Simon G

Deborah B Do you know what happens when an AD decides that a soloist or principal has come to the end of the road and wants to terminate a contract in US companies? Can they actually do that? I remember reading about Kevin McKenzie firing Ashley Tuttle after a Coppelia performance due to the decline in her technique - is that possible and what kind of compensation is that dancer due if it is so? The thing is I can see how a golden handcuffs contract can be detrimental to a company. The POB springs to mind where the official retirement age of 42 allows a great deal of opportunity for corps dancers well past their technical hey day and window of opportunity for promotion to just basically languish for two decades in order to receive their pension. If the corps is for anything it has to be constantly open for an influx of new talent.

Deborah, I completely agree with you. This interview was very much a "calling it quits" with dance statement; at times it veered towards the personal though she was only reitierating a very common belief/opinion that Balanchine would never have chosen Martins and Martins' choreography is bottom drawer at best. However, those who traditionally voice such opinions are critics, ballet goers & ex-Balanchine stars, coming from a corps dancer whose career was sidelined by Martins and has now been terminated full stop; it unfortunately could be perceived as vendetta. Though Flack makes no bones stating categorically how angry she is. I have the feeling that if Flack had had her moment with Martins when she had the opportunity and really let her feelings be known this interview wouldn't have taken place in the form that it did. I completely sympathise with her anger at herself fo hugging him after he'd delivered the news. That "letting your assasin feel better" hug that is so so common in any unhappy ending is unbearably disingenuous. I just hope that any future employer won't bring this interview up as a demonstration of disloyalty to an employer and that those who Flack might have angered with this interview will let it go and not be vindicitve in the future.

The figures are right, but per week, not per month. Yes, per week! Miliosr, I don't know whether you're up to recalculating. Don't forget the weeks that the dancers collect unemployment benefits. As mentioned earlier, the company assumes that the dancers will collect (to the tune of $405 per week) during their scheduled lay-offs. I should have realised that $12, 180 per year was low but I was judging that by UK standards! Still it's good that at least in one company dancers are paid a wage which allows them to live comfortably and even save. This would make NYCB corps dancers the best paid in the world and this is a good thing. The problem for administration eager to cut costs comes I suppose when you get dancers who've reached the top tiers and have a good 10+ years left in their careers. The thought process that these people aren't going to progress to soloist/principal yet are still being paid a wage in that bracket - indeed more than a soloist or even new principal would get in the RB or any other top tier company - must have been a deciding factor in the sackings. It must be horribly galling to realise that the life, committment and artistry you've brought and dedicated to a company is seen as expendable, that the consistent hard work night after night and the just financial reward it brings is secondary to a few figures in an end of year balance sheet - that a corps de ballet is something that has such little relevance that those who understand it best, the longterm corps are seen as replaceabl en masse by a glut of vey new, very green dancers who will be happy to be herded, underpaid and even more expendable as a company has no longterm commitment to an apprentice after the first year: at which point they can let them go. I remember reading in Gelsey Kirkland's book about how even back in her day job opportunities for ex NYCB dancers were slim to none; to find yourself a young dancer your career terminated with no say in the matter is soul destroying - Again all I can say is well done to Flack for not going quietly into the night - I admire her so much for the stand she's taken.

Hey Miliosr, I did a bit of nimble fingered detective work. The NYCB 2009 AGMA contracts are online and here are the figures. A Level A Corps member (entry) gets $1015 per calendar month. A Level D Corps member (8-9 yrs) gets $1895 per calendar month. But it doesn't quite work out like that. An apprentice gets the same as a level A corps member only on a pro rata basis per performance not per month. Furthermore the rate for a graded corps member which is the same for rehearsal or peroformance week regardless does NOT apply. An apprentice is only paid a salaried wage for performance weeks in rehearsal they get an "allowance". Here are the paragraphs for your delectation regarding the pay scale. If anyone feels like ploughing through the full contract here it is: http://www.musicalartists.org/agreements/N...t.2005-2009.pdf

Wow. Brave brave woman and good on her. That took guts to graciously yet unequivocally state in no uncertain terms an atrocious situation. Especially as this interview will no doubt burn many bridges, and piss off royally a great deal of people who might have been willing to help her transition into another aspect of ballet administration. I applaud her; she has major cujones.

Helene, If you can find me 10 who are worse actors than Pierce Brosnan. I swear on a stack of bibles, I will pay your rent/ mortgage, gas, electricity, utility bills for a year.

Oh I don't know Dirac, Couldn't you just see Kate Jackson as a downtrodden working class girl awaiting her fiance's return from Vietnam? Or, Wandering the barracks of Auschwitz trying to decide which of her children to sacrifice? Or, Whistle blowing on dangerous safety measures in a nuclear power plant and being killed for it? Or, Refusing to cry even though dingoes DID eat her baby? Or, Peeling an orange on her farm in Africa? Or, Expiring from consumption prettily as a 19th century French lieutenant's woman, whos husband is lost in the Franco/Prussian war or breaking into ABBA's The Winner Takes It All in front of Pierce Brosnan for no apparent reason whatsoever in what must be the most over-feted, saccharine, maudlin, mediocre film of all time?

Interestingly what made Kate Jackson leave the show was that she was first choice AND offered the Meryl Streep role in Kramer vs Kramer, but the Charlie's Angels producers wouldn't let her have time off filming or even rejig her schedule so that she could do it. That was the final straw. What that might have done for her career, who knows?

I've been here...reading with interest the various postings! I've just heard the term" good feet" thrown around so much I was just wanting a little more info. My conclusion is that one can be born with a great arch and relativley short metatarsals...but it's how you use your feet that counts... Gillian Murphy( my first love when it comes to Ballerinas) has really long feet..but she's very quick with them..for example her Bouree's. Alina Cojocaru is going to need a podiatrist soon...she has a bunion forming on her right foot...( poor thing...I'm starting to like her too!) Iczerman I wish I'd known that you had a working knowledge of feet, the ballet lexicon and ballerinas including how they work their feet before making a total idiot of myself at length, defending someone who professed to be a total novice, including upbraiding and attacking other board members who I believed weren't helping by becomig too technical. Apologies everyone for any upset I caused. I'm an idiot.

Miliosr, You know I like you, I like you a lot. But please please please, get out of the house a bit more. (Sabrina Duncan was my favourite too.)

This is the thing Bart, I think that every dancer developes a peculiar and singular relationship with their feet, throughout the course of their training and into professional life. I had a full training but in my second to last year it hit me that I didn't want to be a dancer, so I left when my training was over, made up for the education I missed and then went to university. At the start when you're assessed as a child it is on the arch, as purely an aesthetic construct. It also seems that a good arch comes with some degree of hyperextension in the leg and while these qualities are most definitely prized they begin to throw up problems which you have to find ways to counter that straight-legged un-arched feet don't. Pulling up on the leg is harder, the construction of the leg and and foot constantly want to throw you off balance, likewise it's harder to turn a great deal of the time, feet are uneven surfaces at the best of times and most damagingly the 3/4 pointe which is essential for ballet starts to put a great deal of pressure on the achilles tendon - leading to that bane of dancers spurs. When I was 16 I started to get pain in my achilles an x-ray confirmed that I had spurs in my ankle (bone growths at the back of the ankle shaped into sharp points) an over arched foot just going through the motions of a tendu places far greater stress on the back of the leg and ankle, just because of the extremity of movement in an arched foot. Also rising to pointe, 3/4 or full also takes the stress on the lower leg to a greater extreme than the straight pull up. With spurs there are three options, suffer in silence till it's chronic; find a new way to work the foot - hard as ballet is a technique of extremes or surgery which requires nine months of total post op rest. I stopped altogether eventually, not because of the spurs but it was a factor knowing that it was a chronic condition which would only get worse. For a layman the beautiful arch of a foot is lovely, it's something beautiful to look at to be sure. The mechanics of technique and how it effects the foot and the stress that places on the whole frame is something dancers live with constantly.

Thank you for posting that Ray. What a banal and breezy article and no mistake. The thing is doesn't address is that why is change such a bad thing? Those 19th century ballet classics if danced today by the rather robust and rubenesque ballerinas of that era would be pretty grim; ditto Shakespeare if performed in the 16th century manner. And even composition Teachout fails to address that Beethoven's fifth when played badly with a poor conductor is atrocious but with top flight orchestras and a conductor who wants to take risks, push the performance in new directions adds to the symphony - takes it to a new level. The thing that really helped Graham take her company to another level after her retirement from dance was accepting that yes, dances change, new performers and generations change things, they have to, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - in fact it's vital if art is to continue to be relevant for succeeding generations. The other thing is in Carlson's grandiose statement that this legacy plan sets a new precedent in preserving a dance makers art is wrong. In 1983 Graham with the administration of Protas tried to do exactly the same thing. The applied to the National Endowment of the Arts for a $1million grant (a mere trifle compared to the $8m Cunningham Foundation seeks.) Their goal was to create a film archive to preserve the entire repertory - with three films made of each dance: 1 in full costume; 1 in rehearsal costume and 1 rehearsal with Graham narrating over the film the motivations, impetus and technique needed for the effect. The $1m was turned down but $250,000 offered. Graham and Protas refused the lower amount as an insult to her legacy and integrity. However, a year later the lower grant was offered again and this time they accepted, thinking that with advances in digtal technology their legacy plan could be achieved. Well, even with the grant the Graham legacy plan failed to materialise: perhaps because Graham knew that preservation isn't pickling in digital aspic. A legacy is only real when it's used and is alive. This paragraph pretty much sums up how Teachout mixes his metaphors and confuses the demands of ballet vs modern. Contemporary dance isn't ballet and for techniques so thoroughly rooted in the choreography and arising from the language of the creator's original technique the only way to last is for performance not by ballet companies, rep companies but by dancers dedicated to that branch of the art. I've also noticed that the Cunningham company is scaling back again. The three dancers fired have been replaced by only two, the sixty year old Swinston is still listed as a dancer.

I'm sorry Carbro, Ami everyone if I seemed tetchy, I wasn't meaning to come off as attack or pre empting you. I just got worried when I saw that this thread was evolving into a rather informed discussion about aesthetics vs functionality, the kind that leaves new comers to ballet baffled and underwhelmed. Yes, I do agree with all the different tangents this topic took as to feet. There is no one answer. Two of the great ballerinas of the past reknowned for the strength of their feet and what that strength allowed them to do technically, Nerina & Dudinskaya had really no arch to speak of - then feet were something you danced on. Both ballerinas careers were over long before I was born actually, but I've seen films of them. The thing regarding feet is that the aesthetics have become increasingly prevalant to the point of being a fetish over the past 20 odd years; CubanMiamiBoy mentioned arch enhancers, this ideal for fetishistic perfection leading dancers to surgery, does it enhance the art? Not at all, as you mentioned if a performance rests or falls on the lovliness of an instep then either the performance or the criteria by which one judges it has failed. But it's why I included Guillem in my "potted" history of ballet/ballerinas and feet. Love her or loathe her she is without doubt the most controversial figure in the history of ballerinas in the last 25 years - not least because the aesthetic ideal her natural physique inspired has arguably become the prototype to which ballerinas aspire to and now try to surpass. I think the thing to bear in mind when answering questions about feet is that a novice has no idea how important feet are to a dancer (rather banal wording, as if one could dance footless); and to ballerinas especially whose feet through the pointe shoe are daily put through a ritual of pain and rigour unlike any other group of women on earth. Books, papers, theses, articles, conferences have all been constructed/written about the ballerina and the pointe shoe - from every perspective. Training/gender studies/aesthetics. I remember once reading in a French newspaper an article about Guillem, but it wasn't about her per se, it was an appreciation of her legs and feet; not an appreciation really more of an elegy. Foot strength and technique aside the image of the ballerina's foot in a pointe shoe is an incredibly erotic one -and the greater the arch, the curve, the instep the greater the visceral buzz of pleasure on viewing it as an object of beauty alone. (Sorry have I gone a bit pervy here?) The thing is if you've ever had a friend who's an ardent feminist who you've tried to convince of the wonderfulness of ballet, the thing she brings up is the "perceived" barbarity of the pointe shoe - this has happened to me twice with friends and in both cases the old chestnut of foot binding in the Orient came up. Of course they are the antithesis of one another - foot binding designed to render a woman immobile, subservient to her husband, a possession; whereas the strength required for pointe work is super human. But in these cases I find it's not helpful when I splutter indignantly about the rubbishness of drawing such a parallel; ignoring the question of feet what my friends are talking about is the perceived generic image of a ballerina being sexless, subservient, a man toy. Whatever the criteria it can't be denied that beautiful, articulate, high arched feet really are something which can add another level to a ballerina's performance. As superficial as this sounds, the fact remains that debate aside ballet is most definitely an art of aesthetics - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, at all.

Actually -- no! The OP was remarking on comments on youtube, etc -- and you get comments re: bad feet on several ballet greats -- truth being, these feet aren't bad, and many of us consider them to be 'good feet' ------ it's all subjective! And this is probably getting a bit board on boards........ But Ami this is exactly my point. All the subsequent debate completely confused the issue. It's why I decided to illustrate the answer on the most basic level with pictures of feet which are considered "good" on pointe. The minutiae of technique is incredibly alienating to ballet novices. If and when he wants to delve into the wider implications of feet and how they're used/trained in ballet that's further down the line. This thread actually for me sums up why I have such a hard time of convincing my non ballet loving friends of why this is a wonderful, legitimate art form for everyone. It quickly can seem horrendously exclusory and exclusive. I purposely wanted to answer a total ballet novices question in a simple, clean and graphic manner. How a top flight technician such as Rojo uses her feet is wonderful, yes, I agree, but it's a connoisseur's appreciation. It's meaningless to read when written in detail for a novice ballet goer. He didn't want debate or to open a can of ballet worms - he wanted a good accessible starting point to explore the art form at his own pace. I noticed that the OP hasn't been back since, I just hope we haven't scared him off.

Do you think perhaps we're getting somewhat over-involved in the politics of feet and the use of such within the dance technique of classical ballet from what the OP intended? This thread is evolving in a ballet connoisseur's dissection of the use of feet for ballet technique. Yes, there are many ways to deconstruct the meaning of "good feet", however when I read or hear someone talk about a certain dancer having "good feet" I immediately think of feet like Rojo, Guillem or Hallberg. Beautiful arched feet whether or not they actually work well are a criteria for entrance into schools and companies, though thankfully behind more important considerations such as artistry, technique, dance quality. When I was a whippersnapper I gained entrance to White Lodge and at my audition even as a child I was asked to point my foot to see my arch, I have a very high arch and that was duly noted. Of course at 10 I was unable to use that arch and the foot in a fully realised way, but arch and instep are what's looked for at this basic level. I wanted the OP to look at Kirkland in that Coppelia video because regardless of her physical and mental state at that time there are several beautiful beautiful balances and she uses her feet in a lyrical, evocative manner which I think for a ballet novice is a good example of a petit allegro/unsupported balance solo for a ballerina. Also it's one of the very very few films which exist of her which are accessible to the general public. Balanchine said of Kirkland she had the best balance of any ballerina he ever worked with. I feel that the ensuing debate became something of an information overload for the OP who is just discovering ballet and is kind of alienating.

Mashinka You're bang on about Soares, I just can't quite believe his performances when watching - it's just not good. Makhateli is another one, he has what I call the "Orlando Bloom Effect" where even when he's performing you forget he's there. Steven McRae, is a technical dynamo, but I find his approach to dance and stage personality so pugnacious and overbearing that once you've stopped marvelling at his tricks there's not much else there - I feel he's another demi-caractere first soloist who has been promoted to prince because he's one of the few who has the technical armoury to cope with the principal rep. I do wonder though with all those great great dancers that the likes of ABT, MCB, SFB manage to recruit that the Royal can't seem to do the same? I also think you're right regarding the POB their rep allows great fruit to whither on the vine and male dancers of dubious technique leapfrogging to top rank over far more stylish compratriots. Moreau, Belingard & Pech are fine in the right rep, but aren't classical ballet dancers. Ganio seems increasingly to be permanently injured - a sad cautionary tale about over pushing talent before it's strong enough to cope with the massive physical responsibility it will have to cope with.

Hi Carbro & Cuban Do you mind if I just step in as I think we're getting a bit technical for a total newbie to ballet: Iczerman, as CubanMiamiBoy said his aesthetic ideal is slightly different from the examples of ballerinas I linked above. This is Alicia Alonso: http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/alonso03.jpg As you can see her leg and foot form a straight line it's a very straight look and was the aesthetic ideal for quite a long time in the mid to latter half of the 20th century. Another famous ballerina who had that very vertical look, no arch in pointe was Margot Fonteyn: http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/fonte05.jpg As Carbro mentioned the aesthetic ideal of what a ballerina should look like has changed radically in the last 40 or so years - thanks in great part to a famous choreographer called George Balanchine who with his company the New York City Ballet developed an aethetic ideal for the ballerina in the last 40 years of the 20th century which continues today. (Please don't roast me for my very potted, potted history board regulars) That ideal of a ballerina was long legged, flexible with the added bonus of an arched foot. The dancer Carbro referred to Gelsey Kirkland: http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/kirk07.jpg She was a famous virtuoso and great ballerina who was known for her technique and strength particularly her balances and jump. If you go to Youtube and type in Gelsey Kirkland there's a very famous film of her in Coppelia where you can see just how phenomenal her balances were. Feet is a funny issue, the dancer I linked to Sylvie Guillem who came to prominence in the mid 80s basically raised the bar as to what a ballerina should look like - she has an extreme physique and incredible technique, including hyper arched feet. Good feet or rather beautiful looking arched feet are notoriously weak a great deal of the time and it takes a great deal of training to strengthen them. Because in ballet the use of the foot to bend (plie) jump is vital. A dancer goes through every bone in their foot to rise on to pointe, or demi pointe (3/4) to jump and foot strength is a big part of having a good jump, a strong foot is like a coiled spring. Also when Carbro mentioned no feet or poor feet in men in a jump it's a common problem where the foot isn't pointed in one of the big ballet jumps and so the dagger like shape made by a leg stretching into a pointed foot is spoiled by a foot that isn't pointing and looks floppy. The dancer Ami refered to above Tamara Rojo: http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/rojo03.jpg You can check her out on youtube too.

Hi Iczerman, "Good feet" is basically saying that they have the aesthetically pleasing shape and form which comes from having a high arch and instep - and so when pointed they form a kind of tumescent banana shape and beautiful curve. When a woman with a high arch and instep wears pointe shoes where she's literally standing on her toes on the block in the shoe the effect of the arch is even more exagerrated and the line and curve of the arch extends into the shape of the toe shoe: Famous examples of ballerinas with good feet are: Sylvie Guillem http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/guill01.jpg Lynn Seymour: http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/seymou05.jpg Alessandra Ferri: http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/ferri02.jpg Paloma Herrera http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/herrer01.jpg The irony is that a very over arched foot whilst looking beautiful can actually adversely affect pointe work as the arch throws the body's weight over the foot throwing the dancer off balance.

Surely you don't mean that the POB is loaded with foreign virtuosos. The company is still overwhelmingly French, and even foreign nationals like José Martinez and Eleonora Abbagnato were trained in France. In the top ranks only Alessio Carbone could be identified as a "foreign virtuoso." I meant only the Royal is loaded with foreign virtuosi, not the POB. By ditto I meant several of the etoiles I've seen dance classical roles and was kind of underwhelmed by their classical technique. They were the ones who've been discussed here as surprise nominations to etoile due to their suitability to the modern ballet rep.

Cinnamon, You have me banged to rights, that's very very true. Last year when I had the chance to see NYCB in four programmes I have to say in regards to many of the male principals I was left thinking, hmmmmm.... And actually having seen the current state of the etoiles male ranks at POB one comes away with the same impression. Like Watson though, there are some very talented modern dancers in etoile positions in a classical ballet company. And in truth since both the RB and POB dance those three acts so rarely nowadays, it doesn't really matter. Watson and Pennefather have enough technique to muddle through a fille. Bayadere, Don Q, Swan Lake, Coppelia etc defeat them but those ballets are one a season at most and that's why the Royal has recruited so many foreign virtuosos. Ditto POB.

Carmela, I really really have to strongly disagree regarding Pennefather's technique. It's not strong at all, and Nunez, Rojo with whom he's been partnered several times absolutely run rings around him. Watching him and Watson stumble through classical enchainements can be kind of painful and I notice Watson now completely avoids any classical, danseur noble role - which raises the question why is he a principal? I always blanche a bit when people say "on the acting side" like performance is something that can be broken down into component parts and layered. If you look at old films of Dowell, he was never a great actor, but through the dance he achieved incredidble fluidity, poetry and artistry. Nureyev was always Nureyev, Baryshnikov too knew that performance and acting as a dancer came through the dance. Mashinka, I agree with Watson, he's an extremely interesting dancer. The problem is for modern dancers trained in the classical technique is where is there for them to go, if not with a classical company? Netherlands, Rambert, Lyon I suppose spring to mind. I think that Watson would be absolutely blinding in Pina Bausch's company - but again I very much doubt he would be drawn to any of those companies. He seems to like the few modern pieces he's always first cast in and the scenery chewing Macmillan rep. The thing is I very much wonder what Watson and Pennefather's careers would be like if they tried to gain a principal contract with any other major classical company? Next to ABT's rather impressive line up of spitfire male virtuosos - that just wouldn't happen, neither man has distinguished himself in the Balanchine rep except Watson did a good Melancholic a role requiring more flexibility than technique, though a T&V would defeat both men. I doubt either would be offered principal status in any of the major world companies. Pennefather and Watson's elevation to principal is political and I daresay necessary to continue to justify the enormous state funding that the RB receives. I also get this feeling when I watch Lauren Cuthbertson, currently the only British female principal, who is a lovely first soloist, but just not principal material.

cinnamonswirl By programme notes I meant the page long diatribes of pseudo intellectual artspeak McGregor favours, not performance dates etc

In regards to programme notes, it's worth noting (boom boom) that those real true greats such as Martha Graham, Merce Cunningham etc absolutely refuse and refused to put notes in programmes in regards to choreography - the maxim was that the choreography spoke for itself and this is absolutely right. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but Balanchine was of the same opinion ditto Ashton - no one ever got to the bottom of what Symphonic Variations was really about - he wasn't telling and it certainly didn't suffer as a work of art for not knowing. If choreography can't stand for itself without a pseudo intellectual essay, than one could argue the choreography isn't worth a damn? Certainly the language is failing - though what McGregor's language actually is I'm not quite sure - but Monica Mason is willing to pay out major coinage to find out. If someone sat next to you on a bus/train/plane and started to go on at you, a la McGregor, you'd quite rightly think you were sitting next to someone either insane or on drugs, and change seat. When this kind of waffling drivel is written in relation to "art" it's seen as alright. The thing I think is sad is how few signature works the RB is touring to the States, where Ashton is revered think of what a programme with Monotones II, Symphonic Variations, Fille could have done? Also I think it so sad that a company which was once considered the greatest classical company in the world outside of Russia isn't touring a single 3 act classic which made it the company it used to be. As for Pennefather, he's a soloist who like Edward Watson was pushed to principal status to fill the longtime vacuum of male principals from the UK. He's a political principle turned principal and like Watson is now expected to dance a range of roles and repertory he just doesn't have the technique to fulfil.

Mike, there's nothing to explain, McGregor is the master of fatuous artspeak. Never has so little been said in so many words, with so little sense. Something about empty vessels making a lot of noise springs to mind whenever I read a McGregor diatribe but at £30,000 for a half hour of "work" he's laughing all the way to the bank. And I didn't even like the piece either. When I saw it it was on with 4 Ts and DGV. Talk about the sublime leading the blind (the sublime being 4 ts), in case my metaphors mixed confusingly.

Agnes, The TMP has been around for well over five years now, his work is basically contemporary dance for ballet dancers using the ballet lexicon primarily - you can't pin his work down by "story" ballet or subject matter - like much modern choreography . McIntyre is a well respected choreographer, choreographing for about 20 years now since he was a ballet dancer. His work has been performed by a wide variety of companies from Houston ballet, to Stuttgart Ballet, New York City Ballet, American Ballet Theatre. His dancers are all ballet trained from good companies and schools. I think any discussion of his style/work/talent is invidious because thoughts and opinions of modern ballet choreography is wildly personal and of course totally biased. The best thing you can do is go to Youtube and type in Trey McIntyre. He uploads lots of videos of his dances and company work and that's the best way you can get a feel for whether or not you'd like to see his work live.