dirac

In my American Heritage dictionary (paperback), third edition, which is the only one I have handy at the moment, ballet is defined as "1. a classical dance form characterized by elaborate formal technique. 2. A choreographed theatrical presentation danced to a musical accompaniment. 3. A company that performs ballet." No definition of pointe or toe shoe. I think any dictionary would avoid mention of pointe shoes -- too explicit and narrowing of the definition, although something might turn up in one of the unabridged volumes.

Sticking strictly to ballet, I'd hold my nose and vote for Grigorovich, a figure of stature and influence who led one of the world's great companies, like him or not.

Sticking strictly to ballet, I'd hold my nose and vote for Grigorovich, a figure of stature and influence who led one of the world's great companies, like him or not.

I did realize it was a "making of" movie instead of the thing itself; I probably should have clarified that when I included the link. However, I hadn't seen it myself, (which I also ought to have mentioned) so thanks for the appraisals. Never heard anything, positive or negative, about the production, but the cast doesn't sound terribly well suited to it, I must say.

I think a gymnastics thread would be wandering a little too far afield, even for this broadminded board. Thanks to everyone who responded. Cammy, welcome and thanks for de-lurking. Always nice to hear from a new voice. You make an interesting point about changes that make the system "fairer" but also change the nature of the competition, and not necessarily for the better. I think the school figures are gone forever, and I'm not sure that reinstating them would cure any of the current judging ills; but their loss has certainly taken away something essential from the sport -- made it something less of a sport and closer to entertainment (I wouldn't say "art" -- although that term might apply to what's done by some individual skaters).

"The other aspect is what that has done to the sport of figure skating. It has been so great that it has eliminated one half of what figure skating is all about, and that is the skating of figures--the name, figure skating, is no longer an accurate one because figures have gone away. They were too boring; they took too long; too many people weren’t interested. As a result, television simply couldn’t handle it and the governing bodies eliminated what was the oldest and strongest and longest tradition of what the sport of figure skating was all about." Dick Button said this on a recent edition of the Jim Lehrer NewsHour. It was towards the end of the segment and there was no follow up, but I thought I'd see if anyone had any comments to make on it. What difference has the elimination of school figures made, and is the difference for better, or worse? It's fairly appalling, when you think about it, that a major element of a sport can be eliminated simply because TV audiences are bored by it. You could also argue that much of the emphasis (overemphasis, IMO) on jumps in skating today arises from the fact that it's become harder to assess pure technique without the school figures, since back in the old days there was a clearer of division of labor: show your technique in the compulsories, and your technique and presentation in the free skate. (Good figures didn't necessarily preclude grace and flair; Peggy Fleming performed solidly in the compulsories at Grenoble, for example.) Is Dick being an old-fuddy duddy, or does he have a point? Opinions?

It's my understanding that when you departed Russia in those years, you disappeared -- your name wasn't mentioned, erased from history. Maybe this happened to Diaghilev? It's interesting to me that Diaghilev was very closely associated with a number of distinguished artists and décor and costuming played a significant, some say preeminent, role in his productions. For reasons aesthetic and financial, less-is-more seems to have taken over, and I'm not sure that's such a great thing. When Yves Saint Laurent announced his retirement and all the articles came out, much space was given to his Ballets Russes collection. It's hard to imagine any designer of the future coming up with an NYCB collection, or a Royal collection.

From Slate, a re-posting of an article by Steven Landsberg on the risks of noodling with the skating scoring system, in reference to Cinquanta's previous attempt at a fix a few years back: http://slate.msn.com/?id=18581

And the Nearys, Patricia and Colleen. There's also the Tallchief sisters, Maria and Marjorie, although I don't think Marjorie ever danced with NYCB. (They also provided Arlene Croce with an opportunity for a tart rejoinder to a fellow critic's overheated declaration, "There is only one Tallchief!" "There are, of course, two," Croce pointed out.)

FYI: http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/defa...FJ32HMF24839F0B

And there's room on that tiny stage for about four swans in addition to Odette.

Well, I think Elena and Anton are recovering. Things got very cutesy-wootsy with them and and the Canadians at the exhibition last night -- a two-couple death spiral for example. (Yagudin put on a fine show, also. In more ways than one.) Funny thing about the exhibitions and shows. It's as if the skaters say to themselves, "Terrific! No more combination jumps to worry about, and at last I can skate to all the family friendly pop music I want! Bring me those Neil Diamond tapes pronto!" An exception being Elena and Anton, who did a charming Chaplinesque number. (I should note for the record that I mean no offense to any Neil Diamond fans who may read this board. I mention this only because I know that Neil's fans can be quite intense. He's a great guy. Really. )

I wonder if manners have changed, and perhaps people think that they're supposed to sit and not interrupt the performance, obviously a hazard when the piece being performed has those pauses built in, so to speak. The Nicholas Brothers do seem to be in the room with you, don't they? I always get the feeling that they're going to leap off the screen into my lap, especially when I'm lucky enough to see them in the theatre and not on television.

Yes, let's have the courage to be formal. Jonathan's, definitely. (The tutus are more flattering, also.) I would like to wear the red shoes, but there's another ballet movie that will let me do that!

As BalletNut noted, she seems a little full of herself right now. A contrast to Hughes, who didn't come on like La Divina, she just went out and skated divinely. Colleen, looking forward to hearing your views on last night --

David Draper weighs in on the ladies' costumes in the long program, for the San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../SPcostumes.DTL

It is just a tad ironic, isn't it? Of course, the Russians may be looking at the Canadian precedent and thinking, "Gee, it's really not that hard. All we have to do is complain and threaten to stop the Games in their tracks, and they'll give us medals to make us go away!"

It may be worth pointing out that, for all the talk about things being "easier" for Hughes because of her berth in fourth place, she may very well have felt a great deal of pressure to prove herself,and it would have been just as "easy" for her to lose her nerve after the short program than to skate as well as she did. It's rare to see an athlete surpass all expectations in such spectacular fashion. Interesting also that this year, it didn't come down to "artistry vs. athleticism"; Hughes beat everyone on both counts. I felt lucky to be watching. As for Kwan -- well, Scott Hamilton called it "a courageous performance," which is what they always say when an American crashes and burns. I have not been impressed by her recently, but she showed a champion's guts in pushing through to the bitter end. The poor jumping threw off her performance rhythm and even her presentation abilities failed her. I was not rooting for her but it's sad to see a great star go out this way. I'm still puzzled as to why she has not been able to raise her jumping game in the last four years --she was seventeen in Nagano, hardly too old to work on it. Oh, well. I think we're approaching the time when a skater who can't do at least one clean triple-triple is not going to make it to the top spot on the podium, if we're not there already. Sasha Cohen -- indifferent choreography, and although strictly speaking this next isn't relevant, the back of her costume appeared to be missing. She has a very special quality, but I hope she realizes that just because you can raise your leg really high is no reason to do it all the time. That dog-on-a-hydrant look is the sort of thing one really must strive to avoid. One more thing, and this is also a matter of taste -- split jumps are exciting but not very attractive, and there's no need to overdo them. Slutskaya -- well, she just blew it. The word that occurred to me was unfocused. A pity that she has been graceless in implying that she's just another victimized Russian. She had her chance, and I'm sure on some level she must know that -- last night she didn't have the look of someone who thought she'd been robbed, but of one who knew she just hadn't quite done her best. (She may feel, and one sees her point, that if Kwan could hold onto first after two-footing and falling, that she herself had done well enough to get the gold, by those standards.) Saw Fumie Suguri for only the second time. Very impressed, although I hope she drops the soulful looks that seem to be popular with some skaters. (To me it just looks like intestinal distress.) Finally -- the commentators last night kept referring to"another teenager [beats Kwan]." First, if Hughes hadn't beaten Kwan, Slutskaya probably would have. Second, as noted Kwan was an elderly seventeen in Nagano to Lipinski's fifteen, and she's still not exactly aged. Also, from the intonation on the word "teenager" you'd have thought that there was a conspiracy of evil teenyboppers conspiring to rob Princess Michelle of her rightful throne.

In my day the teacher called it "the assignment." Of course, we students had other terms.

Well, Canadian rich people, anyway.

I enjoy watching her, too. She's a little too hearty to fit into the waif or princess mold, but energy, daring, and enthusiasm go far with this viewer. In the past her lack of musicality was a little oppressive for me; one of the things I always admired about Kwan was her unfailingly musical skating, and frequently to music whose rhythmic impulse was not at all obvious. Slutskaya was better with things like "Don Quixote". But she can really light up an arena.

Michelle Kwan is the best of her time, the compleat skater. There isn't any argument about that, and when she's at her best no one combines athleticism and artistry as she does, or did. But I'm seeing an awful lot of artistry right now, and not nearly as much genuine athletic excitement as Kwan used to provide for us. And there's a sense, harsh though it may be, in which it doesn't matter that Kwan has dominated for years. The gold medal, or first place in any competition, is not a body-of-work award, although the judges sometimes seem to treat it as such. But that's skating. Jere Longman and friends judge the short program, for the New York Times. Yes, it's a chick thing: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/21/olympics/21FANS.html [ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: dirac ]

I get a lump in my throat when the corps starts coming down the ramp in the Shades scene. Never fails.

You could actually argue that Kwan deserved first, although I'm not disposed to make the argument myself. She wasn't very fast, but her spins were better centered than Slutskaya's, for example, and although Irina's footwork was more striking there were a couple of dead spots before her jumps. And she has a huge inbuilt advantage in that even on an off night she's easier to watch and has a better line than almost anyone else. I'm inclined to think that whichever one skated last would have gotten the top score. I'm not sure that I'd call Kwan terrified right now. She pumped her fist as if she'd creamed everyone else, although that may have been bravado, and her demeanor as she acknowledged her rapturous audience was not exactly "Aw, shucks, me?" To me it looked more like, "I'm here, I've waited four years, and I'm ready for my closeup, Mr. De Mille." Pretty cheeky of her to thumbs-down her technical marks, I thought. Two links: Costume designer David Draper comments on the fashions at the Olympics this year, for the San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../SPcostumes.DTL Bill Plaschke comments on Kwan's performance last night for the Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/sports/printedition...s%2Dpe%2Dsports

Yes, unsatisfactory video is better than none at all (most of the time, anyway). Of course, we don't want our ballet history by video alone. There's hardly any commercial video available of Gelsey Kirkland, for example, but you can enjoy a surfeit of Karin von Aroldingen, if you're so inclined. Go figure.