BalletNut

I believe the role Wildor dances on Mayerling is of Princess Louise, but it's been awhile since I've seen it. BTW, this is my 100th post. Isn't that exciting! [ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: BalletNut ]

I couldn't help noticing how the distinctions seem to ride on physique: many of the "girlish" dancers, like Kirkland, Makarova, and Larisa Lezhnina [for the record, I think La Lacarra belongs here too ;)] , possess a very tiny, almost prepubescent build, as well as what might be referred to as a "baby face," which might explain the not-so-tiny Kistler's girlishness. Likewise, many of the womanly ballerinas have figures that are, well, womanly, especially Suzanne Farrell, Martine Van Hamel, and, I think, Margot Fonteyn, at least from what I've seen of her [2 dated videos, to be exact].

Actually, I don't think blaming Balanchine is the way to go at all! There are many, many factors that are behind anorexia nervosa, a potentially life-threatening mental illness, such as low self-esteem, psychiatric imbalances, and family problems, to name a few, and blaming a single person [ie Mr. B] for widespread anorexia in ballet dancers is oversimplifying things. Besides, it would seem to me that an anorexic body is not as strong technically, and what choreographer in his or her right mind would want their dancers to be weak? Hope that wasn't too harsh. [ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: BalletNut ]

My impression has been that "academic" has a quite negative connotation, as in "his choreography is too academic" ie not cutting edge enough, or unoriginal and undistinguished.

I appreciate the suggestion, Yvonne, but when I tried it, the site only referred me to Tower Records' homepage, and they don't have it. But thank you anyway.

Tomasson actually includes that pas de deux for Giselle and Albrecht in his production for SF ballet, and the group dance right before the mad scene serves as its coda.

Many productions of Giselle include a peasant pas de deux as a divertissement in Act 1. Some, like SFB, have increased the number of dancers in it to make a pas de cinq, for instance. Others leave it out altogether, in the interest of advancing the plot. I personally think that it is a charming piece of choreography when done well. My question is, why is it so much a part of the ballet that one notices when it isn't there? Are the peasants Giselle's friends? Is the pas de deux meant as an entertainment for Bathilde and the nobles as well as for us, the audience? Is it just to give talented soloists an opportunity to perform? What's the point? [ 04-25-2001: Message edited by: BalletNut ]

Well, I too have seen the Fracci video, and while the dancing is superb, I actually found the cinematic effects very distracting. I much prefer Makarova and Baryshnikov, however, I have been unable to get a personal copy of it, as it has been out of print and very hard to find. :confused: Another video worth mentioning is the Bolshoi At the Bolshoi series with Natalia Bessmertnova and Yuri Vasyuchenko in the leads, with Maria Bylova as Myrtha. Bessmertnova gives a serviceable Giselle in this one, but frankly I've seen better interpretations, and it looks as though the video was shot a bit late in her career. Vasyuchenko left me cold both dramatically and technically, and his Billy Ray Cyrus mullet hair doesn't help things any. :eek: To be fair, though, this video has the best peasant pas de deux I've ever seen, overshadowing the leads even. The Bolshoi corps is, as expected, excellent. I know of an earlier video of Bessmertnova's Giselle, with Lavrovsky, I think; has anyone seen it? As for the Nureyev video, the only redeeming quality it has is Monica Mason's Myrtha. I've seen Nureyev in better films than this. There is no peasant pas de deux in this production, and Lynn Seymour as Giselle, for all her dramatic flair, has the same problem as Bessmertnova: she was filmed past her prime. I have also seen Dance Theater of Harlem's Creole Giselle, which is quite interesting in that it has been relocated to Louisiana, with sets and costumes reflecting the change. The choreography is pretty much the same, and it is pretty well danced as well. [ 04-24-2001: Message edited by: BalletNut ]

I thought up this topic after reading and responding to the one on specific productions. I have only seen one live production, but I have seen many more on video. So, what do you think is the best production of Giselle captured on video? The worst? The most unique?

The only Giselle I've seen live was [surprise, surprise] SF Ballet's. It is quite traditional in most respects, except for the peasant pas de cinq and an additional pas de deux for Giselle and Albrecht in Act I. Other than that it is a fine production, especially for its inclusion of the mime for Berthe as she warns Giselle about not dancing too much.

Sandpaper Ballet is probably Morris' most successful piece for SFB--well, it's my favorite at least. As I remember, SFB also does a pretty good rendition of Drink To Me Only With Thine eyes. Many people have also enjoyed his Maelstrom, but I personally found it a bit monotonous. Unfortunately, I was unable to make any of the performances of Pacific this time, or of his new work, A Garden, so I have no comments on those. Anyway, Sandpaper Ballet is an upbeat work set to very familiar tunes by Leroy Anderson [sleigh Ride, The Syncopated Clock, The Typewriter, among many others]. It is a charming and witty piece, and, as with most of his works, every dancer in it gets his or her fifteen minutes of fame. I recommend it highly. PS. Ralph, I agree with what you said about SFB not knowing what to do with Benjamin Pierce. Hopefully he'll find his niche and we'll see more of him. [ 04-24-2001: Message edited by: BalletNut ]

As technique and aesthetic standards change over time, the way a ballet looks will change too. One only has to compare pictures of Pierina Legnani in Swan Lake with pictures of Makarova or Guillem to get a sort of idea about how the ballet has changed with the dancers who perform it. What troubles me, though, is the effort of choreographers to "modernize" ballets in less than subtle ways. A non-ballet example of this would be the MTV-esque Romeo And Juliet with Leonardo DiCaprio. It is neither necessary nor effective to incorporate supposedly modern themes into ballets [or plays, musicals, operas, etc] that have already proven themselves to be timeless. If a ballet like Giselle or Swan Lake has survived for over a century, there must be something about it that is worth preserving.

About the anti-ballet bias in academia--I think it would be very insulting to modern dancers and choreographers for P.C. apologists to imply that their dance form does not require the same level of talent from its dancers that ballet does. Neither does this make sense: if modern dance is really "improvised creative movement" then what need do we have for people like Mark Morris, Paul Taylor, Alvin Ailey, or Martha Graham? Aside from which, it seems as though way too many "educated" people confuse modern dance with performance art. :eek: [ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: BalletNut ]

I think the suicide makes more sense, at least to me, but I read an interview with 5 or so SFB principals who dance the role, and one of them--either Tan or LeBlanc--said that her Giselle wouldn't have died from a stab wound if not for her broken heart, and vice versa. [ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: BalletNut ]

Yep, that's the one... I also saw her last time ABT came to the Bay Area, in Fancy Free.

I noticed that she is no longer listed on ABT's roster. Whatever happened to her?

Katharyn, perhaps I worded my post wrongly. By "making the audience get the point" I meant trying to include political correctness, homoeroticism, incest, or any other "hot topics" without regard to subtlety or taste, choreographing a work that assumes that audiences will automatically be as moved by said subjects as the choreographer is, and assuming that those themes are as obvious to the audience as they are to the choreographer and dancers. I hope this clears things up a bit. [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: BalletNut ]

In an ideal world, I'd be seeing Coppelia--Nina Ananiashvili as Swanilda Sleeping Beauty--Ludmila Semenyaka or Fonteyn as Aurora, and Nureyev or Dowell as the Prince La Bayadere--Yuan Yuan Tan as Nikiya, Farukh Ruzimatov as Solor, and Susan Jaffe as Gamzatti Don Quixote--Lorena Feijoo as Kitri, Angel Corella as Basilio Symphony In C--Suzanne Farrell and Peter Martins in 2nd movement R&J [Macmillan]--Viviana Durante and Irek Mukhamedov It goes without saying, but this list does not take into account such trivial matters as time or geography. [This message has been edited by BalletNut (edited April 06, 2001).]

A pretentious ballet is, to me, one that tries to take on a depth that it doesn't have. It could also apply to a choreographer who is so preoccupied with getting a message across that the artistic merit of their work takes a backseat to making sure that the audience "gets the point." I'm not saying that political messages in ballets are necessarily a bad thing--if used effectively and sparingly they can be quite moving--but the motive should go beyond trying to foist one's personal opinions on the audience. After all, we are there to be entertained, not preached at. [This message has been edited by BalletNut (edited April 05, 2001).]

I'm afraid that, being from SF Bay Area[Keefer-land], I've lost all patience for the kind of reverse snobbery that Segal's article smacks of. I especially detest the hypocrisy of those who slam ballet for being sizeist, sexist, racist, elitist, old-fashioned, and lacking in sophistication, while blissfully ignoring those same trends in wider reaching fields such as fashion, sports, and Hollywood. I'm afraid that this is because ballet is an easier target. As to the article itself, I found it to be woefully uninformed, poorly researched, and appallingly biased. There seems to be a great deal of ignorance on Segal's part--as well as other "dance experts"--of the aesthetic differnces between ballet and modern dance. This is illustrated in the way he uses Mark Morris' dancers as examples of amply sized "ballet" dancers, even though Mark Morris' company is, as I understand it, a modern dance company and not a ballet company. The need for some degree of thinness in ballet has already been discussed extensively here. At the same time, however, I still do not like, and I never have liked, super-thin dancers of the Lacarra variety. I find it quite disconcerting when I can count a dancer's vertebrae and, as Balanchine has been quoted," see bones." I like muscle, I like meat, I even like when I can see a little cleavage poking out of a bodice. Ballerinas often portray very "feminine" characters; I want a feminine figure to go with it. Also, I must second [or third?] all opinions on Kirkland as an expert. While I have nothing but the utmost respect for her dancing and her career, I am afraid that she is projecting onto Balanchine her own insecurities. [This message has been edited by BalletNut (edited April 03, 2001).] [This message has been edited by BalletNut (edited April 03, 2001).]

Does the mandate apply to using real animals on stage [as with the hunting dogs in Giselle] or to material that "advocates" cruelty to animals [like Swan Lake's hunting party]? And I thought the Keefer thing was bad!

I know that there is at least one video of this production. Does anyone know if it is commercially available? I am also interested in other Balanchine videos that are not included on the Balanchine library tapes from Nonesuch.

Well, I'm glad other people saw, and for the most part, enjoyed this performance. I suppose I did too, and will try not to write a book about it. So here is my "mini-review:" Saturday Eve, March 24, 2001 As a whole I like this production. The costumes mostly are exquisite [although I do have some reservations about the Obi Wan Kenobi-esque robes worn in the Prologue.], especially in act 3. The sets are quite handsome, at least what I saw from up in nosebleed territory [aka the balcony]. My main gripe about the production is the way that the music in Act 2 was switched around, so that instead of the gong sounding as the Princess wakes up, we hear some soft violin music instead, which I found very anticlimactic. As for the cast, Lucia Lacarra and Cyril Pierre danced the royal couple, with Muriel Maffre as the Lilac Fairy, and Roman Rykine and Katita Waldo as the Bluebird and Princess Florina. I know I'll get flamed royally for this, but, simply put, Lucia Lacarra is not my favorite dancer. I must be the only person who feels like this, as La Lacarra has garnered an almost cult-like following in SF. She is easily the most popular dancer in SFB right now, with her "perfect" body and streamlined extensions, and she knows it too. She spent the bulk of Act 1 with a big fake grin on her face, until she pricked her finger. Now I know that this is Aurora's big coming-out party, and she should be happy, but Lacarra's smile was more of a "look at me, I'm performing" smile than a smile of genuine happiness. Fortunately, she fared better in acts 2 and 3. Her Vision Scene was appropriately ethereal, and the Wedding pas de deux was as good as any I've seen. This was due in no small part to Cyril Pierre's thoughtful partnering. It must be fun to dance that pas de deux with your real life partner. [Pierre and Lacarra are married.] Muriel Maffre was a sublime Lilac Fairy, authoritative without being overbearing, but Anita Paciotti's Fairy of Darkness [aka Carabosse] was a bit on the campy side. The other fairies were all excellent, especially Amanda Schull and Vanessa Zahorian, as the Fairies of Generosity and Playfulness, respectively. In Act 3, Liz Miner and Guennadi Nedviguine shone--pardon the pun--in the Jewels pas de six. Dalene Bramer and Peter Brandenhoff stole the show in the "Puss in Boots" Divertissement. Katita Waldo was a superb Princess Florina to Roman Rykine's Blueburd, even though I couldn't see his legs very clearly, except when he jumped, as his dark blue tights were very close in color to the stage. To wrap this up, I was very impressed with the way SFB put on this production, and I look forward to seeing them again. [and again and again...] [This message has been edited by BalletNut (edited March 26, 2001).]

Alexandra--I am seeing it this Saturday, and it looks like I will be watching the same cast as Terry. [Lacarra, et al]. Terry--I was wondering myself at how Yuan Yuan Tan would do with this role; although I love her dearly, I never pictured her as an Aurora. By the way, Zahorian did dance Aurora once or twice, and I imagine she did very well. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit to see her be promoted next season. I will post a mini-review as soon as I can.

I apologize for any confusion, I just couldn't think of a more "conventional" way to describe them without picking on specific dancers. [This message has been edited by BalletNut (edited March 18, 2001).]