kfw

Sarah Kaufman's rave review of Divertimento in today's Washington Post is accompanied by photos of that ballet and of Afternoon of a Faun.

Kirstein in Thirty Years/The New York City Ballet, referring to Ballet Society, calls Haieff Divertimento "one of the genuine triumphs of our first season." Later in the book, he describes it, Roma, Gounod Symphony, Caracole and Bayou, as "losses regretted by those who prize delicacy of texture or quiet sweetness of expression." Editing to add: In The Worlds of Lincoln Kirstein Martin Duberman writes that Lucia Chase asked Balanchine to stage Divertimento for her. Replying through Kirstein Balanchine said he wanted to be paid handsomely to actually work with the company, but gave permission for Chase to put on Divertimento. Apparently nothing came of it. In 1950, Duberman writes, Kirstein held a ball at the Waldorf-Astoria "to raise money for new costumes" for six ballets. Haieff Divertimento was one of the works whose costumes were looking "pretty desperately shabby." Here is a previous Ballet Talk thread on the ballet.

That must have been very early, because Nancy Reynolds' Repertory in Review lists only one cast for it, with Mary Ellen Moylan and Francisco Moncion as the principals. Moylan left NYCB for Ballet Theater in 1950.

Thanks a lot for pulling all those quotes together, Jack. I saw the '93 revival and liked it, but my memories of it are dim. I'm looking forward to the weekend matinees!

It sounds to me like it was impatience, not stress, that made him leave. He wanted more resources more quickly than this economy permitted.

Thanks for that explanation, dirac. There is much food for thought in this NY Times piece by Gia Kourlas, In World of Figure Skating, Winning Leaps Over Art

Interesting. Here in Charlottesville, where the broadcasts are at an old, beautifully refurbished movie theater that only rarely shows film now, all seats are reserved, as they are for other performances.

Would you say more about this? Thanks. I have only a very casual interest in this sport, and derived mostly from admiration for the hardworking skaters. I do enjoy the choreography and the technical feats, but the music tends to turn the final product into kitsch for me. What am I missing?

Thanks, abatt. I'm a little disappointed they're not broadcasting "Nixon in China." Maybe "Dr. Atomic" didn't sell well.

I'm sure he'd have a ready answer for that!

Farrell is fortunate to have a regular company now.

Thanks for posting, California. Kudos to LA Ballet for doing Kammermusik No. 2, which as far as I can tell is rarely performed. It's certainly a palate cleanser between the two Tchaikovskys!

I suppose it depends on what you mean by “precedence.” My original point in raising the matter of political convictions was that they can be held just as fiercely, and be as significant to the identity of an individual, as religious views. (In some cases they can be a substitute.) If you’re saying that religious views are more central and more important to the way we live, that’s defensible, if certainly disputable. We may be wandering too far afield from our topic, however.... We are wandering afield, alright. I believe in showing people respect for their deeply held views. (I won't claim to always live up to my own standard). I am saying, for reasons I've tried to explain earlier, that religious views are behind political orientations, even though many people may have spent more time thinking through, and may feel much more deeply, their political views. I hope what I wrote to dirac above will clarify my position. I guess it's true that for some people, political activism stands in the same place that practice does for religious believers, as a way to express deepest convictions, as the most responsible and charitable way to live. I guess it's because, as I wrote above, I think religious views in practice precede political ones, that I privilege them.

Yes, "The Gold and Fizdale Cookbook: Food for Good Living." The first chapter is entitled "Cooking with Balanchine" and consists of reminiscences and of recipes they don't quite say, but suggest, they learned from Balanchine. Thanks for the tip, Jack.

Thanks, indeed. What a pleasure it is to read that, liebs. I can see myself making the same financial sacrifice and reaping the same inspiration. An online friend sent me that Davidsbündlertänze print about 10 years ago, and it hangs on my study wall. It hangs next to a blurry black and white photo, framed in green wood and bought for 20 bucks in a Russian restaurant going out of business in Harvard Square, of Balanchine and Farrell. A cheap gold sticker on the frame says "Georgy Balanchine." His arms are crossed and held in front of him at sternum level. His eyes are closed and his head is bent to the side. Farrell, behind him, naturally imitates his posture. From their looks, the photo was clearly taken after she returned to the company. I wish I knew what they were rehearsing, but these are two of my favorite ballet photos.

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I remember that Balanchine made piano scores as choreographic aids. I wish that some of his were available for purchase too.

I expect some do, but I had a specific case in mind.

I find this a fascinating point of view. kfw, I'd like to understand more about what would have you feel this way. BalletTalk is chock full of some of the smartest and most informed people I've ever run into. I don't often get a chance to get enlightened by a group of this calibre on issues that I've puzzled over for many years. Just so this discussion doesn't go too far afield....kfw, in your world, how do you justify that religious views precede something like philosophical inquiry. Should I give "special consideration" to a ballet that contains religious themes which explore the fundamental aspects of human existence, but give lesser consideration to a ballet that contains philosophical themes which explore fundamental aspects of human existence? Sandy, speaking just for myself, I'd want to honor the feelings and the honest thinking -- distinguishing these again from the actual content -- of the philosophical work just as much as the religious one. And I don't think religious views precede something like philosophical inquiry -- a lot of theology is essentially religiously informed philosophy, after all, and philosophy is serious work. I do think they logically precede political views, because they purport to tell us what sort of universe we live in, which obviously impacts the way we choose to live not just individually but as a polis (if I'm using that correctly, but I'm sure you know what I mean anyhow). For example, religious liberals and conservatives both root their stance on certain social issues in their understanding of certain Biblical passages, while atheists put no truck in those passages at all, and often disagree because of it. Educated atheists can only take certain stands because they reject religious views, while educated believers can only take theirs because they reject the arguments of atheism. That's all I meant.

Political views are often held with the same kind of intensity and personal identification. They may be strongly held, but I think religious views precede them, or at least logically should for any thinking person. And by "religious views" I mean views on the matters religion concerns itself with, which everyone has, skeptic, agnostic, or believer. That said, while I tend to be liberal, I respect both principled conservatism and principled liberalism. I'm not sure we're actually in disagreement here. As I've indicated or tried to indicate, I think music, choreography, sets, costumes and dancing are all fair game for criticism. Going back to Sandy's question, "If I am to take this complain seriously, does this mean then that I ought not to clap during a performance of The Rite of Spring?," I just wouldn't clap if I'd been asked not to in deference the company's or choreographer's or presenter's feelings. To my mind, that doesn't seem like a lot of them to ask. bart, I couldn't agree more.

Sandy, I keep writing and erasing things here, trying to respond to your thoughts without opening up a whole bag of worms. (This is Ballet Talk and I've never seen a bag of worms at the ballet!) Let me just say that I think we're right to give religious views special consideration because they are special to most people who hold them. For many they lie at or near the very base of identity. That's why I would give the expression of religious views special consideration in the theater and out of it. But I do stress that word "expression." The content of the views is of course up for debate, just as are any others.

Tomorrow's NY Times has a review of a four hands-two pianos by Richard Goode and Jonathan Biss. I see that there is at least one recording of this piece available, by Benjamin Frith and Peter Hill, and because I love the orchestral score so much, I'll have to buy it sometime. Has anyone heard this? papeetepatrick, are you reading? Skimming the chapters on Agon in Charles M. Joseph's Stravinsky & Balanchine: a journey of inventions, I'm surprised to find no mention.

Well, I don't boo at performances. But I'd certainly be willing to say that the dancing and choreography were bad if the performance were being conducted in a theater and in front of a mixed audience. Speaking for myself onlyI would not comment on the religious sentiments behind the performance, or about Gaia worship (is there such a thing?) in general. I'd do the same, restricting my criticism to the standard of the performance, not the motive behind it. That's true, but if their purpose is to "magnify Him," well, excellence does that better than mediocrity, so, to my mind, constructive criticism seems in order. I can imagine a critic being afraid to give offense, but that's where, , I find myself siding with Dawkins.

Sandy, I think Dawkins (who has not lacked for scholarly rebuttal, btw) confuses respecting people's feelings with not questioning the thinking behind them. The former is about presuming, in the absence of evidence otherwise, that people deserve respect, both skeptics and believers. I think we can agree that this is basic civility. I see no reason why that shouldn't apply as much in the theater as out of it. Now tell me, would you really have the courage to boo Gaia Ballet Theater's Rite of Spring?

If I am to take this complain seriously, does this mean then that I ought not to clap during a performance of The Rite of Spring? I may be missing your dry sense of humor, here, Sandy, but I'll answer anyhow. Maybe you should refrain if it's danced by Gaia Ballet Theater, or some such entity. Otherwise, no, because the ballet is just the creation of a religious rite, not an actual act of worship.

I too was intrigued by that paragraph. In regards to the difference between how NYCB looked in the late 50s through the 80s and how in looks today in this respect, are we talking largely about the fact that dancers smile and grin more today whether doing so suits choreography or not, and that this makes them look like kids? Or is it really much more complicated than that? (Why they smile and grin more could of course be a more complicated question). This is perhaps a little , or perhaps not, but when I go see an HD Met broadcast, I'm drawn further into the story and production when the performers are asked intelligent questions between acts. But when a NYCB principal tweets between acts of a story ballet, I wish she was still concentrating on the ballet, not on giving us a blow-by-blow. I know the Met's interviews are a smart marketing technique, but when they're well done they're not just fun peeks backstage, they're educational. Twittering between acts reminds me of adolescents and their constant urge to talk, talk, talk with their friends. I'm not picking on a particular dancer, just saying that the technology in this case seem infantalizing (adolescentizing?). And I don't know about anyone else, but what I know of a dancer offstage can affect how I see them onstage.