dirac

The documentary was certainly disappointing in that respect. I had hoped to hear something from her students about the kind of teacher she was (and more about her post-Balanchine years generally).

True. My guess is there just wasn't that much to talk about.

The Obamas could have done a lot more for the high performing arts than they did. But I digress.

Thank you, ltraiger. Drew, I think it very likely that was what she was trying to say, but even so it’s still a bit tone-deaf, perhaps, however admirable the sentiment? Washington Ballet ticket buyers seem to have been pleased to be entertained and surely you don’t want to walk in and tell them what they’ve been enjoying isn’t good enough, even if that’s what you think and there may be some truth to it. As miliosr noted, there doesn’t seem to be evidence of a grassroots need for an ABT in parvo for Washington, which means extra work for Kent to explain thoughtfully and clearly what she and the board are seeking to do and why it’s a good idea for Washington Ballet. The Tudor idea is an interesting one, but is there a Washington audience for a Tudor-based company? and is the Tudor rep varied and large enough to serve as a company calling card as the Ashton rep does for Sarasota? It sounds as if the board may have been overimpressed with Kent’s “star power"......

I suggest that popularity really wouldn’t be the point of any revival, although it would be nice if it didn’t play to empty seats, and anyone willing to contribute to a revival of Don Q would presumably go into it with the knowledge that such an endeavor would be more for the benefit of the art form and a fuller understanding of Balanchine than to draw crowds. Perhaps such a philanthropist would not be so much eccentric as quixotic, as it were.

"Lastly, saying it's not about entertainment is a mistake." Yes. I was also struck by this quote from Kent: “If you look at all the great companies in the world, the repertoire is very similar among all of them. Everybody’s doing classical ballet, contemporary ballet and Ratmansky and [Christopher] Wheeldon,” Kent said in a recent interview in her office on Wisconsin Avenue NW. “That’s what we want, and that’s what the audience wants, and that’s what the dancers want.” “Our goal is to imitate the big guys,” isn’t much of a rallying cry. Not to mention that there is much debate over whether the global sameness of the repertory is a Good Thing. That said, it’s understandable that Kent would want to make the company look like what she knows best. And it’s early days. The money hole is looking scary, though.

People who donate enormous sums to the arts pretty much have money to burn by definition. I do wonder why such a benefactor would be "eccentric"? I should think that one of the chief purposes of arts philanthropy is to support a project like reviving "Don Quixote," allowing people to see a flawed work that is nevertheless a significant one in the oeuvre of the art form's towering genius.

As I recall Croce also said that Don Quixote was an important ballet to have seen as part of the Balanchine oeuvre. NYCB alone among companies would have the resources and the reasons to bring the ballet back once in awhile. Plainly, Farrell thought it was worth reviving. There's also that delicious little Pas de Deux Mauresque, now also available on YouTube thanks to Clifford.

Thank you for the link, Neryssa. Among other things, I would have been interested to read about how Le Clercq came to teach at DTH and her time there. As you say, a major loss.

I don't blame her, either, but the opportunity was lost, perhaps permanently, to have "Don Quixote," with all the difficulties it presents, restaged with the resources of one of the world's great companies behind it -- and Balanchine's own company. The 1965 footage of Farrell's third act solo is astonishing.

I remember reading an interview with Merrill Ashley in which she discussed coaching, and she made the point that as a coach with no control over casting, she could advise, but dancers didn't have to listen (and didn't always listen). I would think that, regardless of changes in style and advances in technique, the dancer who created the role can convey intangibles - what did Balanchine say to his dancers while he was making the ballet? What points did he emphasize? What did he seem to want the role to be? What was he trying to get out of the dancer when they were working on the part? What kind of a day was he having? Things that only the person who was in the room with him could share. Not essential, perhaps, but potentially invaluable.

Thank you for sharing your impressions, Deflope. I am not a follower of the series, myself, so have nothing useful to add, but going by the reviews even critics who were not fans of the play appreciated the production. Has anyone else seen it?

I like Robbins' choreography - for the stage. I didn't think it worked on film where we were asked to believe that this was a realistic urban setting. The music...well, it must have been odd enough hearing those echoes of people like Sigmund Romberg in the score at the time, I don't see how you make a movie with it now - again, on the assumption that they're going to try to convince us that these are real gang members in a modern city. I agree, Amy, the timing is awful. Pretty much sums it up, vipa.

I liked Graham Greene's "A Sort of Life" very much, and it's also a "narrow" kind of autobiography. A wonderful way to put it, Quiggin. Ashton, for one, did sit for interviews with Julie Kavanagh and he knew that she was going to write a candid biography. He had mixed feelings about it but one feels that in the end he did want the story told even if he himself couldn't or wouldn't do it. Others like Robbins and Cunningham who were working right up to the end may have felt that they weren't done yet. I can't imagine Balanchine ever trying to write a book himself; I'm sure he would have said he wasn't a writer and wouldn't try to be one.

And judging by the reviews of "Other Dances" such coaching isn't necessarily going to work magic. The Farrell drama was plainly not all Martins' fault, and I understand she was invited back to stage Don Quixote and refused, doubtless for perfectly good reasons. That said, it's a good move to invite the original dancers back for several reasons. As Stafford observed, some of the newer staffers, unlike Martins' people, never worked with Balanchine. Second, the views of the people who actually originated the roles are always going to have special value and dancers should have the benefit of that as long as the originators are around to give them. Third, as a PR matter it's a good prophylactic against a certain line of criticism. Dancer X may not be giving a glowing account of Role X, but critics won't be able to complain it was because so-and-so wasn't asked in to coach it.

I think you just did. Autobiographies don't necessarily have to address private lives in any detail. Artists sometimes write memoirs of their professional lives and doings that spend little or no time on such matters - Linda Ronstadt's "Simple Dreams - A Musical Memoir" being one recent example. (I'm sure her publisher wasn't too happy about that.) Mitchell could certainly have produced a very solid and valuable book without going into his sex life, so if such concerns were indeed holding him back that's most unfortunate.

Thank you for posting, abatt. My initial reaction was "Why bother?" The original movie was rather quaint even at the time and I do not think a new crew of nimble ballet boys pretending to be gang members will be any more convincing. At the very least, you'd need a new score. Nor do I think of Spielberg as Mr. Music, particularly the latter-day Spielberg with his heavier hand. Oh, well, I guess we'll see.

Well, I think I'll let you go first, although I like both Johnson and Swinton.

I have a Sutherland Lucia from the early sixties that would knock your socks off (her live recordings really demonstrate how BIG that voice was ) and of course Maria’s Norma was best caught live, although the first studio recording is a good representation. Still, the microphone loved Caballe. The internet has made all these bootlegs more accessible than ever before, which is a Good Thing, particularly in terms of improved sound quality, although it means that new fans are denied the pleasures of the hunt for rare recordings.

Thank you for those recollections, Birdsall. I remember hearing Caballe as Norma for the first time on the studio recording and wondering what all the fuss was about. That video from 1974 explains it all and demonstrates what a beast of the theater Caballe could be when she was on. Callas and Caballe got to know each other in the 70s, and Callas gave Caballe a pair of earrings that Visconti had given her when she first sang Norma at La Scala.

The ultimate cancellation. RIP. She was surely responsible for some of the most beautiful sounds ever made. NYT obit here. Thanks for posting, cubanmiamiboy. I hadn't heard.

Thanks for starting the topic, miliosr. I had heard this might be in the works. For me, it would depend on how much actual ballet is in the movie. I haven’t been pining to see this one remade and although I’m not the biggest fan of the original I doubt they will improve upon it. I expect others will see it before I do and I hope y’all tell us about it in this space!

Thank you for posting, pherank. I’ve seen this channel on the a la carte menu that Comcast offers, but $5.99 a month adds up fairly quickly and I’m not sure if I’d watch it frequently enough to justify the expense.

An appreciation by Deborah Jowitt in her blog, "DanceBeat."

That's a good question, Neryssa. Certainly such a book would have been well worth a read. I wonder if anyone ever put the question to him in an interview?