Alexandra

Nope. Sanguinic this time. (I missed the Magic Number completely -- thanks for the tip, Iza.) Perhaps, in these post-modern times, there are only Two Temperaments.

Just for fun, I'm going to go take it trying to be Melancholic and see what happens.

I wondered about the lucky number thing too, Dale (mine is also under 50 -- but I wondered, "50 percent of what?" And Clare, I thought the Hitler was a cheap shot on their part. He's not exactly a Middle Ager! Off to take some milk thistle for the bile......

I was sure I would be a Sanguinic, but somehow turned out to be a Choleric

Just found this online quiz.... It's only 15 questions and fun! Your Medieval Personality type

What a wonderful season! It's so imaginative, so balanced, so.... so ADULT! May Ms. Mason's repertory signal a new, 21st century international trend!!!!

Not too long ago, etoiles were danseurs nobles AND demi-caractere AND caractere. And I think that's the way things should be. When only the Prince gets to be an etoile, then the tendency is to cast everyone as the Prince, for one thing. And more importantly, in classical ballet, each genre has a place and an importance and I think that should be recognized. Chauvire, one of the greatest of the etoiles, was demicaractere.

Pavlova? She couldn't dance! She didn't have any TURNOUT!!! Why, she wouldn't be taken into any corps de ballet in the world today. (I remember reading that over and over and over in the mid-1970s and '80s until I could have screamed.)

Don't forget, you from the Western Territories, that in "Rodeo" there's a city slicker girl from "back east" in Kansas City. Perspective, perspective...... What do people from China think when they first hear that they're "The East" (from someone in San Francisco, say) and the Bay Area native is from "The West?" (rhetorical question posted not for discussion but illustration )

One thing on videos. I remember when videos or a TV show first came out -- when the dancers will still dancing and one could compare what one had seen on stage with what one saw on the small screen -- I was continually stunned by the differences. Dancers who were technically pure but had little else to offer looked like gods. Dancers who couldn't act--i.e., on stage they looked like blocks of wood -- often in close up, on film, looked interesting. Dancers with some sort of tic -- Farrell's bouncing wrists, Nureyev's horrible breathing -- became the Tic; that's all you could see, while often, in the theater, you wouldn't notice unless you were in the front row or watched a dance performance looking only at the performer's face, or wrists, through opera glasses. There was also the phenomenon of ballets that looed sloppy or underrehearsed in live performance suddenly transformed for the video. AND there's the opposite effect (especially with the Royal, I think) of dancers who, in bootleg films, are beautifully unself-conscious turn into We Must Do Our Duty dancers for the movie. So there are lots of things going on. On the early TV films I know one one example (Kronstam and Simone on the "Firestone" tape) that the floor had been waxed and, Simone told me in an interview for my book (and before the video had been released) that "We were afraid to do anything because the floor was so slippery." Re Fonteyn, my own video journey with her was that I'd seen her at the end of her career, when she was overacting a bit to compensate for the loss of technique, but she still had an authority -- command of the stage -- that no one dancing at that time in the West had, and I saw all the ballerinas dancing in the mid and late '70s. She wasn't a bravura dancer, but that doesn't mean she wasn't a virtuosa. She represented a school that cared about epaulement and fast footwork, not high extensions; Ashton wanted a 90-degree arabesque. When I first saw her on video I was very disapponted. I'd looked forward to seeing her younger, and found her very bland. It wasn't until I developed Danish eyes (i.e., I'd been watching performances and classes in Copenhagen off and on for a number of years) that I could watch what she was doing instead of matching her to what I was used to seeing, if that makes sense, and when I did that, I got her. Now when I go back and look at the same videos that I thought "dull" I don't know what I was thinking. (The Danes at the time I was watching them were still children of Volkova, too, and it was Volkova who coached Fonteyn in the classics, so I knew, rather than guessed, that the style was not what they would call overstretched or overextended.) Now, that's a lot of work to go through to appreciate a dancer and I'm not recommending it, and everyone's going to compare what they see on video to different images from what they see onstage, but that's one journey. When I asked people about Fonteyn, here are two comments I remember, both from older critics who'd seen most of her career. "She's the only dancer I've ever seen for whom I'm never worried when she dances." (Meaning the person was never worried that Fonteyn would make a mistake, or fall.) "Her dancing was as pure as cool, clear water." Most people cite her warmth; some were bothered, in theory, by her near constant smile, while others thought that it was perfect for her.

I do think that part of the difference is more logistics. Part of this is lack of rehearsal time, and part of it is that 20 or 30 years ago (and before) dancers grew up in a company and were not only trained for a specific repertory but grew up watching the company. So they learned lessons of stagecraft by osmosis. Today, that's only true, really, for the Kirov, Bolshoi and Paris Opera Ballets. There are criticisms of those companies, too, that today's dancers are more technical than emotional (I'd say there are exceptions to that). Why? Because dancers see what's going on in the rest of the world and imitate it? Because the people coaching these days aren't always up to the level of previous generations? Because the artistic directors are selecting dancers for technique rather than emotional resonance? I think it's all of the above. I was comparing videos of an original cast with a recent televised version of a ballet, and there were some things the contemporary dancer could do that were way beyond what the dancer from 40 years ago could do. BUT there were several things that the first dancer did far better than the younger one. I'm sure that if the contemporary dancer had been shown the proper way to do the steps, and had the time to master them -- they were outside the dancer's training -- s/he'd have done them perfectly. So there are a lot of variables in there. And then there is the Fairy's Kiss to contend with

The last I heard she was teaching in Australia, but she also teaches at a Summer Intensive in Florida some years -- I don't remember which school, sorry! I interviewed an ABT dancer a few years ago who had been coached by Kirkland in the late '90s (she had a very positive experience) so she must do coaching on the side, as well. She's the dancer I miss the most. I'll always feel cheated not having had the chance to watch her grow up on stage. She did a guest appearance on "L.A. Law" (playing a ballerina who was really really mad at her artistic director) and did a few bits of "Giselle" over the credits, and she was still wonderful.

Thanks for that list, Mme. Hermine! (Gosh! They're almost worth a trip to New York! ) And thanks for the memories and information eveyrone. More, please! (p.s. atm -- I'm posting this becuase others have had the same problem -- to make the quote thing work, you start your quotation with the word QUOTE in brackets and end it with /QUOTE in brackets. It's the missing back slash at the end that messes it up.)

I just answered someone about the differences between the two productions a couple of weeks ago, but I can't remember where, Amy! You might try a search. There isn't even a non-definitive DVD of the Bournonville. There was an excellent video disk of it with Lis Jeppesen as the Sylph, Nikolaj Hubbe (his debut!) as James, and Sorella Englund as James, but as far as I know it's never been released on either video or DVD.

Thanks for posting about this Estelle, and I hope you'll keep us informed. I can't think of another case that got to court. One worries what will happen to the company -- it had an interesting repertory under Jude. (Of course, he may well continue as director.)

I've been looking at photographs of the Royal Ballet in the 1960s and was struck, again, how lovely Beriosova is (beautiful as a woman, beautiful as a dancer). On my list of Dancers It's Not Fair That I Didn't Get To See, she's usually number one. I know she did "Enigma Variations" (and have seen a film of it, and thought it was one of the most beautifully subtle performances I've ever seen). And I know she did the Bride in "Les Noces" and the photos are stunning. And created the role in "Persephone" about which (aside from the fact that Ashton reportedly created it because she had a beautiful speaking voice and spoke French). And I know she did the classics. Can anyone who saw her dance talk a bit about her? It fascinates me that someone who looks so suited to "Swan Lake" was also a great "Swanhilda." Ashton made a "Raymonda" pas de deux for her, and she seems very suited to that, too -- so how was she as Aurora? Did she do "Ondine," "Sylvia"?

From someone who's worked with him: mill ah pyay Don't know if that's gospel, but it's a start!

I agree! Good for ABT's marketing department. I remember when Ferri was new to the company she got a Dewar's profile ad that was on the back cover of general interest and fashion magazines. I think more ads like that would help, too. Ballet dancers are so beautiful and so glamorous, if people could just SEE them I can't help but feel that they'd be drawn to the performances. I wish they could sign up some of the dancers -- men as well as women -- for fashion shoots, or something of that kind.

I realizee that Makarova is Kirov and not Bolshoi trained. I did not mention her. I wrote about Plisetskaya, choosing her because it's a more extreme example and because that was who Croce was referring to in the quote I used. I saw Makarova more than any other ballerina in "Swan Lake" and I never cared for her. I never believed her, not in "Swan Lake" nor in "Giselle." (I thought she was terrific in the Don Q pas de deux and in "Other Dances," though). I am not saying that she was bads, nor not good, just that I didn't care for her performance in that role. There are things that aren't a matter of right and wrong, but of taste and preference. We've gotten away from Solor's original post, which raised some interesting questions. Perhaps there could be a thread on "Why Fonteyn was overrated" or "why X was great?? But here's what Solor posed for discussion. I have a question for you, Solor. I wasn't sure what you meant by "linky-ness". Do you mean the body type? Or were you getting at something else.

And an interesting observation, Bart. I think, too, it's a difference in emphasis. The last time I saw a performance of "Les Patineurs," watching the two female soloists, and remembering what I'd read about the dancers who created the roles, I thought, if the sensibilities in operation today were the norm in the 1930s, Mary Horner (Honer? I may be mispelling that name) would have been the company's prima ballerina. We (or at least some company directors) look for different things now. What, during the Ballet Russe period, would have been a spice -- a bravura solo or pas de deux -- is now the main meal. And what would have been the centerpiece of an older ballet -- a mime role, a character solo -- is now "not dancing" and some people can watch the ballet and not notice those roles. Is that becuase our viewpoint has changed, or because the people doing the "nondancing" roles aren't schooled in them, or they have fewer models or a different frame of reference? Or all of this? I know that coaching can make a difference. I've seen several school performances by traveling Russians that are astounding -- they'll do a piece that is very, very old-fashioned -- the perfume is of the 1920s or 1940s -- and the kids are doing it in a very convincing style. (I wasn't around in the '20s or '40s, so all I can say is that it matches the style of the few videos I've seen of that period. Remembering always that you cannot judge a dancer or a ballet by a video alone.) So.... is it that there are more technically skilled dancers today? Or that the champion turners get the roles and the dancers with beautiful upper bodies, eyes that speak and act, and the ability to bring poetry and all those other ineffable, unquantifiable qualities, to a role are passed over in favor of "Look! She can do triple fouettes!!!" I wanted to say something about Fonetyn's arms. I agree with Jane about the difference between Odette the woman and Odette the swan, but I think here, too, is a difference in taste. Fonteyn was subtle; the English style was subtle. The Bolshoi style was not. Croce wrote, "If it's swans you want, go to the zoo!" of Plisetskaya's arms.. For some, the obvoius swan imitation is too much; for others it's just what the role needs. I think this, like many things we talk about here, is a matter of taste, not that one is wrong and the other right.

Richard, I think you misread me. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but what I said was that I'm sick of people insisting that if you say that a dancer of the past was better in this or that role you're accused of wallowing in nostalgia or having an "enhanced" memory. To Solor, I had neglected to address the question you posed in your post (about what is the difference, is it the current emphasis on technique?) First, I have seen ballerinas in the past decade who, to me, danced emotionally satisfying "Swan Lakes," so I don't think that whatever Fonteyn, and others of her generation, had is gone. I do think that some dancers are now cast in leading roles solely because of technical proficiency -- management knows she'll be able to get through the fouettes, for example -- rather than emotional depth, and there's the problem of not enough coaching (or good coaching) and especially not enough rehearsal, not enough working with the same partner, not enough performances. In Fonteyn's day, everyboody didn't dance Odette, and she had the luxury of dozens and dozens of performances. Today's dancers may only get to do 2 in a season, and then 2 more after a few months, etcetera. I don't think Terpsichore could develop in a role under those circumstances.

I agree, Solor. Thanks for posting this. This "Swan Lake" was actually the one where I "got" Fonteyn. After this one, I could go back and see all the others and see what she was doing. The performance is particularly astounding, considering her age. I saw Fonteyn only at the end of her career, and she had the same effect on stage. The first time I saw her she was 57. I knew nothing about her, and thought she was older than I was (I was 25), like, oh, maybe 35! I had to read that she was 57 in three sources to believe her. I've never seen a ballerina with the same authoriity. It really is impossible to make a judgment about a dancer from only having seen them on video, however frustrating that may be, but I think this one gives a sense of her. Canbelto, I'll trade you a pet peeve Mine is people who never saw a dancer insisting that comments that this dancer of today isn't up to that dancer from the past, etcetera, is bunk. Everyone goes through this. When I started watching ballet I was constantly told by people who had been going for 20 or 30 years that "Well, she's not bad, but you didn't see X in the role," or (and this was in the 1970s) "Yes, technique has improved in some ways, but we've lost some things too," or "There was a quality that X or Y had that Z or B does not." etc. I remember feeling confused, and sometimes as though I'd been slapped, but I always learned from it. I have to say that when I had a wider range of viewing experience, I understood what they were talking about and rarely, in hindsight, have disagreed with them. When I was 25, my life's ambition was to be 55 and able to say, "Ah, but you never saw Gelsey Kirkland in the role!" There has to be some reward for a long life spent watching ballet

Just a quickie -- the men at the meeting I described weren't lumberjacks at all. They were all professional men, economists, professors, businessmen. Estelle made a post on the preceding page that I found fascinating -- that a survey of dance festival attendance indicates that interest in the arts is as much a matter of education and profession (which is, I guess, the current code for "class") as it is of gender. Ari, I think this is an American problem too, but I'm not sure. I don't know enough non-Americans to know. It might be country-specific -- do young Russian men still like ballet and the liberal arts generally?

Treefrog, the point about turnout giving a broad base of support isn't my idea. It's what's in the dancing manuals going back to the 14th century.

In the 20th century, this position (called sixth) was added. The five positions all depend on turn out, which is a basic requirement for classical ballet (the danse d'ecole, to distinguish it from social dancing). The first dancers were courtiers, which meant they were skilled fencers, and the five positions of the feet in ballet are similar to fencing positions. They're also similar to the movements in chess. (Take fourth position on a chess board, and you've just moved a knight: up two squares and over one.) Why turnout? It gives the body the broadest base of support. And they liked the look of it -- Baroque furniture also had turned out legs. Dancers or teachers may have a more extensive answer, but that's one to start!