miliosr

The interview is moving, and Flack clearly deserved straight talk about her chances of dancing soloist roles, not to mention a respectful, appreciative sendoff. But apprentices are presumably paid less than corps members, and the company needs to bring in new dancers in order to find future soloists and principals. I think it could be argued as well that the SAB students, after all their dedication, deserve a shot at entering the company, even in a lousy economy. I understand what you're saying, kfw, and I would agree with you -- if the City Ballet administration had handled the situation in the manner which you described. The administration could have gone to the affected dancers and said, "I'm sorry. You've gone as far as you're going to go in the company and we have to balance your needs against the needs of the company and its future. We can't go a season without any new apprentices and, as a result, I'm afraid we won't be renewing your contract." That would have been tough for the dancers to hear and for Peter Martins to say (unless he's a complete sadist) but it would have been honest. The way it went down, however, suggests something other than that. City Ballet made a big show (in the New York Times, for one) of citing purely economic reasons for getting rid of those dozen or so dancers. But now, lo and beholden, it appears that there were other factors at work. If you're Miss Flack or one of the others, you would have to think that you got insulted not once but twice -- the termination meeting, in retrospect, appears less that truthful and then, with the hiring of the apprentices, you find out that the artistic staff didn't think much of you but didn't have the guts to tell you that. [Note: The collective bargaining agreement with the union may prevent what I described in the first paragraph. But, if that's the case, then the union rep should ask himself or herself what good the agreement is if it can be so easily evaded.] As for whether or not apprentices are cheaper than corps members, I'm sure they are -- but significantly so? Furthermore, you can turn that argument around and direct it at a half dozen or more principals (and you all know who they are) who are clogging up the arteries at the top. If the goal is saving money to hire apprentices, why not ask Mrs. Martins to forego her Cher-like farewell tour in the interests of the company's future???

Wow is right -- the smoke from those burnt bridges will be seen for miles! Good for her, though. I especially like how she called out Martins about the apprentice situation. Gee, they're so broke they have to fire close to a dozen dancers but, magically, they have money to take on apprentices. Please . . . To me, this was the money quote: "I don't think he [balanchine] chose him [Martins] for his artistic vision or creative abilities as a choreographer." Truer words were never spoken.

I actually think there are some marvelous actors on soaps (and always have been) but, in a genre where speed is of the essence (putting on five shows a week), soap acting will always have its limitations due to the time factor. In any event, I firmly believe the daytime soaps will all be gone by the end of the next decade. Guiding Light will leave us soon and As the World Turns will be next. The social and economic conditions that made the soaps possible are gone now and the soaps will go with them. In happier news, Season Four of Charlie's Angels is coming out on DVD later this month!

Well said perky. While Jackson had the acting chops and Fawcett-Majors had the charisma, Smith had a certain mysterious presence that provided a nice contrast to the more wholesome personas of the other Angels. Until Julie came along in Season 5, Kelly Garrett always struck me as the one Angel who had seen the dark side of life before entering the police academy and then joining the Townsend Detective Agency. I agree with you in part dirac. I thought the Roberts hire was a disaster because it went against the whole premise of the show -- professional female detectives (albeit ones who chased tough criminals down Malibu beaches in bikinis!) The Julie character wasn't even an ex-police officer like the five others -- she was "a top fashion model" [Note: Yeah right!] who wound up by happenstance as a member of the agency. That being said, I think Shelley Hack gets a bum rap for her participation in Season 4. The producers hired Hack to fill the "Smart Angel" void left by Jackson but they correctly deduced that the audience wouldn't stand for the newest Angel assuming Sabrina's leadership position and bossing the more senior Angels around. So, they took their time integrating the Tiffany character into the cast. Unfortunately, I think they took too long. After the Season 4 premiere ("Love Boat Angels" -- yes, that Love Boat), the Tiffany character practically disappeared while the production staff instituted the new 'Solo Angel' format (w/ solo outings for Smith and Ladd) and aired several of Farrah's "return" episodes (to get out of her contract, Farrah was legally obligated to make three appearances in Season 3 and another three in Season 4.) By the time the show runners got back to the "3 Angel format", the whispers had already started that the newest Angel wasn't integrating with the rest of the team and Hack became the scapegoat when the ratings took a dip. (My own feeling is that the departure of Jackson and the novelty of the show wearing thin were the true culprits for the ratings slide.) It's a shame Aaron Spelling axed her because, by mid-season, the writers had started to integrate Tiffany into the team and she really was a true Angel by the end of the fourth season.

Interesting thing about Farrah. When she left after the first season (1976-77), everyone expected the ratings to plummet. But they actually went up a notch in the second season (from #5 to #4.) So, her departure wasn't the catastrophe people thought it would be. Kate Jackson leaving after the third season ended up being a bigger problem because she wasn't as easily replaced as Fawcett-Majors had been (with Ladd.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/arts/dan....html?ref=dance Another precinct heard from in the last paragraph on the first page!

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/06/the_e...ty_death_c.html Poor Farrah!

http://nymag.com/arts/all/approvalmatrix/57429/ Someone's really in love w/ Adrian Danchig-Waring at New York Magazine. He's made the approval matrix again (see upper right corner.)

Sabrina = The Smart Angel Jill = The Sexy Angel Kelly = The Streetwise Angel Kris = The Spunky Angel Tiffany = The Refined Angel Jule = The Trashy Angel??? (Sorry -- not a fan of the character.)

Not too worry, Simon G. -- I'm off to catch some rays shortly! As for the poll, well, this board can be so serious (i.e. the Balanchine wars, Veronika Part -- divided opinions, etc.) that the occasional frivolity is sometimes in order.

Since Charlie's Angels is very much in the news again due to Farrah Fawcett's passing, I thought I would conduct a poll: Who was your favorite Angel? Note: There's supposed to be a poll attached to this but I've messed it up somehow. Anyway, here are your choices: Sabrina Duncan (Kate Jackson) Jill Munroe (Farrah Fawcett-Majors) Kelly Garrett (Jaclyn Smith) Kris Munroe (Cheryl Ladd) Tiffany Welles (Shelley Hack) Julie Rogers (Tanya Roberts) My vote goes to Kate Jackson as Sabrina Duncan. Charlie was the titular head of the Townsend Detective Agency but Sabrina was its true leader. She was the one to whom the other Angels looked to for leadership and she would almost always be the one to deduce what was going on with an investigation. When she pulled away from the agency for the last time in her orange Pinto, the Townsend Detective Agency would never be the same.

I wouldn't get too worked up about what Terry Teachout wrote. He writes about all of the arts -- high and popular -- and his dance writings are by far the weakest. I've read some fairly eccentric predictions by him. For instance, that the period since Balanchine's death would be remembered as the kickoff point for the classical ballet's Golden Age and that the works of Robert Weiss (at Carolina Ballet) would sweep the ballet world. Good luck with both of those predictions! As for the dissolution of the Cunningham company, I think they're missing an opportunity to become something akin to what Baryshnikov was trying to do with his White Oak troupe in the 90s (but unburdened by his celebrity) -- a repository for postmodern American works which won't find a home elsewhere.

Ouch. I thought I was writing a nice appreciation of Farrah Fawcett as something more than a mere actress but I guess I wasn't. Fairly or unfairly, she will be remembered from the first season of Charlie's Angels and her best-selling swimsuit poster from that era. The serious roles will fade away -- as will the Playboy shoots, the ill-fated appearance on Letterman, the ill-advised forays into reality television and her sometimes tumultuous personal life. People will remember her -- rightly so -- as that phenomenon of nature which only God himself can bestow on us. Not a bad epitaph, if you ask me.

She was never my favorite Angel on Charlie's Angels (that would be the true leader of the Townsend Detective Agency -- Sabrina Duncan, played by Kate Jackson) and I preferred Version 2.0 of the team (Jackson, Jaclyn Smith, Cheryl Ladd) to Version 1.0 (Jackson, Fawcett, Smith). But, when you think of Charlie's Angels now, you think of her and the hair and the smile and the ease of manner and the effortless style as much as anything or anyone else. I hope this Angel was assumed immediately into Heaven. Sigh.

I hope you're right, Mel, I really do. It just seems like the Joffrey diaspora you speak of is so diffuse that it will never gain critical mass. And if it does, what companies will have them? And how do you overcome the resistance from people like Mr. Pankevitch who find the works "old-fashioned"?? There's an old saying -- "Don't give hostage to fortune." I think the Ashton lovers need to have a long-term strategy that doesn't depend on a savior coming along to rescue them from their dwindling condition. (Not a criticism of what you wrote, dirac.) Absolutely, I agree entirely. I agree as well. But, even if Monica Mason were more of a believer than she is, are conditions even possible for a return of the Royal as the Ashton standard bearer? She has to program the Swan Lakes and the Sleeping Beauties to pull the crowds, she has Lady MacMillan breathing down her neck, she has to maintain the Royal's position as a top international company by programming the same repertory (Jewels, Dances at a Gathering) that all of the other top international companies perform, and she has to placate the anti-elitist crowd by programming Wayne MacGregor and others. The 2009-10 season looks somewhat better for Ashton but there have been some real disaster years for Ashton this decade with one or two works per season.

Well, it looks like Melissa has parlayed her reality TV experiences (Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders: Making the Team, The Bachelor, Dancing with the Stars) into a new gig -- she will be working as a special correspondent for Good Morning America!

I've heard it's Facebook, actually.

Truer words were never written. Let's go over the roll call again: Former City Ballet dancers sit in positions of power in New York, Washington, DC, North Carolina (2), Miami, Chicago, Colorado, Arizona, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Whether out of ignorance or indifference, none of them will ever be committed to Ashton as anything more than a novelty. To borrow a term from Star Trek, Ashton is not part of their prime directive. Given this state of affairs, I think it's unlikely in the extreme that the United States will spearhead an Ashton revival -- the center of gravity has moved too far toward St. Petersburg, New York for that to happen. It's tempting to think that little Sarasota Ballet will be able to preserve the Ashton works and style but I'm highly doubtful that they will be able to accomplish that any more than little New York Theatre Ballet will be able to preserve the Tudor works and style.

To me, the importance of what Peter Boal said regarding Ashton has nothing to do with Boal himself and everything to do with the swift decline of the Ashton repertory in the international ballet repertory. The underlying subtext of Boal's remark is that he sees no need to become more conversant with Ashton. And why should he? The Ashton repertory is in retreat everywhere and adding it to repertory would only detract from Peter Boal's real interests -- City Ballet dance (Balanchine, Robbins) , Euro-dance (Forsythe) and downtown New York dance. This to me is the key -- having a flagship company performing the works year in and year out. Balanchine and Robbins have an institutional home that will perform their works regularly and forever. Not so lucky for Ashton (the Royal) or Tudor (ABT). That's why I find Merce Cunningham's decision to disband his company so baffling. Without a Cunningham company to perform the works in perpetuity, how soon before the drift starts?

Poor Macaulay -- clinging to the notion that the Ashton repertory has any life in it when it has already entered its death spiral. The Ashton repertory (like the Tudor repertory) is as doomed as the Byzantines were behind the crumbling walls of Constantinople in the 1450s or the Nasrid Granadans were in their mountaintop kingdom in the 1490s. When the leader of the third best company in the United States is unfamiliar with the Ashton repertory, then it's over. (Note: I appreciate his honesty although it doesn't necessarily redound to his credit.) When the leader of the first or second best company in the United States can find room for five ballets by He-who-shall-not-be-named on his company's Spring schedule but not for Tudor's Gala Performance (which several posters on this board stated was a no-brainer), then it's over. A few performances here and there won't preserve the style over the long haul. (i.e. The Danes performing Five Brahms Waltzes as part of a novelty ballerina night won't make the RDB Ashton specialists any more than performing The Unsung as part of a novelty danseur night will make the RDB Limon specialists.) I say follow Merce Cunningham's lead and stage multi-year "Viking funerals" for the Ashton and Tudor repertories. Let them slip into the night so we can all settle into the bi-polar world of the 21st century. Gloomily yours . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/arts/mus...y.html?ref=arts The Times weighs in with a lengthy article regarding the current state of things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/18ore..._r=1&ref=us This article doesn't address OBT directly but provides some interesting context regarding the economy in Oregon.

Well, I tried to order (free) tickets all afternoon. When I finally got through to the Harris Theater box office, they were all "sold out"! So, someone else will have to report back regarding the performances on the 20th.

As a wise woman once said: "If people are not living the dances as they're intended to be, then the dances become something else. Dance is like an oral tradition, passed on from person to person. You can't divorce events from the time in which they're happening. Just like in Chopin, Beethoven, Bach: The music stands for the beauty it has, but you have to wrap your soul and your head around what the creator was putting out there for you. Your training has to reflect that, and open the possibility for you to do that." I really have to question whether the Cunningham works can survive long-term if, eventually, there will be no Cunningham dancers to stage them after having lived them in performance. Without a flagship Cunningham company to act as the stylistic/technical standard bearer, won't the works start to drift over time -- film or no film?

Looking at the 990s online is revealing. Fiscal years 2005 and 2007 were more or less in balance but fiscal year 2006 was a real disaster year. Gross receipts lagged and expenditures ballooned. What was going on that year???