Alexandra

There IS a Russian emigre audience for Eifman. How it is racist to mention that is beyond me. "cigarettes and cellphones" is an ethnic slur???? You could say that about the Wall Street audience, or a dozen other groups. It's what he saw, it's descriptive. While there are characterizations that would be inappropriate, IMO, there will be nothing left to write if we aren't allowed to say that an audience that is largely composed of people who have left Russia is a Russian emigre audience. One last thing about the conservative audience -- by their nature, institutions are conservative. That's why we have institutions: to conserve. The experimentation takes place outside institutions, and always has. Not every ballet company is an institution; some just live for the season, or the decade, either by circumstance or by choice. But the institutions have to worry about preserving their repertory as well as acquiring new work (often filched from the "laboratory" of companies outside itself, rather than from workshops within) and making sure that its huge roster of dancers has something to dance.

Oh, come, I can't let this one go. He was known on the New York standing room line as "the most gorgeous man ever to grace the ballet stage." Henning Kronstam

I think that's an excellent point. You're right, HF, we don't have a national theater in that sense, and never have, and so regional tastes have developed. I'd also go back to posts made above by several people: there's no need to apologize for not limiting one's viewing to attractions that others have dubbed experimental, or prefering something that's good over something that's trendy. (Or the other way 'round, of course, but that argument is seldom made these days.) New isn't good because it's new; old isn't good because it's old. One doesn't need to apologize for listening to Mozart or watching Balanchine.

I didn't say that Eifman was experimental choreography. That isn't what the quote above meant. Other companies acquired ballets because they couldn't produce them themselves. Virtue may be made of this, but it's something different from what NYCB has always done. And generating its own repertory is part of what it means to be a major international company. It's the same as in fashion. You expect couture, not off the rack, and not a recycling of something that's been around for decades passing itself off as experimental. And the related problem with the Eifman, for some, as Gia Kourlas wrote in DanceView Times, is that: Ann, the generalizations aren't helping It's a big country. One ballet, or one radio panel, doesn't really mean much. I agree that the reviews so far are mixed; most so far have been favorable, the negative ones are more likely to come later. But your post said: And that's what people have been taking exception to.

Hi, Aly15grl. I tried searching for it several ways, and came up with nothing, too, unfortunately. If anyone knows, I hope they'll post!

Copied over from Links: Robert Greskovic reviews Christopher Wheeldon's new "Swan Lake" in the Wall Street Journal today; it's available on line only to subscribers, but here's a sample:

Hi, Ray! He did review it, but it's not on line, unfortunately. (It may be, but you can only access the site if you're a paid subscriber.) I think an excerpt was posted on Links when it came out -- I'll try and find it for you.

Kathleen, thank you for your eloquence! (not to mention taking your lunch hour to consider these issues.) I can't comment on the work because I haven't seen it, but I certainly agree with your general points. To me, Balanchine's "subject matter" (including male/female roles), like everything else including the costumes, match the music. In Tchaikovsky, the man presents the woman. In Stravinsky -- or, as you note, Prokofiev -- it's different. And I have to thank you for saying: canbelto, I don't think it's desirable for anybody to try to dance exactly like any other dancer, and I really don't think most people do. One wants someone of the LEVEL of a prior dancer, and someone appropriate to the role. (Some say this is type casting, I'll always say, "No, it's emploi!!" And technically, those are different: type casting is a matter of personality, emploi is a matter of body type.) Your Vietnam Memorial example is a very good one about the stages in the life of public art. The Viet Vets were disappointed initially because they, or at least the vocal majority, wanted a memorial just like Iwo Jima. (And lobbied until they got one. Just as that -- three soldiers, graphically realistic soldiers, down to the bullet belts -- was unveiled, The Wall had become acclaimed, and the Viet Vets were more reconciled to it. But there were some people -- the critics I read, not to mention me, as someone who knows little about architecture/sculpture and was active against the Vietnam War -- who loved it from the beginning because it was so subtle and so unlike Iwo Jima (not that there's anything wrong with IJ). And now people put flowers there, and teddy bears, and all of this stuff...making it realistic again, and ruining (for me) the purity of it. But that's a slightly different issue -- public art, mass art, MUST appeal to many people. Fine art doesn't have to.

Two quick points -- Helene, I wouldn't agree that Not today's NYCB audience, certainly not all of it. (That might make an interesting poll some day.) And second, yes, some ballets might be fine for other repertories, but that's one of the points. There are different cultures. NYCB wasn't just about new experimental choreography; it was about producing repertory. Other companies acquired ballets that gave dancers' chances, but that wasn't part of the NYCB aesthetic or culture. And that's part of what being a dance center is: setting a standard, not accepting other standards. Anything that current City Ballet people hold dear could go out the window tomorrow if a new genius came in. It is an interesting argument whether an institution MUST preserve its core repertory, the ballets that give it its identity and define its style and personality. If it does, then it must be careful in what it chooses to bring in. Going too far from the core means that the core will erode. And we have examples of that all over the map these days.

Ah, sveiglar, if I were there, I'd get a Mercy Wagon and be out front with cool drinks and cookies. Since I'm not, a virtual Black Russian is on its cyberway to you I'm actually quite surprised at this poll. Sometimes I'll post a poll when the discussion is so skewed to one position that I'm afraid there are people afraid to say, "Hang on, I loved this!" and a poll is a way to let them voice that anonymously. Here, at least so far, the votes mirror the discussion.

I don't think it's happened yet. Perhaps because "heritage" becomes a turf issue. I also agree with what Ari and canbelto wrote on this subject. I wrote about 20 years ago in a review, about the sons of Balanchine just beginning to choreograph, that "what the company needs is a Fokine, not a dozen Ivanovs." Fokine was working within his tradition, re-examining it, reforming it. And Diaghilev (at least early Diaghlev; I'm one who thinks that Diaghilev tipped the balance in favor of the easel painters and shock value in his later years. He needed money.)

One word about how the tastes of audiences change -- yes and no. This is always presented that The Work is shocking and revolutionary and turns people off, and lo and behold, a mere 20 years later, and The Work is no longer shocking -- audiences flock to it. It's a hit! This is like the old joke about how people in Florida are born Cuban and die Jewish -- that's what the demographic stats read, but they're not the same people. Audiences leave when what they like disappears. Some may stay around to see what's new, but many will not. New people will come in, drawn by something they like. It's not that The Old Fogeys suddenly get smart and learn to appreciate the avant-garde, nor that people who love jazz will automatically be revolted by rock and roll. It's much more fluid than that. One of the differences about dance today, compared to other art forms, say, literature, is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus. There are a lot of people who love Danielle Steele's novels, but you don't read articles about how she's Jane Austen's, or E.M. Forster's, heir. There may well be people who read both Steele and Austen with pleasure; that's a different question. I doubt, thought, that you'll find an article that would say, to paraphrase something one American critic wrote of Eifman, "The only question is, is she the last great novelist of the 20th century, or the first great one of the 21st?"

Bobjot -- I'll echo Leigh's thanks. Thanks for taking the time to write in such detail. I'm glad, since you loved the company and hadn't seen it in such a long time, that you got, for the most part, what and who you wanted to see. If you're seeing ballet at home, please report on that, too!

I don't think that the divide is always as simple as form/content, dramatic/abstract, either, as the NYCB fans in the '50s and '60s were also big Royal Ballet fans, of that company's productions of the classics as well as Ashton's very different brand of neoclassicism (which also included some dramatic works). And Balanchine made story ballets. There are lots of divides -- choreography fans versus star lovers (not saying that the former don't appreciate dancers, nor the latter choreography). I think canbelto's point about what is tolerated is a good one -- if another company danced "Shambards" would eyebrows be raised? Probably not -- but that's part of the point. When fans close ranks around a company and say -- no, not this -- it's because they don't want their company to look like every other company. There was a revolt (by Robbins and DeMille) at ABT when Lucia Chase brought in Swan Lake; it failed, but they fought hard. When Stuttgart brought in Glen Tetley and switched, overnight, from Cranko to Tetley, the audience screamed (and Tetley left very quickly). If NYCB suddenly announced it was programming a season of Merry Widow, Manon and Dracula, the subscribers probably would notice. At another company, these might well be welcome. This is why there are moving vans

Yes, Saint Leon did the first production. Don't know who did the second -- silvy, you've got to get the Oxford Dictionary of Dance!!!

No, there was a third act. It was considered too long, too much dancing. The ballet was only in repertory for a few performances before the Franco-Prussian War broke out. When the ballet was revived after the war (when many of the people connected to the original production, including the young ballerina and the choreographer) had died, the third act was cut.

Anthony's question got lost in the shuffle - can anyone answer it? And who was Stephen Hanna supposed to be? Some of the "characters" were quite clear, apparently, and others not. Did Lincoln Kirstein make an appearance? Stravinsky?

Ann, all of the reviews are not in yet. The weekly/monthly writers have not yet spoken. Watch for future reviews. Secondly, none of the negative criticism here or elsewhere is because the writers don't like drama, have somehow missed that Eifman thinks he's making drama, etc. The objections are to the poor quality of the choreography -- the way steps are put together, characterizations are drawn, etc. What anyone could find "thought-provoking" about Eifman escapes me. I find his work extremely simplistic and predictable.

This press release in from ABT: ETHAN BROWN TO GIVE FAREWELL PERFORMANCE WITH AMERICAN BALLET THEATRE Soloist Ethan Brown will give his farewell performance with American Ballet Theatre on Friday, July 2 as Tybalt in Romeo and Juliet, it was announced today by Artistic Director Kevin McKenzie. Brown retires from the stage this season following a 23-year career with ABT. Born in New York City, Brown began his dance training with his father, Kelly Brown, in Phoenix, Arizona. Both his father and his mother, Isabel Mirrow, were members of American Ballet Theatre, as was his sister, Leslie Browne. At the age of 13, he moved to New York to train at the School of American Ballet. Brown joined American Ballet Theatre as a member of the corps de ballet in 1981 and was promoted to Soloist in 1988. Throughout his career, Brown performed numerous leading roles and was a leading interpreter of character roles. His repertoire with the Company included the Rajah in La Bayadère, Pat Garrett in Billy the Kid, the Pasha in Le Corsaire, He Wore a White Tie in Dim Lustre, Espada and Lorenzo in Don Quixote, Demetrius in The Dream, Her Pastor and The Father in Fall River Legend, the third sailor in Fancy Free, Thomas in La Fille Mal Gardée, Hilarion in Giselle, The Man She Must Mary in Jardin aux Lilas, the fourth pas de deux in The Leaves Are Fading, Lescaut and the Jailor in Manon, the Painter in Offenbach in the Underworld, the Man From the House Opposite in Pillar of Fire, the Head Wrangler in Rodeo, Paris, Tybalt and Lord Capulet in Romeo and Juliet, von Rothbart and the Tutor in Swan Lake and Baptista in The Taming of the Shrew. In addition, Brown danced a variety of leading roles in such works as Martha Graham’s A Diversion of Angels, Jiri Kylian’s Sechs Tänze and Sinfonietta, Martha Clarke’s The Garden of Villandry and Clark Tippet’s Bruch Violin Concerto No. 1 and Some Assembly Required. Brown created the Wolf in Michael Smuin’s Peter and the Wolf and leading roles in Twyla Tharp’s Americans We and Paul Taylor’s Black Tuesday, as well as featured roles in Mark Morris’ Drink To Me Only With Thine Eyes and Ulysses Dove’s Serious Pleasures.

In addition to the "keep it or heave it" question above, what effect, if any, will Musagète have on the repertory?

Okay, it's time. Only those who've seen it, please (honor system).

You are too kind

Audience reaction seems to have been different in each part of the house. Three people I spoke with said there was quite audible hissing in the first ring. Others, and several people here, have reported a rapturous reception in the 4th ring. Two others said they felt the reaction was lukewarm generally, with some sections of the house applauding wildly.

Correction of casting of Joffrey Ballet: July 6 - Victoria Jaiani will dance Monotones II. Valerie Robin will dance it on the 8th. July 7- Britta Lazenga is Josephine in A WEDDING BOUQUET. Deborah Dawn will dance that role on the 8th. Masayoshi Onuki will dance The Boy in Blue - LES PATINEURS. Suzanne Lopez, Michael Levine - The Lovers, Red Girls are April Daley and Erica Lynette Edwards.

Thanks for all of these reports -- Kathleen, I hope you'll write further. And anyone who liked the production, please speak!