Alexandra

These are people who aren't dancing now, but I once had a fantasy of Dance Theatre of Harlem doing "Spartacus" when Eddie J. Shellman was their star. There were several other people in the company then who would have been interesting, and they had both the bodies and the heart for it.

Thanks for mentioning Franklin -- how could we have forgotten! He can still hold the stage. He's amazing. And, miliosr, I think Swamp Thing needs a fan Glad you spoke out.

A quick note on Pavel Gerdt, since this is one of my causes I've read that theory of the change (no Benno) in the white swan pas de deux, too, but I have a different one. Siegfried wasn't a mime role because Gerdt was 50 but because the idea of a leading dancer, of a danseur noble, was different in the 19th century. Then, the hero would have danced in the waltzes -- and they read that as "dancing" while we today think of it as "marking time" or "not dancing" -- and he partnered. He often did not do the kind of dancing that's been standard in Russian and Western productions since the 1960s NOT BECAUSE HE COULDN'T but because danseur nobles didn't do that. He would not "dance" in the way we think of as dancing, at all. For the danseur noble were reserved the stately measures -- meaning it was all about adagio, control and line. Benno is in the Act II pas de deux for dramatic reasons (as Von Rothbart was in the Act III pas de deux). A 50 year old would be able to do the partnering in that duet (watch 50 and 60 year olds teach partnering classes!). Some of the lifts in White Swan are 20th century additions. Quite a few people have mentioned how much they liked Gomes's Von Rothbart -- and I agree! I did too -- but I don't think that Siegfried, as the hero, should come off second best, and I don't think that he did was Corella's fault (although Corella is not an ideal a Siegfried, in my book.) But the Von Rothbart role has been changed so competely that he dominates -- and that's not sound dramaturgy, to me. Faux pas, I think they did use Murphy rather than a double, as, in the prelude, they had her change into her Act II costume while on stage they use a toy swan. It is a good idea, but not easy to do in live performance!

These have been great to read -- keep 'em coming! I wanted to interrupt for just a minute to welcome Myrtha. WELCOME MYRTHA! Thanks for your comments -- that's a knock out first post and I hope we'll be reading more of you! Please drop over to the Welcome forum and introduce yourself. I hope you'll stick around and join in our discussions. I especially agreed with this: When I see ABT in DC they often look badly underrehearsed and so I was surprised at how cleanly they were dancing here. (And couldn't help but wondering when I'd see that level of care live on stage!) As Myrtha pointed out, this performance looked overrehearsed, as though the goal was not to make any mistakes. Something in the middle would be nice!

I found this assessment very interesting, bart. I think Murphy is, in a curious way for someone so technically strong, a slow develoer. She's still, as you write, working -- but while I find her cold (and not inspiring tenderness or pity, as you say), I don't find her empty -- I think there are depths in there, and I think we'll see them when she is absolutely sure of what every fingernail is supposed to be doing at every moment. Some dancers have the outline of the role and take some time to get the technique and the polish, and some start with the steps and work out from there. Some never get beyond the steps, of course, but I think Murphy will.

Sometimes it does. But I remember performances in the old Blair production, especially with Makarova and Nagy, where it tore out your heart. They did the mime, and they took time with it. She'd look at him, mime "I'm going to die," and then run to back and jump. You could see him think, just for a second, and then he'd make the same gesture and follow her. It was a half-second more than impulse. He knew what he was doing. They both believed in it, and so I would too. Re the telecast, I thought the company looked good, both principals danced beautifully but I want more than clean execution in a "Swan Lake." I can add nothing to what has already been said on this board about Swamp Thing. But I did miss the fuzzy little short-necked "swan" It's exactly the kind of stuffed animal Swamp Thing would take to bed with him. (And why don't they just go ahead and change the mime scene to, "I was pattering around in my nightie -- I know I shouldn't, but I just love the night air, and not one single member of our royal retinue was around to accompany me -- when I spotted this, well, I thought he was a gentleman because he kissed my hand, and he invited me home to see his etchings and..." That scene robs me of all sympathy for Odette. Any Princess who sneaks around at night talking to strange men deserves to be changed into a swan as far as I'm concerned. So there.

Assuming it did By "obsession" I mean having to go to more than the one performance a week on your subscription, or reading more than was in the subscription brochure. What turned you from a casual balletgoer into a regular, an aficionado, a balletomane?

I've moved the threads discussing Alina Somova here so that this thread can be focused on the competition.

Dale Brauner previews tonight's PBS broadcast of ABT's "Swan Lake" in DanceView Times: ABT's "Swan Lake" on PBS!

I wasn't very impressed with her in DC either, Mashinska, but they're certainly presenting her as a star!

Thanks for the news, Natalia -- the Moscow competition web site looks like it's geared more to those competing than those interested in the results (i.e., no news component, at least not yet), so I'm glad you'll be keeping us up to date. (At least one of the UBA students -- Mathias Dingman -- is competing. I don't know if the others from that school who went to Helsinki went on to Moscow as well, but I do know that he'd intended to.)

Thanks for letting us know about the "too one-sided view," Viviane (and it's wonderful to read you again!) I look forward to hearing how the new director fares. I'm also curious -- do you have a sense of the audience there, and how subscribers feel about The Gap? (Are they mostly ballet fans grumbly at contemporary fare, or contempos sick of toe shoes and tiaras? Or represent a broad range of tastes?)

Hi, Cathy! Thanks for catching us up on what's going on in Amsterdam. I haven't seen much of Van Manen's choreography lately. Not many American companies perform his works (unfortunately, in my opinion, as he's one of the few contemporary neoclassical choreographer!). Tell us about the Don Giovanni. Who was the choreographer? What was it like and why did it blow you away? You asked why 60 people had read your post but no one replied -- a lot more people read this (and almost every other message board) than register, much less post. Why is one of the great mysteries of cyberlife But it means that people are interested. We don't have a lot of people who see the company regularly -- although as you can see by the list of topics, there are a few people who do (I hope Herman Stevens sees this) But there are a lot of people who are very interested in what's going on, so you may not have a lot of people to talk to (at least right now) but you will definitely have readers! Please feel free to take part in other discussions, as well. Threads on Anything Goes, or Aesthetic Issues, etc. often touch on issues of interest to people anywhere, and always benefit from having a fresh viewpoint.

I've only written two obituaries (Stanley Williams and Jerome Robbins), both for a British newspaper, and was given guidelines (orally by the editor over the phone) but they were more of an outline: start with why they were famous, do a brief bio, etc. It wasn't "how to write an obit" but "what our obits are generally like." I honestly can't remember whether he said anything about tone and I think that as recently as ten to fifteen years ago, when I wrote those, it wouldn't have been necessary. It was understood by writers that what they wrote had to be in sync with the culture of the newspaper. This wasn't a tabloid, and I should know that (and did) and be familiar with the newspaper enough to know its tone. I don't think an obit should be an appreciation, or a biographical account that sweeps everything under the rug, but "Serial womanizer Pablo Picasso, who also painted some of the most important works of the 20th century," isn't the way to go either, in my opinion. But times have changed, and biographies have changed. It's now the fashion to emphasize details rather than an overall view of a life and make sure that anything that would prevent a person running for office if they weren't lucky enough to be dead should be included. I'd be interested to know what readers expect in an obit. Something that the wife and kids (and fans and followers) can frame? A place to settle old scores? A warts-and-all account of the life? Other? In line with what Mel wrote, I agree -- if you die at 88, most of your most alluring mistakes will be in the past and you're unlikely to have your obituary written by someone who suffered from them. If you die at 50, the time line is telescoped. And in Stretton's case, the last noted public event of his life -- his tenure at the Royal Ballet -- was controversial, and recent enough to be the only contact many readers would have with him. How much emphasis, how many column inches, should that get?

On another thread, Bart linked to an article that's in today's NY Times by political commentator David Brooks about (among other things) middlebrow art, and it's made me think about exactlly what that is. When I was in high school, I remember reading an article in the Sunday Times called something like "High Brow, Low Brow and No Brow" (the No Brows were the Beatles, since their hair obscured their brows, and which is why I read the article) comparing various aspects of the "British Invasion" at that time: Burton's rehearsal dress "Hamlet," "Beyond the Fringe" (I have no idea which brow that was) and the Beatles. I don't see a middlebrow in there -- although some might say the Beatles were. ANYWAY. Middlebrow art was once art accessible to and enjoyed by the middle class. In America, this was an ideal -- the New England Lyceum movement, as I posted on that other thread, provided educational leisure time activities and becoming part of the middle class meant going to those lectures, as well as subscribing to the symphony, ballet, and theater -- not sure about opera. Was that high brow? Part of middle class urban life was taking family trips on Sunday to museums or performing arts events. When I entered college, middlebrow was still okay. I went to a women's college, and was told by several professors that they were here because they believed that educating women was more important than educating men, because women educated the next generation. (Now, that could be discussed....) And they tried their best to expose us and help us understand art and "culture." But by the time I was a senior, this was beginning to change, and "middlebrow" became a term of derision -- part of the counterculture movement that rejected suburban life. "That's middlebrow" would be enough to keep someone from attending a lecture or concert. I THINK that's how the term is perceived today, although I wouldn't bet the farm on that. I'm curious about people's experiences with art generally, and what your take on middlebrow is. I have more questions, but I'll save 'em.

I thought it was Jo[hann] Strauss, a/k/a the Waltz King! I can't site the source, because I learned of it in a conversation some years ago with someone who was writing about the American arts in the 1960s rather than my own reading, but there were studies in the late 1950s that predicted a rosy future for the arts, because of the GI Bill and the liberal arts education they were receiving. Union victories had given the "working class," as it was then called, more leisure time, and this time would be spent on ... the arts. The frame of reference for these deductions were the same as Brooks cites describes -- that the middle class was always striving to better itself, to learn about high arts and culture -- going back to the New England Lyceum movement -- and that the culture changed. Now, that model would be considered paternalistic, by both the left and the right, I think, but for different reasons. Editing, because I forgot, as I often do, to tie my point to the discussion . City Center was one of the prime venues of "art for the middle-class" -- middlebrow art, if you will and it was in that post-war spirit of arts optimism that City Center was born. And now we're in a period of rabid anti-intellectualism, anti-elitism, and I think it's interesting to look at some reasons for why and how that happened. Is it TV? Or advertising? Which led to "target markets," which led to the obliteration of anything that doesn't feed a prime "target market" happening at the same time that cultural relativism (which, I've always thought, has about the same relationship to Einstein's theory of relativity as social Darwinism does to Darwin's theory of evolution)?

Thanks for finding that, bart -- it is an interesting essay. Here's a direct link; the piece is in the NYTimes today. Joe Strauss to Joe Six-Pack It's interesting that Brooks, rather than attacking pop culture as being what corrupted us, or blaming Joe Six-Pack for being dumb, seemed to place most of the blame on intellectuals in the 1960s who attacked middlebrow culture. Tom Wolfe has written and spoken on this -- that prior to the 1960s, the great writers and musicians and painters wanted an audience, or perhaps needed an audience because somebody had to pay the bills, and though art could be excellent, it was also accessible. When art became deliberately rarified, when artists started making work for each other rather than us, people turned away.

Is anyone but me a bit stunned by the obituary in the Telegraph? (It's in today's Links.) I've seen kinder obits of drug kingpins. Is an obituary the place to detail, blow by blow, its subject's greatest failure?

ABC News has an obit: Former Australian Ballet director Stretton dies A brief obituary in the Sydney Morning Herald. Ross Stretton dies Stretton will be remembered for his brief, stormy tenure as Director of the Royal Ballet, but he was also a star dancer with the Australian Ballet and a principal with ABT. He's shown in the Frederick Wiseman film, "Ballet," during his tenure as ballet master with ABT (and reportedy a very good one).

One of the problems I have with the argument is that art (for which pop culture is being substituted) isn't supposed to make us "smarter." It is supposed to feed our imaginations and our souls and enrich our lives.

Clement Crisp reviews the Festival in the Financial Times

Yes -- and the change in tartan represents the change in marital, or about to be marital, status. Sorry!

On Natalia's Log thread, there was a mention of a character in "La Sylphide" who is James's mother. Carbro posted she'd always thought this woman was Effy's mother (many do!) but Effy is James's cousin (that's why they wear the same tartan). Her name is Anna Reuben (and James is James Reuben.) Kirsten Simone does the role on the 1990 TV broadcast and I saw her do it in the theater several times. She was a wonderful Anna, gently anxious on the wedding day, the kind of hostess who can keep an eye on everyone to make sure every cup is full. Some Jameses have played the role as a bit scatterbrained, the kind of boy easily seduced by dreams, and in that case, she has to keep him grounded. Where Effy's parents are, no one knows. Too many mothers-in-law can sink a balllet. In the second act, Simone had a great two minutes. When Gurn proposes to Effy (Ann Kristin Hauge on the TV film), Effy turns to Anna partly, it seems, to ask permission (can I dump your son who dumped me and marry this guy?) and partly to ask for guidance (as someone I respect, please, tell me, what should I do? I love James. But I have no one now.) Simone turns her head to the side and makes a gesture that says, "No, no. I cannot tell you what to do. You must decide." In effect, giving her permission, but not a blessing. It was a very brave act. She could have said no. He may change his mind and come home. She is the loser in this. She now has no protector, no bread winner. She'll end her days sitting at someone else's fire. Another note about "La Sylphide" that might be of interest. Until the mid-1960s when Flemming Flindt, with Hans Brenaa, changed it, the two solos now danced by James and Gurn were danced by two anonymous "farm boys." During the dancing James walked around the room greeting each guest and thanking them for their gifts. James shouldn't dance a solo here, since, by Bournonville rules, the hero cannot dance unless his mind is at rest, and James is beginning to have doubts about his wedding and about the Sylph by this time. Until 1965, he only danced in the reel. This also made the second act more magical, as James only takes to the air when he is in the forest.

Welcome, Andres! Thanks for posting about the "Raymonda" performance. Glad to read that Hallberg is back, and that Wiles did well. When you have a minute, please come to the Welcome Forum and introduce yourself.

I knew what it was, generally, because I've read David Vaughan's biography (actually, I reread it every Christmas ) And I knew it came from Pavlova. BUT I didn't know how important it was to Ashton himself, and to Somes and other Royal Ballet dancers of that time.