Alexandra

Please heed this plea I can testify from personal experience that, although this site is free to you, it is not free to the person who has to pay the bills, and the costs of running this board has far exceeded the ability of any one person to bear. We are on a dedicated server now, because of the high traffic and bandwidth, and that costs Big Bucks! I can also say from personal experience that participation by members of this forum in last year's fundraiser was very disappointing. We had several people who made very generous contributions, and then silence from the others. On our sister board, there's a broad range of contributions. We'd rather see 20 people give $5 than one person give $100. (At least, I would. I shouldn't be speaking for others, and I don't mean to imply that I am not blitheringly grateful to our $100 contributors!) GIVE GIVE GIVE GIVE GIVE GIVE GIVE GIVE GIVE NOW please and thank you

Beautiful post, Sandi. Thank you.

I like the idea of "American danztheater" -- not that he's consciously so (he may be; I don't know) but the effect is the same. I think this ties into the "victim art" comment. To a formalist like Croce (who didn't try to review something she hadn't seen, I think, but rather attacked the genre, or trend, of something that was bubbling around at the time that she didn't like) a dance work where dance was not the predominant element, but, in fact, the subject matter was, would be grounds for a tirade. The idea, which is definitely very non-PC, that the subject matter was chosen with donors and audience in mind will probably be controversial for a long time. To go back to the tanzteater idea -- what are its rules for the balance between form and content? I've admired many of Bausch's pieces that were very much content-centered, but I found the movement invention riveting: there was more than an Idea. (I write this knowing that many people loathe Bausch ) Where is the line?

bart, I think you answered your own question Swan Lake and R&J do not deal with contemporary issues or subjects. They deal with timeless emotions/questions/issues in a way that is suited to the language, customs and ideals of the art form. I do not accept at all that the avoidance of contemporary subjects by classical/neoclassical ballet choreographers is because of "limited vision." An anecdote: once upon a time in Copenhagen, the Royal Danish Ballet did "The Four Temperaments." An older ballerina, a Landergirl, came to the artistic director and said it would have been so much betrter if the girls had been wearing pinkchecked skirts and their hair in little side curls. The response is not recorded, but the costumes were not changed. This may not at first seem relevant to the issue under discussion, but I offer it as an example of understanding what is basic to an art form or sensibility or piece. We're not asking Bill T. Jones to make something pretty. It's the wrong question.

Which of course (and I'm sure I'm not contradicting you) means that it deals with reality at it's deepest. kfw, I would agree with that. As Balanchine said (it's on the biography, voice over for "Chaconne," I believe), "The real world is not here." One can take that in a spiritual sense or an intellectual sense, but the point is a good one. Reality at its deepest -- the same thing that's said about poetry, to take an individual story and make it a universal truth (through poetry).

I hope we don't lose sight of this question. Or of the matter of why contemporary CLASSICAL ballet tends to the other extreme: ignoring almost entirely major social or political issues of today. (I mean, how much mileage can you get out of rerunning The Green Table every time the US has an unpopular war, great piece though it is.) Does classical ballet ignore major social or political issues today, in the sense that its makers don't care, or think they're above it? Or because the art form isn't suited to REALISM? Its whole philosophy is, as Levinson and Kirstein, among others, have written, to celebrate the art of the vertical, the ideal. Through character dance, in works like "Dark Elegies," for example, it can touch darker moods, but that is not its strength, nor what its vocabulary is designed to do. Portraying contemporary issues, showing things as they are, turning inward, using the floor -- all these are the strengths of MODERN DANCE, not classical ballet. It's one of the reasons for the modern dance rebellion -- a yearning to deal with everyday life, political material, etc. ("The Green Table" is a modern dance work.) I read articles excoriating classical ballet for its flitty, flighty oh-so-irrelevant view of life so often (and I know this isn't what bart meant, but it's what a lot of people do mean!) that I wanted to offer this clarification. If you want to see theater that deals with real life DON'T GO TO THE BALLET! Robert Greskovic wrote something in Ballet 101 that is particularly apt here: "Ballet is not a realistic art form; it’s a lyrical poetic one."

These videos are available in several libraries across the country -- not just in NY. Check to see if a library near you has them.

Re variations -- I think most of the classical variations are about a minute to a minute and a half, although there can be a range depending on the dancer. I remember a young dancer in Denmark trying to find music for a solo (off a tape) and there was the 75 second one and the 90 second one, and he needed one about 82 seconds! Bart, you're right -- there is so much packed into them, and, if done properly, with attention to placement, epaulement, etc., so much for a dancer to worry about! If the dancer does his/her job, we don't notice.

I had thought of "Carmina Burana" too, except he said the title was in German, and usually CB keeps its title, and that it's sung to a choral accompaniment. Was there singing? I'm intrigued now -- this one sounds strange enough that we should have heard about it!!

Hi wondering. Thanks for your question. I'm sorry no one has answered -- I can't be helpful either, I'm afraid. You may have seen a contemporary or modern piece that isn't in a lot of companies' repertories, so if one wasn't in Berlin in 2001 one wouldn't have seen it. Yours is a very good description -- if we knew what the music was, that might help track it down.

Having a plan, an overall structure. Knowing what the ending is before you start. Sounds obvious, but I've seen ballets that are so obviously unfinished that I'm not surprised to learn that the choreographer was still coming to grips the morning of the opening with this or that section, which is why the dancers had spent five minutes running around flapping their arms

Carbro and I were posting at the same time -- I agree, Carbro. We can't see with the eyes of the original audience. I think the best thing we can do is to know the rules. At first glance, one might think that a ballerina turning on demi-pointe is technically deficient. If you know that this particular production, or choreographer, or style is set for a pirouette on demi-pointe, then one can at least not deduct technical points Bart, I think you're on to something with your description of "free, expressive and (apparently) spontaneous" style. Dancers today are so CAREFUL. There's a beauty in that too, of course, but something is lost. I showed a clip from the "Jewels" film this summer at a lecture, and the dancer-host's comment was, "It really is academic, isn't it?" That's the style of the company and style of the day. One theory about the loss of spontaneity, in addition to the attention paid to correctness, is that after the rise of modern dance, ballet became less spontaneous, so as to make the contrast greater, or perhaps even that the freer, less "correct," more spontaneous dancers were attracted (or guided) to modern dance. (Of course since modern/contemporary dance is often very technical now, that's gone too.) It's all very complicated!! As for our old-timie Bolshoi dancers, the look of them, the costumes -- all of it would elicit amusement at first glance, I think. I just figure, they have a reason for puttin' it on there Re Plisetskaya: there's a DVD that is called, I think, "Plisetskaya Dances" (that's what the video was called; the DVD separates the dance clips from the interview clips). There is a lot of her Kitri on that, and her Walpurgisnacht. THAT leads to another viewing exercise. Compare the Plisetskaya one with the Maximova one, also on film. Both ballerinas are glorious, in their different ways, but the men, who get to be satyrs, lucky fellows, are really into it in the Plisetskaya tape. They "buy" the ballet. It's alive to them. A decade or so later, they dance with great respect, but the atmosphere is gone.

I think this is one of the few filmed examples of theatrical expression during the time when declamatory style was still dominant -- before movies made acting more subtle. This is even a bit bigger than the 'FIE! YE VILLAIN!!" [maiden faints] acting of silent films. (And bart's points about being limited to a very small space is a good one. They're projecting to the back of the house, except the camera is probably 2 feet away.) The most "old-fashioned" thing, to me, is when Geltzer gets a look of "delicious girlishness" (as a critic of the day might have written) in her eyes and begins to play with the roses. Watch his delight in her. The few films I've seen of the same time period are quite different. There's a Dying Swan -- and I'm blanking at the name; I'll try to fill it in later -- of a BOLSHOI ballerina who's quite "classical" compared to Pavlova (another ballerina who is very far from our time). And the Danish films from 1906-1909 are much smaller in scale. I will say that at first I would only show this one to older students (seniors), and expect they would titter, but when I prepared them, they didn't, and, at the end of the year, I dared show it to 9th graders and they were interested. Didn't want to look like that, or dance like that, but they could see the artistry. And this doesn't mean that the general reaction of "Yuck, what is that!" is wrong or silly, of course. One of the ways I taught myself to watch old films is to think, "Why did they put it on the tape? Example of Stupid Dancing of Yesteryear? Or an example of something that was considered great. If it's the latter, why was it considered great?" (I will say I'll bet Tikomirov was one heck of a partner!) Re the Ballets Russes film, I thought some of them were "modern" looking (especially Markova) while others were quite different from today -- less attention to placement and line. Talking to dancers about that film, the general comment was, "Wow, now I know how they could turn so fast and do so many -- they didn't care about placement." I learned from that -- it's something Robert Greskovic has written, that we're in an academic age now, an age of the teachers. When it's an age of choreographers, dancers don't have t be so "correct." It's more about moving, or expression, or whatever the choreographer is after.

What I noticed about Tikhomirov was the sincerity of his performance and the way he reacted with his partner. The number is the kind of thing that audiences of the day -- for whom "sentimental" was not a cause for amusement. Both Tikhomirov and Geltzer were great dancers. There are many photos of them in which they look more like dancers audiences today would admire (costumes make a difference), but Tikhomirov was a great technician -- you can read about him, and see other photos, in Smakov's book of the "Great Russian Dancers."

Seriously, I think this is very good news, and am curious -- eagerly curious -- to see what Kirkland will do. She obviously drank in what she learned, and if she's ready to give back, that will be terrific.

Male fairies! Jumping! Turning!

I think it's too early to tell. Two stay-at-home Danes who have experience running small companies are Alexander Kolpin and Peter Bo Bendixen (who just assumed the position of director at Tivoli's Pantomime Theater. There are, of course, the ex-patriate Danes (Ib Andersen, Nikolaj Hubbe, and Peter Martins). When Andersen was appointed the last time, it was announced that Lloyd Riggins (American, but an Honorary Dane, now dancing in Hamburg) would be being groomed as director, and would serve in some sort of artistic capacity, but that lasted about three seconds. Michael Christiansen, the departing Theater Chief with an extraordinarily unfortunate record of appointments , will still be in place during the selection process, so it's anybody's guess. Why a dancer? Let's try something NEW. (The article went on to say that the heads of the opera and drama departments will remain. Opera is King in Copenhagen now. Has been for well over a decade.)

There's a press release on the Royal Danish Ballet site (in Danish only) that says that Frank Andersen will step down at the end of his current contract (end of season 2008). The Theater Chief, Michael Christiansen, will leave at the same time.

I asked, he answered: "David Lichine's "Cain and Abel" for the De Basil Ballet Russe .... Lichine used Wagner music (Siegfried's Rhine Journey and Death) and pretty much undressed the characters. Kenneth MacKenzie was Cain (the main role) and Oleg Tupine was Abel; April Olrich and Carlota Pereyra were Good and Evil (or the other way round); there was also quite a birth scene for Eve and the twins. New York critics fired at it the way they did at Bejart later, but it was a success elsewhere. ..." Volkmar, we've gone far from your original query, and I can't help at all on a video or DVD. But I hope it will be useful for you to know there are several versions. Biblical stories were once a ballet repertory staple -- and I think partly because the choreographers could count on the audience to know the stories.

The Ballet Russe had a "Cain and Abel" in the 1940s; it was responsible for a friend of mine falling in love with ballet -- but I don't remember the choreographer. I'll try to track it down.

It's a good question, and I'll look forward to reading everyone's comments. I wonder if at least part of the problem is that fewer talented children are available for training -- or if, when the students graduate, the artistic directors don't know how to groom the dancers, and perhaps ignore some dancers who would have been groomed in the past. (In the search for The Highest Possible Extension or Greatest Number of Pirouettes, for example, some dancers with great artistic potential may be pushed to the side.) As for the talent pool, in Russia, dancing is not as secure a career as it was 20 or 30 years ago, and that may well be having an effect.

I came to admire the ballet very much -- not love it, but admire it. I had the chance to see it three times, and each time I saw more in it. People who had seen the original faulted the dancing -- not just Dulcinea, but the divertissements, that the dancing made the choreography look underpowered. I have no reason to doubt that. But I agree with Dale about it being "soaked in emotion." I'm already hearing people say "we'll never see it again" -- but that's what they said after NYCB danced it for "the last time."

"Desperate Housewives" -- the ballet.......

This IS a treasure -- as is its companion, The Glory of the Bolshoi (among many other things, Maximova and Vasiliev as children in the pas de trois from Nutcracker and the full Moszkowski Waltz. I loved the Jakobsen Waltz too -- and Sizova in "Corsaire." (Kurgapina is around on video -- she does Harlequinade on one of the other Kirov anthologies, and she is delicious.)

Forgot to say -- we've been in a Revisionist era for a long, long time now. Fifty years or so. It's assumed that everyone was miserable, or had a secret, or was abused by one's parents, or all of the above. I'm waiting for the next generation of revisionism: "One Happy Fella, the Kafka Nobody Knew". . . .