BalletNut

Two very different ballets, with two things in common: a piano and Muriel Maffre's phenomenal presence and sense of humor. Dances At a Gathering is obviously a complex work, that probably becomes more and more interesting the more you see it. I wouldn't mind seeing it again; but, please, give me a different cast! I have never seen so many bored-looking dancers in one ballet as I saw in that performance. Particularly Vanessa Zahorian (mauve), who usually seems so happy to be dancing (and I'm usually so happy to see her...), and Julie Diana, a tiny little slip of a thing who seemed overwhelmed by the prominent pink role. Perhaps they would be happier if they had switched roles. Catherine Winfield in blue seemed just fine, not outstanding one way or the other. Ditto David Arce and Jaime Garcia Castilla, blue and brick respectively, although Castilla's cartwheel deserves a mention. These lackluster deliveries were balanced, thank heavens, by the assured presence of Damian Smith in purple, the subdued pyrotechnics of Gonzalo Garcia in brown, and the absolutely adorable Ruben Martin in green. I especially liked Maffre's wit and carefree-ness in green, and Kristin Long's presence, passion, and musicality in yellow/apricot/whatever. Her joy and elan, while immensely flattering on her, only highlighted the halfhearted (I *was* going to use a less family-friendly term, but...) delivery of the other women, Maffre excepted. Such was this performance of Dances At A Gathering: wonderful performances in half of the aspects, lackluster in the other half. Hot and cold, or really hot and lukewarm. Fascinating choreography. Interesting compilation of Chopin pieces. Choppy piano playing by Daniel Waite, who made many more blunders than I would excuse due to stage fright or whatever. Fabulous ballet. Not-so-fabulous performance. Sigh... So, where was the energy that was missing from Dances At A Gathering? It was in Elite Syncopations. After trying to decide whether the costumes were hideous or hilarious, I went with the latter. How to describe them? Loud...80s redux from hell...unitards on acid...oy vey. But I like them. Hard to believe that this is a MacMillan ballet. I was afraid that the music would be canned, but there is live music, even though the orchestra pit is indeed empty, the musicians are there, on stage, with the pianist/conductor, all decked out in checkered clown-pants, glittery Vegas-like vests and crazy hats. The dances fit pretty well into this atmosphere, though the music seems rather quiet and understated by comparison! Katita Waldo was gorgeous in her Calliope Rag solo, as were the carnations on her head. I got my first glance at both of the new soloists, Pascal Molat and Sarah Van Patten, in this ballet as well. Van Patten is, thank goodness, not as awful as reviews had led me to fear. Actually, she is rather charming, pretty face, looks remarkably healthy. It's rather hard for me to predict, however, what she'd look like in a more traditional costume or ballet--as in, not wearing a bleached wig and lime-green tights and pointe shoes. She was partnered by Peter Brandenhoff in the Golden Hours. Yuan Yuan Tan...in my eyes this woman Can Do No Wrong. And she didn't. She nailed the "star" role, played it like a glamorous leading lady. Very admirable, I must say; I can't think of too many ballerinas who can look glamorous in a unitard with one star on each butt-cheek. And she wore a lovely hat too. Yuri Possokhov is perhaps too dignified to be wearing the striped cacaphony that was his costume, but I was too busy looking at Tan anyways. If any ballerina could rival Tan, though, it's Muriel Maffre, the MVP of this matinee. She dominated poor James Sofranko in her peacock dress and floppy hat, in a little "lets make fun of tall ballerinas" piece that was oddly reminiscent of Western Symphony, but even more so. She wove her legs through his armpits with abandon, kicked over his head with ease, and graciously ended by sitting on her spread-eagled partner. Did anyone else see this program?

In the prologue, there are 6, yes, but in Act 3 there's the Gold, Silver, Sapphire, and Diamond fairies too. Hence, 10. 11, if you count Carabosse.

Depends who the choreorapher is. I think it's safe to say that, more or less, the story differs quite a bit from the Disney version. (My ex-roommate saw the Ashton Cinderella video I have, and said, "Like, omigod! Like, where's the mice? This ballet sucks..." ) But I guess you weren't looking to play Gus-gus or "Roo-ci-fee" then were you? Can't judge which parts are harder than others, since I don't dance ballet, they would all be EXTREMELY hard for me to do. But, in the Ashton version, the roles are not unlike Sleeping Beauty. It's like this: Aurora=Cinderella=THE ballerina Prince=same=self explanatory Fairy Godmother=Lilac Fairy=2nd Ballerina Carabosse=Stepsisters=Men in Drag Both ballets have a lot of fairies; Sleeping Beauty has about ten or so with solo parts; Cinderella has 4, one per season, they get to do solos which look pretty hard. Each has her own cavalier. Then there's the ladies and gentlemen of the court, who get several dances, and the corps of (female) fairies who get to dance to one of the most glorious waltzes ever written! Assuming you will be doing the Prokofiev music, of course. By the way, who is the choreographer?Sir Frederick Ashton? Ben Stevenson? Rostislav Zakharov? Someone else?

I think the "Balanchinization" has more to do with the fact that, say what you will about his choreography, but the guy was PROLIFIC. His ballets number well into the triple digits, even when you subtract the "lost" ones. Of these, a large number are still being performed, much larger number-wise than any other single dead choreographer, just because the volume of his work is so large that there is just more probability of bumping into something of his. But globalization is nothing new. The Italians in Russia, Bournonville's connection to France, the Ballet Russe in Paris and Western Europe and their influence on the dance scene there, even Mr. Americanization himself, George Balanchine, were foreigners imposing their own dance traditions on the local dancers. And Balanchine, it should be noted, got plenty "Russkie go home" stuff in his earlier days in the US. I wouldn't rush to stick Forsythe into this pantheon, but what he's doing isn't new or shocking or damaging at all, at least not any more than anyone before him, if nothing else in terms of the idea of a foreigner choreographing on natives of his--or her--adopted country. I think the better term is "homogenization," and there is a thread from about a year ago, I think, called "National Ballet of Anywhere" which addresses this topic.

Well, I think it's sad, really, that the main exemplars of grounded classical technique--and I'm using Drew's excellent description of it, as well as Kisselgoff's--are being dismissed across the board, and that includes this one;), as drab, unoriginal, and of the Heezno/Sheezno variety. Unfortunately, my experience has led me to agree with this. it's sad when people interpret "classical technique" as "rigid rules," as Alexandra said. As to the phrase itself...the way it gets tossed around these days, if it were truly retired to the dustbin, I wouldn't mourn the loss. It seems to be the complementary clause to "cutting edge choreography" tossed in as a palliative for those old sticks-in-the-mud who would get all shook-up from the turning-on-its-ear of hegemonic classical rigidity. After all, "Dabbling occasionally in ballet-flavored dances" doesn't really have that box-office ring, does it? The sad thing is that many of the purveyors of this phrase DO support the idea of grounded classical backbone, but for some reason or another, can't quite pull it off. Or--no names--it could be a company or choreographer trying to be all things to all people all of the time. In defense of those who truly are "thoroughly grounded in classical technique", though: it speaks for itself. I hate to sound like Dubya, but either you are classical or you aren't. You can't be classical some of the time and still do justice to it, and you can't be modern or jazzy or hip-hop some of the time and do justice to that, either. This is, to me, one of those things that Speaks For Itself.

While the practices mentioned are indeed abusive and definitely problematic, I wouldn't necessarily say that ALL ballet training is; those issues need to be dealt with, of course, but dealing with them would entail changing attitudes and practices with those schools and teachers. I got the impression that he was saying that ballet as a whole is essentially derived from the abuse and torture of the human body. True, these things happen, and they are unfortunate. But there are other sides to ballet besides abuse, torture, and disfigurement.

If my daughter went to that studio, I'd be concerned too, for safety...isn't 8 awfully young to be on pointe? It's just sad to me, not just in this case, but in general, when a single bad impression of something can taint a person's whole image of something that is not necessarily that way, in this case, seeing a teacher promote something that definitely could be quite harmful to the students, and assuming that this is in fact the way of things in ballet. It's also sad that there are so many Dolly Dinkle schools that can be harmful like this, that they are indeed considered typical ballet training by dint of their proliferation. And I am sorry that this man had that kind of experience with one, and understandably got turned off of all ballet. And, if I was contemptuous, I did not mean it; only that I had a strong visceral reaction to the article, perhaps because I myself have had to deal with many people who not only feel that way--not in and of itself a problem, mind you--but feel the need to express it in--you guessed it!--a contemptuous and insulting manner. Something this editorial edged a little close to in places.

The Independent published this on 28 January 2003, and it certainly has potential for being discussed: http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_...sp?story=373199 This article is obviously an editorial, not "reporting," yet I found the ignorance very disturbing, and, in some ways, baffling. For starters, I was under the impression that to go on pointe, a girl needs separate shoes, not little boxes inside the "regular" shoes. Secondly, I am perturbed by the fact that the author is taking his daughter's Dolly Dinkle studio to be the typical methodology of ballet training. Thirdly, although to the non-dancer moving around on the tips of your toes sounds very painful indeed, one could make that reaction to just about any art or vocation. I play the guitar; my fingers have huge, hard calluses from pressing on the strings, and doing so doesn't hurt because of it, yet everyone who touches the tips of my fingers, goes "EEEEWWW!" Not a dancer, so can't speak to that, but I absolutely love the guitar, I love music, and although it might seem like torture to have these calluses on my fingertips, and having to have extremely short nails on my left hand, and longer nails on my right, it's all worth it to me, because ultimately I'm not in it for having pretty hands, I'm in it for the music. I imagine that for a dancer who really loves dancing, going on pointe, walking like a duck, is not torturous or abusive at all, but part and parcel of learning the art. The real reason for the above rant, though, is that it isn't unusual at all to hear these things, albeit not so often in print. Stateside at least, the Dolly Dinkle stereotype of the article in question, and all the seemingly torturous aspects of the art, does seem to be the prevailing picture of ballet in popular discourse. Now, to be fair, I'm sure that the editorial and its author have some merits. If only I knew what they were... Unless, of course, this is some kind of joke.

Far be it from me to require that every critic in every review say Something Nice, but when you have a reviewer who continuously attacks or praises someone without changing the tone at all, or at least giving specific reasons for the opinions, it really cheapens it. After a while, you stop trusting that critic, in the sense that there is no way to tell if s/he actually was pleased or disgusted or is merely reiterating their own personal bias. Nothing is wrong with a biased, or especially a passionate critic; I would just rather they be a bit clearer on where their biases are, if for no other reason that it makes it easier to pick out any facts from the slant. And no, directors, boards and the like have no business, or should have no business, controlling what gets said or not said in a paper or periodical.

I voted that they do mix, even though it is true that talent and uniqueness can make a person appear somewhat eccentric. I would like to add that I have had to deal with a number of people who think that the two are interchangeable. This kind of twisted logic reminds me of "all fish are vertebrates. All fish live underwater. Therefore, all vertebrates live underwater." Translated into our terms: "Geniuses/great artists are prone to personal excess/arrogance/eccentricity/mannerisms/depression. I am eccentric/arrogant/depressed/ill-mannered. Therefore, I am a genius/great artist." :rolleyes:

Thank you, Dale, for clearing that up. Glad to hear that things at NYCB aren't as beserk as I had feared, and I say that not out of cruelty to Borree or anyone else, but because I live in California and, as you may have guessed, depend on this board for my information.

Damn right, and there's more where that came from!

Lucia Lacarra in Raymonda [or just about anything, really, but why ruin a good thread?;)] Octavio Roca will hang me for saying it, I'm sure, but I found Lorena Feijoo completely miscast as Giselle. Damian Woetzal as Siegfried. No expression at all. Yuan Yuan Tan as Aurora, which I didn't see; Lucia Lacarra in the same, which, unfortunately, I did. I've heard it's happened, but I can't for the life of me imagine Yvonne Borree as the Siren. Same for Heather Watts as Frau Stahlbaum, except for the fact that it's on video. Or Makarova as Aurora, although I know that's happened too. Pierre-Francois Vilanoba as Romeo. Julia Adam as one of the fairies in Beauty. First of all, a seasoned principal in a piddly soloist role; second, not the type of ballerina whose talents are suited to tutu ballets. Nadezhda Gracheva as Odette-Odile. Unless she always looks like that...:eek: Elizabeth Miner as the French Ballerina in Gala Performance. It isn't that she's not suited for it. On the contrary, she's too suited for it. I wanted a flyswatter. Then again, maybe that was the whole point... Anita Paciotti as Carabosse. Keep it coming, folks. You know you want to...

Someone mentioned this as a possible topic, and, me being an evil, evil BalletAlertnik, I thought I'd open this can of worms. Is there a dancer or dancers that you've seen that were completely miscast? Or a piece of casting that you haven't seen and are richer for not having had the experience? PS: As per Alexandra's suggestion, I amended my proposal a bit, so as not to invite catty remarks or flame wars.

There are some photos of her on this site: http://www.ballerinagallery.com/guerin.htm

"What better way to pay tribute to the creative legacy of Choreographer X than by continuing to commission new ballets?" "Blends elements of contemporary and classical dance" "We need to update our repertoire for the younger set" No names. ;)

Love the cast list, Manhattnik. So, who gets to play Allegra Kent? Kay Mazzo? Karin Von Aroldingen? Heather Watts? Violette Verdy?

Dave Barry is usually funny, but I consider this particular column a flop. In order to successfully parody something, one must have a somewhat decent knowledge of the subject. Barry doesn't know enough about ballet to succeed in this. His lack of insight on ballet means that instead of coming up with something clever and funny from his insights, he relies on the same old stereotypes as the source of his humor.

Sylvia? 2004? SFB? Huh?

Not only does she take over the "sugarplum fairy" part, she also dances the doll variation... This is the video with Patricia Barker? If not, it was someone who looked a lot like her... Not my favorite production, by a long shot. Perhaps it looks better live?

Actually, the designs for Tomasson's Swan Lake are by Jens-Jacob Worsaae, not by Mikael Melbye. Melbye did the designs for Tomasson's Giselle, which is, believe it or not, somewhat attractive, or would be save for Berthe's cardboard-box-looking hat...then again, it's entirely possible he is capable of doing decent costumes for traditional ballet productions, which Tomasson's Giselle is, more or less, and Ratmansky's Nutcracker is not... BLACK snowflakes, eh? Perhaps Shemyakin wanted to show that snow as it looks three days later, all dirtied from the cars driving over it. :eek: But look what we have now! Danish Snowballs, SF's Hostess Paquita costumes, Juliet's proposed Twinkies...I can design some Dancing Ho-Ho costumes, and we'll have ourselves a Nutcracker for the New Millennium!!! I'm going to shut up now.

I noticed that for the 17th, their website lists Abi Stafford as both Dewdrop and Flower, S.L. That should be interesting... PS: I think they've fixed it by now...

Grace, Gala Performance is a ballet by Antony Tudor, about a gala perforance--hence the title-- of three great ballerinas from Russia, Italy, and France. Each one is a spoof of what Tudor must have thought were the mannerisms of ballerinas from those countries: the Russian ballerina comes on like a steamroller, pushing the other dancers out of her way and taking WAY too many curtain calls, the Italian ballerina dances everything very slowly and ignores everyone on stage, especially her partner, and the French ballerina is very perky and flits around the stage blowing kisses at the audience. SF Ballet did gala Performance too, in I believe 1999 and 2000. How funny it is depends on a lot of things: who's dancing the parts, how well rehearsed they are, whether the dancers are aware of exactly what they are spoofing, and of course how aware members of the audience are of the joke.

Ah, yes, one cannot talk of comic ballets without including Gala Performance. My personal favorite. Might as well throw in Sandpaper Ballet. It's funny the first couple times, anyway.;) While watching the Classic Arts Showcase, I caught a clip of Go For Barocco, performed by the lovely and talented Trocks. Mr. B would be proud.

Ah, yes...who wouldn't want to choreograph to the enchanting rhythms of"Jer-RY, Jer-RY, Jer-RY..." Not to mention the " Shut up! Y'all don't know me!" pas de deux.