dirac

Balanchine was receptive to American culture in a way that other emigrés were not, but I had the impression that his eventual arrival here had at least as much to do with the closing off of his European options as anything else. (It's funny, we think of Balanchine and Kirstein as being Made For Each Other now, but at the time both of them seem to have had somewhat mixed feelings about the other guy.) I think Balanchine would have been a genius anywhere he went, but I wonder if his influence would have been quite as far-reaching and his aesthetic as dominant if he'd been able to wrest the Opéra from the fell clutches of Lifar or set himself up somewhere else in Europe. Instead, he established a school and a company in the preeminent city of the world's rising power.

Almost forgot. This is not a ballet example, but there's also Bethsabee de Rothschild's loyal support of Martha Graham.

Almost forgot. This is not a ballet example, but there's also Bethsabee de Rothschild's loyal support of Martha Graham.

How about Ida Rubinstein? I suppose we must add her to the ranks of frustrated-ballerina-rich-ladies, but she did commission works from Bakst, Fokine, Ravel, Stravinsky, et al., not to mention keeping a youthful Ashton gainfully employed (he got a lot of social mileage out of a wicked imitation of her frightful dancing later on). [ 07-13-2001: Message edited by: dirac ]

How about Ida Rubinstein? I suppose we must add her to the ranks of frustrated-ballerina-rich-ladies, but she did commission works from Bakst, Fokine, Ravel, Stravinsky, et al., not to mention keeping a youthful Ashton gainfully employed (he got a lot of social mileage out of a wicked imitation of her frightful dancing later on). [ 07-13-2001: Message edited by: dirac ]

It might not hurt for the administrative/creative functions to be shared or separated. Yes, Balanchine did everything, but that doesn't mean that everyone who follows him can or should. Not all choreographers have a taste or talent for administration, and it seems reasonable to recognize this. As for the choreographer/conservator question, that might be very difficult to settle, depending on the choreographer. Someone who is working at Balanchine's level is not going to be wildly interested in spending a lot of time curating someone else's stuff, however distinguished, and understandably so. Since we're talking about someone of formidable creative powers here, it is reasonable to think that he (yes, I know, I'm not using the P.C. he/she, but let's get real) will have his own ideas about style and those ideas will differ from Balanchine's in many respects. In the worst-case scenario, you might have a fundamental stylistic conflict, and in such a conflict it's probable that the works whose maker is alive and monitoring their care and feeding have a better chance of survival. At the very least, you'd have to bring someone else in to keep an eye on the Balanchine/Robbins repertory. Having said that, I don't think we have to worry about a new Balanchine popping up any time soon. But when he does show up, I suspect he'll want to put his own stamp on a company and not spend his time genuflecting to someone else's accomplishments.

As an aside, it seems to me that a couple of reviewers have made too big a deal about Lawrence's not being permitted access to Robbins' papers and having the nerve to produce an unauthorized biography. I don't doubt that Robbins' papers have a lot of useful information, but after all we're not dealing with Thomas Jefferson here. And quite a few valuable biographies would never have appeared if the authors had folded their tents and stolen away after being denied "authorization." (Whether Lawrence's book is among these is another matter, of course.)

Something I used to do when I was in your position was go to the library and browse through the books at random. Often I would come across interesting stuff I never would have thought of on my own. You might look at Diaghilev and the Ballets Russes. There's tons of information out there and lots of colorful anecdotes and personalities associated with the era.

There was Hilary Hahn in the "Classical Musician" category, I think it was called, and there was a novelist, architect, artist, and so forth. I certainly wouldn't expect a dancer to make the cover of an issue such as this one, but I hope at least an effort was made to find somebody. Wrestlers made the issue, incidentally, under "Odd Jobs."

TIME has produced yet another Special Issue, the first in a series called "America's Best." This one has Julia Roberts on the cover, and profiles "the artists and entertainers who rise above the rest." I scanned the list, and couldn't help noticing that there was no "Dancer" or "Choreographer." (Susan Stroman makes the cut, but in her capacity as "Broadway Director.") Desperate, I went to the section called "Odd Jobs." No luck. Apparently, TIME had room to showcase "Rappers," "Talk-Show Host," "Fashion Designer (Tom Ford, rakishly showcasing his chest hair)," and "DJ" but not Tharp, or Baryshnikov, or any rising young star. (No opera singers, either.) I actually became a little peeved, especially when I read Managing Editor James Kelly's explanation for the selection of the beauteous Ms. Roberts as "Best Movie Star": "....audiences feel they know her intimately, in all her vulnerable charm....these feelings in turn invest her screen performances with a special immediacy and resonance." I take this as Managing Editorspeak for "We wanted to put her picture on the cover." I don't mean to pick on TIME -- newsmagazines are in a tough spot these days -- but this did strike me as a significant omission. "I welcome your thoughts on our selections," Kelly concludes. I suggest we share our thoughts with him and his arts editor, Jan Simpson.

Benno is Ralph Bellamy.

My understanding is that Balanchine thought of this piece primarily as a technical showcase for his stars. (I think the music was a rewrite forced on Tchaikovsky by a temperamental ballerina who wanted different counts, so maybe he was considering the source.) After all, when you're building a repertory you need all kinds of ballets, and I wouldn't be surprised if he thought of this as a crowd-pleasing bonbon for galas and whatnot, although it's a cut above, say, "Tarantella."

Dance Fan, you bring back happy memories. Walken's strip in "Pennies from Heaven" is totally awesome. I think he's a little too strange for Drosselmeier, though. Maybe Madge?

This is all from memory and a particular or two might be off base, but "Slaughter" originated from the 1936 Broadway musical "On Your Toes" by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart and produced by George Abbott, which starred Ray Bolger and Mrs. Balanchine #1, Tamara Geva. (It was originally intended to be a movie property for Fred Astaire, who nixed it.) "Slaughter " was the Act II ballet, and it was one of the first (and may in fact have been the first, but I'd have to check) Broadway musical ballets to forward the musical's story line as well as provide a dance divertissement. It was revived twice on Broadway, once with Makarova, and Balanchine brought it back himself for Arthur Mitchell and Suzanne Farrell in 1968, I think it was. The choreography may have been altered somewhat -- Ray Bolger came in to coach Mitchell, but his idiosyncratic style didn't translate and Mitchell apparently adapted freely. There's a nice anecdote in "I Remember Balanchine" about it. Rodgers asked Balanchine what kind of music he wanted for the dance, and Balanchine said, "No, you write. I do," much to Rodgers' surprise and pleasure. So Rodgers wrote and Balanchine did. [ 06-18-2001: Message edited by: dirac ]

Rozhdestvensky quits the Bolshoi. Report from Reuters: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/14/arts/15B...LSHOI-WIRE.html

I was browsing in Tower Books and noticed a new fiction title, "Flight of the Swan," by Rosario Ferré, with whose work I am unfamiliar. It concerns a Russian ballerina who finds herself stranded, because of political complications, in the Puerto Rico of 1917. I am knee deep in unread titles at home and didn't purchase it, but I'd be interested to know if anyone has read it. (I also thought that a new addition to the not exactly extensive list of novels dealing with ballet should be noted for its own sake.)

I think declining support for the arts is a bipartisan thing. No one on either side of the aisle wants to vote more money to an arts program only to have some opponent discover that one of the artists spit on a crucifix in 1978 or whatever. I'd make the same demand of any president. Words of support are nice, but.

There are also a couple of documentary videos with Kain as the subject, although the titles escape me at the moment. I would agree with Juliet that "Movement Never Lies" is definitely worth a read. Kain's longtime partner at the National, Frank Augustyn, has also written his memoirs, which I haven't read yet.

Show me the money.

I can't comment on the show since I missed it and I'm hoping that the other PBS stations in my area run it again soon. I did want to veer off topic to add to Ed's comments on the poor quality of the public programming on his local station. We have some of the same problems here, but the difficulty doesn't seem to be bad taste so much as not enough money and the need to attract eyeballs. Hence Antiques Roadshow, Yanni at the Acropolis, Suze Orman, Deepak Chopra, Michael Flatley discussing the evolution of his artistic vision, and so on. Oops. This reply was supposed to go up to the Don Q thread on another board, but I'm afraid it's stuck here. My apologies. [ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: dirac ]

I've already unburdened myself on this question in previous threads, so I'll just add a thing or two. The commercialization of ballet is deplorable, and probably unavoidable as long as the art form is left exposed to market forces with only unreliable private funding upon which to depend. However, Baryshnikov himself has benefited indirectly from the commercialism he criticizes; he became an international film star and hawked his own clothing line and fragrance, after all, activities made possible by the same economic system that creates the need for companies to stage Dracula and The Pied Piper (and The Nutcracker) in order to survive. I don't blame him for that. For good or ill, it's the American way. But I do wish he wouldn't blame American ballet for things it can't help.

Sounds like someone who could really do Salome's "Dance of the Seven Veils," if her voice is strong enough to ride that orchestra. (I think "move like a dancer" is sometimes a euphemism for "doesn't lumber across the stage like a grizzly.") Back to the subject at hand, I'd nominate Charlize Theron. I understand she has some dance training and I bet the late Bob Fosse would have gone ape over her. She's also a potential Balanchine Superwoman type too, I think. Also Joanne Woodward. She's a big ballet fan and why no company has asked her to do roles like the Queen in Swan Lake I'll never understand. [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: dirac ]

In the late Robert Garis' "Following Balanchine," he discusses Kent in the role. He liked her distinctive effect but thought that her strength and stamina were not quite up to the demands of the part. Merrill Ashley began dancing the role not long before Farrell came back to the company and also alternated in it later, I think. [ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: dirac ]

It's anal-retentive of me to point this out, but I don't see how the lady behind you could have seen Kelly and Charisse perform "Slaughter on Tenth Avenue," since they never danced it together onscreen to my knowledge. (Kelly did do it, but with Vera-Ellen, and I seem to remember that it was somewhat different.) Having said that, I do understand the larger point, if I understand it correctly, that the piece is better suited to musical comedy dancers or ballet stars with lots of musical experience, since a lot of what makes an item like "Slaughter" work is mastery of show dancers' style, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with great technique and in which many of today's dancers are going to be deficient no matter how well rehearsed.

In the May 18 issue of the Times Literary Supplement, Alastair Macaulay reviews "The Oxford Dictionary of Dance" by Debra Craine and Judith Mackrell. He praises it for some things, such as its inclusion of a larger number of composers and designers than usually found in dance dictionaries, but is disturbed by some factual inaccuracies. He also notes with concern that Bill T. Jones receives more space than A. or G. Vestris, Bournonville, or Fred Astaire. (Link available online to subscribers only.)