Alexandra

Thanks very much for the update, Mary. I want to see the videos! Actually, I want to own the videos.

One small thing. The German film may be the last LeClerq performance filmed, but she danced during the whole Copenhagen season -- whether it was 1 week or 2, I can't say without looking it up. If I remember it correctly, she became ill on the last night. She thought she was coming down with the flu, danced, and then just collapsed in her dressing room. I'm pretty sure it was the last night, because the Danish dancers remembered that they had just gotten back from their first American tour, and many of them attended this performance, because they wanted to see the company. No one could tell anything was wrong. Then they heard the next day that she was very ill, and polio was suspected.

So as not to digress from the exhibition, I think it would be fun if everyone who sees it posts here what things they particularly liked, or were new to them.

Alexandra

Welcome Nanatchka! I use the questions approach, too, not necessarily a check list, but before I write, I have to be able to answer the question WHY was the performance -- transcendental, terrible, mediocre, almost there but not quite, etc. Until I can answer that/those questions, I can't write.

A small correction. I'm not sure Victoria would like to be accused of being a dance critic. The comment to fight off airplane chatter was mine, and I always say "ballet" because I've found that that's the word a lot of people can't deal with (I understand "opera," with a particularly bright smile, will accomplish the same thing). When I've said "dance critic," they think I mean I write about ballroom dancing -- I have no idea why -- and it doesn't seem to deter them a bit.

alexandra

Great thread, Paquita -- and great quotes. I'll leave this one for dancers to answer.

Alexandra

To Barb -- I think anyone who gets a review that they feel is really unfair has every right to complain (problem is, of course, defining unfair. Some artists apparently feel that anything short of a total rave is unfair. In my experience, especially with choreographers, many artists genuinely feel that if you understood them, you'd recognize their greatness. Ergo, if you don't recognize their greatness, it's becauase you don't understand them). The situation I was thinking of was one where a director would call an editor and basically say he/she didn't like the review, more postive coverage was needed, please don't send that person again, and I'm sure you'll be able to find someone more suited. If I were the editor, I'd listen; if I thought there were any justification for the complaint, I'd talk to the critic -- I'm presuming I'd only send a critic whose judgment and ethics I respected. But I wouldn't give in to bullying. I agree; I'd hang up. Not sure they're nuts, just used to getting their way.

Leigh, DC is actually a very small dance town with a strange situation as far as critics go. The Post considers itself a national paper, and therefore gives very little regional coverage -- regional, in the sense of Local Boy Makes Good. In a smaller city, a kid going off to a competition or a company making its first overseas tour is Big News. At the Post, it's no big deal (even when they had an arts editor who actually liked dance). The smaller companies here put enormous pressure on critics to cover them, letting them know that a grant application is in the works, etc. and obviously expect boosterism. What kills my humanitarian instincts is the use to which such reviews are put. What is a well-intentioned, "Not bad for a first show" review becomes WASHINGTON POST HAILS DANCER X AS THE MOST PROMISING YOUNG CHOREOGRAPHER IN THE WORLD. My rule is tell the truth, be kind, let the audience have some idea of whether they'd like the performance, and keep an eye out for the really truly most promising young choreographer (or dancer) in the world.

Alexandra

Without knowing any of the facts of the matter, I'd say it's Gelsey blaming everyone else. But there was this passage in Joe Mazo's book ("Dance is a Contact Sport") -- think I remember this right -- where Robbins had John Clifford slide her along with her leg extended and things did not go well. So maybe that's confirmation of a sorts. (Couldn't find the passage again; Kirkland, Gelsey, leg slide, did not make it into the index)

alexandra

Ouch, Barb! That's appalling -- and I believe it happened. Unfortunately, newspapers can dub anyone a "critic." In the Large Metropolitan Area where I reside, a Major Metropolitan Daily, which shall remain nameless, started using writers whose experience was in writing rock music reviews. Not all of them, shall we say, worked out. An editor reportedly suggested getting "one of those guys that does plays for us." Dance gets no respect -- especially, in this case, the local modern dance companies. They think ballet needs some sort of expertise because the steps have French names, but dance in general -- anybody can review it. So think what it must be like in smaller cities.

I hope in the case that you cited, the company involved raised Hell.

There have also been cases when a critic leaves a performance early and trusts that Boris Boriosov and our old friend Betsy Bloomer really did star in Finale. (I've done this; I've seen Finale 9 times. The big news that night was the premiere. There's a deadline. If I make it back to the paper by 10:00, I can get the copy in by 10:45 and it will actually get in the edition that everybody sees.) But what you can't do is write that "Boriosov and Bloomer, the two most boring dancers on the face of the planet, gave us, once again, their slack, insipid, and altogether stupifying "Finale."" Because what happens if Boris stubbed his toe, and two other dancers substituted? And danced magnificently? Someone may notice. (Actually, this happened in a West Coast city, big paper, a few years ago. The company complained; the critic was fired. And should have been.)

Now I've got an ethics question for all of you. What do you think of a ballet company -- an established, though not Huge and Great ballet company -- whose director complains to editors when they don't get a good review and suggests that this critic not be used, or that critic should be used? Fair play? Or over the line. Should the editor hang up the phone, or listen?

Alexandra

Oh, dear. I was thinking particularly of what she said about Aurora, how she (Bussell/Aurora) in the third act was trying to tell the story of how "Aurora gets her man" but she had to bother with those silly steps that got in the way of the story.

"Sleeping Beauty" isn't a love story, it's about dynasty. (My absolutely favorite Sleeping B quote is from Danilova: "Princess must be little bit snitty." Aurora hasn't "gotten her man." She's dancing at a formal court wedding with her predestined consort.

I meant that kind of thing. Several reviewers have pointed this out; I mentioned it because I couldn't let a new generation of Auroras look at the ballet that way without a caution.

Alexandra

p.s. Juliet throwing up isn't a very classical attitude, either, although that is a matter of opinion, rather of fact. In my opinion, "classical" ballet isn't supposed to be realistic. There's an artifice, a distance, an objectivity. If MacMillan wanted them to worry about whether they'd vomit the sleeping potient, it's his ballet and he can do it. But Aurora doesn't get her man.

Hi, pdance. I'm really glad to hear from you. I was afraid that Gelsey's book had really turned you off of all things ballet! Both you and Sezza have, I think, a very mature attitude towards the dancer and her book.

I think that somewhere else, you (pdance) had asked about Darcey Bussell's book? I've found it for you. It's called "Life in Dance," by Darcey Bussell. The publisher is CenturyTa London publisher, but I'm sure it will be available over here. If not, and it's not in your library, you could ask someone to try David Leonard's site, dance books, at www.dancebooks.co.uk . I think she's had a simpler life (but don't take everything she says about her roles as Gospel).

Alexandra

P.S. If anyone else wants to answer this post, or talk more about Gelsey Kirkland, could you PLEASE START A NEW THREAD? THANKS.

Thanks, Barb. I totally agree with your summary, quoted below:

"Now, I readily agree that a critic can only make such pronouncements if they have seen a great deal of ballet to even begin todescribe these things. But I think the point is to review the performance at hand, and not the glories or failures of other times or cities."

I do think the critic should review the performance at hand and not write about someone they're not seeing, but my bias -- and it is definitely a bias -- is to see/review every performance within a context, not just the thing in itself. Problem is, Betsy Bloomer may look just great if you've never seen -- Ulanova, Fracci, etc. (And I hasten to add that I think critics should understand what level of company they're watching. I often wish companies were organized the way college sports were, by size/money: Class A, B, C, etc. Then you could write "Great performance!" of a "Class C" company, and not have Mr. and Mrs. First Time TicketBuyer thinking they were going to get Le Grand Ballet Sublime (my over-the-top name for the world's greatest ballet company, whatever that is).

What if no one in Betsy's audience (including Betsy and her coach/director) have seen a great "Giselle?" The critic tries to explain what separates this performance -- be it heaviness in the dancing or heartlessness in the acting -- from a great one.

I also agree that if you think the greatest Giselle is Makarova and I think it's Platel -- or Fonteyn, a very different Giselle, we'll be talking at cross-purposes. But if you know that I'm comparing Betsy B to Fonteyn and she wasn't your ideal at all, then you'll at least have an idea of where my mind is -- and whether you agree with it.

I guess I also should say that I can't imagine writing, "Little Miss Betsy Bloomer is certainly no Ulanova, but she sure was sprightly in the first act pas de deux," either. It's not fair to compare that way (I think). No one is expecting Ulanova. (But if she IS like Ulanova, or whatever, probably no one minds if the reviewer writes, "Not since Ulanova have we seen such a convincing mad scene," or whatever.

I'm not sure if we're in agreement, or disagreeing. Is that still too comparative for you? (If anyone responds, please start another thread, maybe Critics/Comps/Objectivity #3.)

Thanks,

Alexandra

Barb, very interesting answer. As a critic, I'm constantly comparing. If I see a new production of "Giselle," I'm constantly (almost subconsciously) comparing what I'm seeing to "snapshots" in my mind of past performances. To me, it's of crucial importance whether Ms. "New World's Greatest Giselle" is like Fracci, or Makarova, or something else -- or is, in fact, not a World's Greatest at all, etc.

For you, it seems it wouldn't matter -- if I'm reading you right.

So could I ask, what would you want from a review of a ballet with a past (Of course, the review of a premiere would be of the thing in itself, primarily, although possibly with "looks like" references to other works)? Would you want someone to review a new production of "Giselle" or a new cast as though no other production or dancers had preceded it? (I'm genuinely curious; I don't mean this as a "challenge.")

Alexandra

Wow, I can agree with everybody tonight!

Salzberg, I didn't mean that a critic shouldn't realize that the people she writes about are people, but that there should be a balance. I think your lobby introductions were probably a good thing. Too many critics (encouraged by their editors) like to write something witty. A man who was writing for the old Washington Star when I first got into ballet wrote something that taught me not to be clever. He wrote, of a man dancing in Spectre de la Rose: "he looked like a rose and dansed like a pansy." I decided it would be just fine if I didn't show how "clever" I was at someone's expense. (That said, no matter what you write, the dancer will think it's a bad review. Except for Olivier, of course, who's much too intelligent for that! Olivier)

My own personal rule is never write anything that would make it impossible for you to ride up in an elevator with the person the next day; in essence, don't write what you couldn't say to someone's face.

Samba, I agree that critics have a role in educating an audience; I know that sounds preachy, but I mean it in a good way. It means respecting the intelligence of the audience and not telling them that their brand new company is the equal of POB, or the Kirov, etc. And I think dancers know (and artistic directors should know) when they have not given the performance they wanted to give and have no respect for a critic who writes that they do.

I'm not sure that it's always evidence to readers when a critic has been "bought," though (and I don't mean to accuse anyone of taking bribes). I don't think most readers read criticism as closely as we'd like to think they do. At least from reading this group and other message boards, it's more like, "Well, Smedley Smurf certainly agreed with me and said the company had never looked better."

Alexandra

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited April 12, 1999).]

I wanted to comment on a couple of points Isemene made.

First, I agree wholeheartedly with your point that critics can't be impartial -- and I think a critic's value is often his/her very impartiality, especially if it is openly expressed and based on something substantial. As Leigh says (BAD paraphrase to come), it's our knowledge and opportunity to see a lot of different types of dance that gives us what value we have. But I do think we can be objective, in that our view is an outside one, a view from in front of the footlights. This is the old "Do I tell them that the ballerina sprained her ankle two minutes before the performance?" problem. (Most say no, unless the company has announced it. We want to know such information, though, so we don't make a mean comment about the ballerina's fat left ankle, and we might let the audience know that Miss Hoppledy Hop was not at her best last night.)

I do differ on the freebies/socializing aspect, though. I think we think we can be objective, but the whole point of socializing (from Their point of view) is that we get to know each other as people and, once you've looked someone in the eye, it's darned hard to say that his ballets, his choice of dancers, his very view of art, is a carbunkle on the soul of humanity. Worse, when we hear a rumor that so-and-so is quitting because the director slugged her in class, we don't investigate. Instead, we think, "Not Sir Tim. Why he's invited me into his home and his wife makes such great hamburgers. He could never do something so mean." It's not that we want that next free lunch that shuts us up. It's that we have "bought" their public image so thoroughly that we've been corrupted. We are no longer objective. We match what we hear/read against our image of the person, and are quite certain that someone who sends out such lovely Christmas cards must have a good reason to mount a full season of Gerald Arpino revivals.

Yes, we do go to a party, write a thank you note, and come home and laugh at the hostess behind her back, but we don't usually write it up in the local newspaper. (Unless you're Sally Quinn in the Washington Post, who has made quite a career of doing just that.)

The junkets problem also includes the fact that often the mere coverage of some far away event is already disturbing the balance of nature. "Who would have thought that the desolate Appalachina Ozarks would shelter a first-rate international classical company?" screams a headline in a glossy dance magazine. Who indeed. Reading that, one might think that Critic actually stumbled on this wonderful little jewel box of a company while on his summer Hike the Trail holiday, never dreaming that the company had been pestering him for months with press releases and invitations for an all-expense paid Week in the Ozarks for a festival of Ozarkian dance. (With apologies to any Ozarkian classicists who may read this.)

I think that "did I have a good time?" is a fair test, realizing, of course, that a critic's idea of a good time is often different from that of a normal person. I have great sympathy for the person who staggers starry-eyed out of a ballet, having genuinely experienced something wondrous, only to read in the paper the next day that so-and-so was No Nijinsky, that the decor was tacky, that the production was not "authentic," that there was not enough mime, or too much mime. That has nothing to do with most people's experience.

And yet, and yet....

Sometimes people may be having a wonderful time at a show, and Critic is dusting off the old tranquilizer dart gun. We are both right. It is wonderful, and it is a Crime against Art.

That is far from the "are free tickets unethical" question that started this thread. Sorry.

Alexandra

I'm just posting this to start a new thread. I'll have more to say later.

Anyone/everyone else, please feel free to jump in.

Alexandra

Welcome, Ismene. I shared your feelings at first about critics on the internet, and then thought, what the hell, it should be for everybody. There are several critics here, and there are also quite a few people who aren't critics but who are very knowledgeable and have been watching ballet for years. I'm quite happy with the mix.

I thought you raised several very interesting points, but I want to start a new thread because this one has gotten long. I did want to clear up one thing, about "pairs" and "singles," because I didn't understand your description.

Here, most critics, at least those who write for the major papers or magazines, are given "a pair," unless tickets are really "tight," in which case one might get "a single."

"A pair" means there are two tickets in the envelope, one for the critic and one for his or her invited guest. "A single" means that there is one ticket in the envelope, for the critic.

Another reason for critics getting "a pair" besides the tradtion that the theater is a social occasion and people used to come in couples is a practical one, at least for daily writers, namely, getting back to the paper. If you're on a very tight deadline, it's in the theater's interest to get you to the paper as quickly as possible, and whoever has the second ticket, spouse or not, often has a transportation function -- getting the car, or driving the critic to the paper. I've heard that British critics phone in from the phone box right after curtain; I've only had to do that about a half-dozen times and I hated it. The Post's deadlines are 11:00 p.m. (almost impossibe), and then 12:30 a.m., which is a tight squeeze when the curtain falls at 10:45.

This may be a whiny, weasly "don't take away my privilege" reason for getting a second ticket, but it's the reality in my case and several others I know.

Alexandra

PLEASE POST ON SHOULD CRITICS GET COMP TICKETS #2 if you have more comments.

My views will be so predictable that I refuse to post them until at least three other people have answered!

Alexandra

Thanks for all your comments. This thread has gotten so long, I'm going to close it and start a new "Favorite Female Dancer" thread. And, for all newcomers, there's a "Favorite Male Dancer" thread too.

Alexandra

pdance, you're right. It's not a nice book. She was a very troubled young woman. But it doesn't take away from the fact that she had a very great talent. That kind of a talent is a gift, but it can also be a burden if one doesn't have the right kind of guidance. Gelsey Kirkland seems to have had very little help. I don't look down on her for her problems, although I found the book very distasteful. I look at her as someone with an illness. I think there's a difference between someone with a weakness of character and someone who is ill. All she really wanted was to be a perfect dancer.

Any dancer I've ever talked to who had the chance to work with a great artist has found it one of the most exciting and important experiences in their life. So I hope you get your scholarship, and that you don't hold the book against her. (She would have had a lot of help writing the book, you konw, and they would have been anxious to put the most sensational stuff in it.)

Alexandra

Estelle, are there any grand old book stores in Paris, perhaps by the university? I ask because the only thing cheap in Copenhagen are old books. There are four antique book shops on the same street, right by the old university, and they have lots of old dance books (many in English), all extraordinarily cheap -- $5, $10. Their new books are extremely expensive. Here, it's often the opposite. A new book will come out in paperback and be quite affordable (unless it's a picture book, or something rather esoteric) while an old book can be $100 or more. I've always imagined that there is a treasure trove in Paris -- or maybe Marseilles -- like a big attic, where there are hundreds of old old books on the Romantic era -- or, better yet, a period we know almost nothing about, the beginning of this century.

Alexandra

Ditto on the Koegler. (Ahem, I'm sure they have it at Barnes and Noble. Link in The Shop on this site.

I have an older one-volume The Dance Encyclopedia by Anatole Chujoy which is useful -- and has bigger print.

Unfortunately, I cannot recommend the 6-volume Oxford International Encyclopedia of Dance that just came out (for $1200). It was in process for nearly 20 years, and, alas, is thus nearly 20 years out of dates. Articles were upgraded along the way, but there are an awful lot of important dancers from the late '70s and '80s, not to mention '90s, that didn't make it in. Also, in the articles I've tested, there are factual errors.

Also on my "don't defect without these" list of books is Nancy Reynolds' "Repertory in Review," which is invaluable for 85% of the Balanchine repertory (it, too, stops in the late '70s, which is about when serious dance book publishing stopped in this country.)

A word on the Quiz. Some people treat it as a "pop quiz" and answer off the top of their heads, some see it as a research quest. Ed, we have at least ten people every week who answer and have one, two, or even more answers incorrect. They keep taking the Quiz -- and I'm glad to have them. Get your feet wet. I email back before the answers are posted so people know how they did.

Also, I would like to say that we don't set out to do trick questions. It's very hard to tell, when you live and breathe this stuff, what's "common knowledge" and what's not. Unless the quizzes are otherwise attributed, I make up the questions and check my answers to be sure I'm right, plus run them by one or two others, when there's time, to see if they can help clarify the phrasing, but I don't sit down and look through Koegler to make up a Quiz.

Alexandra

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited April 03, 1999).]

Just posting to pull this thread back up for all the Kirkland fans.

It continues to fascinate me that so many of you who have only seen a video and read the books are still so interested in a dancer whose career ended far too soon. Thanks, Katharyn, for yet another beautiful and insightful post.

There was a Kirkland thread in the Greatest Performances Forum. I'm going to go there now and post something just to put the thread back in action. (And, by the way, please note that if you go to the top of the Board where it says show posts for X days, you can go all the way down to a year; if you do that, you'll get all the threads. On the Greatest Performances Forum, at least, there might be some things of interest that people who weren't here in October or November would like to read.

Alexandra

I've held off on answering this one because it's so complicated! (As all the best questions are, Paul.) First, I'd like to say that Jeannie's list looks quite comprehensive, and that I read Leigh's "Looking at Dance" essay, which I think is SUPERB and would recommend that people read it. (URL is in Leigh's post above.)

My criteria have evolved over the years, and I don't have a checklist exactly, but if it's a new ballet, I try to understand the choreography -- I do think it's important to try to judge the ballet against the choreographer's intent, not step by step, but in an overall sense. Obvious example, don't criticize an "abstract" ballet for not having a "story," (although it may well have a pretext and/or atmosphere). If I'm seeing a revival, or a production that's not original, I do as much reading as possible (if the work is unfamiliar to me or I need a refresher) and compare what I'm seeing to what I think is the ideal of that work. As for dances, I give points for style as well as technique. Acting (where applicable) and stage presence matter to me as well. Musicality is very important (we could have a nice chat about what that means someday).

I watch dance from a comparative perspective, meaning that I can't look at something as distinct and apart from the whole world of dance. I have "measuring sticks" for both ballets and dancers that are too numerous to go into here and that I'm not really conscious of, until I'm tempted to write, "Perhaps the greatest Giselle of our time."

What I actually write depends on where I'm writing. Different publications not only have different audiences (and editors) but different lengths as well. When I started at the Post, I had six inches (about 300 words) which is a ridiculous length, but was probably good training. When I left, I usually got 12 to 15 inches (600 to 750 words); pretty good, but still a squeeze when you had to do a weekend's five cast changes. Many people don't realize that the critic doesn't choose the length of the review AND that we don't write our own headlines. The headline can skew a whole review, and this often happens, especially if you're trying to write a "shoe drop" review (He's wonderful, he's marvelous, he's a fine choreographer...but....) The headline writer will find that "but" and lead with it. They also tend to sensationalze. If someone had written that Petipa's "Sleeping Beauty" wasn't quite as dreamlike or romantic as a previous work, the headline would have probably read: "Petipa Hits New Low with Three-Act Snoozer."

But I digress. I just finished a Dance Magazine review of 400 words. They consider this a long review. For DanceView, of course, I can ramble on at will and often do. Ballet Review is also extremely generous with space -- and has printed essays about ballet, as well as straight reviews, since its founding. Dance Now prints both short and long pieces.

The criteria don't change from publication to publication, but I kept the Post reviews as general as possible. For the other magazines, I can assume not only more knowledge, and more interest, on the part of the readers and write accordingly.

That's the short version.

Alexandra

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited March 28, 1999).]

Estelle's point about where critics sit is an excellent one. That's what I'd miss most. Forget the "free" ticket, it's the aisle seat and unobstructed view!

Estelle, in DC, at least, the ticket price isn't printed on "comp" (complimentary) tickets, so we don't know, unless we remember to check an ad. I think critics should be aware, though. My impression that if the tickets are VERY expensive, that usually gets noticed.

But where you sit really does matter a great deal. For the first ten years I did daily reviewing, the Post had assigned seats (M2 and 4, which is about seven rows back in the Ken Cen, on the right). I had been going to the ballet for 12 years before I realized that ballets looked totally different from the left. Stupid, yes, but what did I know? (Many 19th century ballets seem to have been choreographed to "read" better from the left. In some European theaters, that's where the Royal box was.) If I see several performances of a company during a season when covering for a magazine, I try to sit different places -- though never the fourth tier, I admit, although I like watching from the first or second tier, because you can see the patterns, something you miss from close up. It must be ridiculous to someone whose world exists in the fourth tier to keep reading, "Oh, the exquisite stylistic detail, the glance that passed between them when she noticed the ring," etc. But if that's what you see, and that's integral to the ballet and the dancers performed well, then it must be mentioned.

Once John Percival (then of the London Times) watched several performances of the Royal's Swan Lake from tickets he purchased because there were no press nights for that ballet that season. His point (rightly, I think) was that if you were showing the ballet to the public and charging them money, then it should be reviewed, and if he wasn't invited, then he was going to go anyway. It was a great piece. He "exposed" several areas of Covent Garden where your view was blocked by a pillar, or the sightlines were horrible. I think it's a good idea to do that every once in awhile.

Jeannie, often only the daily critics get the pair these days, and often we give the extra ticket to a dancer or young critic, if that helps.

I absolutely agree with you on junkets. It's wrong. There are instances of a company covering a critic's travel expenses when the company travels to another city so he/she can write a piece about it. Sometimes, when there's a conference (cleverly scheduled to coincide with a new ballet that a company may want lots of coverage for) the company invites a critic to appear on a panel and then can pay the expenses if their newspaper won't. That's considered "ethical," while many newspapers will not allow their people to accept air fare and hotels, considering them gifts.

I think it's quite usual for European companies to invite foreign critics to see special programs; don't know about the reverse. The logic is, "We want you to come, we realize you can't blow $3,000.00 to see this. That's okay. We'll pay."

If I read a piece that touts a new ballet or new "great" choreographer, or whatever, especially if it's in a big, influential paper, I think I'd like to know that the free ticket was wrapped in an all-expense paid trip to Paris, or Milan, or whatever.

Alexandra

Oh, no, Estelle! Anyone who has reservations about Nureyev's "enhancements" is definitely an anti-mutilator, in my book.

I think dance historians agree enough on which sections were preserved to at least have a discussion about it, if that makes sense. By that, I mean that in Anglo-American dance history, the "correct" texts for Petipa were always considered to be the Royal Ballet productions, based on a set of notebooks taken from Russia during the Revolution. That, at least, is a starting point. John Wiley's book "The Tchaikovsky Ballets" goes back to earlier sources. I am not advocating trying to recreate something exactly -- the ballet of the dwarfs in "Swan Lake," for example, would probably not go over well today. And there are some changes made early on that were organic to the ballets. (I'm on much firmer turf with Bournonville than Petipa. In Denmark there are dancers who know exactly what was changed when. I'm assuming there are in Russia as well.)

Do you think of Bournonville's "La Sylphide" as tampering with a classic? To me, since his version was done four years after the original, it was more transplanting a hit; "La Sylphide" wasn't a classic yet. I would say that's closer to Ashton's version of "Romeo and Juliet." He wasn't changing the Lavrovsky; he was doing something completely different. (Or maybe like today's "Dracula" which has sprung up all over America now. Several productions of the same story, most with different scores and different choreography.) Bournonville kept only the story, and the spirit of the ballet. The steps were quite different. Also, back then, it was the custom for every company to do the hits from Paris. America even had a native production of "Giselle" in the 1850s.

I haven't seen Peter Schaufuss's productions of the Tchaikovsky trilogy. But using those scores to do a fantasy on Tchaikovsky's sex life is not anything I'd get on a plane to see. I really don't consider him a choreographer. He's definitely a marketing genius, but not a choreographer. Hope Paris Opera doesn't get that version!

Alexandra

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited March 26, 1999).]

A couple of things, Estelle (and BTW, I didn't mean "sue" for plagiarism, but "sue" for needless or harmful tampering!). I agree that most ballet fans disagree on what is the right version of a classic, but I think there are still some dancers and balletmasters who know. We may not know what "Swan Lake" and "Sleeping Beauty" looked like exactly (although we do have a pretty good idea of "Beauty,") but we do know that this music (with intact choreography) was intended for Aurora's maids of honor and not for the Four Suitors, for example. I don't think there are very many people would would want to try to reconstruct the ballet -- complete with heavy 19th century costumes and chunky (although not always) 19th century bodies, but to be respectful to the choreography. "Swan Lake" has been so thoroughly -- trashed and mutilated; sorry, but I don't know nicer words! -- that it would be hard for many companies to go back to a traditional version now, although the Royal Ballet did keep good versions of both Lake and Beauty that worked, that held the stage, based on the turn-of-the-century Stepanov notation until very recently. It's interesting that there's a move in Russia to try to get back what they've lost while they still can. Soviet Realism did much damage, I think. I finally saw the Bourmeister version this year and, although I understands its historical importance, it really shocked me. To me, it denuded the ballet of any meaning. I think the plots are important, and this version, by removing the mime, reduced the story to a very trite love story: no dynastic pressures on Siegfried, no exposition of the complications of the curse, no oath, no betrayal. Cutting every shred of identifiable Petipa and replacing it with what to my eye was inferior choreography didn't help. (I like some bits of the choreography in Nureyev's Swan Lake, but not his twisting of the plot, making it the attempt of the Tudor to turn Siegfried against women, and the bringing the Swans indoors, white dancing against a white background, is, to me, simply perverse.)

I think when the few classics we have are well danced and well directed, audiences do still enjoy them, that the way to renew a classic is through new dancers (well coached!).

I don't know what my family would have thought of Marriage of Figaro (or whether they would have known about Beaumarchais), but I think the principle is that a genius can get away with anything; that's why he's a genius. I hadn't thought about the role of the title in the Ek "Giselle" (which I've only seen on video and so I hesitate to try to comment on specifically; it might "feel" very different in a theater). That's an interesting point. I think the music would still be a barrier. That's the difficulty of transplanting classics to another place and time. (I admire Chauvire from photos and reputation; I never saw her dance. There are some productions dancers, even great dancers, recommend that I can't stand. Think of Nureyev's productions! But I wonder if she thought it was good, or that she would like to have danced the role? I think there's a big difference.)

Perhaps it matters what one thinks of the tradtional "Giselle" (or whatever) and how many memories you have of it, how annoyed you get when you see it "ripped off" or changed or this or that detail now gone so that a whole scene doesn't make sense any more.

alexandra