oberon

I'm not sure Balanchine would want dancers to look "overjoyed" while dancing his ballets. From everything I've read and heard, Balanchine did not want to see much "emotion" onstage. I think he may have felt that the music and the steps were expressing what he wanted to show and that he did not especially want to see the dancers adding an additional layering of personal "feeling". We always hear quotes: "Just dance. Do steps." or "You are not in love with your partner." I'm sure he had nothing against smiling when appropriate (WHO CARES? or parts of WESTERN SYMPH, etc) but I think this is how the idea of "New York City Ballet face" evolved...a cool & somewhat detached expression. You even see it on the dancers' faces when they are walking down the street. Farrell epitomized it: not cold but cool, refined, mysterious. When she did smile it really meant something. As far as coaching, it is not always clear-cut. Different dancers who danced a given role will not always have the same "take" on what Balanchine wanted. A couple of years ago at a lecture-demonstration, two very prominent Balanchine divas were coaching an ABT dancer in a solo. The two women got into a rather nasty disagreement on a point of interpretation...at a public forum! The young dancer just stood there while the two women duked it out. I believe Merrill Ashley recently coached Ashley Bouder in BALLO DELLA REGINA. It was a big success for Bouder, and very impressive. However, it wasn't really "like" Merrill's BALLO - it was for sure Bouder's BALLO. Which is as it should be. No one can reproduce exactly what another dancer has done in a role. Nor would we want to see it.

I don't think Balanchine was referring to the steps but rather to the "style" that would look different after he was gone. Balanchine changed steps in his ballets himself over time; my impression from reading the various biographies and accounts from dancers on how he created and rehearsed his ballets is that he did not feel that the steps were etched in stone. He would adapt things to suit a given dancer. I'm sure that Miami, San Francisco & Suzanne Farrell companies have all given some fine Balanchine performances, but they don't have the length of season nor the sheer number of dancers needed to give Balanchine rep in all its depth and diversity that we get at NYCB. I believe the young dancers coming out of the school feel NYCB is the place they hope to dance; other companies are considered less prestigious and less desirable gigs, despite their artistic merit. I would guess the pay is higher at NYCB, too - always a consideration. Twenty years after Balanchine's death, NYCB remains the best place to see the spectrum of Balanchine's work and that of his "disciples" - though I do feel that a large number of the audience on a given night are not necessarily there to receive Balanchinian rapture but simply to be entertained, moved or astonished by music, movement and theatrical expression.

Some NYCB-goers have stopped going over the years as they feel the quality of the Balanchine rep - and NYCB in general - has declined since GB's death. Some have continued to attend, though they are sometimes depressed by what they see. Others continue to go because they appreciate the opportunity to see the Balanchine masterpieces continually and because they like the dancers who are dancing today. I would imagine on a given night a substantial percentage of the audience never saw the Company during Balanchine's lifetime. Many may not even be aware that it is "Balanchine's company". They have come to see beautiful, sexy people move to beautiful/edgy music and do things with their bodies that most of us can't do. I believe Balanchine has been quoted as saying that he knew his ballets would not look the same after he was gone. And of course he knew that the dancers he made the pieces on would move on and they would be replaced by others who would bring a different look or perfume to a given role. Are there individuals other than Peter who might have done a better job in preserving what Balanchine created? Maybe, but we can't be sure. The job has two aspects: the energy and dedication to keep things alive artistically, and the fund-raising capacity to keep the Company functioning. It wouldn't matter how splendid it was visually if the money wasn't there to keep it viable. I think Peter's done pretty well on both counts.

Max Beloserkovsky?

Bardem...yes!

Jenifer Ringer could play Fonteyn...she'd need to cook up a British accent. Ringer doesn't really "look like" Margot " but she's attractive, sexy in a rather vulnerable way (yet I can sense a steeliness underneath) and she's shown herself to be a good actress, as ballerinas go. Antonio Banderas as Arias???

The perception that ballet is a "gay" art form stems, I believe, from the fact that male ballet dancers, whether they are straight or gay, are graceful and that the curved and flowing port de bras can give a very soft, feminine appearance. Make-up and the general manners of stage deportment add to this sensation. Some of the most masculine-looking male dancers who look most ardently at their partners and create the impression that the woman they are dancing with is the object of their love/lust/devotion are "in real life" 100% gay. Watching a stageful of dancers, one sometimes gets the impression that ALL the men are gay. Over the years, speculation on a given dancer's sexual preferences have been hot topics. Dancers I have known have told me the split is about 50/50 and stays reasonably stable. There are also many young dancers (remember how young they are when they start) who are ambiguous about their sexuality and don't come to terms with it - in some cases - for years. Most of these guys would say they are straight; I've heard dancers say "Well, before he realized he was gay..." I think "straight" men in a given audience may see ballet as a bunch of pretty girls and a bunch of sissies prancing about. (That's exactly what my brother-in-law said watching it on TV once.) It may also make them queasy about their own sexuality. A straight friend of mine, married & 2 kids, told me when he recently saw one of NYCB's hunks in BARBER VIOLIN CONCERTO that he felt uncomfortable and realized that he was feeling a sexual attraction to the dancer. Maybe that is more common than we realize. I have always found it amusing that all my gay friends, without exception, find women attractive and have no problem expressing it but very rarely will a straight man acknowledge another man as being sexy or handsome. Sex & the ballet have always seemed very closely entwined to me. I think the dancers - of both sexes - are really sexy and it's kept me going all these years!

Gay men or straight? I'm gay, everyone in my circle is either gay male or (self-described) heterosexual female. Myself and most of my gay male friends love the ballet OR the opera - I am one of the few who likes both - and we love to read. Most of us also like sports (basketball and tennis esp.). My female friends don't like opera or ballet (except for those in the professions) and they buy books but don't always read them. The few self-identified straight men I know fairly well (co-workers mostly) do like classical music to a degree but wouldn't go out of their way to see an opera or ballet. Those who I have "sent" to the ballet with their wives or girlfriends liked it more than they expected to. Most of these guys are not avid readers. They watch rental DVDs by the dozen. When I was growing up in a tiny town I was the only boy in school who read for pleasure. 90% of the girls also read only what was assigned. Everyone was too busy with sports, clubs, helping their fathers on the farm, or making out in parked cars to do any reading. And once I got to college, everyone was too stoned.

Just a short note about the programme: Peter Boal danced Wendy Perron's FINDING: an interesting combination of airiness and timidity. And a dapper, no-longer-boyish Sean Suozzi played the gangster in STRANGE HERO. Shen Wei's solo piece for Wendy Whelan, BODY STUDY III, is a gift for Wendy fans like myself; the choregrapher distilled Wendy's angularity and strength and flexibility into what might be a signature piece for the ballerina. Victor Quijada's SOFT WATCHING THE FIRST IMPLOSION, a mixture of break dance & classical and full of humour, was danced with sexy energy by Quijada, Suozzi and the charismatic Andrew Veyette. The centerpiece of the program, which elicited a shouting ovation, was Edwaard Liang's beautiful pas de deux, DISTANT CRIES, in which Boal & Whelan danced to the music of Albinoni. The partnering is complex, fast and timed to a split second. The piece, beautifully lit, is both edgy and tender. This made me want to see Liang extend the work, making this the central adagio of a longer piece, with corps, and then taken into the NYCB repertoire. For sure we must see more of Liang's choreography - as long as he promises to keep dancing as well.

Oh, THAT Apollo photo...yup.

I believe injured dancers go on disability pay which is usually around 80% of normal salary. Do they have Worker's Compensation coverage if they get injured in the course of class, rehearsal or performance? I've noticed NYCB over the years (esp. recently) have kept injured dancers on the roster for very long periods; I guess if the dancer & the doctors can see a viable recovery and the dancer wants to come back, NYCB keeps them in the family. In recent seasons, Miranda Weese, Alexandra Ansanelli and Wendy Whelan (just to name the highest-profile dancers) have suffered severe injury and have all come back. They have discussed their situations in various interviews, I don't think it's a secret. They have all come back and are dancing quite beautifully though of course at first there was some caution. Miranda I believe charmingly acknowledged that she gained a good deal of weight during her lay-off. She is now looking her gorgeous self again. Alexandra's story was profiled in the Playbill of the Winter Season and is a wonderful glimpse at the courage and determination of a very young woman threatened with the loss of her career. Wendy mentioned in one interview that she wondered if audiences would be able to appreciate her vulnerable side. Her return in SYMPHONY IN C found her engulfed in waves of affection from the crowd, and recently Wheeldon fashioned a role for her in AFTER THE RAIN which showed us a side of Wendy we had not seen before. The audience seemed spell-bound by what they were seeing. It's also nice that the NYCB rep has many roles of varying degrees of "difficulty" and there are some gorgeous parts that don't call for extended passages on pointe and some where a partner is always there to help. These roles are enourmously rewarding in themselves, allowing the personality and dramatic nuances of the dancer to shine while not taxing the toes too harshly. And of course choreographers are on hand to create new pieces which can play to a dancer's strengths and not show any of his/her weaknesses. Sorry, I didn't mean to ramble on...best wishes to Jennie Somogyi and let's hope to see her onstage again in the future.

The article is very hopeful; it also makes me feel sad. Somogyi was dancing so gloriously when this happened to her. In a career that is so short to begin with, enforced downtime must seem a major setback. So many dancers have had serious injuries and I imagine some of them dance with chronic pain. It's something I always think about when watching a performance. I admire Somogyi's spirit and look forward to seeing her dance again.

Great story!

Miranda Weese.

After procrastinating foolishly, I went to the Joyce today to get tickets for Peter Boal's troupe next week. Thursday & Friday were sold out and she had very, very few tickets for the other performances. I managed to get 2 for Saturday evening. So if anyone wants to go, you may want to call the Joyce before trekking over just to be on the safe side.

I'm not sure if you were pulling our collective leg when you spoke of "someone named Paul Taylor" choreographing ROSES to the Siegfried Idyll. Taylor is a major force in American dance, has had his own Company for years; I've seen ROSES and it's beautiful. Am I mistaken or did Taylor dance briefly with NYCB when he was young? ROSES, as I recall, uses about a dozen or more dancers. The Idyll would be a bit long for two dancers alone to sustain, in my opinion.

I think the Reichlin picture is possibly the worst one I've ever seen at NYCB...not least because it makes a beautiful girl with great legs look ordinary. Over the years, I've loved many of the pictures used but I think if I were trying to lure people into the theatre I would use pictures like the one of Millepied...pictures that say: "We're dancing here!"

Carbro, I echo your remarks on Joaquin de Luz...he is getting over being a show-off and turning into quite a beautiful dancer. I especially liked his taking on the small role in SHAMBARDS and showing his dark side. I've been thinking he will be an interesting Prodigal and - maybe - Apollo (with short goddesses??) and in GATHERING, too.

Thanks to everyone for the reviews...keep them coming, please! Yes, it would be nice if the Company could have had a little break after the NY season before embarking on their touring. I appreciate the comments on Golbin, Tinsley and Reichlin; I would imagine that even under the best of circumstances, Ansanelli & Askegard would not pair up very convincingly. Obviously injuries and the recent spate of flu continue to take their toll on the casting. Natalia, Korbes is almost back to "fighting weight" at this point...before her recent long absence from the stage she was somewhat heavier. But gorgeous...always!! And then there's Ringer...well, reading all this just makes me wish they were back in NYC!

New posters have gone up, including the picture of Zungre & Riggins from the subscription brochure, and a spiffy one of Millepied in his ZAKOUSKI costume which is beautifully lit and full of movement. The odd one is a photograph of Genevieve LaBean (in soft-focus) and Teresa Reichlin. I stood there trying to figure out who this woman is and finally had to read the credit. It does not look anything like her, in my opinion. She is far more attractive than the picture suggests (so are Zungre & Riggins, for that matter) but the worst aspect of the picture is that she is wearing an ill-fitting blue dress (I cannot think of any ballet that uses this sort of costume) which makes her almost look pregnant. Worse, it covers Reichlin's greatest asset: those gorgeous legs. Of all the photographs used in recent seasons at NYCB, I liked the ones taken at NYC landmarks: Kyra at the WTC, Boal at the Unisphere, Ansanelli on the steps of some government building, Darci in Central Park, Maria K on a rooftop...were they all from the same photographer...and where is he/she now? I've seen some neat (Annie Hall word...sorry) pictures of Wendy by David Michalek...maybe he could do a series for NYCB?

No one went this week? Tonight, 2/26, the house was almost full and very enthusiastic. Two wonderful duets were the highlights of the performance: Kowroski & Neal in GLASS PIECES and Wendy & Jock in SYMPHONY IN 3 MOVEMENTS. In between was Peter's unusual CHICHESTER PSALMS which I happen to like; a new boy soprano, James Danner, exhibited remarkable steadiness and beauty of tone; Dena Abergel and Henry Seth were the soloists...the piece has not alot of steps, it is more of a ritual. One of the main reasons I went tonight was to see Bouder & Adam Hendrickson in SYMPHONY...I thought they would be an excellent pairing. But due to Sylve being out, Bouder switched to HER role and Jennifer Tinsley assumed her usual role, dancing with Hendrickson. Tinsley & Hendrickson were full of zest and seemed to be having a great time together. Jared Angle was superb tonight and again got Wendy smiling when they danced together. Jock and Wendy is the pas de deux was the apex of the performance...has their partnership ever been filmed? I can't think of anything...it's certainly been one of the great NYCB partnerships of all time. Bouder danced very well but seemed a little miscast in this role, I think a more womanly & sophisticated dancer is a better choice. I still hope to see her in the bouncing opening segment sometime in the future. Kowroski & Neal were luminous in GLASS PIECES and held the audience enthralled and they were strongly applauded. There were much fine dancing from the corps tonight and I must single out Rebecca Krohn (GLASS PIECES demi) for her remarkable clarity.

Old topic, but I just bought a copy of this on Amazon and was watching it this evening. Lots of diversions from reality but I suppose that is what movies do...still, I would have thought the real events exciting enough and not in need of enhancements. It's especially nice to see those legends Fracci and Dolin.

I hope Christopher fashions a role for the delectable Pauline Golbin!

Dale, the new works by Millepied and Wheeldon were announced...it's just that now they have names. Albert's ballet was premiered in DC, I believe, but will be a NYCB premiere. I avoid Broadway-style ballets in general. WEST SIDE STORY, DOUBLE FEATURE, etc are just not interesting to me...not even interesting enough to try them. Chris Wheeldon seems to alternate between show-biz stuff (CARNIVAL, CAROUSEL - which is really quite dark - even the plotty VARIATIONS SERIEUSES) and more angular, abstract works (POLYPHOINIA, MORPHESES, LITURGY, etc) with MERCURIAL and SHAMBARDS sort of in-between. I always see his ballets at least once but only the "non-story, non-cutesy" ones keep me coming back. Until this season, I regarded POLYPHONIA as his best but now SHAMBARDS has surpassed it, for me anyway.

Wendy...especially going backwards.