kfw

Laura Jacobs writes about New York City Ballet in the current issue of The New Criterion. Janie Taylor, she says Jacobs is contrarian on Wendy Whelan: "I respect Whelan’s dancing. It is honest, it is unstinting, it is unlike anyone else’s. But its poetic power is small." When Whelan was fresh out of the School of American Ballet, Jacobs writes,

canbelto, I agree with your second paragraph, and I have no problem with noting how Tito affected Fonteyn's career. Much more than that -- i.e. ""This is the story of how the most famous dancer that England has ever produced was deceived and betrayed by those closest to her"-- is unseemly, I think. Of course I haven't seen the film and I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like dirt for dirt's sake. If the focus was Tito -- if the subject was Panamanian history, for example -- this level of detail might be appropriate.

Helene, I disagree. Fonteyn put herself before the public as an artist, and only incidental to that did her marriage come under scrutiny, and only in that context, I'll wager, did she try to put a good face on the relationship, just as private citizens usually do in their more limited circles. To tell the story herself in this case, knowing that others will tell it their way, would essentially be an attempt to maintain a degree of privacy by way of control. It would be to say, "this is mine." The press has no ethical right to pry and expose a private citizen, and in her marriage, that's what Fonteyn was. She didn't need to write about Tito for publicity. She probably wrote about him for damage control. On the other hand, coming at things from the other side of the marriage, I have no trouble with the press exposing Tito, a supposed public servant, as the shady operator and even as the faithless husband he was. Unlike Fonteyn, he exercised political power, so his character, in my opinion, is rightly open to inspection. canbelto, thank you for correcting me about Hepburn. I meant no disrespect to that admirable woman.

I'm in the same camp, but I think government officials making decisions that effect us all can rightly be treated differently than artists whose work we can take or leave as we please. Hepburn chose to speak of her self-abasement. Simone de Beauvior is fair game even though she didn't, in my opinion, because the life she advocated is not entirely what she lived. Fonteyn had no such public intentions. My two cents.

That's a marvelous shot, but I could do without the bare legs, myself. Although I can understand why others might like them!

In regards to Part's smiles, I remember her Terpsichore with the Kirov at the Met in 1999, when all the muses grinned and smiled. So perhaps that's how she was coached in St. Petersburg.

What a great topic, saritachan. Some of James Kudelka's comments in this Sunday's NY Times story on ABT's performance of his "Cinderella" seem pertinent. Will retellings of classic ballet stories that amount almost to rewritings catch on? Prokofiev saw Cinderella as a real, then still contemporary person, " feeling, experiencing and moving among us." Kudelka feels the need make her contemporary again. Back when PBS broadcast ABT's "La Corsaire," I remember Alexandra noting that dancers in the accompanying interviews felt the need to nudge, nudge, wink, wink laugh at the story, as if they were embarassed by it. (Pardon the paraphrase, Alexandra). It was as if they weren't able to "suspend disbelief" and fully give themselves to a silly, patriarchal, and racially unelightened story. In this age of postmodern suspicion of narratives, I wonder if some choreogaphers might be likewise disinclined to choreograph new ones.

Thanks for the laugh. I'm reminded of Merce Cunningham fans purportedly watching his dances while wearing Walkmans. Have you tried a Walkman with, say, the score for "Sounddance"?

Wow, three detailed reviews of the same performance! Thanks a lot, carbo, sz, and Juliet (and drb and Michael and other NYCB reviewers). You savor the performances; I savor your reviews.

That was my impression from the first chapter. New York Times film critic A.O. Scott calls it Love it, love it. Here's the review.

GoCoyote!, the ballet is named after Adams' score. It's a safe guess that Adams was referencing William Blake's mention of "fearful symmetry" in his poem, "The Tiger." Helene, the ballet for Nichols and Luders you're thinking of must be "Beethoven Romance." I like that myself, but not "A Schubertiade" the one time I saw it. It seemed to go on foverer.

Farrell Fan, that sounds all to the good to me. Balanchine had a broader frame of reference than Balanchine. The broader the background, the potentially richer the work. Wheeldon must be 25-30 years younger than Martins, so perhaps he really will succeed him some day. Would he be a good steward of the Balanchine repertory? We know he can make a mean neo-classical ballet.

Ouch!

This looks like fun -- Ballet of the Elephants. From the NY Times review by The New Republic's art critic, Jed Perl --

Helene, yes, the "Yury Posokhov" on the Nina Ananiashvili & International Stars, Vol. 1 DVD is "Yuri Possokhov" of San Francsisco Ballet.

Katrina, Gad and Kolpin dance a La Syphide pas de deux on that DVD. I remember that as very beautiful, despite a few messy landings on his part. The Giselle excerpt there, which also moved me, is by Irma Nioradze and Yury Posokhov.

Leigh, the Kennedy Center lists an intermission after the Prologue. I'm guessing that the company dictates when those occur (?) and if so you'll be alright at Covent Garden. Good luck!

The Manhattan String Quartet has also recorded and performed the entire cycle, and also to acclaim. Thanks for the link, dirac.

Mike, it's a pleasure to read that Merce has a new fan. You can find another review of those D.C. performances at dancviewtimes. I can't answer your question, but I heard John Cage lecture once and I came with a brand new interest in ambient sound. It's wonderful how Cunningham's choreography can turn high-volume, otherwise grating noise into beautiful music.

Of course in quoting you I didn't mean to imply that you were being scornful, bart. And Leigh, I respect your opinion, and your knowledge and experience which are vastly greater than my own. But it seems to me that if the company with the pick of Balanchine dancers and the longest and widest tradition of dancing Balanchine isn't unquestionably dancing his work better than less fortunate companies, something is very wrong.

But Leigh, in this case aren't the "Harvard" profs -- Villella, Tomasson, Farrell and Boal, and the coaches they bring in -- teaching at "Oberlin"? What if "Harvard" applicants began applying there instead? Of course I simplify far too greatly, but according to much and perhaps most critical opinion in the last 15 years NYCB is indeed resting on its Balanchine laurels, and has anyone been able to prod Martins and his team into treating it more carefully?

Your observation may be a clue to what it is that so many reviewers seem to find in these companies' performances of Balanchine, but claim is sometimes missing at NYCB, despite the undisputed world-class quality of NYCB dancers. World-class dancers hit or miss in world-class choreography, sharp in usually forgettable choreography. What a legacy. Would that more dancers would take a tip from Korbes and head to the provinces, there to be coached by Balanchine's own dancers, eventually to pass on what they won't learn at City Ballet.

Essays by Laura Jacobs, dance critic for The New Criterion, have been published under the title "Landscape with Moving Figures: A Decade on Dance." Ballet Review editor Francis Mason has this to say on The New Criterion's blog, Armavirumque:

The casting is up! Tuesday, June 20 at 7:30 p.m.: 2 hrs., 42 min. La Valse (Ashton/Ravel) – 13 min. (Ansanelli, McMeekan, Chapman, Makhateli, Pickering, Avis) Pause – 4 min. Tanglewood (Marriott/Rorem) – 24 min. (Benjamin, Nuñez, Harvey) Intermission – 30 min. Enigma Variations (Ashton/Elgar) – 34 min. (Saunders, Yanowsky, Watson, Marquez) Intermission – 30 min. Gloria (MacMillan/Poulenc) – 27 min. (Cojocaru, Soares, Acosta) Wednesday, June 21 at 7:30 p.m.: 2 hrs., 42 min. La Valse (Ashton/Ravel) – 13 min. (Ansanelli, McMeekan, Chapman, Makhateli, Pickering, Avis) Pause – 4 min. Tanglewood (Marriott/Rorem) – 24 min. (Benjamin, Nuñez, Harvey) Intermission – 30 min. Enigma Variations (Ashton/Elgar) – 34 min. (Saunders, Yanowsky, Cervera, Keating) Intermission – 30 min. Gloria (MacMillan/Poulenc) – 27 min. (Lamb, Avis, Watson) Thursday, June 22 at 7:30 p.m.: 2 hrs., 55 min. The Sleeping Beauty (Petipa/Tchaikovsky) Princess Aurora: Cojocaru Prince Florimund: Kobborg PROLOGUE – 34 min. Intermission – 20 min. ACT ONE – 29 min. Intermission – 20 min. ACT TWO – 31 min. Pause – 1 min. ACT THREE – 40 min. Friday, June 23 at 7:30 p.m.: 2 hrs., 55 min. The Sleeping Beauty (Petipa/Tchaikovsky) Princess Aurora: Marquez Prince Florimund: Bonelli Saturday, June 24 at 1:30 p.m.: 2 hrs., 55 min. The Sleeping Beauty (Petipa/Tchaikovsky) Princess Aurora: Lamb Prince Florimund: Samodurov Saturday, June 24 at 7:30 p.m.: 2 hrs., 55 min. The Sleeping Beauty (Petipa/Tchaikovsky) Princess Aurora: Nuñez Prince Florimund: Soares Sunday, June 25 at 1:30 p.m. The Sleeping Beauty (Petipa/Tchaikovsky) Princess Aurora: Cojocaru Prince Florimund: Kobborg http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/ind...ent&event=BGBSI

And that ought to be unforgettable. From the Times article Bart linked: Different values? Is Mason just being diplomatic and trying not to offend Makarova? I hope someone who saw that production will say more about differing values between the Royal and the Kirov. Also, given the Royal's gaudied-up new production of Cinderella, I find the following hard to understand: