Alexandra

It is a good idea, I think -- the mixing of a one-act opera and a one-act ballet. It's something that was routinely done in the 19th century. Except then they mixed a three-act opera and a three-act ballet In Copenhagen in the 1830s, there was a double bill of a one-act play and a one-act ballet ON THE SAME THEME: a soldier returning home from the war. Bournonville rather favored the ballet as it could express basic emotions much more simply than the long "tiresome" speeches of which plays were constructed in those days. Nothing is new. We just keep discovering the things that older generations threw out.

No, Jeannie, I wasn't recommending an *exact* copy of Ed Sullivan (although that would be more likely to happen) I think your point about prior experiments along this line in dance not being popular is probably true, though (this is purely from a Kennedy Center perspective; it may well work elsewhere). I do know that several years ago they added a Thursday ballet matinee to the theater series as an option and got a very small response.

Martin Feinstein did some theme programming. The most wonderful, for me, was a Romantic Era festival, that included opera, symphonic music, ballet, theater. About "vaudeville for highbrows," what about a "variety show for highbrows"? Would that be all that terrible? It could be one option. I'd still want separate subscription series for specific art forms, but there are some people, especially in such a transient city, who are interested in the arts, but perhaps aren't very knowledgeable, or who find it difficult to choose exactly what -- and especially those who have limited resources, but could manage two plays, two operas, two ballets, etc. Washington Performing Arts Society does sampler subscriptions -- two jazz, two chamber music, two symphonies, two modern dance performances, etc. and they have always been popular. What I liked about the sampler subscription is the kind of audience it breeds -- at least in Copenhagen. This may well be the difference between Europe and America, but people who are interested in the arts there are interested in the arts generally, not just one art, and the whole city seems to partake of events. Once when I was there, the Theatre was doing Richard III, and one of the actors was doing a modern, one-man play about Richard III. All of the dancers I talked to, and the other people outside the Theatre I met on that trip talked about it. Many of them would go to see the Shakespeare, then the modern play, and then back -- or vice versa. People who don't especially like ballet will go for to see a new triple bill, or Bournonville production, and a new Sylph is an event. I don't know if that could happen here, but I think it might be useful to encourage crossover.

Well, I know my remarks will be tainted because I write for the Post and Sarah is a friend but I've been waiting for this piece to appear for months. (She's been working on it for almost a year, and has interviewed more people than she could ever squeeze into an article.) I liked the way she countered all the arguments that the programmers always throw at people who question "why no ballet?" especially the "well, it loses money." (And I loved the line about how one of the questions was regarded as "unfriendly" and complained about.) The Kennedy Center series has been going downhill since Martin Feinstein left in the early 1980s. He made some bloopers -- most notably bringing the Stuttgart and Cuban Ballets, his two favorite companies, to the Kennedy Center for a month; they simply didn't have the repertory or enough stars to sustain it, and there wasn't enough of a ballet audience here that wanted to see the same cast in the same ballet four or five times. But in his time, the Center programmed only the big companies -- ABT, NYCB, the Royal, Bolshoi (the Kirov wouldn't tour then, and Paris Opera was in its Slump), the Danes -- and the smaller companies only when they really had something to show. None of this, "Oh, but he's been working so hard and it's his turn" stuff. When he left, his successor (Marta Istomin, who was not a dance person), started bringing in regional companies, and didn't begin with the strongest ones. People used to a Royal Ballet "Swan Lake" were not going to pay the same amount of money for a "It's my first year, but what the hell, let's do Swan Lake" Swan Lake, and that audience evaporated. It's never been as strong since, although ABT was almost always a sell-out in the Baryshnikov years (the Center cheated, IMO, by never announcing casting, so quite a few people bought lots of tickets in the hopes of seeing Baryshnikov), and when the Kirov or Bolshoi is on a subscription, the subscriptions increase dramatically. But the Ken Cen also became notorious for disastrous repertory choices, particularly of opening nights: the Royal in "Prince of the Pagodas," the Australians with "Spartacus," etc. So the problems didn't start in the past four years, but they've definitely become more noticeable. Every time I go to a ballet performance at least two people come up to me and ask why the programming has been so poor, and I always go into my "Call! Write! Hound them! Let them know!" rabblerousing, but I don't know how many do it. One word on the modern dance aspect. I don't consider Paul Taylor or Merce Cunningham at all inferior, and would rather see them than half the drivel that's been on the ballet series in the past few years. For those in D.C., the Paul Taylor company follows the Bolshoi (in the Eisenhower Theatre) and if you're not used to seeing modern dance, or think you don't like it, it's the perfect "first company" for ballet people, as Taylor is an extraordinarily musical choreographer and his works are "steppy." He's a renegade early modern dancer and uses modern dance technique (including a relaxed foot) but he's one of the century's greatest and he's getting up there in age. While the Bolshoi tops at $85, Paul Taylor tickets (with taped music, yes, and which he doesn't want, I'm sure) top at $27. I do agree with Jeannie, though, that the practice of including a modern dance or pop show on the ballet series is wrongheaded. In some ways, it's condescending, saying, "Look, modern dance is really much better but you're too dumb to realize it, but I'll bet you'll really really like Twyla Tharp and if we get you to come to this performance you'll see the light." I think going after a crossover audience is a great idea, but then do it across the board. They never make modern dance subscribers also buy a ticket to "Swan Lake." A word on programming. The Danish Royal Theatre has always been known as the "Theater of the Three Arts" (drama, ballet and opera, with drama taking pride of place). Their subscription series is multi-art form. You get two operas, two ballets, and two dramas, for example. (I'm sure they're changing this as I write. "What? Something that worked? It must be stopped instantly!" is the motto there now.) Up until the 1960s, there was some very imaginative cross-art programming. A ballet would be the curtain raiser for a play, or, sometimes on triple bills, a play would be one of the "acts." In one old program I found, one of the leading actresses had a monologue as Joan of Arc that was sandwiched between "Serenade" and "Graduation Ball." I'm sure a lot of the actress's fans came to see that monologue, and just might have liked one of the other ballets. As late as the early 1980s, two of the greatest Danish senior mimes did Samuel Beckett's "Song Without Words" on a ballet workshop program. *That* kind of crossover audience is great, and I've always wondered why the Kennedy Center, with its many theaters, doesn't try a sampler subscription. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited May 22, 2000).]

I posted this link on the links thread, but nobody bit, so I'm bringing it over to its own thread. This is an article in Sunday's Washington Post by Sarah Kaufman about the ballet series at the Kennedy Center. There's a lot of information in it about how ballet series are programmed, what goes into the decision making, the finances, etc. (but it's very readable). What do you all think of the issues raised here? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2000May18.html

Welcome back, Estelle! Please report on the books as you read them. It may interest some who haven't read them yet but will be inspired to do so, and your view of the books will be interesting, I'm sure. BTW, I hope you noticed that Jose Martinez posted on alt.arts.ballet this morning.

Bournonville made many serious balles on historical and mythological themes. The Danes dumped them all in the 1930s when Harald Lander (considered the savior of Bournonville ballets, for reasons which make sense only to Danes) became director. He revived the Valkyries, making it look, according to contemporary critics, like a "cartoon." "The style, the style," one mourned. "It is from the world, and it has nothing to do with Bournonville or Hartmann." "The Valkyries" hasn't been done since the early '30s. "The Lay of Thrym," of which a contemporary English critic (Edmond Gosse) wrote that it made ballet in the rest of Europe seem a trivial thing, was reconstructed in a ghastly staging in 1990, probably precluding any of these ballets from being revived, although several are in completely notated form and could be revived. You will read in Danish history books that the ballets were out of fashion, but that does not seem to be true. The people who took over the company didn't know how to stage them. Lander was adept at comedy, and did cute, very naive little ballets or Ballet Russe imitations that were extremely popular. He was hailed as the Great Danish Choreographer. One of his works remains in repertory.

Jeannie, there really is something in the water here I was going to post a reminder about Beaumont ("The Complete Book of Ballets") over the weekend and didn't have time. There's a very long entry for "Pharoah's Daughter," which was considered one of the greatest of Petipa's ballets. For those who have access to a copy (it's in libraries, too, though hard to find, and expensive now, in shops), browse through the rest of the great 19th century Russian repertory.

Second! I share your frustration at being fed "The Merry Widow" after a long time without ballet (the same happened in D.C. last year), but I loved that you found something in the performance to love anyway. Great review, Katharyn. Keep 'em coming.

We published an interview of Isabelle Fokine (by Robert Greskovic) in DanceView a few years ago. Her experience in staging her grandfather's work, and working with her father staging Michel Fokine's work, was extremely minimal. There was nothing she said in that interview that made me look forward to her stagings, or think that she could restore anything of importance to the international repertory. She sounded, as do so many restagers, like someone who thought staging ballets might be a pretty nice job. I agree with Marc and Ilya that the real reason for the "rebellion" is far from an aesthetic one. It's more likely to be disagreements over casting and the way they are treated generally by the director. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited May 14, 2000).]

Nice quote, Marc. Yes, it would be better if people tried to understand what ballet is, and what a ballet company's history is, before either trying to change them or making pronouncements. Mel, good point about museums. I'm sure you're remembering Richard Pleasant's idea for ABT and its many "wings." I think Joffrey also well understood the concept of exhibits. There has to be room for both.

Oh, Eugene, I don't think it's at all obvious to "everyone" that the Kirov is "dated and stale - a museum piece." Not in the least. I know that dancers and directors love to say, "We're not a museum!!!!" but, as one who is rather fond of museums, that argument has never resonated with me at all. The Louvre doesn't throw out old Masters' paintings to make room for new ones. But some exhibits in a basement perhaps (which you can't do with ballets, but which does work with paintings) but you don't burn them. Michael, I agree (about killing the King). When coups don't work, it usually means that the King has even more power.

Thanks for the review, Manhattnik. I think the ear-splitting grins you spotted will become more and more noticeable. While ABT was never known for its icy restraint, I saw more flash-and-trash this season when the company was here in DC than I can remember, especially with the men. The landing to the knees with outstretched arms is everywhere now, as well as wrist-flicking. It's as though they're being coached by Michael Smuin. Land, botch it, grin, flick your wrists -- ah, the good old days. Except now they don't botch the landings, but grin and flick anyway.

Estelle is in Berkeley. Alexandra is just posting because her internet access is dicey. She's at a conference.

I'm presently in Berkeley, and recently visited two used books bookstores which both have a rather large collection of dance books. But it's hard to choose (all the more that I can't spend too much on it), so I'm requesting the advice of the readers of this board. Here is a list of some books I saw, what do you think about them (good or bad comments are welcome)?: -Lincoln Kirstein, "Portrait of Mr B" -Lincoln Kirstein, "30 years, the NYCB" -Francis Mason, "I remember Balanchine" -Garis, "Following Balanchine" -B. Taper, "Balanchine" -R. Buckle, "Balanchine" -R. Buckle, "Nijinsky" -R. Buckle, "Diaghilev" -Bronislava Nijinska, "Early memoirs" -Margot Fonteyn, "A dancer's world" -Sorrell, "The dancer's image" -Sorrell, "The dance has many faces" -Sorrell, "Dance in its time" -D. Jowitt, "Time and the dancing image" -Grosland, "Ballet Carnival" -Kay Ambrose, "The ballet lover's companion" -Bird, "Bird's eye view" -Robert (?), "The Borzoi book of ballets" -Chazin- Bennahum, "The ballets of Antony Tudor" -Easton, "No intermissions (Agnes De Mille)" -Gherman, "Agnes De Mille, dancing off the earth" And also a few modern-dance related books (hoping that it isn't too unappropriate): -Agnes De Mille, "Martha" -Armitage, "Martha Graham, the early years" -"Doris Humphrey, an artist first" -Cohen, "The modern dance" -Graff, "Stepping left" -Siegel, "Days on earth (Humphrey)" It's a long list, but perhaps the comments would be useful to some other readers of this board too!

Thank you, Andrei. I read *this* with great pleasure. It was not only interesting to be able to read about a performance none of us would have known about, but to "see" a ballet through your eyes. More, please.

Quick. Name three dancers who *didn't* have a disagreement with Peter Schaufuss Sevillano went to Boston Ballet from London Festival and then was supposed to do a few performances with the Royal, I believe, and then I lost track of her.

It is good news, Jane. Thanks for posting it. I loved her Juliet in the Ashton version. She's one of the most musical ballerinas I've ever seen.

Hmmm. I wonder what "stock" they're selling off over there Hope those "scrapbooks" are still around when you get there. Thanks for the report, JaneLondon.

Yes, we are *very* interested, Andrei. Please sleep quickly (but soundly, soundly ) Interesting that the Russian criticisms of "Manon" are exactly what the American and British criticisms were. Thank you for the explanation of "Balanchine linoleum." I had no idea it should be taken so literally (I don't think Balanchine can really be blamed for the marly floor, though.) I think all of us will look forward to reading what you saw and what you thought of it. Thank you!

A quick response to Manhattnik. I'm not at all sanguine about the *current* state of the Danish ballet. I've never said they should do only Bournonville; they can't exist on eight ballets, no one could. I've always admired their performances in certain well-chosen non-Bournonville works that were the company's staple repertory until recently. Ballets that didn't look top drawer elsewhere (Carmen, Miss Julie, Onegin, to take just three) were transformed there through incisive casting and coaching.

My guess is that to a European, "balanchinean lineoleum" would mean technique at the expense of everything, "just dance it dear," "it's the steps, stupid," "I hate soul," [only two of these comments were supposedly made by Balanchine]; a lack of polish: lack of port de bras, head/arms/eyes -- no attention paid to anything higher than the waist. It also connotes a smoothing out of styles, turning everything into "ballet blanc," "pure dance," etc., a difference in attack, line and dynamics that is not beautiful to all eyes. Some of this is really post-Balanchine, not truly attributible to Balanchine, more to his descendants and imitators. When a genius has left, his genius is turned into "rules," often simplifications of what he really meant. This is a guess on my part, and if I'm missing something particular to Russian ballet, of course, please correct or amend this. I also wanted to pick up on something Ilya wrote (I was too tired last night to write this), his comments on the benefits of "secondhand" ballet. I agree that both dancers and audiences can benefit. We have two models now: Paris and Copenhagen, when there was no longer a supply of first-rate "firsthand" works, both began to dance secondhand works and, when well chosen, this formed a very workable repertory. They kept their identity -- style and approach, dramatic ability in the Danish case (one colleague of mine joked that "we make bad ballets look good" should be the company's model) and a crystallization of a crystalline style in the case of Paris. The other model, still evolving, is NYCB, still unwilling to give up its "branding" as the company that's a creative institution, and so is committed to "firsthand" works that -- well, has there been a first-rate work created on that company since 1982? (18 years and counting.) So there are pleasures and possibilities, but it's also a large can of worms, this taking in of other ballets. The current direction seems to be very international, collecting ballets as McKenzie is doing at ABT, like someone on a deranged shopping spree at Wal-Mart, taking anything off the shelf that will fit in the cart. If it's done carefully, if ballets are taken in that really suit the company's style or even particular dancers, it can be positive. If the dancers are made to fit into foreign clothes without the proper alterations, it will not. Alexandra [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited April 09, 2000).]

Ilya, long may you keep your optimism, but I don't think I'm afraid within the foreseeble future we will see artistic directors (not necessarily just at the Maryinsky) so incomptent they would not even understand that sentence. Alexandra, who was once optimistic too (and is probably still naive)

Perhaps the "second hand" means not that they're not Russians, but that the Maryinsky had a proud tradition of dancing only works created on them. Even "Giselle" (as I'm sure Ilya knows) was changed a great deal by Petipa, so much so that it might be considered a "firsthand" work. There are quite a few Balanchine ballets that are his revisions of Petipa ballets, yet NYCB considers them indigenous repertory. Again, thanks for these reviews, Andrei and Ilya. Most Americans never get to know what is being written in Russia. (Don't be afraid to start a trend )

Thank you very much, Ilya. It reads very smoothly. It's interesting that the reviewer's opinion is very close to many English and American critics when the ballet was first done -- that it's choreographically and dramatically thin, and yet, "One cannot deny this ballet visual appeal a la "mass demand for something balletic, accessible, dramatic, with love story and costumes"." I was also very interested in the phrase "second hand ballet." I think that's a good sign. Other companies have been very eager to become "international." I hope the Russians fight for their heritage. Thanks again for taking so much time and trouble to translate this. Alexandra