cargill

To relate this question to the Giselle thread, I have read that a lot of people liked Ellsler better than Grisi because of the dramatic intensity of her mad scene.

I was skimming through some things on Coppelia last night, and there seems to be some confusion as to which plant Swanhilda uses to test Frantz. Beaumont says corn, and another encyclopedia says wheat. As I recall, the plot summaries from NYCB and ABT differ, but I forget which says wheat and which says corn. I always like that moment, because it reinforces the old idea that nature can tell us things, like the daisy in Giselle. But it seems that wheat is the more likely plant for Austo-Hungarian peasants to trust, since it was so important. Whenever I read that it is corn Swanhilda uses, I just have visions of Oklahoma. The corn fields of Hungary sounds wrong, somehow.

I vote for it being a great ballet, in part of course because of the score. But Sylvia and Raymonda have wonderful scores, and they have not endured as well. Coppelia also has a very clear, interesting plot, which is well-developed with a lot of variety, and believable characters. It has enough depth (illusion vs reality, man's pride of creation, etc.) to save it from complete frivolity.

I looked up a few things about Coppelia, and the basic plot summaries tend to stress the lighter side. Beaumont says Dr. Coppelius was happy with the money at the end. He also says that Franz and his buddies try to make him dance at the end of the first act, which is a much nicer thought than the usual mugging! A few years ago I tried to read Der Sandmann (in German!), the story Coppelia was based on, and it is incredibly dark. It is interesting to see how the librettists lightened the whole mood. Other than a few names, nothing remains of the story really. There are certainly all the tendancies mentioned by everyone (and the music when Dr. Coppelius tries to steal Frantz's soul to give to Coppelia always gives me chills), but I think it is basically a comedy without a real lesson. Unlike Bournonville's Kermesse, which is a comedy with a strong message. So for me, it works best when Dr. Coppelius is lighter, eccentric rather than truly tragic.

And of course Marie Rambert, who was so amazing at recognizing and developing talent.

I don't suppose there is anyone around who has seen her, but from reports and pictures Adeline Genee seems to have been adorableas Swanhilda. I don't know whose choreography she danced, but I would have loved to have seen her at the Empire!

Michael, the idea of men dancing women's roles is not new to Stevenson. Ashton's sisters are danced by men, very much in the Christmas pantomime tradition, and I would suspect that it where Stevenson got the idea. Though Ashton's sisters are in the same genre as Stevensons in the same way Charlie Chaplin is in the same genre as the Three Stooges. I was lucky enough to see Ashton and Helpmann in those roles a couple of times, and the whole audience seemed to be gasing for breath, it was laughing so hard. But the characters fit the music and made Cinderella seem so much more delicate. It is probably impossible to recreate the sisters like those geniuses, but I am sure that even if Stevenson's sisters were danced by women, the ballet wouldn't improve much!

I think according to the story, that Odette is human, not half swan. She sheds her skin and becomes a woman at night. For me the attenuated, exaggerated Odettes aren't effective because they don't look human.

I too read the Wendy Whelan comment, and thought it was extraneous, but I think the publication is trying to snazz itself up--other articles in it seem to be trying for work in four letter words. About Jerry Springer, it was certainly an evocative comment, but didn't really convey the royally privaledged atmosphere Gamzatti should have. I have seen some Gamzattis that looked like they thought they were on Jerry Springer, and it wasn't pretty! Anyone writing about an art form needs to know a great deal about its history, and for something like dance, where the history really only exists in live performances (though videos and old reviews do help), I think it is very hard for someone who hasn't been watching for years and years to make definitive statements. I do think it is hard to write intelligently about Swan Lake or Sleeping Beauty if you haven't seen a good production, and since none seem to exist, especially of Swan Lake, it makes things difficult! If I can get personal here, when I write I try simply to give my opinions and the reasons behind them, not a thumbs up or thumbs down. I have very much enjoyed reading reviews by intelligent writers whose actual opinion of a work I disagreed with. And on the other hand, even if a writer who seems to have no depth agrees with me, I don't really enjoy reading that person. But gossip is for the intermission, not for publication.

The first role I saw Beriosova in was the Tsarina in Anastasia, very early in my ballet seeing career. It was a farily small role, but I just melted when she walked on. She had such warmth and grace and maturity. (Interestingly enough, when ABT danced it, I hardly notices the Tsarina.) A year or so later, she danced a couple of Cinderellas, and I have never seen such curtain calls. It seemed that everyone in London who had ever seen her was there (she wasn't such a big name, so the tourists weren't so interested). There must have been thousands of daffodils thrown and people were just standing and applauding long after the performance ended. I have never felt such genuine love for a performer--not admiration or astonishment, just warmth. She was a glorious dancer.

For me, any tutu ballet looks bad when the extentions are so high, because of the costume. The skirts shouldn't flop. Ditto for Romantic skirts, as well. Unitard ballets, on the other hand, generally suit the exaggerated extensions--even Ashton used super-high extensions in Monotones, but then he designed the unitard costumes. And the dancing should suit the character. Modest, gentle 19th century heroines shouldn't look like they are dancing Forsythe, and shouldn't sacrifice upper body grace and harmony to generate gasps from the audience.

Hallelujah Junction is a new one on me. Did he do it specifically for the Danes? I was at NYCB last night, and while the programing was odd (all Balanchine leotard ballets, which was a bit tiring on the eyes after a while--as was discussed on an earlier thread somewhere, programming is a real art). The 4 Temperaments opened it, and I would be perfectly happy to see it again and again (so much for my imaginative programming!). I thought it was a very good cast, with Peter Boal as Melancholic, so fluid and moving. Miranda Weese and Philip Neal were Sanguinic and again, I like that casting very much. Neal is tall and can make the ballerinas look very good. I don't think Albert Evans is really well-cast as Phlegmatic--he is just too intense and interesting to convey the laid back feeling. But I am always pleased to watch him dance anything. But the high point to me was Duo Concertant. Drew, I think wrote last season about Darci Kistler's performance, and there is nothing I can add. I hadn't seen the combination of Kistler and Hubbe before, and boy, does casting make a difference. The last bit with the light which had always seemed so hokey had me in tears. As far as I'm concerned the season is a success if I don't see anything else! [ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: cargill ]

Dale, Just a minor correction. Tallchief worked with Jennie Somogyi on the Pas de Dix for the SAB workshop, not the Balanchine Foundation tapes. She did work with Somogyi for the tapes, but it was on the 1st movement in Symphony in C. I don't know if the Pas de Dix has been coached for the Balanchine tapes, but I too would love to see it. (I did an interview with Maria Tallchief once, and she said it was a beautiful ballet.)

I saw Fracci once, late in her career, and for me, she is the benchmark. Another Giselle I really enjoyed, oddly enough, was Merle Park. She was unbelievably light in the 2nd act. I also, as I have said before(!) think Amanda McKerrow is one of the most interesting and detailed Giselles around. As for Albrecht, Nurevey's desperate cad is hard to beat.

Juliet, perhaps the man in green with lots of extra dancing was von Rothbart in ABT's new Swan Lake.

I agree with Leigh that Mindy Aloff's brief summary amazing. Something I will keep and reread. The whole real estate, rent issue in New York is a problem, not just for dance. (The garment district is slowly dying, store by store.) I really think that performing arts need cities and places to perform, and unless there is a real bust, the rent will make things so difficult. But arts also need exposure, and that is where the Village Voice management (not its dance writers) seem to want to have it both ways. The Voice before has had articles about how awful the dance situation is, while it has cut the space it gives for reviews drastically. It can feel smug about criticising the greedy landlords, yet use the space it has saved from printing reviews of all the little companies, which could use the exposure, to print more adds. Again, this isn't the doing of any of the writers in the article, but if the Voice management is so exercised about the current situation, there is something, however small, it could do to help.

Juliet, Wasn't the Bolshoi Hilarion dressed in mustard yellow with red trim (and a red Shriner's hat)? Whatever he was wearing, he was most definitely a central character, and got a dramatic suicide, not murder, when he hurled himself off the cliff like he thought he was Siegfried. This concept definitely did not work for me.

I think that all this is just what usually happens whenever art is judged by any other reasons than aesthetic. "Is it useful?" can be answered I guess, by saying it is too great for people to understand. The left often sees art in terms of politics--always criticise art produced by those in power and support that produced by the oppressed. And the right sees it in terms of results--does it offend. There seems to be so little room for simply appreciating and enjoying what those before us have produced. And then there are managers who support art for the money it will generate for whatever city it is in.

It seems to me that some of the flower and plant imagery in Giselle is tied in with the whole idea of nature as a very powerful force. Even in the 19th century in the cities (where of course ballet was done), people were more dependant on nature than we, with our efficient food delivery systems, are. One bad harvest, and the towns would suffer. The idea that nature is a power to be recconded with and often dangerous (rather than a vacation destination) is in quite of few of the classics, I think. Swan Lake, of course, where forests had strange beings. And originally Rothbart was an owl. And Sleeping Beauty, with the Lilac Fairy as a real power. All the plants in Giselle make a pretty stage picture, of course, but I think underneath there is some sense that nature is controlling their lives, not a very 20th (or 21st) century attitude.

I have felt the same thing Marc did while reading the London critics. There really does seem to be a real anti-Bolshoi slant. It seems especially odd because the Bolshoi looked so very good last summer in the US, with some wonderful young women (they seemed, like the Kirov, to have stronger women than men). Last summer the Bolshoi was so fresh and unmannered, especially in Symphony in C. Granted, the excerpt from Spartacus didn't look great, and Vasiliev's Giselle was pretty bad, but they had some wonderful dancers, and seemed very cohesive--even in that peculiar Giselle, I felt they were trying to dance together. It is too bad the London critics seem to have to have winners and losers, especially when the Russian companies are having so much trouble. I would think that they would be pleased that London got a chance to see so much. Anyway, if they go in with a grudge against the Bolshoi, they will miss some fine dancers--I was absolutely charmed by Goriacheva in Symphony in C, and would love to see much more of her. But I guess winning and losing makes for better copy and snappier headlines.

I seem to remember, Beaumont again?, that the original stage design called for a huge mirror to resemble the lake where the wilis emerged, but that it wasn't possible to do. With the proper lighting, I think that would be a wonderful ghostly effect.

I think the issue is how and why they are updated, because clearly they will be. I absolutely loathed Zakarhova's Aurora, because her extensions looked grotesque and vulgar, and showoffy. It looked like she was a little dog and the princes were convenient fire hydrants. However, in 20 years or so, when everyone over the age of 2 can scratch their noses with their big toe, it probably won't look so odd. After all, the wilis dance in Giselle that looks so quaint and romantic and authentic to us was put in by Petipa because his dancers had developed a much stronger point techinique than those in the 1840's. But in the meantime, I am a rabid reactionary. But there two issues to this question, I think--changing the steps because of the technique, which I suppose is inevitable, and changing the interpretation or approach to appeal to so-called modern sensibilities, which I think is generally not a good idea. After all, if the work is great, or even good, the director should try to communicate that to the audience, not simply go with whatever seems to be popular. That was one reason I didn't like Peter Schauffus' Napoli, where the 2nd act was a dream--the whole point of Napoli was that those people really believed in magic (as so many people did), and a good production can convince the audience that these are real people. Copping out with dream sequences (in any ballet, including Nutcracker) just shows that the producer doesn't really believe in the work, which will kill it faster than any so-called old-fashioned approaches. I am just waiting until some modern director can get his hands on Fancy Free and tries to make it relevant, because we all know that WWII is about as meaningful to today's audience as the Punic Wars. Physical assault , robbery, and drug use (who nowadays believes soldiers just chew gum, anyway)for a start.

This is somewhat off topic, but the flouncing Bathilde is something that bothers me about ABT's production, unless they have toned it down a bit. Recently she has come across as a Joan Crawford caricature, flicking her hand contemptuously at Giselle, and practically shrieking with annoyance when Giselle accidentally touches her in the mad scene. She is a lady, and wouldn't act like that. I think she should be cool, but gracious--after all she does have enough heart to give Giselle a present. (I miss in ABT the little bit of mime when she tells Giselle that she too is engaged and they are girls together). Counts like Albrecht didn't grow on trees in that small little world, and Giselle is partly her tragedy too--she is being publically humiliated when her finace so clearly prefers a little peasant girl. The old Royal Ballet production used to have her turn her back on Albrecht in cold contempt, which is much more effective than ABT's recent shrieking meanie approach, I think. And of course in the original, she was good enough for Giselle to give Albrecht to.

Everytime I have seen her, I have been so moved by McKerrow's Giselle. To me, it is one of the most detailed and indivualized performances of the role I have ever seen, and one of the most believable. Her looks really help her here, she does seem like she is a little village girl and not a grand beautiful ballerina dancing a part. It really was like Wordsworth's Lucy or a little Trollope heroine come to life. She seems like she was never the belle of the ball, and not used to attention, and that being crowned queen of the harvest with Albrecht around was just overwhelming. I remember watching her once, which some of the stage was obscured, and I could tell just by watching her face when Albrecht returned. It was just like a light come on inside her. And her second act wasn't just about forgiving Albrecht, it was about understanding and gratitude for the one truly happy day she had had while alive. This works so well with Malakhov, who was a bit weak and cowardly, but truly in love with her. Some castle rake wouldn't have fallen for her sincerity, he would have gone for the village beauty.

In one of the early librettos of Giselle, the wilis were supposed to come from all different parts of the world, and dance in their native costumes (more Romantic interest in folk color). Either Moyna or Zulma was supposed to be a Persian maiden, I think and hence the exotic name. I suspect that in real life Myrtha was a Very Important Person, and that is why she is their leader. Do you think that Bathilde will become a wili?