dirac

Your clarifications are well taken, and while I see the main point, are things always that clear-cut, i.e., pop to pull in the hoi polloi and "elite" stuff for the elite? (I suppose Knight's tone bothers me just a little bit, too. After all, many who regard themselves as part of a social or aesthetic elite are considered by others to be quite mistaken.)

In the latest issue of People (with the women stars of "Friends" on the cover, there is a profile of Lynda Raino of Big Dance, accompanied by a picture of her, well, big dancers.

We could go further than titles. There might be a way to work the product itself into the ballet, with

"Coffee" in Balanchine's version enter carrying a pot of Folger's, or perhaps wearing the corporate logo.

A hot media topic this week was the news that Fay Weldon's new novel, "The Bulgari Connection," has an actual corporate sponsor (no prizes for guessing who). We are all familiar with product placement as a form of corporate sponsorship in the movies -- those of you who saw Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan find romance in "You've Got Mail," to take one example, will recall the unsubtle plugs for Zabar's, Starbucks, and of course AOL that enhanced your viewing pleasure. Now that the concept has reached the novel, let us exercise our ingenuity and find ways to apply it to our favorite ballets. "The Bulgari Giselle," anyone?

(For those who want to read more about Weldon and her book, here's a link to David D. Kirkpatrick's report in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/03/business...searchpv=day04)

The item at bottom was originally posted by Cliff on the Links board. It's a full throated defense of artistic elitism by Christopher Knight, which appeared in the Los Angeles Times. I'm curious to hear what opinions, if any, you may have about what Knight has to say and the concept of "artistic elitism" in general.

A couple of talking points to start off with. Knight says," In democratic culture, elitist status does not derive from ancestral bloodline, inherited wealth, genetic authority or established power." My first response to this was, "I wonder what country he's talking about." It seems pretty clear to me that we do have an elite based on precisely those four elements.

Knight also makes an extended comparison of arts to sports, to make the point that sports fans demand only the best, so why shouldn't museumgoers? It seems to me that it's apples-and-oranges. In sports, you have stats to go by, a more or less objective standard. (Which doesn't mean there are no debates about status, obviously. A bean counter not conversant with baseball could look at the numbers, of, say, Joe DiMaggio, and might well wonder if this fellow wasn't a little overrated. I can also recall a family dinner at a friend's house that was seriously disrupted by an argument between two family members as to whether Phil Rizzuto really belonged in the Hall of Fame. It got ugly.) The arts are a little different. Many people think of ballet as highbrow; a number of highbrows didn't and don't.

Last, I think Knight falls into the common trap of Blaming the Victim. He accuses museums of whoring after popular appeal without really addressing the problem of often straitened financial situations that the pandering -- if it is pandering -- is supposed to alleviate. This last seems especially relevant to the state of ballet today.

Thoughts?

http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-L...-41736,00.html?

Coming late to the party to echo Mashinka's remark about purchasing more than one version. I have three "Swan Lakes," all different from one another. (This is nothing, of course, compared to the issues presented by "Carmen," for example, so I suppose it could be worse!

Your mention of Jane Austen makes me think of a conversation I had with someone at my office when Roger Machell's version of "Persuasion" came out. She hadn't actually read the book, but was eager to see the movie, and it occurred to me that in the time it took to drive to the theatre, wait in line, buy tickets, etc., she could actually read the book (it's not very long) and have a far more satisfactory aesthetic experience.

THANK YOU so much for the update! It's nice to be kept up to speed....

[ 09-06-2001: Message edited by: dirac ]

I don't have time to respond to this query in too much detail just now, but the Calendar section of the Los Angeles Times is an excellent source of reviews and what's-happening-in-dance-information. Below is a link to a WebCrawler source list of California ballet company sites (look on the left hand side of the screen -- there's an alphabetical A-F, G-R, S-Z listing.

http://www.webcrawler.com/entertainment/fi...ies/california/

Obviously, this doesn't tell you much about the companies themselves, but there are others more conversant than I with the Southern California dance scene who can provide you with more information. I will try to get back to this thread later. Hope this helps!

mod-squad: Our interest in your opinions is unrelated to the frequency of your posting or lack thereof. It's always nice to hear from you!

Re: your Republicanism. I hope I speak for all of us when I say that a board like this acts in part as a forum for people to voice their opinions, and every once in awhile opinions of a political stripe will creep in. We need to hear from everyone in order for discussions to be truly rounded and interesting. Otherwise, we may find ourselves sounding like T.H. White's ant colony, all voicing the same opinions over and over "Oh-I-do-like-that-ballet-it-is-so-very-Done."

That's my speech for the day.

[ 09-05-2001: Message edited by: dirac ]

Off topic. salzberg, you left us hanging. (Well, you left me hanging.) Which show was it?

On topic: Although I understand the original intent of the query and think it's perfectly valid, I wouldn't nominate anything, because nothing is ever perfect and that's what gives viewers and artists something to strive for. I think of Sir Galahad: he achieved the Grail, God, and perfection and there was nothing for him to do but die. Well, we can't have that all the time, can we? ;)

Leigh, isn't the male figure in Elégie more like poetic types a little before Byron's time? (I'm thinking Sir Thomas Wyatt "Whoso list to hunt," for example, Petrarch/Laura, essentially any relation where the pattern is boy meets girl, boy yearns for girl, boy gets girl briefly (or not), girl leaves boy, boy is left alone wondering what the hell happened. Unfulfilled yearning was rarely Byron's problem, in or out of print. (I just had a brainstorm -- a ballet of Byron and Lady Caroline Lamb. Take it away, Kenneth MacMillan -- if he were still here.)

I think many dancers who do princes can also do double duty as poets -- I'd agree with those who've named Erik Bruhn -- although it is interesting that Balanchine never cast Peter Martins, a bona fide prince, as any of his tormented yearners. He did Diamonds with Farrell, never Meditation, for example; and when Davidsbundlertanze was being cast, Adam Luders (who did perform Meditation) did the tormented Schumann (an artist even if he wasn't technically a poet), d'Amboise chased the elusive Miss Farrell around the stage, while Martins and Watts did a lot of leaping. I seem to recall a passage from Martins' autobiography where he was initially cast in Elégie, only to have Balanchine pull him. He gave technical reasons, but maybe he saw even at that early stage that it just wasn't Martins' kind of thing.

It's a nice magazine, aimed generally at younger readers, and the pics are great. Last time I checked, the subscription price was very reasonable.

I'd like to hear how people first became hooked on, or just interested in, ballet -- was it a performance? a book? a movie? through lessons?

I saw my first ballerina in a book, "The Book of Dance," by Agnes de Mille. I read the book cover to cover with particular attention to the many good pictures. Not too long afterwards I badgered my mother into taking me to a performance, and the rest is history.

Well, sometimes spontaneous reactions are the truest. And there's nothing to prevent you from posting your second thoughts!

It's true that the Internet is great for bibliographies. I once tracked down a bibliography on a certain subject, finding a terrific list of books in a matter of minutes. It would have taken me a lot longer the old fashioned way.

I also understand what Drew means about Internet remorse. It's absolutely amazing the amount of time you can spend surfing, checking e-mail, posting messages, all the time feeling that you are living life at full throttle. Then you look at the clock and realize the better part of the evening is totally shot.

The Internet has also given a new definition to the term "well-informed." It used to be that if you read your paper and watched the evening news, subscribed to a few magazines, you could consider yourself well-informed. If I wanted to read, say, Lewis Segal in the Los Angeles Times, I had to toddle down to the kiosk to buy the paper. (Which I still do, as a firm believer in print.) Now, I have no excuse for not knowing what Clement Crisp thought of the Royal in "Swan Lake." (The poet James Merrill never read newspapers. It's increasingly easy for me to understand where he was coming from.)

I certainly hope so.

True. Viewers might not be inclined to talk reasonably of "historical context" if, to take a far-out example, "Giselle" had a corps of deceased Jewish moneylenders, determined to wreak revenge upon Christians who welsh on their debts.......

It's wonderful the way the Internet has made communication among enthusiasts at some distance from one another faster and easier through boards devoted to dance like this one and others. I've learned a lot just by reading other people's posts.

While I think the benefits of culling information from the Internet outweigh the drawbacks, it's worth noting that the drawbacks exist. When I was in school and had to research something, I headed for the library, and I still do. Nowadays people seem to be going to the Internet. I do this also, but only as a preliminary to library research, not as a substitute for it. There is a wealth of useful stuff on the Net, but it can be hard to separate it from the chaff, especially if you're not already well versed in your subject. If you know what you're looking for and have an idea of what's genuine and what isn't, it's great.

Thanks for the info. There's a brief item by Theodore Bale in today's Boston Herald -- (the link's available in today's Links thread).

A couple of reviews were posted on our Links board -- they were not too enthusiastic. I've seen the book in stores and it's also available via Amazon and other online booksellers. Unfortunately, the author's name has slipped my mind.

"Striking a Balance" is a terrific book. There's a second edition, available in paperback, with more interviews and an update on the dancers interviewed.

As far the arts are concerned, I'm a consumer as opposed to a practitioner, I regret to say. During the summer I usually head for the movies. There are a few art house cinemas fairly close by so I have an alternative to Multiplex Hell, and there's also a theatre that specializes in very old films, sometimes bringing back real rarities like Ruth Chatterton flicks, Robert Montgomery and Norma Shearer in "Private Lives," and so on. I do, however, grace the multiplex with my presence as well. This summer I checked out "Moulin Rouge," which I quite liked without thinking it very good, and "A.I.," a mess, as Alexandra noted, but a very interesting one, and I was fascinated by the slightly ghoulish spectacle of Spielberg channeling Kubrick. And it's always a pleasure to see a film shot by a director who really knows where the camera should go. (Also, I do not care for child actors, or let us say I don't care to the uses to which they're usually put, but Haley Joel Osment is amazing.) I suppose I must also confess to breaking down and going to see "Planet of the Apes." Nice makeup, but Wahlberg is such a lump.....

Didn't Glenn Gould predict that listeners would be doing things like that someday? I think the idea was considered wacko at the time.

I can only say that sometimes I think as Zimmer does, and sometimes not. I think it's impossible for us to see a work of art exactly as a contemporary audience would have. "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." I don't necessarily regard it as a failure of imagination or sympathy to be disturbed by such things, depending on the nature of the complaint and how it's expressed. I have no problem with "Giselle" or "Bayadere," but if I went to the ballet and was exposed to nothing but a continuous diet of stories about wronged women who die for love while the men feel bad I might get fed up eventually. The fact that the Wilis were left at the altar and are mad as hell about it does reflect certain old fashioned cultural assumptions about women, just as the pale frail heroines Lillian Gish used to play for D.W. Griffith do, and nineteenth century literary heroines such as Esther Summerson and Fanny Price. There's nothing wrong in acknowledging this and analyzing it, or even being annoyed by it. It would be wrong, not to say silly, to lambaste the creators of "Giselle" for not being as enlightened as we are, or to say that's all there is to "Giselle," or Romantic ballet (or D.W. Griffith, or women in 19th century literature).

Good topic, Alla. Thanks!

Recently I was browsing again through Barbara Newman's collection of interviews, "Striking a Balance," and this time around I was particularly interested in her talk with Monica Mason. Did anyone out there see her dance? any impressions of her in various roles? She seems to have had an unusual career.