Alexandra

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

I'd agree with much of what Brigit wrote, but I think the point that others were trying to make is that Baryshnikov did this for one particular generation. He wasn't the first (nor was Villella).

Alexandra

Nadezhda, if you'd like to post the URLs to those sites, that would be fine. There may be other people here who would be interested in seeing them (including me).

Just in general, if anyone ever finds a ballet site that you think would be of general interest, please feel free to post it. Since the whole point of Ballet Alert! is to spread the news about ballet, this would be welcomed.

Alexandra

ATM, I agree, but it could be worse. On another site I found a Woman of the Millennium poll. As of last night, Queen Elizabeth I was neck and neck with Oprah Winfrey.

For the millennium, Louis XIV, without whom....

For the century, Diaghilev, because even Balanchine is his child (and the idea of the artistic director who can't actually do anything but holds it all together and is proclaimed a genius dies hard)

Ballet of the century. That so depends on where one lives. I think I'd say Fokine's "Les Sylphides." It still presents the image of "ballet" to many people who've never seen it, it gave permission to thousands, if not gazillions, of choreographers to do divertissements rather than story ballets, quickies rather than full-evening extravaganzas, and the first cast (Nijinski, Pavlova, Karsavina -- never can remember the third) -- can't be beat.

I think it's credible. One of our subscribers (unfortunately, one without internet access) called me after he subscribed to introduce himself, and his opening line is, "I saw Nijinsky!" He then went on to say he was about 8 and his mother took him because she thought this was something he should see so he could tell people about it some day. I'll bet DeMille remembered everything she saw at the theater; she had one of those memories.

Ah, Kchessinska. Now *there's* an unbiased observer for you! I love her memoires. They're bursting with raw ego coated with the thinnest veneer of civility.

Re DeMille's not noticing Nijinsky, supposedly he often did not dance on the American tours, because of his illness, and they never announced the cast change. So let's hope she saw someone else.

On Pavlova's technique, I've often wondered if she wss not, in this respect, like Fonteyn. There are the dancers who shove their techniques in your face, and there are the (much, much rarer) ones who don't have to show you everything they can do in every role. Pavlova, in the few films we have, was definitely someone who "became" the character she was dancing (even if her character was a poppy) and the technique is so much a part of her dancing that it's simply not obvious.

When I started reading about ballet (mid-1970s) the two things I read most often about Pavlova set my teeth on edge even then, and they were, "Any girl in the corps de ballet today could dance rings around her" and "She had the most terrible taste. She left Diaghilev because his works were too modern. Can you imagine? She thought the finest choreography ever devised was the grand pas de deux from Sleeping Beauty."

Yes. Imagine that.

I'd second dirac's recommendation of Keith Money's book about Pavlova. He writes as though he saw her; there's no sense that this is a "history" book. It's HUGE with, as dirac mentioned, lots and lots of pictures.

One thing I learned from the book is a sense of what the repertory was like during Petipa's time from a dancer's point of view. He goes through Pavlova's career, solo by solo, as she was "coming up" and points out why Petipa would have given her this role at this time. How he knows this, I have no idea, but it sounds absolutely credible.

I don't know of any websites with material about her, Nadezhda, but you might try doing a search in one of the search engines -- www.yahoo.com, or www.excite.com -- and see what you turn up.

(I would say that if DeMille saw Pavlova at the end of her career, I'm not sure her view should be taken as gospel. Most dancers aren't quite at their best in their late 40s, and Pavlova had performed so much, it must have taken its toll. I'm sure people who only saw Nureyev in the last five years of his life have a very different impression from those who saw him as a boy.)

Alexandra

I now love that book, but I have to admit that when I first read it, I didn't understand its significance. I remember thinking that it was trying to capitalize on Balanchine's name (I think it was published shortly after his death, but I may be wrong on that). I would hasten to make it clear, if it's not already, that this was a stupid thought!

I'd second everything that Paul said, then add, it's a small book, but a big one. Often, you can find out more about an artist from such conversations than you can about a treatise, like "Noverre's Letters." Anybody can say what he wants to do, but in this book, Balanchine is talking about what he believes.

It should be required reading for anybody who thinks that Balanchine is only Stravinsky.

Alexandra

I found Lillian and rrfan's comments quite interesting (as one who believes that "it's the coaching, stupid!" should hang in every artistic director's office). One reads with increasing frequency from young dancers that there is no coaching there. They're not complaining, just telling it like it is, as they say. We have an interview coming out in Ballet Alert! with a young dancer who, in all innocence, and as a throwaway remark, says, (this is a paraphrase): "We're just told to get out there and do it." Who would have guessed?

rrfan, your comment about models is a good one, I think. Dancers can learn from teachers and those who stage the ballets as well as from actively dancing stars (one reads how Danilova and Doubrovska were an influence on their students).

Alexandra

Balanchine and arms: I think this is one of the many aspects of Balanchine that's been misinterpreted. It has come to be believed that Balanchine didn't care what the dancers did with their arms, which has morphed into "arms don't matter." But. There have been a passle of interviews in the past five years or so with Balanchine ballerinas about arms. He did care. He worked on arm positions in class. One of the most beautiful lines is from Maria Tallchief: Balanchine would tell her to hold her arms at a very specific angle, so she would be "looking over the balustrade, into the lake." (See the interview with Nancy Reynolds in the Ballet Alert sampler.)

There may well have been certain ballets and certain ballerinas where Balanchine did not set specific arm positions -- he gave Farrell in particular a lot of latitude in many things, including musicality. But that doesn't mean that he allowed the arms to flap about, or that he didn't think that the arms were part of the body.

Alexandra

p.s. Just remembered another one. The wink. ; plus ) I don't know how we could fit this into our rating system, but it's there.

The little red thingies are supposed to be the emoticon for embarrassment. As in, "boy, was my face red." (For those who plan to be embarrassed in the near future, this is made by the : (for the eyes) and the o for the open mouth. Oh, dear. I didn't check this. It's in the faq. But I think that's it.

I never commented on Libby's "idea" -- giving the rankings a la skating competitions with smilies and frownies and blushies. I must confess I see real commercial potential there. Maybe we can use it for "Le Corsaire" when it shows on PBS. BTW, for those who wish to show more complex emotions, there's also a big grin -- I think that's the : and the D, i.e., If we ever see a production that is the antithesis of yucky. (Not the worst word one could pick, is it, Nan? Or does it have a hidden meaning of which I'm unaware?)

Alexandra

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 04, 1999).]

Suzanne, you might want to go to Bruce Marriott's site -- www.ballet.co.uk -- where there is a LOT of discussion about this. Bruce actually typed in the press release from the RAD (which basically says Goff is not credible; I'm being polite). He's also typed in a letter printed in the Dancing Times which -- well, attacks is probably too strong a word, but.....

I hope you can read Goff's article in Dance Now (and a letter questioning the sale by Peter Barrett of the Laban Centre). It's very solid. The RAD sounds like a "I've never heard of Monica Lewinsky and besides, she's lying?" response, to me.

Alexandra

What Francis said about the RAD could apply to many institutions (hospitals spring to mind) today, I'm afraid -- that they're run by people who have no direct involvement with the art, but a great deal of interest in money. (If anyone is interested in what can happen when These People take over an institution and has the patience for long articles, I refer you to the four-part "Bournonville in Hell" in the Archives (in the Attic) on the main site. It's an account of what happened in Copenhagen when the Bottom Liners took on the Royal Danish Ballet. A very condensed version of this sad tale by the way, appears in the latest edition of the Canadian publication Dance International.)

Anyway, for the R.A.D., the next step is obviously to take the untalented who can come up with the fees over those with a gift for teaching but little cash; that should do wonders for the country's teaching cadre. Come to think of it, they could probably make a lot of money actually selling the children over at White Lodge, but perhaps that idea is a bit ahead of its time.

Alexandra

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited August 13, 1999).]

Doesn't the "Royal" imply that the RAD has some government protection and is above the commercial fray? That's number one. Secondly, it's part of the Academy's job to insure that the collection was being used, that its own students saw the collection (I don't mean that I think 16-year-olds will curl up with Menestrier, but knowing that it's there and looking at those lithographs and especially knowing about the English books, in this instance, should be part of their education. It is in other places. I mentioned Copenhagen yesterday. I've heard from dancers that this is still done in Russia and in Paris. In Copenhagen and Russia, at least, I know that choreographers consult these materials. Not every day, but when they do a new production of a classic, or even a contemporary work. There are several British ballets that draw on country dance material. Finally, I haven't read Richardson's will, but I do know other people who've donated collections, and part of the process is to be sure that whoever you select actually wants the gift and will take care of it. Usually there are provisions for exactly how the collection is to be stored (under glass, dusted twice a year, etc.) Knowing the time and the morals and ethics of the time that Richardson made his will, I would be very surprised if there was anything but the expectation that this was a gift made in perpetuity, so I'm very much on the "it stinks" side. Libraries, any institutions, really, exist to guard the past for the future. The medieval monks and classical literature is the obvious example, but one of the reasons why libraries (and again, this is not your corner public library) have collections like this one is because they know that people have used it in the past and, some day, they'll use it in the future. I would also note that I've asked several British writers if they knew what this collection contained or if it was available to the public, and they either didn't, or said they thought it was very hard to get access to it. If you keep things locked up in an attic, you can't complain when they're not used. (Hope you don't read this as "catching XXX, Suzanne ; it's not intended that way.)

Alexandra

Yes. As a nonlibrarian but lover of books, I find it appalling. Thank you, Juliet.

I posted several lengthy quotes from the catalogue on www.ballet.co.uk If you're interested, go to the Update page, click on the link for Postings (if you've never been there). I wasn't sure how much interest there would be here, as it's a British collection.

The short, sad story is that Philip Richardson spent literally a lifetime gathering all the books (first editions, of course) in existence on teaching, from the ballet du cour of the 16th century to the early 19th century. The material on British dancing -- country dancing as well as social dancing and classical dancing -- is definitive. Now, why would Richardson, founder of the magazine Dancing Times and one of the founders of the Royal Academy of Dancing, donate such a collection to the RAD, an institution devoted to training classical dancers? Everyone who reads this board will figure that one out very quickly, I'm sure, but the point seems to have eluded one David Watchman (a lovely Dickensian name, under the circumstances), the Chief Executive of the RAD.

I have the catalogue. It's not for the likes of us. Except for a very few items, the price tags are in the four and five figures (for individual items).

The RAD doesn't give a reason for dumping the collection. The money raised is to go to their scholarship fund.

Alexandra

Exactly, Nanatchka. Let them all dance in their underwear! Or, better yet, wear clothes in story ballets and underwear elsewhere.

Actually, it occurred to me that this is a wonderful example of a convention that we readily accept. We see the tights and think "dancer" and forget about "costume" (or maybe that's the only way to tell who the star is these days), yet are startled when confronted with a 19th century convention, such as when Lilac wears dancing shoes in a dancing act and walking shoes when she doesn't have a solo.

It's all what you're used to.

Alexandra

I don't think I've ever seen Giselle pluck both daisies; I have seen the two daisies -- another silly thing, actually. You have a, usually, bare naked flower bed with TWO DAISIES in it. Same in the second act, when Myrtha heads straight for the only two flowers growing out of an otherwise fallow tree limb.

Re hats, headgear was part of the costume well into this century -- not just for Albrecht, but for characters generally. They thought of these as story ballets, silly things, and so the dancers dressed like the characters they portray. I don't know when the ballet Princes started "dancing in their underwear," as critics used to write when the practice was still new. I know by the time of Nureyev, hats, wigs and pants were out.

Re the reaching for the sword, btw, I could make a case that a real danseur noble doesn't need to go for a sword to show that he's noble; I'd guess that is a later interpolation. Maybe it's optional at the Kirov. Although it sounds like a lot of things are optional -- which is what Kisselgoff was saying. There's no director, there's no one supervising the production. It's a train running on autopilot.

Alexandra