Alexandra

Now, now. The New York Post has a distinguished critic as well.

Kevin, this has happened in most major cities in the United States. It's part of this whole globalization-downsizing-efficiency movement. In the 1960s, I think New York had six or seven daily newspapers. But, then it was about news; now it's about advertsing.

Which brings me back to Our Topic.

The real pressure on critics is through their editors and it's from advertisers. This I know from personal experience, because DanceView, when it was Washington DanceView, took ads. My absolute favorite was a young man who called, on behalf of his company and said, "We'd like to purchase a cover and we think that would tie in nicely with a review of our fall program." Most of the others were more subtle, but the message was the same. It got to the point that if they subscribed they expected you to review them and hinted for features. So we don't take advertising now. But I'm poor enough to be able to afford to do that.

Alexandra

I know very little about architecture. I definitely agree with what you wrote about 18th century neoclassicism being inspired by the discovery of the ruins.

I took a course in classicism/romantcism in grad school, and one of the other students did her paper on postmodernism in architecture and classified it as romanticism. (Modernism, I learned, is now seen by many -- most? -- scholars as another strain of romanticism, romanticism reinvented, if you will, rather than a separate and distinct classification.)

Anyway, I remember her presentation well, although I can't remember any of the names -- this is two generations after Philip Johnson, though -- and the hallmark was "whimsy" which seems very unclassical to me. Classical columns stuck on the front of a California ranch house, with a Victorian cupola (in hot pink) round the back. That kind of thing.

We actually discussed dance compared to this, because postmodernism in dance usually refers to the stuff that's not ballet that happened after they realized they couldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, relate it to what Martha and Doris were doing. How's that for a definition? The Judson Church movement, the Yvonne Rainer No Manifesto movement. I guess "whimsy" would be one word for it.

I do not think we're in a neoclassical movement in dance, especially in ballet -- there's no sense of revival. We're in a post- period, where you hang on by your fingernails and redo what's been done for the past 30 years.

In ballet, for the last two centuries the revival has started in about xx04, 05, 06 -- I honestly think that there are signs of one in pop culture. All these TV shows about Merlin and Joan of Arc, please. They're reaching for new heroes and going back in history to find them.

Alexandra

I agree they could easily coexist. Especially since the Balanchine is not really the second act excerpt that ballet companies used to do, but a compact, complete ballet. (It feels like you're getting the whole "story.") Who knows? Maybe it will be used in the seasons when the four-act "Swan Lake" is resting.

I was remembering that Tudor's "Romeo and Juliet" (One act. One long, long act) disappeared when ABT got a three-act version. Now, Tudor's "Romeo and Juliet" had never been popular -- beloved perhaps, but not popular.

To pull this thread back to Pamela's original question, for those NYCBers who have seen other "Sleeping Beauties," how does that work as a production of a classic for you?

Alexandra

I've pulled something out of what Paul W wrote on the Critics/Comp Tickets thread that I thought might provoke an interesting discussion.

Paul wrote: "I've been trying to understand exactly what guidelines critics follow (if any) in writing a review. It's not obvious."

Paul, I'm not sure whether you mean ethical guidelines, or what criteria (re judgment) critics use when writing a review. Could you clarify?

Either would make a good discussion -- perhaps those who aren't critics could go first this time. Is it obvious to you what guidelines critics follow? What guidelines do you think they should follow?

Alexandra

Paul, I don't think there's any way that the critic can avoid contact with the company or the performing arts venue. That's why those organizations have press liaisons. There's just too much on-the-spot information that needs to be known, especially cast changes, dancer identifications, notes on music, etc. The Post had a same night deadline; had to write a review in under an hour.

I don't think there's any way to evaluate critics. We're all biased. We all think we're trying to be fair. What I do try to do as a critic is to let my biases show. You'll know, reading one of my reviews, that I'm going to not take kindly to an updated Giselle where Myrtha is a biker's moll. And you'll be able to read that review with that knowledge.

I think people evaluate what critics write all the time, but it's usually (in my experience, from letters), "You must have attended a different performance than my wife and I last Wednesday night." Well, short of a tear in the space/time continuum, it's unlikely. We saw the same things. We just saw them differently.

Paul, if you'd like to get together a bunch of "volunteer ballet lovers" to publish a Review of the Critics, I wish you well, and I'll read it, but I can tell you from experience that you won't make any money on it!

Alexandra

Betcha it's curtains for the Balanchine one-act "Swan Lake," unless the NEW "Swan Lake" is a flop. Betcha. If it's like it was in Denmark (rumor has it), the second act in Martins' production is quite like Balanchine's.

Alexandra

I can understand Jeannie's concern, but I basically agree with Leigh's response.

The presenting organizations give out press tickets so they can get coverage. It's like sports, or conventions. The RNC and the DNC give out press credentials to all those reporters at the national conventions, too. Book reviewers are sent free copies of books with the expectation that they'll write a review. Of course, the hope is that it will be a good review, but they don't expect the book back if it's a bad one. If the critic has not solicited the free copy, he/she is not obligated to review it. (I just received three technique-y type of books from a publisher, even though I had told him explicitly that DanceView only reviewed books "you can actually read," as I put it. I'm not going to have them reviewed.)

I was a stringer for the Washington Post for 15 years, and I would guess that at least 50 percent of the performances I covered I would not have attended had I not been asked to write a review. The practical result of having newspapers or magazines pay would be that very few things would be covered.

The pairs is just custom and usage, I suppose, dating from the "good old days" when all critics were men, most had wives, and society functioned more in couples -- military wives, doctors' wives, professor's wives, critics' wives.

I can honestly say that the fact that the tickets were "free" has never influenced me. I never felt obligated to write a good review because I was given a ticket. I've also never been cold shouldered or "punished" in any way by a presenter because of a negative review I've written. That's considered unprofessional behavior. (And I wrote a lot of negative reviews.) I have been questioned by a performer or choreographer, but that's something you just have to live with.

Sometimes I've wished DanceView could afford to buy the tickets, but only because then I could go to all the performances that I need, or think I need, to see. (Because of cast changes, comping dance performances is much more expensive than comping plays, and, as Leigh noted, with the number of critics wanting tickets, presenters have to ration.) When they can, presenters often give tickets to critics who aren't reviewing a particular performance because they know that we need to see as much as possible. (It's nearly impossible to review the second and third casts of something when you haven't seen the first cast.)

I do think that what can influence a critic is getting to know the artists, socializing with artists. It's one thing to write a "Gosh, this is the worst thing I've ever seen" review, and quite another to write it and go to lunch with Maestro the morning after. At some papers (too few) the features writers, the ones who get the free lunch, are different from the critics, and I think this is wise. It is often impossible especially in smaller cities. The pressures on a critic in a one-newspaper, one-company small city must be excruciating. I've been lucky that Washington has no resident company (with apologies to the Washingotn Ballet, which is a very small troupe that doesn't have as great a presence here as the Kennedy Center imports). We don't have to worry about running into the artists we write about in the grocery store.

I hope some people who aren't critics will answer this question. I'd be very interested to know the general perception.

Alexandra

[This message has been edited by alexandra (edited March 24, 1999).]

I think there's a lot of sense in Leigh's answer. I'm a traditionalist (surprise!) and would like to see "Sleeping Beauty" as it was intended to be seen -- or as close as is possible. I'd like to see the 19th century ballets treated with as much respect as, say, "Agon." Wait 'til they start toying -- seriously toying, as opposed to a little change here, and a another there, Leigh! Then see how moderate you are!

And so my opinion on this or that "updating" depends pretty much on my feelings for the orginal. (Do what you will to Coppelia or Don Q. Touch a hair on the head of Giselle or Beauty, and I'll squawk.)

Part of this attitude was absorbed at my dining room table. I was brought up to loathe, detest and despise movies based on books that changed the plot. The party line in our family was, "If that man wants to tell a story, then he should tell his own story, not borrow someone else's title, character names and basic plot and then ruin it." I think that works for dance, too. My objection to Ek-y or Neumeier-y "rethinks" is that, to me, they're the kind of thing any self-respecting balletomane can think of him or herself over coffee after a performance. I don't need to see it.

Alexandra

protectress of choreographers too dead to sue

This is in response to Leigh's questions about definitions of classicism. I'll also attempt a "list" for Paul, using "classical" in as many different senses of the term as I can. This means that this thread will be monstrously long. Responses, additions, corrections, and other suggestions perhaps should go on a new Classicism #3?

The "classical" definition of "classicism" refers to the aesthetic principles in Aristotle's "Poetics." For theater, this included: the "classical unities" (unity of time, space, and action); the importance of plot, (i.e., that a man's character was defined by his actions); a hierarchy of appropriate characters for a drama (gods on top, slaves at the bottom); proper subject matter (myths, actions of the gods or heroes for tragedy, not to aggrandize the rich, but because the actions of a Prince in choosing a bride had consequences for the whole kingdom while the love life of a baker was mere sentimental twaddle of interest only to him); categories of plays (tragedies were in three parts; a fourth play, the satyr play, was a very ribald take on the myths and followed a tragedy). Etc. Other characteristics included an emphasis on the general rather than the particular, or individual; an artificiality as opposed to an attempt at being realistic; and objectivity (classical drama is not confessional; there must be a distance). Art has rules which must be followed; it is not simply freeform personal expression. Harmony (think Greek columns), symmetry, building for the long term, all are emphasized. Art is for the good of all. Art must uplift, must depict life as it can be, not as it is. Evil must be punished, etc. etc. There is definitely a moral component to classical classcism. Alastair Macauley once wrote about the necessity for "seemliness."

In Western art, there have been two great post-Hellenic (Greek) periods that have been labelled "classical;" both have received that label because they've attempted to recreate Hellenic art, or at least looked to the Hellenic period for inspiration in trying to make new art. The first was the Renaissance, when ballet was born, at first indistinguishable from opera, in an attempt to revive/remake the Greek theater as a union of music, dancing, and poetry. The second was the neoclassical period of the 18th century (called "neoclassical" because it was a rather slavish attempt to recreate high Hellenic art). The French take on neoclassicism is the one most relevant to ballet, because the Paris Opera was THE great company during this period, thus enormously influential. Think the heroic paintings of David, the strictly regulated couplets of Racine's dramas. The proper subject matter of art (including ballet) was Greek myths. This is what Noverre tried to do. (In music history, this time period roughly corresponds to that of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, hence the term "classical" for their particular brand of "classical music.")

So, in the real world (outside of ballet) that's what classical means. Obviously, this is the classics comics version.

Within ballet, "classical ballet" either refers to the whole art form, i.e., that kind of dancing which is based on the vocabularly of the danse d'ecole which has evolved over the past 200 years, dances which move through the five postions of the feet (and with the appropriate positions of the arms!). It really doesn't have to be on pointe. There are Petipa variations that were off-pointe; much of Bournonville is off-pointe. Used in this way, "classical ballet" refers to a method of training and using that training. (Think of it as a type of dancing, as oil painting is a type of painting). Thus, "classical ballet" can also be romantic or modernist, as music can be romantic or modernist. "Giselle" is a Romantic ballet, but it is also a classical ballet. "Agon" is a modernist ballet, but also a classical ballet.

To further confuse things, in dance, "neoclassical" is generally applied to 20th century choreographers, especially Balanchine, Ashton and Nijinska. This means that these choreographers looked to Petipa as a root artist, in the same way the 18th century artists looked to the Greek poets and playwrights as models. (Problem with this is, where do you put people like Fokine and Tudor, or Cranko and MacMillan? I would argue that the language of all four is basically classical, although Tudor and MacMillan are quite expressionistic in some works.)

Sentences:

"My daughter Susie studies classical ballet." Susie is taking ballet lessons, as opposed to tap lessons.

"Sleeping Beauty" is a classical ballet." "Sleeping Beauty" uses the language of ballet (and language doesn't just mean steps, but the dance analogs of grammar, intonation, phrasing, etc.).

"Susie is a classical dancer." If it's the same Susie and she's still 12, this still means she's studying ballet and not tap.

"Margot Fonteyn was a classical ballerina." Margot didn't do tap either, but this also could refer to her employ, her genre of dancing. (She's "classical" as opposed to demicaractere.) Or it could be descriptive, to denote that she was a classical rather than a romantic ballerina. The classical ballerina's arabesque implies a circle; the romantic ballerina's an oval. This has to do with body proportions, and also with the fact that classical shoulders are squared, romantic shoulders droop.

Of course, demicaractere dancers are also classical dancers (they went to the same school) but they dance (or should, in a perfect world) demicaractere variations.

Genre and employ is a whole new can of worms.

Do contemporary choreographers who make classical ballets call it that? I've read both Christopher Wheeldon and Michael Corder say their work is "classical ballet." In my interview with Ib Andersen (which is on the main site), he talks about what ballet means to him, and says, "I'd just call it 'ballet.' 'Classical ballet' makes it sound like 'Swan Lake'."

And now you know why David Gordon, who is not a classical choreographer in any senses of the term, said, "I call my work 'my work.'"

Hope this helps

Alexandra

Thanks for posting this, Barb. For me, this is one of the, if not the, central issue in ballet today (artistically speaking, anyway).

From what I know, rehearsals at many companies are, let's just say, not what they once were. Partly for reasons of time -- 500 ballets in five weeks, seven casts in seven days -- and partly because one of ballet's dirty little secrets is that dancers learn the roles from videotapes (the wisdom/efficacy of which is a whole 'nother discussion) and get little or not -- or often just plain wrong -- coaching.

I'm sure there are exceptions.

Alexandra

I'd like to second everything that Marc wrote. On top of everything else, I think that classicism is an attitude. I'd add it includes a preference for beauty, order, symmetry -- often by implication; "Monotones" is two trios, but there's still symmetry, even though it's not foursquare 18th century symmetry; "Serenade," with its 17 girls scattered "like orange trees in California," is symmetrical, but...etc.

Paul, all your questions are excellent. It's an overused word. If the Eskimos have 57 words for "snow," why can't we develop at least twelve different words for describing aspects of an art form that's been around, in some way or another, for 400 years?

I think it is used to describe both the dancer and the dance. Ballet dancers are classical dancers. Ballet has a specific vocabulary (the steps) and a specific grammar (the way the steps are put together, which -- "classically" -- do move through the five postions of the feet, although I have to say I have never watched a ballet to make sure that's always done, and I'm sure much "neoclassical" or contemporary work skirts around that. (I would say that a classical choreographer knows the rules, even though he doesn't follow them, in the same way a good writer breaks the rules of grammar for effect, or whatever.)

As for the lamentations over good productions -- take it you're referring to productions of existing works, like "Swan Lake," etc.? I'd say they're not well-staged, they're often not well-danced (even though the dancers' technique is fine) because the style is sloppy, or, in some cases, nonexistent (style: accent, polish, the way the head is held, the postion of the hands, arms, fingers. This should be integral to technique, but, in a foot-conscious era, the upper body is left to tend to itself and is often found wanting.) I could not name a contemporary production of either "Swan Lake" or "Sleeping Beauty" that I would willingly sit through. Some have been "enhanced" by finding wondrous psychological secrets of the major characters, others are just plain sloppy. We can't say it's inferior to how Petipa produced it, because we don't know what Petipa's production looked like, and we probably couldn't reproduce it if we tried. Think of trying to reproduce, exactly, "Hamlet," down to the blocking, body movements, exact accent and intonation of the original actors. Not possible, even if we had the video.

Yes, a list would be helpful, but all our lists would be different. I once tried to count how many ways "classical" was used, and I think I came up with twelve.

I also agree with Paul that it isn't something one has to worry about when one is watching ballet. It's just important if one thinks about it, or tries to talk about it. I became interested in classical productions because I saw the Royal's version first (with Nureyev, but, alas, Monica Mason, not Fonteyn) which I loved -- and later discovered was at least as much Ashton as Petipa; so much for authenticity. Then I saw ABT's, which looked like a simplified version of the Royal's at that time (mid-'70s); then Erik Bruhn's for the National Ballet of Canada which was, I thought, totally whacko. (Von Rothbart was the Black Queen; Bruhn had a thing about bad mothers, apparently.) Which made me ask, what the hell is "Swan Lake"? A question I still cannot answer.

Hope some of that is clear.

Alexandra

I agree with what Leigh said, that "classicism" is often defined as "something with qualities that I happen to find attractive." I've given the popular definition as "the kind of ballet I like" or "24 women in white tutus standing in a straight line." It's sometimes assumed to mean "good".

I also think Steve gave a very clear and complete definition of the way the term is generally understood, at least in America. (I'll bet the Russians and perhaps the French would have a different perspective). I think Steve's "I know it when I see it" is what works for most people.

One historical note related to what Steve wrote. I was taught in my first dance history class that "dance history is backwards from the other arts in that classicism followed romanticism." That made no sense to me then -- based on nothing -- and makes less sense to me now, based on a little reading about the 18th century. If you read about what Noverre was doing, it's classical in the same way painting and music are considered classical - classical by form and classical by conviction. You can't have romanticism without classicism. Problem is, we don't have anything left of Noverre -- directly. I think what we see of Petipa that we call classical is what he developed from Noverre. (The Danes 1990 production of Bournonville's Lay of Thrym, a wretched botch of a revival which began my delving into deepest darkest Denmark, was the bones of a grand, late work which bore remarkable resemblances to some Petipa ballets that we knew -- processions, variations, long passages of mime. The only logical deduction, it seemed to me, was that they came from the same source (Noverre, or the ballet of that time). The white passages of "Giselle" we now know are late Petipa interpolations; we don't know what it looked like, but it was probably a lot rounder and softer. I saw another clue to the past on video, from a televised performance of Paris Opera's recent revival of Leo Staats' "Soir de Fete." The structure is very very similar to Ashton's Les Patineurs -- it's not as linear, it has a logic of its own, but it's not the logic we're used to and so it takes a few viewings to get (I'm presuming Ashton saw the Staats). This is offered only to say that there are even different formal, or structural, approaches to classical ballets.

A final (for now) comment, is that "classical ballet" until recently encompassed classical, demicaractere, character and pantomime passages, each with its own rules. In the post-Balanchine, "pure dance" world, all we have is the classical. (Balanchine used all the elements. Not in every work, but he used them.)

And if that's more than anyone wanted to know, sorry.

alexandra

Question of the week: I'm curious about what people think of when they think of "Swan Lake." What does a production have to have to satisfy you? What do you expect when you go to see a production that you don't know anything about? I'll happily stipulate that there isn't an "authentic" production around, but there are still things -- images, steps, parts of the story -- that mean "Swan Lake" to people: 24 swan maidens, 32 fouettes, love, betrayal, death, owls. Benno or a Jester? Happy ending or sad? All or none of the above.

Alexandra

Thanks for filling in the gaps, pdance. I asked, because it seemed, from your first post, that you went to take lessons first, and then became interested. (Which sometimes happens.) But most people see something they love and that makes them go to the ballet and now we know what you saw. It must be nice to be able to take part in what inspired you! (Hope you found the smilies. If not, email me)

ATM711, what a debut! I'm sure most of us are seething with jealousy (I know I am.) You started going at just the right time to have seen almost everything that's been important in America's ballet history, and I fervently hope you'll keep us entertained with more. Did you stick with Ballet Theatre, or go see everything? (And you can remind us how much ticket prices were then, too). A very hearty welcome.

Alexandra

No shoes, alas, but I would like to say that (surprise!) I DO agree with you about Baryshnikov. It's just the incessant "it's not my fault" that got me -- that, and the "vitamin pill" Balanchine supposedly slipped her, stuffed with drugs. From everything I've heard or read, drugs were anathema to Mr. B (which certainly makes sense, considering his age and background) and the idea of him starting a dancer on drugs is not credible.

None of that takes away from the beauty of her dancing. And I think she was one of those artists for whom the pressure of performing and of being perfect, of living up to her own ideal of being perfect, was too much (it's broken a lot of people). To give up performing must have been a terrible decision, but necessary for her survival.

Now, for something a little different -- there is another video. Did you catch her on "L.A. Law"? (Don't remember the date; I never watched that show and turned past it on the way to somewhere else, when I realized it was about dance and stopped and watched. Surreal.) Anyway, Kirkland played a ballerina suing her artistic director. (It was all his fault, of couse.) She got to testify, but she also got to dance. She's in the studio (his new ballet looks an awful lot like "Giselle") and she also dances at the end, over the titles. She was still a ballerina.

Alexandra

Beautifully done, from both Ed and Katharyn. It is amazing, isn't it, that it's often that "perfect moment" -- and it can be an arm, a glance,, the way a head is inclined, a look of despair or love -- is often what one remembers from a ballet, not the multiple pirouettes and high leaps?

Alexandra

While I agree that Kirkland seems to blame everybody but herself, I have sympathy for her because she was such a great artist and so troubled. If she destroyed her gift, I think it was that she was trying too hard to be perfect and broke under that stress.

One thing about the book that's always troubled me is that some of the young people who read it will think they should inject collagen in their lips or have their foot broken to change the arch, or any of the other scary things she did or wanted to do. There should be a Parental Discretion warning on those pages!

Alexandra

Okay, pdance, that's how you found the ballet studio, but why did you WANT to find the ballet studio? What made you want to take ballet?

And, by the way, I wanted to say this on another thread, after you'd posted that you'd been accepted at the Southern Ballet Theatre summer intensive, but I didn't post in time, and there were several other posts in between, but CONGRATULATIONS! Hope you get to go, too.

alexandra

alexandra

Good question, Jane. Thanks. Like you, when I started (before computers!) I kept track of everything. I had little index cards. I had a notebook where I tried to write "reviews" (now burned). I kept a scrapbook of every review from the Washington Post, Washington Star, NYTimes, NYPost, New Yorker, and London Times. I am not normally a compulsive person. As a matter of fact, my apartment decor is Early American trash dump (my main bookcase collapsed and its contents are "neatly" stacked in little piles all over the place.)

Also kept every program and every souvenir bok. The programs and scrapbooks got tossed in a "I've got to do something to make a living" phases a few years ago, to my everlasting regret.

There should be a way to do a computer database but, alas, what to do about those 25 years of lost performances?

Luckily, I have a good memory. And so do my friends.

alexandra

In some ways, Balanchine is an American choreographer, but in others, I think he's old school European. The first time I saw the Kirov do "Theme and Variations," I had the sense that he had been choreographing for that company all along -- these people knew what a Polonaise was, and it showed. And their "Scotch Symphony" is danced by a company that knows "Giselle." It's not that they turn it into "Giselle," but they know what's going on in the wings in ways that American dancers don't.

I see "Union Jack" is a good, old-fashioned Franco-Russian character ballet with (inaccurate) British trappings. Even "Stars and Stripes" and "Western Symphony" are classical ballets with Americana costumes, but that's just the surface. I've always thought this was Balanchine as marketeer. Americans were squeamish about ballet; it was foreign, too fancy. So he put it in cowboy clothes, and cheerleader/drum major outfits. What could be more American? (Bournonville did something similar, actually. "The Tyroleans" was a Greek ballet in liederhosen. He changed the characters names to Swiss peasants' names and set it in the Alps, but it was the myth of Anacreon. He chuckles about tricking his audience in "My Theatre Life.")

As for "The Nutcracker" being Walt Disney? There really is a huge gulf between European and American perceptions. To me, Walt Disney is cartoon -- simple message, broad characters, rather unsophisticated structure, aimed at a mass audience. Well, Balanchine's "Nutcracker" was aimed at a general audience, if not a mass one, but other than that, I don't see a cartoon there at all. It's not the story, it's the music and the dancing. The story has to be told well, of course, because it's theater, but that's not the point of it. What makes that Nutcracker Balanchine's is the choreography and the way in which it is danced.

The Vainonen Nutcracker (which I just saw, about 60 years after the fact) and all its progeny seem to see the story as predominant. To me, that version seemed very cartoonlike, with a simplified story but, more importantly, very simplified dancing. Now, of course, any semblance of story is thrown to the wind, and we have Drosselmeyer as a child molester and Masha's dream a real, five-star nightmare. Yes, that suits the book, perhaps, but not the music. (Vainonen's version seems to deliberately ignore the music. I mean literally. There are theatrical effects built into the score that he pretends aren't there.)

Balanchine modernized the dancing, leaving the music to tell the story. At least, that's the view from here.

Alexandra

I agree with everybody! But I think it would be nice to hear from some Ballet Talkers who aren't writers. Easy for us to say we like good, simple writing that describes what we see!

On Denby, I agree that he's terribly important, and influenced a lot of contemporary American writers (and is a fine writer) but I have to say, the more I read him and the more I learned about ballet outside New York, the less I like him. I'm not saying that you can't learn a lot, you can. But he has a large ax to grind -- namely, that Balanchine is the great choreographer who ever breathed and NYCB was already a major international company five seconds after its birth -- and in doing so, he dismisses, often quite nastily (under cover of politesse) anything remotely a possible threat. He was writing at a time when the other critics were very anti-Balanchine, so I understand his reasons, and he was also in the position of understanding a great artist who, at the time, was working against the mainstream, and I'm sure his reviews were very helpful in educating Balanchine's audience.

I read Croce's "After Images" and "Looking at the Dance" every year until I'd practicaly memorized them. I disagreed with her, and much of what she said angered me when I first read it but I read her essays at the back of "After Images" over and over until I thought I understood them. Now I realize that she predicted in the '70s and '80s just about everything going on today. Smart lady; great writer.

I would say generally, that most people go to the ballet because they like it and probably many don't think more about it than which dancers or ballets they liked, and I think that's fine. But, Giannina, if you're reading critics, this is a sign that you're also interested in what other people think. I think if you feel you're missing something, you probably are. (I took a course in criticism my second year of viewing because I knew I wasn't seeing everything, and I wanted to be able to, fast. I thought taking a course with a critic would help. It didn't.) Sometimes there is a philosophical underpinning or a deeper meaning, I think, than just a few pirouettes -- "La Valse" has references in Romanticism, and someone who understands the Love/Death connection beloved of Romantic poets will probably see something more in that ballet than someone who doesn't. But any really good ballet, I think, can be enjoyed on its face. It's when you have to read three pages of program notes and/or attend a workshop to know what's going on that I'd leave the theater and go home to a good book.

Your question was excellent, I think, and I'm off to start a new thread.

alexandra

Mary, you must have been posting at the same time I was writing, so I missed acknowledging your post in my response above. Thanks for mentioning Leigh's great comment about "confusing plotless with pointless." I'd forgotten to second that earlier. I think that could easily characterize a lot of the new ballets (especially the "after Balanchine" ballets) being made today. So much is just setting steps to music. And I don't blame audiences for finding such work both trivial and boring.

Jane, I'm sure the score to "Ondine" will be perceived much differently now, especially if it's gotten a good aring. I was referring to what I read in, I think, David Vaughan's critical biography of Ashton, that there were some ideas he couldn't use because they just didn't work with the music. I can imagine Kirkland as a wonderful Ondine. I remember when she first started coming up, I asked an older colleague if she was like anyone who'd gone before, and he said, in a curious way, she was like Fonteyn, because they were both "as pure and clear as water."

Libby, I don't think the question is naive at all; thank you for asking it and thank you for posting. Forsythe's work appears in several American companies' repertories and I have read him referred to as "the future of ballet," or "the hope of ballet," a sentiment with which I disagree. (I think Leigh also mentioned this.) I really think it's too early to judge his work; he's in mid-career. I don't see him as a particularly important force here, at least not at this stage. He's based in Europe, and his reputation (like Neumeier's) seems different there. Heinz Spoerli has ballets in the repertories of a lot of ballet companies in Europe and we see very little of it here. And all the comments that I and others have made about the Balanchine influence must seem totally irrelevant to Estelle and Mark, because I don't think there are dozens of "sons of Balanchine" scattered throughout Europe. So yes, I think, too, that it is very much what you see.

I can certainly sympathize with your comments on popularity, and it is a difficult subject to discuss, because if you say a popular choreographer isn't a total genius, that would naturally offend the people who like his work, and sound horribly snobby, to boot. On the other hand, taste in anything changes the more we see; audiences new to ballet will like different things than those who see a lot of it. And, as you point out, if you ever see something you regard as perfect, it's hard to accept something less. Until, of course, something just as perfect comes along.

alexandra

Thanks for that information, Jane. I had completely forgotten about Seymour. The only Marcia Haydee I've seen is her production of "Sleeping Beauty," which I absolutely detested - Carabosse was the dominant character, scenes were added where we saw Aurora grow from 4 to 5 to 8 to 11 (different child trudging on, with Carabosse making faces at her), etc. The Maids of Honor's dance replaced with something for men; forget what. But then, I'm a strict constructionist on Sleeping Beauty.

I've heard of a lot of young women choreographing ballets here -- Miriam Mahdaviani (sp?) with NYCB (nothing very major), Julie Adam at San Francisco Ballet (all I've heard is "promising;" keep fingers crossed). Martine Van Hamel has choreographed a few pieces; she did one on Washington Ballet. I liked her dancing better. There are a lot of women choreographing for the relatively minor regional companies here (in San Diego, in Cincinatti; I'm sure there are more).

I'm sure you're right about the current climate. I wonder, though (back to the original question about Deborah Bull's complaint that the characters she dances are all made by men) if, after all that's happened in this century, a great female choreographer emerged, there was suddenly a great insight or change of viewpoint -- in the way that Martha Graham's view of the world was so revoutionary.

I was hoping Victoria would have time to answer this thread. As a teacher, she'd know more about the aspirations of young women. Dancing or choreography, or both, Victoria?

alexandra

I agree with every word Kevin wrote. Unfortunately, "Dancing on my Grave" remains the most popular (in terms of sales) of any dance biography, and I think that's a shame. Especially since so many teenagers read it. It's not a very accurate picture of ballet life, in many ways.

alexandra

Just a quickie on terminology. For music, I used "classical" in the "this way to the classical collection, rock and rap are under the stairs, jazz and folk are to the right." I did not mean that Messaien was "classical" in the sense that Mozart and Beethoven are "classical" (vs. "romantic," "contemporary," etc.) Sorry. I thought that was obvious.

I didn't think Bausch had yet come up. I actually would call her a great choreographer, although I don't particularly "like" all of her work. And I think she's several notches above her many followers who (as imitators nearly always do) rip off the externals -- the potted plants, the angst -- and not the genius. I would also add that I think it would be very dangerous for a ballet company that wanted to remain a ballet company to perform Bausch regularly. (Style creeps in to other works. When ABT was dancing Tharp regularly, they started to dance classical ballet a la Tharp. There's a moment in "Push Comes to Shove" when the corps does an arabesque penchee, and ducks their heads under their arms and looks at the audience. It's cute, and everyone knew it referred to the Kingdom of the Shades. It was less cute when they started to do it while dancing Shades.)

On Ashton v. MacMillan, I can't think of any of the British ballet critics I know, or have read, which includes at least all of the ones who saw his or her first ballet prior to 1990, who would rank MacMillan higher than Ashton. I have read sentences like, "Our two great choreographers," yes. Americans will write the same thing about Balanchine and Robbins, but I don't think we're saying they're equal. I know this kind of back and forth makes it sound like a food fight, and I don't mean it that way; anyone who thinks MacMillan is great is certainly welcome to do so. I think such discussions are useful in helping to form one's personal aesthetic, though. At least, they were to me when I was trying to learn everything I could about ballet in six months, and they still are.

Another thought on contemporary (another bad word which could cover a multitude of sins) ballet choreography and how it's gone astray. This is part of the narrowing problem. I know Balanchine is not the reference point for places outside America, but here, at least, many young choreographers seem to think that "contemporary" started with "Agon." I've heard/read people who think that works like "Scotch Symphony" or "Divertimento No. 15" are almost the silly indulgences of an old man, or a cynical pandering to a conservative audience. I think this misunderstands Balanchine, and I don't think ballet will be revived from within solely from this strain.

Someone mentioned "Ondine." I wish I could come over and see "Ondine," but then I wonder if such a delicate work can be revived. There's also the problem that the score is at odds with the ballet's theme. (It has a very then-contemporary score which is not what Balanchine would call "musique dansant," with a 19th century story and a choreography and structure that seem more in sync with the story than the score.)

alexandra