dirac

I'm going to be wishy-washy and say that both views are correct, to a point. Ballet does evolve; to cling too closely to past practice would make dancing look stale and quaint.

Having said that, there's no reason for every arabesque to be converted to 180 degrees; and I can't really define where it's right and where it's not, except to say, as Justice Stewart said of obscenity, that I know when I see it. I realize this is not helpful.

I used to think that I liked ice dancing after watching Torvill and Dean, but in retrospect I realize that I may have just liked Torvill and Dean. My own feeling is that ice dancing falls between two stools -- the literal adherence to dance styles denies the most interesting possibilities in skating and dancing. You lose the more striking effects skating can produce without gaining the rhythmic variety and detailed footwork effects achievable in a ballroom.

This year, I was struck even more than usual by the aggressive tastelessness of the makeup and costuming. The ladies sported florid hair colors not found in nature, along with exaggerated stage makeup (Girls, please. People are going to start asking you what you charge) and nail polish of a color best described as Toxic Shock Purple. The men, for their part, displayed long, flowing Ted Nugent locks and outfits that would have left the late Liberace wondering who made off with all his sequins. Music, choreography -- yecchh. I'm afraid I thought it was all pretty awful, and the kind of thing that makes sports enthusiasts deride skating competitions.

As for the discussions of judging -- recent events make it all very surreal, to me anyway. ("Our system of judging is inherently corrupt and requires a complete overhaul. Go ahead and enjoy the rest of the Olympics. Happy viewing!") Uh, okay....

In the current Vanity Fair (the one with the Star Wars cover) there is an article on Sid Bass and the story behind his Disney stock sale. The Sid and Anne breakup is discussed and Anne's ballet sponsorship and Peter Martins get a mention.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: dirac ]

vagansmom, while I agree with what you say about judging needing an overhaul, I think it's possible to question how the aggrieved parties -- and I don't exempt S&P here -- have conducted themselves, and how this unhappy situation has been resolved. Of course it's a good story, but I wonder whether the media firestorm has illuminated the issues, or obscured them. And giving out a second gold medal, especially in these circumstances, devalues all the medals, IMO.

And it certainly would be pleasant if the arts got as much coverage. Maybe if Dvorovenko hired a couple of stagehands to whack Julie Kent in the knees? Or if ballerinas began giving teary-eyed interviews asserting the perfection of their technique when someone else is assigned to dance the opening "Giselle" of the season...?

I fear recent events (in skating, anyway) would be better suited to a "WWF Smackdown" version than ballet. I would prefer to see delightful Simon Ammann ("Ya! Gold medal! ya!") or the redoubtable Bode Miller translated to the stage, although I'm not quite sure how.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: dirac ]

Didn't Kirstein suggest a Pocahontas ballet to Balanchine? I can just see the Russians rolling their eyes at that one(behind Lincoln's back, of course).

I saw the Russians briefly last night -- I don't know if they've shown up frequently, haven't been watching the news too much. They looked and sounded stunned and beleaguered, as you might expect. As I said on another thread, I'm sorry for them.

Perhaps the Olympic committee should investigate the possibilities in setting up a whining competition for unhappy losers.

The second medal is awarded. Latest from the Associated Press:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/olympics/apo...ntroversy%20FIG

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: dirac ]

Very nice result. Made me smile to see Yagudin jumping up and down on the podium (Plushenko was wearing that Tight Loser's Smile; boys don't cry when they lose, bless them.) Neither Y and P was at his absolute best, but they were more than good enough. Goebel's bronze was more than fair, I thought, giving him credit for those amazing jumps while telling him he's got more work to do. He does, but I think he made a significant advance in his performances here.

Yagudin skated conservatively, but there's nothing wrong with that, especially with a gold medal on the line.

Todd, I'll miss those beautiful spins.

The whole thing has gotten out of hand. I'm sorry for the Russian team. The awarding of a second gold medal is absurd, if it happens. I'm all in favor of judging misbehavior being penalized, if after investigation it is found, but it seems to me the handling of this affair and the conduct of the complaining parties sets a very bad precedent.

"That Russian boy tripped"? Astutely observed. If that's all the expertise needed to judge skating, well --

Let's hope that members of the royal family dig into their own not inconsiderable coffers to carry on Margaret's support of these estimable institutions.....

I haven't seen "I'm Old Fashioned," but I'd argue that the other two don't qualify as guilty pleasures. Barber Violin Concerto, which I saw on television, I thought was facile but a showcase for Merrill Ashley and enjoyable. "Slaughter" is certainly not great, but it's perfectly all right to include it as part of the Balanchine repertory as representative of his stint on Broadway, and I suppose you could justify "West Side Story Suite" similarly for Robbins (and the dancers get to wear more comfortable shoes).

No, for a real guilty pleasure (I think we had a thread with this title, awhile back), I think it has to be something you really know is bad, but you just can't help yourself. It doesn't sound as if any of those three qualify.

I kinda liked "The Merry Widow."

We've talked before about books that would be suitable (and unsuitable) for adaptation to the ballet. I don't remember a thread, however, on historical figures or incidents that could or should be depicted in dance. I've always wondered, for example, why no one has done a Mary Queen of Scots ballet (although there may be one out there I don't know about, apart from Martha Graham's section of "Episodes"). Not that I necessarily want to see one, but that's a nice fat part for a ballerina, or two if you find a way to get Elizabeth I in as well, although the two ladies never met. Or, to stay with the Brits for a moment, Henry VIII. Six potential ballerina roles there, or two if you focus on, say, the Katharine of Aragon/Anne Boleyn imbroglio. (Of course, the Tudor-era costumes might present a problem; the men wore tights, but the women wore those enormous heavy skirts....) Well, you get the idea. Any thoughts?

I almost forgot -- Tharp and Wieseltier used to be an item...

Item from ESPN online on the pairs dispute. The article notes that S&P will now become more famous than if they'd won the medal sans controversy:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/winter02/fig...tory?id=1330977

The New Republic has been very good about giving space to dance; an Aloff article on the debate over Balanchine's legacy once made the cover. I assume we have Leon Wieseltier,the literary editor, to thank for this.

I forgot to add to my previous post that I believe the use of "privilege" as a verb, while infelicitous, is an acceptable secondary meaning of the word. When I was in college, around the time of the Second Punic War, I often heard and read sentences such as "So-and-so privileges text over the spoken word," and so forth.

In Homans' defense, she's providing ballet history to an audience of educated readers who don't necessarily have much of a background or interest in ballet. So it may be inevitable that some of it will seem a little boilerplate, or canned. She does show in this article, as in some other TNR pieces of hers that I've read, a tendency not uncommon among writers to rhetorical overkill and boldly stated assertions that don't always hold up so well when you think about them for long. I haven't seen ABT recently except on television, so I can't comment intelligently on her remarks about the company.

That said, I'm a little puzzled by the central thesis of her article, which, if I understand it correctly, is that ballet is not in trouble because of a lack of fine dancers or genius choreographers, but rather of a loss of its once radical spirit, which today is not to be found in the current crop of dully correct ballerinas but in the macho assertiveness of its danseurs, boldly shoving their henlike female counterparts aside to display their multiple pirouettes. We are not to whine about this, but advance boldly into the new era. Depressing, if true, and I don't think it is.

Fair enough. Plainly, Ms. Sale's bad example is rubbing off on me.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: dirac ]

Cheers for Timothy Goebel. He has a very long way to go with his upper body work, but he gets an A+ for effort, and as Scott Hamilton noted, his jumps were effortless; with everyone else you bite your nails as they go for the quad, but on a good night, like this one, Goebel just tosses it off. I'm sorry for Todd Eldredge, but not sorry that in future we will be spared the quadrennial display of Todd crashing and burning at the Olympics.

Re: the pairs controversy. I'm increasingly out of sympathy with S&P. First, you'd think it never occurred to them that skating scores are occasionally inconsistent and subjective, with political overtones. I guess it's only a problem when you're on the receiving end. Pelletier behaved well during the medal presentation, but Jamie began weepy and whiny and continues so. During the interview with Bezic last night, Sale explained that they didn't want to "rain on [the winners'] parade." The two of them then went on to assert, in effect, that the medal is really theirs and B&S have a gold they don't deserve. They also seem to be willing to say this kind of thing to anyone with a microphone. I think the parade can expect a few more showers.

Parenthetically, Jamie keeps saying they skated "perfect" and "fabulous." Perhaps one of her handlers should explain to Jamie about adverbs.

You are NOT the only one who misses Dick Button. How fondly I remember his disdainful dismissal of Surya Bonaly: "Her legs dangle like sausages!"

My understanding is that there's a lot of internal debate within the skating, uh, community about this as well. There are other posters who'd know more about that than I would. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule where artistry always trumps athleticism, or vice versa, (or even what constitutes artistry, I sometimes think). In last night's Loopout at the OK Corral between the Canadians and the Russians, for example, presentation does seem to have trumped tidy technique.

As far as I know, the judges do not mark you down if you plan a triple and then change your mind; however, if you do only five out of seven planned triples and do two doubles instead, and a competitor does all seven equally well, you're in trouble. (Personally, I prefer doubles to triples and quads because it's easier for a non-expert to see the different shapes the body takes in the air and note the different landings. However, triples and quads well jumped are exciting to see, and they are harder, after all.)

For myself, I dunno. I value grace and a well integrated program, but I also respect energy, daring, and athletic prowess for its own sake.

It does seem like an odd thing to say. Also, how odd to be "covering" on the night of one's gala. Very Lucine Amara.

I have seen competitions and been slightly bewildered by the outcome, but there was no bewilderment here. Yes, this is how skaters "win ugly." It was close, and a judgment call, and for once I think the judges made the right one. It seemed to me that what Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze were doing was clearly on a different level from what Sale and Pelletier were doing, although granted they were not flawless and their errors more obvious (I also thought Sale two-footed that landing.) Bezic, to her credit, pointed out the superior difficulty of the Russians' program not once but twice. But Olympic programs, even winning ones, are not always that distinguished -- the pressure is probably just too intense.

I also think the jingoistic "At-last-the-Russians- will-be-toppled" pre-publicity a little too much, building up expectations much too high. I'm sorry for Ina and Zimmerman, but on the other hand it's hard to get hopped up over the difference between fourth and fifth, although I quite understand that it doesn't seem so to them.