miliosr

http://www.webany.net/Sites/chgo_dance_fes.../newvoices.aspx

I did some research (yes, I know -- I need a hobby) comparing Humphrey's presence in the Limon company's New York City repertory during two different post-Limon periods -- 1973-1979 (the Ruth Currier era) and 2003-2009 (the Carla Maxwell era.) If you went to a Limon company performance in New York City during the 1970s, you were likely to see a fairly wide-ranging selection of Humphrey's work: Air for the G String (1928), The Shakers (1931), Two Ecstatic Themes (1931), Passacaglia in C Minor (1938), Night Spell (1951), Ritmo Jondo (1953) and Brandenburg Concerto # 4 (1958-59). In the current decade, you can still see Humphrey at Limon but the emphasis appears to be on her late-40s work: New Dance (1935), Lament for Ignacio Sanchez Mejias (1946), Day On Earth (1947) and Invention (1949). Make of it what you will . . .

ITA agreement w/ you Rosa. The bedroom scene took me right out of the story. No noble family would allow their "virginal" daughter to be seen that way.

Regarding the interaction between ballet and modern and its effect on a modern choreographer's standing in the dance world as a whole, Carla Maxwell at Limon has spoken about how, when Lucia Chase took Limon's The Moor's Pavane and The Traitor into ABT's repertory in 1970, it was like Limon had gotten the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval!

So nice to read that Alex Hammoudi is getting this kind of opportunity . . .

Not a problem, Simon G.! If I seem prickly when it comes to Limon's company, then it's because I feel they don't get the credit they deserve for being the first modern dance company in the United States to preserve itself after the death of the founder. (Something that Isadora Duncan and Loie Fuller and Ruth St. Denis and Ted Shawn and Doris Humphrey and Charles Weidman all failed to accomplish.) When Limon died, there was nothing -- no successor artistic director in place, no board, no fundraising ability, no clue as to who owned the rights to his works. Heck, there may not even have been someone to answer a phone and say, "Good morning! Jose Limon Dance Company!!" In 1973, the followers had a body of dances. But they also had some severe handicaps -- zero organizational structure, a big legal mess on their hands and a real sense that Limon's works had gone badly out-of-fashion with New York critics drunk on the abstractions of George Balanchine and Merce Cunningham. And yet, lo these many years later, they're still here. Through much trial and error, they've kept going and they've never gone on hiatus (like the Graham company.) Is it all it could be or I would like it to be? Absolutely not. I wish they were richer than they are. I wish they had more performance opportunities than they do. I wish they didn't try to move in so many creative directions at once. I wish they made better use of new media the way they need to to thrive in the 21st century. As you rightly note, Simon G., the real test for Trisha Brown (72), Merce Cunningham (90), Bill T. Jones (57), Mark Morris (52), Paul Taylor (78) and everyone on the Pilobolus commune will be after they're gone. Without the charismatic leader in place to attract funds, will the successor organizations continue to be as "rich" as they are now??? And what of Twyla Tharp (67)??? Most likely there will be a successor foundation but no namesake company. Not a problem at the moment as she has several patrons -- ABT, Miami City Ballet and Pacific Northwest Ballet -- to subsidize her. But will that always be the case? The Royal's treatment of Ashton and ABT's treatment of Tudor doesn't inspire confidence in that regard. OK, I'm rambling at this point. Peace in the valley of the modern dance!

Simon G. -- You read way more into my post than I intended. I was just pointing out that there is an actual Web site where you can find financial data about modern dance companies. People can find it useful or not as to the financial health of modern dance companies. Or they can count the number of performances on company Web sites to make that judgement. I just found that Web site interesting (and more "scientific") -- that's all. Wasn't trying to be glib about the Top Five and Graham/Limon. I thought those were your designations based on your prior posts. Sorry if I misrepresented you -- I'll change those designations after I submit this post. I "gagged" at the City Ballet number because of its sheer size -- not because of any specific implication it may have regarding ballet vs. modern (or anything else.) I figured the City Ballet number would be big but not THAT big. I made no claim about Doris Humphrey in either of the two posts I posted on this thread. I have no opinion whether her diminished legacy is fair or not. It is what it is. I was just curious as to why it had declined so much. I feel like this whole discussion is becoming "board on boards" so, even though this section of Ballet Talk is not moderated, we should probably call it a day on this one!

If you're interested in seeing what the actual financial health of various "name" American modern dance organizations is, a good resource is www.guidestar.org. There you can find the IRS Form 990s for your favorite arts organizations. I did some fiscal research on the Top Five companies Simon G. mentions: Alvin Ailey, Merce Cunningham, Bill T. Jones, Mark Morris and Paul Taylor. I also looked at the companies of Martha Graham and Jose Limon. I added to my research (for point of comparison) choreographers who appeared with Cunningham, Graham, Limon and Taylor in Jack Mitchell's famous photo of modern/postmodern dance choreographers: Erick Hawkins, Yvonne Rainier, Don Redlich, Anna Sokolow (who actually refused to appear, as the photo was to be taken in the garden at Graham HQ) and Twyla Tharp. Then to round out my comparison I took a look at the most prominent of the post-moderns -- Trisha Brown -- and the oddballs -- Pilobolus. (I tried to find Cedar Lake, too, but they didn't show up. With all that Wal-Mart money backing them, I wonder if they're even a non-profit.) The 'terms of use' agreement at GuideStar prevents me from publishing what I found but the results were interesting. Most companies came in about where I thought they would be but some companies surprised me for better (Brown) and for worse (Graham, Jones). And if you really want to gag, look up the New York City Ballet's tax return!

<<Indeed, ABT came up with a brilliantly beautiful idea, the Tchai-Balanchine celebration program! They should do it again in the Fall at City Center with a new bunch of Mr. B's best ballets.>> I would much prefer for them to maintain their Fall focus on Tudor rather than to stage "a new bunch of Mr. B's best ballets." If they're to that point, then they should just merge w/ City Ballet to create one mega-Balanchine company and be done with it.

I've been reading the new Doris Humphrey collection New Dance: Writings on Modern Dance (collected and edited by her son, Charles Humphrey Woodford) and I got to thinking: Why has the Doris Humphrey repertory gone into decline? It's not hard to see works by Humphrey's Denishawn contemporary Martha Graham or her star pupil Jose Limon. But Humphrey's own repertory appears to have gone into deep eclipse. Even the Limon company, for which she was artistic director and co-choreographer from 1946-1958, rarely programs more than one Humphrey work in a given season. (I've seen the Limon company every year since 2004 and have yet to encounter a Humphrey dance.) Is there something about her dances that makes them uninteresting to modern audiences? Humphrey made any number of abstract pieces (i.e. Water Study) that would appear -- at first glance -- to have continuing resonance with contemporary audiences. And yet her repertory is rarely seen. Why???

Coming late to the party as my local public television station waited until today to air this . . . Where to begin with this disastrous production? (FEMA could spend years studying what went wrong with this one.) Other posters have covered the low lights so I'll focus on the most egregious problem: the costumes. Oh brother! Whoever the poster was who referenced Star Trek was spot on. The ball scene reminded one of nothing so much as one of those episodes of Star Trek where The Enterprise plays host to visiting dignitaries from the Federation and the viewer gets to see a raft of extras parading around in garish, "futuristic" costumes. I half expected to see a Ferengei come strolling onstage!!! Since I pretty much hated the entire thing, the intermission ended up being the highlight for me. (Sorry Mel!) Leslie Stahl's interview with Peter Martins was great -- there was more crackling tension in that interview than in the entire production. (I guess no one bothered to tell her that she was interviewing a second or third-rate choreographer instead of a dictator of a Third World country.) The only thing that was missing was a tactless question about Suzanne Farrell. The only other thing to hold my attention was Adrian Danchig-Waring's face. Facially, he can look quite angular at times (somewhat like David Bowie during his "plastic soul" phase circa 1975) and then at others he can look movie star handsome. He was definitely the latter in this one. Is he such a chameleon that he can "alter" his looks depending on the production? If so, nice talent to have! The New York City Ballet may be one of the "best companies in the world" but this production will never convince anyone of that premise. Overall grade (not including the intermission, which was an 'A'): F+ (The + for the man of 1,000 faces, Adrian Danchig-Waring.) P.S. When this production was first announced, I was super-annoyed that Peter Martins went with this production rather than staging Antony Tudor's abstracted version. What a masterstroke that would have been for Peter Martins, I thought! (Being the savior of the Tudor Romeo and Juliet at ABT's expense!) But, having sat through this production today, I'm now convinced that that would have been a bad idea. Whatever their many other virtues may be, the City Ballet dancers would not appear to be naturals for the subtleties of Tudor.

Finale Results: 01 Shawn/Mark 02 Gilles/Cheryl 03 Melissa/Tony Thoughts: I predicted that Shawn would win at the beginning of the season and, sure enough, she did. However, Gilles and Melissa put up a tremendous fight and it was by no means certain that Shawn would win going into the finale. I do think that the deciding factor was Shawn's freestyle. It gave her just that little bit of extra fuel she needed to take her past Gilles, who -- according to Tom Bergeron -- was only separated from Shawn by less than 1% (closest finish in show history.) Congratulations to Shawn and also to Mark Ballas, who joins Cheryl Burke and Julianne Hough as a two-time winner of the show. Gilles doesn't take home the disco ball trophy but he is a winner nonetheless. He's gone from being a complete unknown who looked like an early elimination due to lack of name recognition to being a household name. Participating in this show was the best career decision he ever made. Congrats to Cheryl for taking another contestant into the Top Three (as she did with Drew, Emmitt and Christian.) Melissa was a gallant third place finisher and she too should consider herself a winner after all is said and done. She's gone from being forever remembered as the jilted contestant on The Bachelor to being (along with Shawn) America's Sweetheart. Living well is the best revenge, isn't it Melissa? Congrats also to Tony for making his first finale since Season Two (although he really does need to figure out how to choreograph a winning freestyle.) I don't know that I agree with head judge Len Goodman that Season Eight was the best season ever (I would still give that honor to Season Two.) But Shawn, Gilles and Melissa were definitely the best Final Three ever. And Tom Bergeron is still gold as host!

Judges Scores from Week Eleven - Night Two: 01 30pts Gilles/Cheryl (Argentine tango) 01 30pts Melissa/Tony (samba) 01 30pts Shawn/Mark (cha cha cha) Typical last night scoring from the judges . . .

dirac -- I was being facetious about the food! I even wrote that I was being facetious!! (I still say, though, that no other choreographer would get that kind of reverent treatment.) As for the Balanchine Trust, all I suggested is that it, in conjunction with everything else, may be too much. Good night!

Judges Scores from Week Eleven: Paso Doble Face-Off: 01 30pts Gilles/Cheryl 02 29pts Melissa/Tony 03 28pts Shawn/Mark Freestyle: 01 30pts Shawn/Mark 02 28pts Gilles/Cheryl 03 27pts Melissa/Tony Totals: 01 58pts Gilles/Cheryl 01 58pts Shawn/Mark 03 56pts Melissa/Tony If Shawn wins tomorrow night, then she will have done so on the back of her freestyle tonight. Gilles' freestyle was underwhelming and Melissa's freestyle was only marginally better than the one Tony choreographed back for Stacy in Season 2 (which is not a compliment.) Lots of former contestants in the audience tonight -- I spotted Tia, Emmitt, Monique, Marissa and Jane! (And, apparently, I missed Leeza and Vivica.)

That's fine, Leigh. I don't mind if you think that I'm overstating Balanchine's importance as a repertory staple or that I'm seeing a pronounced City Ballet influence at San Francisco Ballet where none exists or that I may be conflating two different phenomena (the overrepresentation of Balanchine in US repertories and the increasing homogenization of ballet repertories at the international level) in my mind. Ballet Talk would be a boring place if we all agreed about everything. I guess I was just trying to show that the phenomena of which I wrote could be occurring. Even if the numbers are inconclusive regarding Balanchine at San Francisco Ballet, I don't think the numbers suggest a pronounced Forsythe/Morris influence at that company or that Balanchine is in danger of disappearing anytime soon. (The numbers actually make me a lot more worried about Ashton, Fokine and Tudor who appear to be entering Blanche "kindness of strangers" DuBois territory.) As for Ballet Review and the business of the recipes, I would be a lot more receptive to the idea that there's no such thing as a Balanchine cult if I picked up an issue of Ballet Review and found, say, Lynn Seymour talking about Ashton's favorite way to cook chicken or, say, the late Sallie Wilson discussing Tudor's thoughts about lasagna. (YES, I'm being facetious -- but only to make a point.) I've been subscribing to Ballet Review for years and I don't recall any other choreographer getting that kind of treatment. When Balanchine died, he left certain dances to people in his life as a token of his affection. And now we have a world-striding colossus called the Balanchine Trust. When Balanchine died, his take on classical ballet technique remained uncodified (by his choice.) And now we have Suki Schorer's book which does just that (or attempts to.) When Balanchine died, he consigned a number of his ballets to the dustbin of history. And now we have an initiative to preserve every last scrap. When Balanchine died, you could see his ballets around but it wasn't easy outside of going regularly to the New York City Ballet. And now you can literally see them in Siberia. All of which makes me ask if the entire Balanchine-life-after-death project is becoming too much. I had better quit while I'm behind. Perky -- did you find the fuel for your flamethrower yet? There may be a few people who want to borrow it!

SandyMcKean -- But if you accept my argument that City Ballet represents a certain aesthetic (which is overrepresented in the United States), then the numbers do matter. We could argue endlessly about who fits into the City Ballet aesthetic and who doesn't but my guess is we'll just get diminishing returns. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? Helene -- Um, could you point to where I associated Possokhov with City Ballet? I can take criticism but I would appreciate it if it is for something I actually wrote.

So, let's look at the numbers for the San Francisco Ballet . . . 2008-09 and 2009/10 comprised/will comprise 40 works (some are repeats.) Counting up works by the artistic director/ex-Balanchine dancer (Tomasson), the in-house choreographer (Possokhov), the five greats of the 20th century (Ashton, Balanchine, Fokine, Robbins, Tudor), the suggested "spine" of the San Francisco Ballet (Morris, Forsythe) and the hoped-for-saviors in the 21st century (Ratmansky, Wheeldon), I get this breakout: 8 Tomasson (The Nutcracker and Swan Lake repeat) 6 Balanchine (Stravinsky Violin Concerto repeats) 4 Possokhov (There may be a repeat in there) 4 Robbins (The Concert repeats) 3 Morris 3 Wheeldon 2 Forsythe (in the middle, somewhat elevated repeats) 2 Ratmansky (Russian Seasons repeats) 1 Fokine (timed to the Ballet Russes centenary) 1 Tudor (timed to the Tudor centenary) 0 Ashton (Six other choreographers had one work apiece. Balanchine and Morris were the only two choreogaphers to have an entire mixed rep bill devoted to their works.) By my count, Balanchine and Balanchine-derived (Tomasson) account for over one-third of the repertory, give or take. (I'm willing to entertain arguments about Tomasson's Swan Lake and The Nutcracker being Balanchine-derived.) The Forsythe/Morris duo account for one-eighth of the repertory over two seasons. Interestingly, when you add up the works based on some connection to City Ballet (Tomasson, Balanchine, Robbins, Wheeldon and Ratmansky), you get near 60%. I will convince no one with this, I'm sure. At the end of the day, the Jim Williams character (played by Kevin Spacey) in the film version of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil may have been right when he said, "Truth, like art, is in the eye of the beholder." P.S. Actually, looking at the above list again, a more interesting question arises: Why are so few women represented as choreographers in ballet repertories?

Hmmm. This thread has so many sub-threads . . . Is there such a thing as a Balanchine "cult"? Well, just my opinion, but if Ballet Review can devote space to publishing Balanchine's favorite recipes, then I think there's a cult. If a leading dance critic (Robert Gottlieb) can suggest in the pages of The New York Observer that the Mariinski/Kirov should "absorb Balanchine's approach" and "catch up" to his aesthetic, then I think there's a cult. If Suzanne Farell can resurrect a Balanchine obscurity (Pithoprakta) (which even the Old Master didn't think worth reviving in his lifetime) while a Tudor masterpiece (Romeo and Juliet) slides into oblivion, then I think there's a cult (and a problem.) As to the comments from various posters that neither the dancers at the San Francisco Ballet nor its audience much like dancing/watching Balanchine, then why does Helgi Tomasson persist with it? It seems to me that this actually confirms San Francisco Ballet as a Balanchine company -- you're going to get Balanchine whether you want it or not (the "spinach" idea.) As to whether Balanchine's influence will lessen with time, when I can reasonably expect this to happen? I look around and see the opposite happening. Not only do you have a dozen or so ex-Balanchine dancers controlling leading institutions in the United States but you have Monica Mason in London programming more Balanchine than Ashton in recent seasons and now Nikolaj Hubbe is calling the shots at the Royal Danish Ballet (although, to be fair, his "ballerina"/"danseur" programs at the end of 2010 look like he's trying to think outside of the box.) Heading back to my hermitage to keep working on The Gospel of the Balanchine Apostates . . .

Thank you for that reasoned response, sandik. I chuckled at your reference to modern techniques being the polar opposites to classical ballet technique. I forget where I read it but there's a story of Antony Tudor observing one of Jose Limon's technique classes at Juilliard and at the end of it saying to Limon, "Jose, you took everything we tell ballet students not to do and made a technique out of it!" Apparently, Limon laughed and said, "You know -- you're right!" I agree with you that Tobias is referring to a phenomenon (dancers training in only one technique) that is rare-to-non-existent, even among ballet dancers. Any dancer coming out of the Juilliard School, SUNY-Purchase or the Boston Conservatory will almost certainly have been exposed to Cunningham, Graham, Limon, ballet and who knows what else. The "purity" issue is something Erick Hawkins complained about when Martha Hill instituted cross-disciplinary study at Juilliard and, more recently, Bruce Marks has suggested that maybe this trend has gone too far. From close observation of the Limon company over the last five years, I can say that they do look different in the way they move as compared to Limon and his original company members -- greater flexibility but, counterintuitively, less expressive (or Expressive) bodies.

Um, anyone care to elaborate?

I wish I knew what the way forward was, Quiggin. In the modern dance, the post-modernists tried to return to some mythical Eden (to a time before Martha Graham and Jose Limon [or even Isadora Duncan] existed) but that has led to an even worse dead end than exists in the classical ballet. The Mariinski/Kirov went back in time w/ their four hour recreation of the Imperial Russian Sleeping Beauty but that gave no clues as to the future (and was inauthentic to boot -- late-20th century bodies distorting a 19th century work.) I guess all I can suggest is to look to underexplored choreographers to see if there is something there that we missed; something that can be used as a launch pad to the future. That to me would be more productive than endlessly idling in neutral.

http://www.artsjournal.com/tobias/2009/05/..._of_atreus.html In her recent review of the Graham company's performance of Clytemnestra, Tobi Tobias makes the rather bold claim that Graham technique, "is the only Western dance technique apart from classical ballet capable of training a dancer fully to professional capability." Is this really true? The techniques of Merce Cunningham, Lester Horton and Doris Humphrey-Jose Limon don't do this??

Again, I would just posit that an art form which can only sustain two modes (19th century and Balanchine) due to inclination or paucity of resources (take your pick) is an art form doomed to irrelevancy. In other news, the last paragraph of Alastair Macaulay's review sums up the present situation nicely: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/arts/dan...1&ref=dance Earnest endeavor indeed . . .

kfw -- Again, my point isn't that Balanchine's best works aren't great works of art. What I'm trying to get across is that the similarity in programming at the Balanchine spin-off companies blurs their identities to the point that they are basically interchangeable with one another in terms of their repertories. I look around the country and I see one company: the New York City Ballet. (But I respect the fact that others can look at the same companies and not see that.) EAW -- I look at the ballets you have listed and see (to varying extents) a stripping away or at least a streamlining, which, to me, is the hallmark of High Modernism. But, again, different people can look at the same works and see different things. We may just have to agree to disagree on that score.