Alexandra

Marc, some day, try to get ahold of Croce's collections of essays. They're full of descriptions of Makarova's and Baryshnikov's technical supremacy. (I quote Croce often here; I admire her, and she's very very quotable. But on these two dancers, I never agreed with her, for what that's worth.) Croce certainly wasn't the only one, but she's very influential, as I'm sure you know.

I can chime in on the overstretched part. It means the body looks as though it's been stretched on a rack, every limb is extended as far as it is humanly possibly to extend it. Volkova (pupil of Vaganova and coach of Fonteyn in the classical roles) taught that the body must never be overstretched, that the dancer must always leave room, as it were, for more movement. The movement must never be finished, there must be the possibility that there's somewhere else for the dancer to go.

Interesting remarks, Marc. (I don't think I'm ready to think that Nureyev was not representative of the Russian school, though.) I'm curious. Do you consider Ulanova a typical Soviet swan, or a great Soviet swan? Again, only comparing to video, but Makarova's phrasing in the White Swan is almost a copy. I was also interested in your saying that Makarova was too technically weak to do the role, as she was considered the epitome of technique (not only Russian), the ideal classical ballerina, by many here.

Ed, I think you're exactly right. I also think that the body types -- height, frame, musculature -- are as restrictive as voice, but dancers go out and strain their bodies every night. Many older dancers (dancers who grew up when employ was more strictly adhered to) think that this is the leading cause of injuries. If you are aware of employ, you'll find it popping up (often unnamed) in dancer interviews. How they felt totally comfortable in McBride roles, for example, but could not do Farrell ones. Well, duh, as the kids would say. It also applies to acting. Whether it's temperament or facial musculature, I don't know, but I've seen dancers with wonderfully mobile faces in comedy look ridiculous in tragedy -- it's not just that they "can't act." It's that the face literally cannot assume tragic poses. Dancers can legitimately move around in fach/employ, as you say. Often a light dancer becomes heavier with age, for example.

The genres are much older than German romanticism, Michael. They go back to European mythology. The three body types are described as clearly in a Norse myth (they're called Jarl, Carl and Thral) as they would be later by Beauchamps and Noverre. The genres work in 20th century ballet, too. If you're interested, the best contemporary writer I've found on them is Joan Lawson. She has a fairly recent book called something like (sorry) "How to Make a Ballet" and actually sets out the "rules" for demicaractere ballets (the kind popular in the 30s and 40s) as if she wanted to have it written down somewhere, in case anyone ever wanted to revive them. The genres are not really limited to just a few roles and ballets. They pervade the ballets, and the ballets of Ashton and Balanchine as well as Bournonville and Petipa. They've gotten corrupted in this century, but they're still there. There's a big debate, for example, over Apollo, which is usually described as a demicaractere role (not character) I think. But then there's Peter Martins -- the role changed. But Balanchine made that change, and made an exception for a specific dancer. I think the Adams/LeClerq pairing is very much the same noble/classique contrast that Petipa used in classical pas de trois (Swan Lake pas de trois, for instance) or the two soloists in Jardin Animee. It's to provide contrast and texture, like a duet between a lyric soprano and a mezzo-soprano. Alexandra

Giannina, I think it's the subtlety. She manages to be regal and humble at the same time. I don't see her as a literal swan (which she's not supposed to be, during the white act; just at the end). The dancing is so clean and so simple and so pure -- "classical," by my definitions. I never saw her do it in performance. The two Swan Lakes I have of Fonteyn are from the "An Evening with the Royal Ballet" film from the 50s and the Nureyev version with the Vienna Ballet. I will also say that I watched these videos dozens of times before I "got" it. I always had the sense that, beautiful as Makarova was, Odette/Odile wasn't natural to her. It was as if she was dancing in falsetto. I'd like to thank everyone for their patience and forbearance for this thread. I have a horrible feeling we're insulting everyone. I can imagine our dancer readers seething. Dancers (anybody) hate to be put in boxes. If you asked Kevin McKenzie or Anthony Dowell at one of those "chatting with the director" nights (or almost any other artistic director today): What do you consider the place of employ in today's ballet scene? He/she would either gasp or gag or laugh. They may not have heard the term either (I first learned it reading Gennady Smakov's biography of Baryshnikov. Like much of the good stuff in ballet, it's a secret kept by the great academies). They certainly don't practice it. They would probably say it's out of fashion, irrelevant to today's repertory, etc. But one can also make the argument that ballet is an art of rules. Modern dance is not; that is one of its glories. But ballet is about rules, and not only do dancers look best when placed in the right "box," but so do the ballets. A "Swan Lake" where the Siegfried is shorter and bouncier than the four little swans is missing something.

Aha! Van Hamel *did* do Lilac, and was wonderful -- whether a Russian balletmaster would consider that her correct employ, I don't know, but I liked it. (I will readily confess my sense of employ for women is not nearly as keen as that for men.) I'll join Mary in a minority of two. I had the misfortune to be a Fonteyn and Nureyev person who came to ballet in the age of Makarova and Baryshnikov. They were not interchangeable dancers, IMO, but that's how they were used. By that time, in the Ballet Boom, Age of Stars, the "star roles" and star career path was quite firmly established. Aside from Makarova's lack of miming (a product of her era and training, I think, rather than one of employ), I never thought she came close to Fonteyn -- and this is comparing dozens of live Makarova performances to two not-top-of-the-line Fonteyn videos. Makarova definitely owned the role for most Americans of that time, and you could see the effect this popularity had on the bodies of the dancers around her. There were quite a few ABT dancers (Harvey, McKerrow, to name two of the most prominent) who actually changed their bodies from Fonteyn-like to Makarova-like. There were others -- my favorite being Kristine Elliott -- who were considered "old-fashioned" (i.e., Fonteyn) and passed over for Makarovites. I also think that Mary's mention of the lack of roles is a HUGE factor. If Baryshnikov had had a wide repertory of challenging, suitable roles, we would all have been the richer. To throw another set of factors into this debate, for those who accept my notion that Sleeping Beauty is a statement of Petipa's employ, I think "Jewels" does the same for Balanchine.

Good Lord, Leigh. Where in the world would there be a ballet master so dense as to think that James should be the one with the best beats? ATM, I think you've touched on a very important point. Employ matters to people who think classical line is an integral part of ballet, and "to hell with employ" is more suited to people who care about other things.

Andrei, I had the misfortune to witness Baryshnikov's Siegfried, twice. He must have been more clever when he was young. I think there are balletmasters today who don't know what employ is, and, even if they did know, would scorn it. Perhaps this is the American influence? Employ is not an American democratic concept. Your putting it in prince, lover, fool terms makes good sense. Part of it is character, but part of it is also body type. (And for the Danes, a good bit of it is the nose. I'm not kidding. Turned up noses are demis, long, straight noses are nobles, tragedy.) Michael, I think allegro/adagio makes a lot of sense too as a category. A languid dancer probably won't look her best in a role calling for quick footwork, and speed queens don't know how to take the time to unfurl their limbs in supported adagios. There are also other divisions, like "classical/romantic." I think a lot of this is lost. I'm comfortable only with 18th century and early 19th century because dear Noverre wrote it down, and historians quote dancers and balletmasters about how it evolved in the 50 years after Noverre's Letters. After that, I'm trying to glue feathers together to make a duck. I also think there are lots of subtle distinctions within the genres that have gotten lost. Each of the fairies in Sleeping Beauty seems different, to me, and look best when danced by women who suit the role physically. I just don't know the names. Victoria, I think Tudor was very careful about casting, too (except for his Leslie Browne period ) I don't know enough about Tudor to comment on how he used employ. When the Stanislavsky Ballet came to DC, I thought they used employ better than most larger companies today. They knew who was the Prince and who the Jester, and those two dancers looked as different as night and day. But in the contemporary ballets (contemporary classical ballets) the same two men danced side by side and the distinctions were blurred. One was slightly taller; that's all. So a lot of it is how the body is used. Alexandra

Alymer, I agree that she was a dramatic dancer, but I'd also make a plea that she was a great Romantic one. Isn't that what Ashton saw in her for "The Two Pigeons?" I always thought she would have been an ideal Bournonville Sylphide or Teresina.

I think that's a very good point. Every dancer doesn't fit perfectly into 18th or 19th century employ, and Baryshnikov and Soloviev seem to be prime examples. They needed 20th century ballets that used their gifts. Baryshnikov was, one reads, really only suited to Basil -- not much of a career. To muddy the waters further, there's a "middle genre" that doesn't show up in the danseur noble - demicaracter -- caracter/grotesque trio. Its formal name is "semicharacter-classical" and it's often shortened to "classique" or "classical" -- and since the latter is the most overused term in ballet, it causes a lot of confusion. The history of this genre is that it came about at the beginning of the 19th century for the new breed of dancer who both danced and mimed [in the 18th century, dance and mime were quite separate; Noverre didn't believe that dancing could express anything but itself], had the fleetness of the demicaractere dancer as well as the grace of the noble genre. James and Albrecht are "semicharacter classical." I've also noticed that some demicaractere male dancers are starting to call themselves "virtuoso" dancers, as the term "demicaractere" is so often misunderstood to mean something second rate, which it's not.

Re Myrtha, as I remember it, Van Hamel did do Myrtha (quite wonderfully) but before stardom descended upon her. At that point, the role was surrendered to soloists -- Jolinda Menendez, Nanette Glushak. Yes, she only did one Giselle, but she didn't return to Myrtha after it.ASBT's ide aof emploi was ranking. Myrtha, Effy, Lilac were all "junior ballerina" roles. Gregory danced both Giselle and the Sylph. Lots. And lots and lots and lots and lots. One of Alan M. Kriegsman's greatest lines was that when Gregory's Giselle makes her entrance, she "bounds out of her cottage, looking all the world as though she's ready for Wimbledon." Leigh, re emploi, although I agree that there are differences among companies, I would add that some of those differences are due to misunderstandings or corruptions of employ. I would very much disagree that just because your leading men are short and muscular, that that is what the company's Princes must become. You wait until you have a suitable Prince. The great companies have retired ballets for several years because there wasn't anyone suitable to dance them. If the situation is really bleak (the Danes didn't have a great James for ten years, for example) you can put the "wrong" dancer in the role if he has other charms, and you start grooming the successor Now. And the directors know the difference and cast correctly when able. Alexandra

Ah, Vaganova. What a woman. Marc, I think it's partly ignorance and partly dancer pressure. No one likes to be typed and I doubt there are many dancers who would accept the notion that they're a fairy and not a swan. When star dancers dance roles out of their emploi -- and were not only applauded for it by the audience, but called "definitive in the role" by critics -- naturally, other dancers wanted the same chances. And they've been given them. Denmark held on to emploi until about 15 years ago; it's now completely gone. ABT never had a sense of emploi, IMO, and that's another reason why it's gone elsewhere. NYCB had a very strong sense of emploi, under Balanchine. I haven't seen enough of the Royal Ballet lately to be able to tell, with certainty, what's gone on there, but I haven't read anyone accuse the company of typecasting dancers, so I'd be surprised if it's still active there, either. Emploi in dance is analogous to voice in opera. Certain "types" once had a vocabulary specific to their type; it was that strict. I agree with Vaganova that it makes a huge difference.

I think that video was shot when both Seymour and Nureyev were past the first bloom of youth. Some did consider Seymour plump; she is also rather short. Others found her an ideal Romantic ballerina. I think she battled a weight problem throughout her career, though -- lots of injuies and time off for them, too. Alexandra

Thanks for writing that, Michael. I thought the "staccato" odd when I read it, but then thought maybe she was rushed by the tempi. Everything I've seen her do is exceptionally musical -- creamy, legato musical. Wish you'd seen her Sylph.

I'm glad some of you liked Schandorff. The NYTimes review, calling her "small and slight," I believe, is a huge joke in Denmark, as Silja S. is at least 5'7" and considered "too big for our stage" by some people there. Re the coaching question, Schandorff has worked on the role herself without help. Danes say her interpretation now is completely different than at the beginning. In Copenhagen, she has a tempo that's slower than NY and which suits her style better. Michael, the sense of continuous flow of dancing was a hallmark of Danish style -- through Volkova, I think. I put Schandorff on the web site because, when we first went online, I didn't have a scanner and so couldn't have any photos. I wanted at least one visual, and thought of putting a ballerina on every page. I had used that photo of Schandorff in "Etudes" in DanceView a few years ago, and thought the bending position would work placed atop the list of choices -- it's as though she's ushering you in, welcoming you. Also, since Schandorff wasn't known here, I thought it would be better than having a more recognized dancer, which would make the site appear to be an ABT site, or NYCB, or Royal, etc. I also think Schandorff is a marvelous dancer. Alexandra

I have a caveat on the "Footnotes" series. The performances may be good, but the history is terrible. This series cannot be trusted for basic historical information. I can't go into detail from memory, but I've been meaning to put up Robert Greskovic's review of "Footnotes" which does go into detail. Many people are worried that teachers will use this series in dance history and appreciation courses, even though there are so many errors and omissions.

Laura, I always assume the dancers are all performing injured (but nobly). When ABT first got Don Q, I don't think they ever got through a performancve where the starters finished the ballet. Once, in D.C., there was a different Kitri for every act. The ballerina was injured, and one girl knew Act I, one Act II, and one the Act III pas de deux. In New York, I forget which Basil was injured after the adagio of the Act III pas de deux, but I do remember being told that someone threw her tambourine at Peter Fonseca and yelled, "You're on." Anthony Dowell cramped in the adagio of the Act III p/d with Kirkland at his company debut. Someone else did his solo (can't remember who) and she took her curtain call with the Don as her partner. Re Swan Lake, I think it was common practice in the West in the 30s and 40s to cast different dancers as Odette and Odile, partly because the ballerina who could do fouettes often wasn't lyrical enough for the White Swan (something that certainly doesn't bother any company directors these days). I think Ilya's explanation for the Ulanova/Dudinskaya pairing is quite logical. It's also worth remembering that, for the sake of the story, Odile is supposed to be a different person who has been transformed, through magic, to look like Odette. Somehow, this has been changed to the same person trying as hard as possible to look different, to show off her dramatic range.

Note to Estelle: No, I meant that quite sincerely. I cannot imagine you being hypocritical, but you have a wonderful way of telling the truth without causing the outbreak of wars -- an extremely valuable talent which any country's diplomatic service badly needs.

Andrei, sorry to have inadvertently insulted Russian honor. I do know that those cities weren't occupied during the War. I meant that Copenhagen did not suffer as much as other cities during the war.

Estelle, if you're not going to be a dance critic, please abandon mathematics and enter the diplomatic service!

There's very, very little in English about ballet during WWII in Denmark. (Very little in Danish either, actually, except for contemporaneous reviews.) My biography of Henning Kronstam will rectify this somewhat , as he entered the school in 1943, but that won't be published for two years. Briefly, the ballet company kept performing. Copenhagen had a relatively mild Occupation -- unpleasant if you were Danish, but not as bad as, say, Stalingrade. Theater, including ballet (there's no real ballet audience there) was popular throughout the War. German soldiers attended performances. Two members of the company (principal dancers) were Nazi sympathizers, very enthusiastic ones. One of these dancers taught the smaller children and the pianist for that class was so rabidly anti-Nazi that the teacher had guards, afraid that the pianist would hit him. After the War, the young men of the company took everything out of his office and burned his things in Kongens Nytorv. He and his wife went to Spain to live. There was one anti-War ballet, Le Printemps, by Harald Lander (the balletmaster) to music of Grieg that was considered quite daring. The idea was that something Terrible was happening, but some day there would be Spring. Having music of Grieg in the theater was a Statement, because Grieg was Norwegian. The stars of this period were Margot Lander and Borge Ralov, both extraordinarily gifted and charming demicaractere dancers. Lander's big roles were Swanhilda in Coppelia, and Giselle (but NOT La Sylphide). Ralov was Albrecht, Gennaro in "Napoli" and the company's Harlequin and Petrushka. Margot Lander created the leading ballerina role in the first version of "Etudes." Peter Schaufuss's parents (Mona Vangsaae and Frank Schaufuss) were principals also. Niels Bjorn Larsen and Gerda Karstens were the leading character dancers. Erik Bruhn was just beginning his career as the War ended. The repertory was mostly Lander ballets and Lander's stagings of Bournonville ballets, wich a few others sprinkled here and there. There were two classes at the school, one for 6 to 10 year olds, the other from 11 to 15 year olds. The Bournonville Schools were still taught (until 1949). The Danes learned after the War that the Nazis had debated among themselves whether to bomb Tivoli or the Royal Theatre to punish Copenhageners for the general strike that had occurred during the War. They settled on Tivoli. That's a quickie guide. It's a good question -- make an interesting book, actually, ballet around the world during the War. Paris and Leningrad would be the stars, I think.

Leigh, I know that Balanchine saw several rehearsals of "Folk Tale," both in Copenhagen and at the Met in 1982 (after Ib Andersen was already at NYCB). There was a New York rumor that he was seriously considering getting it for City Ballet, but then he became ill. I never asked when Balanchine saw Andersen before he joined, unfortunately, so I can't help there. More importantly, though, I agree that Andersen was a very Mozartian dancer -- light though substantial, musical, etc., and there's something "Mozartian," (i.e., 18th century neoclassical) about Bournonville dancing, of which Andersen was a superb exemplar. So I don't think that's a stretch at all.

I was curious about the "sports ruining ballet" answer, too. Allegro, could you elaborate? I have heard/read several sports connections that might be relevant. I'm not saying I agree with them, just that these are points that have been raised. The first is that in the past, ballet attracted physically active girls who today have more options; hence, sports drains the talent pool. Another is related, and that is that in the 19th century, there weren't many spectator sports. Today, audience members who enjoy athletic performance can go to skating, football, etc. I don't know if that's what Allegro was referring to. On the other point that rrfan raised: "I don't know if you can really say anything has "harmed" ballet. It's still around, it's just changed, it's different now than before and 50 years from now (God willing) it will be different still" -- this argument will keep being raised, I suppose, as long as there is ballet. Since I'm pretty sure I agree with Mary's reasons on this, I thought I'd try one more time to explain the "it's ruined" position. I think this is different from past generations (as always with me, unless I say differently, this is an American perspective). People who loved Fokine and Massine may well have decried Balanchine because it was "different" (i.e., no good), just as people who came to ballet during the Balanchine era found Fokine/Massine old-fashioned or "no dancing in it," etc. Fonteyn fans were reluctant to accept Makarova. Makarova fans may well be reluctant to accept Guillem. But what we Chicken Littles are complaining about now is not the same thing. The problems, which did begin in the 1970s, at least this time, is a decay of the craft of artistic direction and balletmastering. The difference between dancing differently and dancing ballets "wrong" is hard to understand, I think, unless you've seen the ballets danced "right." Yes, there are changes in style. But when the steps are smudged, when the musical accents are betrayed, when a delicate ballet is danced as low comedy, when one constantly sees good ballets danced poorly -- underrehearsed, badly cast, misunderstood by the dancers -- and one still has a clear picture of what the ballet looked like in its prime, then one uses words like "ruin." "Giselle" is very very different from when Grisi danced it, but if you've seen dozens of different interpretations from different companies over a number of years, I think you begin to have a sense of what is simply a different interpretation, and what could be called "Clueless in Silesia." Audiences will probably always be generally happy with what they see, because, if you're paying for a ticket and you have to look at stuff you don't want to see, you'll stop buying tickets. So the Chicken Littles will never be believed, perhaps, except by other Chicken Littles. There were undoubtedly people in the Paris Opera Ballet audience during the 1880s and '90s who were quite happy with what they saw, and groused about those old guys who complained that so-and-so was no Taglioni, Grisi, Elssler, etc. Or who thought ballet was much better without male dancers at an equal level to the ballerina. So yes, dance does change, but there are the high periods and the low periods, and I don't think that now is "just different."

Hello and Happy New Year to both Gabrielle and Steve. I haven't noticed you here in awhile. Welcome back. The book I have is a reprint by Da Capo Press, New York, 1977. The full title is "Dancing in Petersburg, the Memoirs of Kschessinska," trans. by Arnold Haskell. It was originally published in France under the title: "Souvenirs de la Kschessinka," 1960, Librairie Plon. I hate to say this, Gabrielle, because, of course, I'd rather you buy it from Amazon but you might try www.barnesandnoble.com They have a special rare books section and it's amazing what's there. (And most are not expensive.) You might be able to find it in an old book store in Europe, though. I hope you find it. I love this book. Alexandra