets brilliantly danced," it will seem as though he "has the critics in his pocket." I have to say I think fans have every right to be polarized. People are passionate about what they see and what they like. (For the record, not that it matters, I am neither pro nor con. I haven't seen the company enough in the last decade to take sides. I think the Talk magazine piece was injudicious, as was the disposing of Verdy and Farrell. I disagree with some of his casting, but I disagree with nearly everyone's casting But I am not anti-Diamond Project; I think he is right to develop new choreographers and I don't think it's his fault that none have rained down from the clouds. I think the choreographic institute is totally positive and a very good idea. When I saw the company this spring, for the first time in three years, of the two Balanchine ballets I saw, one (Brahms-Schoenberg) was in very good shape, I thought, and the other (Symphony in C) was a bit down at heel, but still acceptable. And compared to ABT's current emphasis on virtuosity at the expense of everything else, the NYCB dancers are blessedly tasteful. It is possible to be pro- or anti-anybody situationally.) No reason to stop this particular discussion, but please don't forget the topic of the thread, which was a British critic saying that Balanchine was NYCB's past and every other company's future.

This is turning into a Peter Martins thread more than a Balanchine thread, but I think it needs to be pointed out that in the beginning the NY critics were very pro Martins, even Croce. Happy that he'd gotten the company. Acknowledging that no, he wasn't Balanchine, but who could expect him to be? Ari, I agree with some of what you said, but not all. Sometimes there does seem to be a political tinge to the reviews, but on the pro as well as anti sides. The NYTimes has become almost an NYCB apologist, and that's no more fair or believable than someone who says, "Aha! Another bad thing Peter Martins has done." Martins has been criticized most strongly for geting rid of some of the people recognized as good Balanchine stagers, namely Violette Verdy and Suzanne Farrell, and for the way he developed, or did not develop, dancers, and I think it is a very legitimate criticism to make, especially in a company that had a ballerina conveyor belt. They went ten years without a new ballerina. But a few seasons ago, when the new generation started coming up, this criticism stopped. So not all of the writing has been kneejerk. There's also been praise, here and elsewhere, for the new choreographic institute. And finally, among the NY critics, Clive Barnes, Jack Anderson and Jennifer Dunning are also firmly on the pro-Martins side of the great divide as well as Kisselgoff. It was Barnes, when Croce wrote that piece that the Balanchine ballets had had the hearts ripped out of them, who wrote that the company had never danced Balanchine better.

I haven't found any *hostility* here towards Peter Martins. There are a lot of people who see the company regularly and who have watched it for years who take issue with his artistic policies. I would encourage that, as I would encourage people who want to reason that his policies are good ones. I really don't think it's just as simple as saying that everyone expects him to be Balanchine. I know a lot of people who understand that he's not Balanchine and don't hold that against him The criticism I've read has not been that his ballets aren't as good as Balanchine's. (Although I think that's taken for granted, even by his defenders.) It's way he's cared for the Balanchine repertory and the dancers that has been questioned. I do agree, Jeff, that anybody who runs that company and choreographs will be labeled "He's not Balanchine," but he didn't have to be a director-choreographer. There are other models. I'd also say that the New York critics are very divided over Martins and that produces very balanced, if confusing, converage. The New York Times and the New York Post have been exceptionally supportive, and those voices are the ones that most ballet subscribers, and probably funders, read. The harsher criticism has come from the New Yorker, New York, and The Wall Street Journal, and though I admire those writers a great deal, and I think their voices are important ones, they aren't read by as many people.

We've talked about the dancers, Allegro, but not exactly in this way. It's an interesting way that you've phrased it. Do you know the book, "Conversations with the Muses"? I think that's one of the most interesting books about dancers that I've read. I only saw Kent once, in La Sonnambula, and she was extraordinary. She was quite mature then, and the "kookiness" you can see in photos of her when she was younger was gone, but it was still a beautiful performance.

Unfortunately, I do think there is a tendency in criticism nowadays to forget we're reviewing a performance and pitch the review to larger issues. (This will get me excommunicated, I hope you realize that.) For example, if one is unhappy with one's home company, it's easy to praise, and perhaps overpraise, a visiting company. If you are "for" a certain ballet director, one may become defensive and overlook the fact that the last three ballet stank. Etc. That kind of thing. I don't think it's a Farrell-Martins thing, but I do think there's a pro/anti-Martins thing. And on top of this, there's always the tendency to be a bit defensive of one's own home company and NOT want to praise a foreign company too much because they're seen as a threat. Of course, there are many critics who actually write what they believe, but even the most honest of us has biases. And sometimes it's hard to separate a bias from the truth. If you really truly believe that Peter Martins is a great ballet director, then you probably like the ballets he's created/commissioned and will write about them with enthusiasm. And vice versa. When I first started going to the ballet, I used to write, for fun, mock reviews "in the style of" several of the leading critics before their reviews came out. I guess it was a subconscious way of training myself to be a critic, although I wasn't consciously trying to become a critic. And I was pretty good at guessing what they were going to say. When you can do that, it's likely that politics is a part of the picture.

Thanks very much for posting that, Estelle, and for your patience (as always) in writing in such detail. I've seen a Naharin piece with a different title -- full evening work -- that also featured dancers sitting (then doing dreadful things to) chairs. I have a vague memory of dress and undress, and the male star dancing, singing and talking in a red dress. It reminded me of videos I've seen from the '60s, although not quite as imaginative. I haven't heard of several of the people you mentioned, so I'm doubly glad of your report. You might be interested to know that Susan Hendl has a very good reputation (at least among the several NYCB dancers I've talked to) as a Balanchine stager and coach.

Thanks for the link, Jane. Interesting article. I think that for other companies, the future is "Dracula," actually, but the last sentence is nicely dramatic. His point about ballets being "lit from within" is a good one -- a concrete image for something that's extremely amorphous. The complaints I've heard from former dancers about the company's current technique is that the legs and feet are not as alert and articulated. I also think his point relative and specific criteria is a good one. Does one compare how a company looks with its peers today? (I don't know many people who would say that NYCB is currently dancing better than Paris or the Kirov.) Or, when there's a company-specific repertory, do you compare it with past standards? I think you need do both. It will be interesting to see what the Edinburgh audience thinks. Unfortunately, criticism of the New York City Ballet in both countries has become so political it will be hard to tell.

Soldiers shot each other off-camera when I was a child, so I can't say. The only other thing I can remember being told not to watch was something where "they're speaking in a brogue" (my aunt didn't like the Irish) and "The Honeymooners" (she didn't like Jackie Gleason, either). In her defense, she insisted we watch Elvis Presley's debut on the Ed Sullivan show and would have watched the Beatles, even if I hadn't been a fan; she wanted to keep up with what's new. (Another function amiably fulfilled by the TV variety shows.) Other than that, she generally approved only of the evening news, the Sunday talk shows, Omnibus, and the (brogueless) plays that were often broadcast regularly then. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited August 11, 2000).]

Thanks for this, Manhattnik, and very glad to see you posting again. I can't resist saying that Nureyev was never good in Bournonville, even in the "La Sylphide" excerpt on "I Am a Dancer" (which I loved at the time). I've heard stories about how much fun it was to dance on these shows. The floors really were concrete, the rooms were tiny, and sometimes, just to make everything perfect, the nice people would wax the floors twice to make sure they were shiny. There often had to be adjustments to the choreography to accommodate camera placement. I wish there were a few variety shows around now, too. It gave dance a presence on the American consciousness. It wasn't just Nureyev, famous for his defection, who got on these shows, but almost every star dancer. You didn't have to be hot, just good. I think there were a lot of young dancers who were inspired by these shows. I know I've read several interviews with British dancers who said it was seeing Nureyev on television that made them want to become dancers. Alas, I remember watching a Bell Telephone Hour once. I had to report periodically, when I was watching television without adult supervision, what was happening on the screen. "It's ballet dancers." To which came the command: "Turn it off. That's just a lot of silly people jumping around." It might have been Nureyev.....

Oh, please please don't wait until the end of the year to keep posting!!!! You guys have been one of the Board highlights of the year and I think we're all looking forward to hearing of your further adventures.

Leigh, a small esoteric point about Giselle's grave. I asked that question in Denmark and was told, in absolute seriousness by a producer who thought the falling on the sword was too much and so went for the swordless mad scene, "Because it is a Protestant village and dancing is a sin, and she died dancing." This is NOT in the original libretto, just an example of how someone with imagination, and a sense of dramatic logic, to make something make sense. liebs, I've seen that Giselle video with Dolin too, and was (pleasantly) astounded by Spesitseva's dancing. It was so loose and free, not at all the centered, careful dancing we think of as "classical" today.

Ilya, some of the really determined ones do both the suicide AND the heart attack.