BalletNut

I've been around for a while, and not seen quite as much of ABT as other people, but I too am fond of kent and Stiefel and Corella, and also Gillian Murphy, whom I haven't seen very much of.

In Macmillan's version, the costume she wears for her first scene and the wedding scene is jade green, at least in the RB version. Helgi Tomasson's version for SF Ballet, with costumes and sets by Worsaae, has her in peach, rust, and pink-to-white costumes as well as a white nightie for her final scene.

I agree that La Lacarra is a gamine, but that probably has more to do with the fact that she is so tiny and that she is good at "sexy" roles than with the fact that she has the ability to scratch her ears with her feet.

vagansmom, this is what I meant earlier. I was not disparaging the preservation of Balanchine per se; I was disagreeing with the blatant nostalgia that Homans was employing. My beef with it is precisely that the "next one" might not be given a chance if we are too busy whining about the good old days. I love museums, and I do think that NYCB should keep its Balanchine heritage as a valuable part of its mission. I would hope that Martins doesn't see himself as the Next Balanchine--I don't care much for his choreography, myself--but I think that he does have an enormous responsibility for keeping Balanchine's works from stagnating the way Homans thinks they are. Treating them as "museum pieces" instead of as living, breathing, art is what I think causes this. This is not is support of posthumous tweaking at all; I just think that these works are less at the center of NYCB and not as much creative energy has been devoted to staging them and keeping them alive as has been devoted to newer works.

vagansmom, this is what I meant earlier. I was not disparaging the preservation of Balanchine per se; I was disagreeing with the blatant nostalgia that Homans was employing. My beef with it is precisely that the "next one" might not be given a chance if we are too busy whining about the good old days. I love museums, and I do think that NYCB should keep its Balanchine heritage as a valuable part of its mission. I would hope that Martins doesn't see himself as the Next Balanchine--I don't care much for his choreography, myself--but I think that he does have an enormous responsibility for keeping Balanchine's works from stagnating the way Homans thinks they are. Treating them as "museum pieces" instead of as living, breathing, art is what I think causes this. This is not is support of posthumous tweaking at all; I just think that these works are less at the center of NYCB and not as much creative energy has been devoted to staging them and keeping them alive as has been devoted to newer works.

There's cultural sensitivity and then there's what I can only refer to as "the mushy middle cop-out.";) The latter is what usually gets referred to as Politically Correct these days, and in my opinion it does absolutely nothing to remedy society's deep seated injustices. Rather, it's only a palliative for the privileged groups to feel tolerant without examining their own beliefs, some of which are--horrors!--prejudiced. :rolleyes: I think we have already established that this kind of thinking is problematic at best. Lest anyone think otherwise, I am a feminist and a registered Democrat. I love ballet. And I don't want a discussion of tolerance, egalitarianism, and dance to turn into a session of feminazi-bashing, liberal-bashing, or Balanchine-bashing.

There's cultural sensitivity and then there's what I can only refer to as "the mushy middle cop-out.";) The latter is what usually gets referred to as Politically Correct these days, and in my opinion it does absolutely nothing to remedy society's deep seated injustices. Rather, it's only a palliative for the privileged groups to feel tolerant without examining their own beliefs, some of which are--horrors!--prejudiced. :rolleyes: I think we have already established that this kind of thinking is problematic at best. Lest anyone think otherwise, I am a feminist and a registered Democrat. I love ballet. And I don't want a discussion of tolerance, egalitarianism, and dance to turn into a session of feminazi-bashing, liberal-bashing, or Balanchine-bashing.

I'm no NYCBer myself, but I would like to think that the death of the founding choreographer shouldn't have to mean the death of an entire legacy. Maybe his ballets are getting stagnant; maybe the dancers' training isn't what it used to be. However, I am a little wary of romanticizing the past the way that Homans does, however idyllic it may have been. I think that that sort of reactionary attitude might be the culprit behind the stagnation she so deplores. She doesn't seem to want to accept the inevitable fact that dances and choreography change over time, no matter what, and in doing so is damning the NYCB to an eternity of--gasp--museum companyhood. Isn't this what Balanchine and his exalted Russian colleagues were trying to escape in the first place? Maybe the Balanchine legacy as many people know it is going to hell in a handbasket; but maybe, just maybe, the company is "between choreographers" and going through an artistic rough spot.

I'm no NYCBer myself, but I would like to think that the death of the founding choreographer shouldn't have to mean the death of an entire legacy. Maybe his ballets are getting stagnant; maybe the dancers' training isn't what it used to be. However, I am a little wary of romanticizing the past the way that Homans does, however idyllic it may have been. I think that that sort of reactionary attitude might be the culprit behind the stagnation she so deplores. She doesn't seem to want to accept the inevitable fact that dances and choreography change over time, no matter what, and in doing so is damning the NYCB to an eternity of--gasp--museum companyhood. Isn't this what Balanchine and his exalted Russian colleagues were trying to escape in the first place? Maybe the Balanchine legacy as many people know it is going to hell in a handbasket; but maybe, just maybe, the company is "between choreographers" and going through an artistic rough spot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this may be one of those topics that some balletomanes would rather not "go there"...From the familiar vendetta against George "I want to see bones" Balanchine to ostensibly problematic portrayals of "exotic" cultures--think La Bayadere, Le Corsaire, or Bugaku--there are plenty of things in classical ballet that could be read as offensive to our enlightened sensibilities. That ballet is not supposed to be realistic is apparently common knowledge here, but I sometimes think that these issues need to be addressed in order for there to be a solid case in support of ballet--for someone who is convinced that ballet is socially backward, a simple statement of "Well, ballet isn't supposed to be for the masses" is not going to do much for the image of classical ballet. The result of all this, I think, is the proliferation of well-meaning directors and/or choreographers who attempt to draw audiences by proclaiming to subvert the classical paradigm. My concern is that by attempting to escape the inequity of the classical paradigm, one might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I hope that made sense.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this may be one of those topics that some balletomanes would rather not "go there"...From the familiar vendetta against George "I want to see bones" Balanchine to ostensibly problematic portrayals of "exotic" cultures--think La Bayadere, Le Corsaire, or Bugaku--there are plenty of things in classical ballet that could be read as offensive to our enlightened sensibilities. That ballet is not supposed to be realistic is apparently common knowledge here, but I sometimes think that these issues need to be addressed in order for there to be a solid case in support of ballet--for someone who is convinced that ballet is socially backward, a simple statement of "Well, ballet isn't supposed to be for the masses" is not going to do much for the image of classical ballet. The result of all this, I think, is the proliferation of well-meaning directors and/or choreographers who attempt to draw audiences by proclaiming to subvert the classical paradigm. My concern is that by attempting to escape the inequity of the classical paradigm, one might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I hope that made sense.

Apparently KQED, the SF PBS affiliate, has decided not to air the Diamond Project Gala...

I would also like to clarify what I meant when I said I was glad not to be a critic. It isn't so much that I hate the face of dance today as much as it is that I am so very opinionated, picky, and hard to please that, were I a critic, I'd be buried under millions of defamation lawsuits!

I would also like to clarify what I meant when I said I was glad not to be a critic. It isn't so much that I hate the face of dance today as much as it is that I am so very opinionated, picky, and hard to please that, were I a critic, I'd be buried under millions of defamation lawsuits!

Becky, I absolutely agree that Kirkland's book, true or otherwise, is a good read, very entertaining. The problem is that when it's the only exposure that people have to ballet or to Balanchine, it gets taken as the truth. After all, it is being marketed and presented as an autobiography , which, unlike the novel or even some genres of non-fiction, is, by definition, the true story of the author's life. Now I'm not diminishing the personal relevance of her experiences, nor am I denying that the things she experienced were true to her, but the truth in that book is lopsided, and is best understood in relation to other people's experiences. In other words, Dancing On My Grave represents The Truth According To Gelsey Kirkland, if not necessarily the truth according to the other people she mentions in her book.

Becky, I absolutely agree that Kirkland's book, true or otherwise, is a good read, very entertaining. The problem is that when it's the only exposure that people have to ballet or to Balanchine, it gets taken as the truth. After all, it is being marketed and presented as an autobiography , which, unlike the novel or even some genres of non-fiction, is, by definition, the true story of the author's life. Now I'm not diminishing the personal relevance of her experiences, nor am I denying that the things she experienced were true to her, but the truth in that book is lopsided, and is best understood in relation to other people's experiences. In other words, Dancing On My Grave represents The Truth According To Gelsey Kirkland, if not necessarily the truth according to the other people she mentions in her book.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was the most widely read dancer's autobiography in the mainstream. It has all the ingredients for a bestseller, and it reaffirms most people's general distaste for everything ballet. It certainly seems to be the sole source for all the anti-ballet and anti-Balanchine venom I read and hear all over the place. If I had a dollar for every time someone used the infamous "I want to see bones" quote as justification for why Balanchine is the Great Satan, I'd be able to sit in the orchestra every day for the rest of my life. I much prefer Suzanne Farrell's autobiography. She acknowledges Balanchine's shortcomings without constructing him as a demon and herself as a saint. It's interesting, too, to see her write so positively--and honestly-- about the same people who were making Gelsey so durned miserable, such as Diana Adams, Gloria Govrin, Arthur Mitchell, Mme. Doubrovska, Peter Martins, and, of course, Mr. B. Furthermore, as her book was published after Kirkland's, she makes it a point to refute, directly and indirectly, any conclusions one might draw about ballet and Balanchine from reading Dancing On My Grave.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was the most widely read dancer's autobiography in the mainstream. It has all the ingredients for a bestseller, and it reaffirms most people's general distaste for everything ballet. It certainly seems to be the sole source for all the anti-ballet and anti-Balanchine venom I read and hear all over the place. If I had a dollar for every time someone used the infamous "I want to see bones" quote as justification for why Balanchine is the Great Satan, I'd be able to sit in the orchestra every day for the rest of my life. I much prefer Suzanne Farrell's autobiography. She acknowledges Balanchine's shortcomings without constructing him as a demon and herself as a saint. It's interesting, too, to see her write so positively--and honestly-- about the same people who were making Gelsey so durned miserable, such as Diana Adams, Gloria Govrin, Arthur Mitchell, Mme. Doubrovska, Peter Martins, and, of course, Mr. B. Furthermore, as her book was published after Kirkland's, she makes it a point to refute, directly and indirectly, any conclusions one might draw about ballet and Balanchine from reading Dancing On My Grave.

Very fun thread, but we've negelected to mention everybody's favorite holiday cash cow. I think that every ballet company in the Northern hemisphere has a version of Nutcracker. Some are "traditional," others less so. In the States, at least, a ballet company just isn't a ballet company without the Nutcracker! ;) Heck, they could be doing hip, pop culture, progressive dance hybrid things the other 11 months of the year, but come Yuletide, everyone's all about tights, pointe shoes, pretty pink ballerinas in sparkly tutus, and some reasonable facsimile of the danse d'ecole. If nothing else, you'll have little girls dragging their parents--and their parents' wallets--to see the Sugar Plum Fairy and her candied friends. Others that may serve a similar purpose include the following, none of which I've actually seen: Princess and the Pea, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and The Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pied Piper. Hey, if Disney could make a movie, why not have a ballet to go with it? But that's an entirely different thread altogether. For the grownups, there's always Etudes, Apollo, Theme & Variations, Serenade, Paquita, and Les Sylphides for one-acts, and the full lengths Coppelia and Cinderella [preferably Stevenson]. Not to mention specially commissioned versions of Carmina Burana and Firebird. Bonus points for removing any 19th century ballet from its original historical setting and putting it in another. Even more bonus points for avant-garde adaptations of said classics. Giselle with AIDS, Siegfried with Oedipal complex... this too is another thread. Like Morris Neighbor, I feel that I have done the world a great service in rejecting dance criticism as a career.

Very fun thread, but we've negelected to mention everybody's favorite holiday cash cow. I think that every ballet company in the Northern hemisphere has a version of Nutcracker. Some are "traditional," others less so. In the States, at least, a ballet company just isn't a ballet company without the Nutcracker! ;) Heck, they could be doing hip, pop culture, progressive dance hybrid things the other 11 months of the year, but come Yuletide, everyone's all about tights, pointe shoes, pretty pink ballerinas in sparkly tutus, and some reasonable facsimile of the danse d'ecole. If nothing else, you'll have little girls dragging their parents--and their parents' wallets--to see the Sugar Plum Fairy and her candied friends. Others that may serve a similar purpose include the following, none of which I've actually seen: Princess and the Pea, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and The Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pied Piper. Hey, if Disney could make a movie, why not have a ballet to go with it? But that's an entirely different thread altogether. For the grownups, there's always Etudes, Apollo, Theme & Variations, Serenade, Paquita, and Les Sylphides for one-acts, and the full lengths Coppelia and Cinderella [preferably Stevenson]. Not to mention specially commissioned versions of Carmina Burana and Firebird. Bonus points for removing any 19th century ballet from its original historical setting and putting it in another. Even more bonus points for avant-garde adaptations of said classics. Giselle with AIDS, Siegfried with Oedipal complex... this too is another thread. Like Morris Neighbor, I feel that I have done the world a great service in rejecting dance criticism as a career.

I'd love to meet Balanchine. I think we're on the same wavelength somehow. I'd also like to hear him defend himself against all of the criticisms of the politically-correct set. [note: I am a feminist. I am not being malicious. Do not take offense...] Barring that, I'd like to meet anyone who danced with the Ballets Russes, before it's too late, if you get my drift.

I guess what I meant by "entertaining fluff" was not fun or funny ballets per se, but big elaborate ballets designed specifically to fill theaters and coffers, as opposed to masterpieces that happen to be fun to watch, and there are quite few that are...but I think for anybody to say, "Oh, I only enjoy masterpieces, fluff pieces bore me" is unrealistic. Yes, brussels sprouts can be delicious, if they're done right, but sometimes we'd rather just eat M&Ms or tater tots! So it goes with ballet. it is not by any means necessary for a masterpiece to be hard to watch, and many choreographers today think that if their work looks esoteric enough, it'll pass for substantial choreography even if it is a piece of garbage. That isn't what I'm getting at. What I am getting at is the fact that sometimes it is entertaining to be completely absorbed by spectacle--glittering costumes, elaborate sets, showy displays of athleticism--to the point that the choreography takes second fiddle to everything else. I personally am fond of divertissements too, and humor especially, but these are best when they are done within the context of choreographing instead of being juxtaposed on top of it. Thus, I thoroughly enjoy ballets like Gala Performance and Western Symphony because to me they are complete works of art that incorporate humor and spectacle, rather than a spectacle that incorporates ballet.

Why hasn't Kenneth Macmillan been brought up yet? If its darkness and morbidity you want, Mayerling is a real doozy. I still have a vivid image in my mind of Prince Rudolph showing skulls, guns, and such to all of his many sex partners, who react accordingly. If you get sick of all those namby-pamby lovey-dovey pas de deux, this is your ballet. The Invitation is equally qualified here, with not one but two rapes, both involving youngsters being violated by both parties of a VERY dysfunctional marriage.

Precisely. However, many times there are pieces that it takes many viewings to fully appreciate, and others that appear to be masterpieces until held up to close inspection. Many people in the big world [as opposed to Ballet Alert] would rather not go to all the trouble of trying to analyze the choreographic merit of the ballet in question. I guess the argument goes, "I thought ballet was supposed to be FUN! Trying to understand the subtleties of Balanchine/Ashton/Tudor/whoever is like reading Nietzsche for entertainment!" :rolleyes: Guess where I stand on this one... By the way, I find Nietzsche very entertaining.

Sundance, if you are ever in San Francisco, allow me to make a shameless plug for the SF Performing Arts Library & Museum [sFPALM]. I used to do book processing for them, and I can assure you that they have more info on SFB than any mere mortal could possibly know what to do with! They also have a website, which I don't know off the top of my head, but do a google search on it and see if that helps. Although there is indeed a book about the first 50 years of SFB, SFB is now 70, and, as you know, Anthony Randazzo isn't that old, so he isn't in there. About your original question: He was always a favorite of mine, and I saw him in several things. Some standouts: Swan Lake, with the lovely, talented, and alas retired, Evelyn Cisneros. La Sylphide with the equally impressive Sabina Allemann. Theme and Variations with the dearly departed [to Hamburg, that is] Elizabeth Loscavio. Of course he did other things too, and created lots of roles, but those stick out for me.