dirac

Moderator's note: This discussion, originally on an NYCB review thread, deserves its own thread. --carbro Kathleen, "whining" aside, I have viewed with regret and some anger the ghastly cutbacks in the stand alone book review section in my own local paper, The San Francisco Chronicle, which used to have a very good one. Perhaps one day the Internet will make up the deficit, but we are nowhere near that eventuality.

Murphy was actually cast, plausibly enough, as a ballet teacher in "Center Stage." Thank you for the review, atm711. I love Weill and I hope this one makes its way out west eventually.

Please report back if you do see it - inquiring minds want to know.

That's certainly one way to put it. He's blowing hot and cold for me right now.

‘The Red Shoes’ is indeed a good resource, but it was actually Helpmann who choreographed the Ballet of the Red Shoes, although Massine choreographed his own role. Moira Shearer and Massine do a brief bit from ‘La Boutique Fantasque.’ As an actor, Massine is a vivid presence and you do indeed get a sense of his magnetism. He's in 'The Tales of Hoffmann,' too, as I recall.

Perhaps to demonstrate that Anton Walbrook was not running Sadlers Wells, no matter what movie audiences may have thought Good to hear from you, eabock. Also, I suspect, the worry not that Shearer wouldn’t score a success – but that she would.

This is true and a bit annoying for Americans . But the flip side is that there was also the feeling floating around that the Sadler's Wells first season in the US gave the company a big boost in presence. To use a 21st Century term they became a "world class" player in one fell swoop. Same thing for Fonteyn. Fonteyn was the lead ballerina in London, the US was looking forward to Shearer because of The Red Shoes. But NY fell in love with Fonteyn and she became a world star. It is interesting to speculate on what might have happened if de Valois had surrendered to the pressure to feature Shearer in the lead on opening night instead of Fonteyn. Not that Fonteyn would not have made her impact eventually, but such things make all the difference sometimes.

You could get the impression from some accounts of that fabled event that New York was a sort of primitive outback locality that had never seen ballet before until Sadler’s Wells came along to enlighten the backward natives.

There are two reviews of the production in this week's DanceView Times, posted in the Links. Leigh, perhaps you could share with us some of the 'apoplectic scribbles' that didn't make it into your review?

Indeed, from Kevin McK in today's Times piece: "Where our process differs is that she will attack the whole thing at once. She will teach the first tombé pas de bourrée with all its meaning and its back story, the character and what's happening at that moment . . . " I confess to feeling a teeny bit sorry for the ABT ballerinas. I was struck by this comment made by McKenzie to Robert Johnson: Hmmmmm.......

But the corrections tend to be about relatively minor points and very specific ones, not generally applicable to an article that is simply wide of the mark in multiple respects.

I find that's true over here, too, at least as far as the NY and LA Times are concerned.

I don't think that the 'general public' has to be spoon fed tiny excerpts of dancing with poorly synchronized music to make ballet palatable. The PBS documentary on Balanchine lasted about as long as "Ballets Russes" and it contained far more legible passages of dancing. The fact that the filmmakers actually had more at their disposal gives them less of an excuse. If there's more included on the DVD, that's nice. If those who care can make the expedition to the libraries to view what's available, that's nice, too. I was looking at the movie that showed up in theatres and on cable. Of course filmmakers have choices to make and not everything of value will make the final cut. But I was disappointed that a documentary about dancers had, relatively speaking, little dancing (and not as much discussion of dancing as I would have wished, either). atm711 writes: And with the passage of time, Massine's reputation has receded while Balanchine's, has, well, you know. I thought that what might be behind some of what Franklin had to say. Thank your for that vivid evocation of Slavenska.

I feel the same way, although generational change may play a role here, too. The Sylphides excerpt in the movie "Ballets Russes" with Toumanova, Riabouchinska, and Baronova is infuriatingly brief, but it's magical enough to suggest what once was.

True enough; I guess what I'm really interested in is why it pleases us, or why it annoys us--where's the boundary? And I'm really interested in first-person accounts: does it satisfy you, artist, for the reasons you describe? And in any work in particular? Interesting topic, Ray, and thank you for raising it. I couldn't tell you why repetition pleases us (which it does for the most part; it's why popular music relies so heavily on it and although most if not all music contains some repetition, the higher the repetition quotient the more likely it is that the work is popular in form), but it does. As artist notes, familiarity pleases us too, and repetition is an element in that. Repetition can become annoying when it is too insistent, but such insistence can also increase pleasure and intensity. (Amy mentions that dervishes are meditating. I have been in discos and dance clubs where some of the dancers seem to be in a kind of trance when the music is really getting to them; that, too, is the power of repetition.) I think of the motif of flexed feet in "The Four Temperaments" where although there is no specific 'meaning' implied, there is a sense of continuity and connection.

Thank you. I had thought of doing this, but one can only rock so many boats in one's life. On second thoughts, I will. Please do. This is no small matter.

The movie is now showing up on cable, and although it’s a wonderful film and we are lucky to have it, I did feel somewhat disappointed, given my high expectations. Too many talking heads (in particular, too much Franklin) talking about company politics and personalities, too little focus on dance. I hope that the dance snippets were as snipped as they were because longer clips were not available or suitable; most of them did not go on long enough for me and the poor handling of the music was bothersome. It might have been helpful to have more critics brought in to place the company and its history in a larger context and perhaps present a different view. Slavenska was worth the price of admission. Oh, my.

So did Possokhov. An essential talent for this particular ballet. Probably the subject comes up because Shakespeare’s play is the best known version and a supreme masterpiece to boot - I don’t see how comparisons can be avoided, although if space permits the critic probably should note that Lubovitch says he wasn’t trying to follow the play. You take that chance when you elect to dramatize such a famous story and in addition follow in the footsteps of two of the great geniuses of Western culture, I guess.

I haven’t read any of Powers’ books but he’s a regular reviewer for The New York Review of Books on intelligence books and related subjects, and I always like reading him. I recently read Kim Philby’s memoirs along with those of his third wife, Eleanor. Philby’s book, written under the eye of the KGB, is not reliable in many respects but it’s good reading, he writes quite well. Graham Greene wrote the introduction. Eleanor’s book, Kim Philby: the Spy I Married has a lot of good tidbits about Philby’s defection and his early years in Russia. (She was not a politically sophisticated woman but then that was probably a plus for Philby.) I just started Steve Oney’s And the Dead Shall Rise, about the lynching of Leo Frank, and it’s looking very good. Checked out Baronova’s autobiography from the library and have started that too, but I’ll post on that in another forum.

I think we've reached a consensus on that.

I remember that documentary, too. Isabel Fokine's version was indeed very different - fascinating to watch. ( I don’t mean to take a morbid view, but what if something had happened to Porter while she was waiting for Ms. Right? This version would have been lost altogether. I'm sure Porter will be hale and hearty for years to come, but I'm glad she didn't hold off too long.)

Good to hear from you, too, Ed. Pipe up more often.

Pamela, the directors always say they are trying to get the audiences to look at the piece in a new way. But it's really a can of worms, there are really some Regies that are truly trying to make the singers and the audience see something new. Other directors throw any old thing on the stage for shock value. After all there is no such thing as bad publicity (case in point: recent NYCB R+J). I'm sort of on a middle path with this. I'm willing to go along with the Regie if they sincerely try to breathe new life in an old piece. In many, many cases I'm not oppossed to updating or even Konzepts. My rule of thumb is that I don't want the music or the libretto betrayed in a major way (minor discrepancies don't bother me) and I MUST be knocked over by the performance. It HAS to really grab me and take me with it. Another potential problem is that singers are chosen for how they look rather than how capable they are with the music. Ballet has similar issues but there are so many versions of a really popular piece that there is some leaway. Again I get angry if I think the director is just out for shock value with no substance behind it. I'm with you, richard53dog. I don’t like a hackneyed traditional version any better than a misguided updated production and I’m willing to go along with a director who is making a sincere effort to show us a different aspect of an old work. I do fear, however, that some are motivated more by the desire to Put Their Stamp on a piece – you see this a lot in Shakespeare productions, too – than to shed new light. As to discerning the difference, I can only say with the late Justice Potter Stewart that “I know it when I see it.” Thanks, Pamela, for raising the topic, one of our hardy perennials.

Pardon me for assuming the role of hall monitor for the moment, but I would like to remind everyone that it is possible to disagree, and disagree strongly, about the merits of a given book and conduct a discussion without appearing to impugn the tastes or opinions of others. Please bear this in mind when posting. Thanks, all.

What a great opportunity (and a smart move!) - and one that I hope will pay off by both building an audience base and ultimately help with longterm funding. Perhaps some of you who read this board will be able to take advantage.