miliosr

bart I considered travelling to DC for Limon Dance Company's performance at the Kennedy Center in January on the theory that: favorite company + favorite city = good time BUT, I decided against it once I saw what the repertory would be -- Suite from a Choreographic Offering, The Traitor and Psalm. While I love the Suite from a Choreographic Offering, The Traitor is a dark and despairing work which I admire more than I actually like. I have not had the opportunity to see Psalm but I've heard mixed things about it -- too "heavy" and too long (even though the company cut the original running time of an hour (!) in half.) So, the thought of watching two works with angst-ridden protagonists (The Traitor, Psalm) on one bill tipped my decision to the negative. Now, if Carla Maxwell had programmed Limon's Dances for Isadora instead of Psalm, then I would have gone. (Of course, then you would have a bill where two of the dances involve some kind of death by strangulation. If they replaced Suite from A Choreographic Offering with The Moor's Pavane, they would actually have three dances involving strangulation on one bill!) sandik -- As someone who loves Lubovitch's Concerto Six Twenty-Two, I was SO looking forward to this company's performance and they disappointed me terribly. This was the bill (no Concerto): Dvorak Serenade (2007) Jangle (2008) Men's Stories (2000) The problem as I saw it was this -- these works (all from this decade) were so similar in tone (which was frenetic) that it felt like they were one long work with costume and music changes. Concerto Six Twenty-Two proved that Lubovitch could juxtapose fast and slow, joyous and bittersweet. But here, everything -- even the slowed down sections -- came across as frenzied and in-your-face. (Men's Stories (in particular) was an absolute trial at 45 minutes+ in length. I would have to put it in the running with Susanne Linke's Extreme Beauty and Alwin Nikolais' Tent as the most pretentious twaddle I've ever had the displeasure to see on a stage.)

I don't know if any of you watch Gossip Girl but Ed Westwick, who plays the villainous Chuck Bass and who hails from England, does a great American accent. (The show actually used this to amusing effect when Chuck posed as an English lord to trick his on-again/off-again girlfriend Blair Waldorf and got to use his real accent!)

So I watched the video of Daniil and his father battling it out in the studio. I thought the father looked like his brother and Daniil looked like Leonardo Dicaprio around the time he was on Growing Pains!

Probably the last update of Limon-related goings-on for the year . . . The University of Kansas dance company will perform La Malinche on November 20-21. Doug Elkins is preparing, "a retelling of Shakespeare's Othello using Motown music." Structured after Limon's masterpiece The Moor's Pavane, the working title is Moortown. (Didn't the Trocks perform a Moor's Pavane travesty once upon a time?) The mothership company will be conducting a "tour" of Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx beginning November 4th and ending the first week in December at the Joyce. The repertory will include three works by Limon (Suite from a Choreographic Offering, The Traitor and The Moor's Pavane), a revival of Anna Sokolow's Rooms and a new work by former company member Clay Taliaferro. (There will also be a gala night featuring excerpts from Limon works plus a performance of Mary Anthony's Lady Macbeth.) I am curious as to how the Joyce engagement is selling. I took a look at the Queens engagement and that appears to be selling poorly (noticeably worse than Paul Taylor's engagement at the same theater, which is not close to selling out either.) Lastly, Kurt Douglas has left Limon after seven years to join Lar Lubovitch's company. I found this out when I went to see the Lubovitch company here in Madison and there he was on-stage. (Hated all three Lubovitch pieces by the way.) See you all in the New Year after I see the Limon Company perform in Minneapolis in March!

Week Five Ratings: Performances -- 2nd -- 18.5 million viewers Results -- 4th -- 16.4 million viewers Out: Toni

Agreed Classic_Ballet about a Hammoudi/Wiles pairing!

Week Four Ratings: Performances -- 3rd -- 17.8 million viewers Results -- 6th (tie) -- 14.8 million viewers Out: Rocco

Week Three Ratings: Performances -- 2nd -- 18.6 million viewers Results -- 7th -- 15.1 million viewers Out: Misty (injury)

Week Two Ratings: Performances -- 1st -- 18.9 million viewers Results -- 5th (tie) -- 15.5 million viewers Out: Kim

So, how is ballet box-office in Chicago these days? I can't account for the Joffrey but ABT's spring visits always sell well. As much as I roll my eyes about the unadventurousness of the repertory ABT brings to Chicago (Swan Lake, Giselle, Le Corsaire, Romeo and Juliet and Sleeping Beauty), it does put rear ends in seats. (Whether they will sell quite as well this Spring in light of everything that is going on in the financial markets -- I cannot say.) The first night of the Chicago Dancing Festival, with three ballet companies and three modern companies, was also very well-attended. (Of course, it was free so that surely had something to do with it.)

So, for those who are interested -- last week's ratings: Monday - 21.3 million viewers - 1st Tuesday - 18.3 million viewers - 4th Wednesday - 15.9 million viewers - 9th Out: Jeffrey, Ted

sjDANCEco will be performing Limon's Waldstein Sonata October 16-18.

I've always assumed that the opening of The Moor's Pavane, with its counterpoint of dimmed lighting and El Greco-like costumes (both in color and design) gleaming from the gloom, was a deliberate attempt on Limon's part to transport the viewer immediately to a different time and place. Since he used no set, the lighting effect at the beginning accomplished what a set normally does -- setting the mood. (I happen to think that an actual set would ruin The Moor's Pavane.) As for the Elusive Muse, I locked eyes with her for a few seconds and it was like looking into the face of a sphinx -- mysterious and, ultimately, unknowable.

Amy -- The Harris Theater is very steep. In regard to your concerns about preserving lineages, I don't disagree with you that the current postmodernist stripmining of techniques and styles in the international contemporary dance scene is problematic. When Martha Hill created the Juilliard dance division, people like Erick Hawkins warned that having students study with Graham and Limon and Anna Sokolow and Antony Tudor would inevitably blur what was unique about the individual techniques/styles. To some extent, this has occurred (by design in the case of Humphrey and Limon as they didn't want the technique to remain static.) Did anyone go to the outdoor performance on Wednesday night?

If you're going to be in New Zealand in September, the Christchurch Body Festival of Dance and Physical Theatre will be devoting a day to Limon, under the direction of former Limon company member Louis Solino. Titled Jose Limon: A Celebration, the event will include performances of Air For the G String (Humphrey), The Moor's Pavane (excerpted) and Chaconne.

Jack -- I had originally posted in the Modern forum and then you posted in the Galas forum. That's how we missed each other at first. But a kindly moderator moved my post to your thread, which is a better home for it. You had mentioned that you found the opening section of The Moor's Pavane somewhat dimly lit. That's by design -- those extraordinary costumes are supposed to illuminate the gloom. I enjoyed The Moor's Pavane but it wasn't the best Pavane I've ever seen. As I wrote previously, some of the subtleties were lost from where I was sitting. Interesting that you enjoyed Jonathan Fredrickson's performance so much. I think if I had been sitting closer to the stage, then I would have seen more of what you enjoyed. As it was, of the four participants in the pavane, I thought Kathryn Alter projected just the right amount of intensity for the venue. Fredrickson was almost too subtle from where I was sitting and Francisco Ruvalcaba and Roxane D'Orleans Juste perhaps drifted a shade too close to Nureyev & Friends territory. In fairness to the Farrell troupe, I don't understand why they were positioned the way they were in the first half. It was very self-effacing of Lar Lubovitch to go first but Concerto Six Twenty-Two is a closer -- not an opener. I also think that, like The Moor's Pavane, Cave of the Heart and even the Rubies pas, I might have enjoyed Tzigane a little more if I had been up close and could see some of the subtleties a little better. But, as you noted, the performance was odd on the night -- with the ballerina underpowered and the cavalier overpowered and the corps adding a third element seemingly disconnected from the first two.

A couple of thoughts on your post Amy. I do think choreographers continue to utilize both techniques -- they just don't make sole use of these techniques. As Janet Eilber noted on Tuesday night, Limon's teachings are very evident in Lar Lubovitch's Concerto Six Twenty-Two. But there are other elements to this work as well. What I think is happening now is that there has been so much cross-pollination of techniques and movement ideas within the modern idiom and across idioms (ballet and modern) that the ideas of Graham, Humphrey and Limon have almost become subsumed into the larger "contemporary" technique. Carla Maxwell made an interesting point on Tuesday. During their lifetimes, Humphrey and Limon resisted all attempts to codify the technique because they wanted it to evolve -- they didn't want to block off future avenues of exploration or cross-pollination by creating set positions. This doesn't mean that Limon technique doesn't have core tenets -- it does -- but that the technique remains a flexible tool which can be used by itself or in tandem with another discipline. As for your larger point regarding the absence of major choreographers working in the Graham and Limon tradition, well . . . I don't think a technique can confer creative greatness. Just look at Balanchine and his take on ballet technique -- the followers who knew him and are (presumably) influenced by his ideas certainly haven't produced a collective body of work that looks likely to long survive their deaths.

So, on to Day 2 of the Chicago Dancing Festival! Sighted in the lobby of the Hilton: Limon Dance Company artistic director Carla Maxwell and Limon senior dancer Roxane D'Orleans Juste in the morning and American Ballet Theatre dancer Jared Matthews twice in the afternoon (cute -- both times! ) The second event of the festival was a lecture/demonstration at the Museum of Contemporary Art on Tuesday evening. Carla Maxwell presented for the Limon company and artistic director Janet Eilber of the Martha Graham Dance Company presented for the Graham troupe. I was hoping that the spirits of Martha Graham and Doris Humphrey (Jose Limon's mentor and the first artistic director of his company) would join us for a hair-pulling debate over who "Miss Ruth" loved best but, alas, they failed to show and the evening was otherwise very convivial. Eilber and Maxwell took turns speaking, showing films and presenting excerpts from repertory works to demonstrate the differences between Graham Technique and Humphrey-Limon Technique. In essence, Graham Technique centers (hohoho) around the pelvis and the idea of "contraction and release". Humphrey-Limon Technique falls (hohoho) around the idea of "fall and recovery" and how the impetus of the human breath can have startling implications for movement. Roxane D'Orleans Juste performed two separate "etudes" based on Humphrey and Limon choreography. The first incorporated movement themes from Limon's Psalm, A Choreographic Offering and La Malinche. The second utilized themes from Humphrey's Passcaglia and Limon's Missa Brevis and Chaconne. What struck me about these two etudes (apart from how beautiful so much of the movement was) was the sense they left of almost limitless possibility within the technique. Depending on how far a dancer pushes the concept of yielding to gravity and recovering from it, the dancer can create a different effect to the same set of steps each time. Jennifer Depalo from the Graham company performed several extracts from repertory -- Seraphic Dialogue, Night Journey and Embattled Garden. The Seraphic Dialogue excerpt hit home the hardest for me. What it showed me was that the Graham contraction can be used, not only as a tool for physical movement, but also as a way to create dramatic content on stage. Of the two techniques, I must admit I prefer Humphrey-Limon Technique to Graham Technique. Humphrey-Limon is separate and apart from ballet technique and, yet, like the classical ballet, it has a deep love of presenting beauty. Graham, in contrast, seems to delight in showing strain. Graham Technique is undeniably powerful and undeniably dramatic but I don't find it pleasing to the eye the way I find Humphrey-Limon and ballet techniques. The evening concluded with a question & answer session. Here are some of the highlights: 1) The moderator asked Eilber and Maxwell about the creative processes Graham and Limon used in the studio. Eilber said that Graham had to change her creative process during the late-1960s from choreographing on her body to choreographing on her dancers' bodies. Maxwell said that Limon started with an idea and he would often live with the idea for a very long time. (She gave The Moor's Pavane as an example -- Limon spent the better part of a year working on it.) 2) There was an odd question about Isadora Duncan. 3) Eilber and Maxwell both talked about how much of the Graham and Limon repertories are still "performable". Eilber said that Graham choreographed 180+ dances during her lifetime but that only about 50 of the dances survive (and, of those 50, only about 12-15 are constant presences in the performing repertory.) Maxwell didn't give numbers (although I've heard a range of anywhere from 75 to 100 Limon works created and about 25 surviving) but she did say that much of Limon's repertory was never filmed or notated and, therefore, is lost. (Also, Limon started choreographing late and died relatively young, so his output was smaller tham most of his contemporaries.) Also, Eilber and Maxwell both said that Graham and Limon hated to do revivals! 4) There was an interesting discussion about the role of music in each choreographer's repertory. Carla Maxwell repeated what I've heard her say before -- that Limon didn't believe you could be a great dancer if you weren't highly musical. Eilber gave a fascinating response -- that Graham considered music to be an "opposition" force in her work and/or a tool for the dancer (like a prop?) I didn't entirely understand what Eilber meant by this and, unfortunately, the moderator didn't follow up on this point. Well, that's my report from the festival. I didn't stay for tonight's performance in Millenium Park so someone else will have to report back from that. I didn't find a rich billionaire industrialist at the Hilton (a la Joan Crawford in Grand Hotel) but I had a blast at the two events I attended!

So, trying my best to look like Nate Archibald, I decamped to Chicago on Monday to enjoy the first two nights (of three) of the annual Chicago Dancing Festival. Here are my thoughts regarding Day 1 at the Harris Theater: The Harris Theater, which is part of Millenium Park, has very steep seating but this makes for excellent sightlines. I was seated in Row Z but I had a great view of the stage. The evening began with a defile of the dancers from the participating companies (not in this order): Suzanne Farrell Ballet, Martha Graham Dance Company, Joffrey Ballet, Limon Dance Company, Lar Lubovitch Dance Company and Oregon Ballet Theatre. The theme for the evening was "20th Century Masters" and featured works by George Balanchine (two), Martha Graham, Jose Limon, Lar Lubovitch and Paul Taylor. First Half Lar Lubovitch Dance Company Concerto Six Twenty-Two (1986) Chicago Dancing Festival co-founder Lar Lubovitch went first with his signature work - Concerto Six Twenty-Two. This is a work which I like very much but, on the night, I found it somewhat ragged. I thought it suffered a bit from a lack of a unified company style -- half the dancers appeared to be leaning toward the ballet end of the spectrum while the other half appeared to be leaning toward the modern end of the spectrum. I saw the Limon Dance Company perform this exact same work in 2006 and, I must say, I preferred their account of it to the Lubovitch company's account due to the unified style of the Limon dancers. Still, this was a lot of fun and certainly got the capacity crowd excited for the remainder of the evening. Limon Dance Company The Moor's Pavane (1949) The Harris Theater is probably not the ideal place to see this work if you're sitting toward the back as I was. At a certain remove, the gestural quality which is so important to The Moor's Pavane is lost and, consequently, the dance itself loses some of its power. There was a frenzied quality to the movements on Monday night which I had not encountered in my prior viewings of this work (in 2006 and 2007) and I couldn't help but wonder if this was an attempt to put this work "across" in a larger venue. That being said, sitting toward the back revealed an aspect of The Moor's Pavane to me that I had not encountered in venues where I had sat closer to the stage -- namely, Jose Limon's marvelous capacity for spatial design. Truly, from where I was sitting, it did live up to its billing as a "living canvas". I wouldn't want to view this work in this way on a regular basis but, as a one-off, it was a revelation. Two of the pavane's members were new to their roles (or at least new to me, the Limon specialist on this board) -- Jonathan Fredrickson as The Moor's Friend (Iago) and Kathryn Alter as The Friend's Wife (Emilia). Of the two, Alter made the more dynamic impression (even though not all of the gestural quality registered) and I would very much like to see her again in this role. Suzanne Farrell Ballet Tzigane (1975) Oh dear -- I'm about to make enemies nine ways to Sunday with what I'm about to write but here goes: I hated this. In fairness to the troupe, I don't understand why they were positioned the way they were during the first half. They should have started the first half and the Lubovitch company should have finished it. Having to follow crowd pleasers like Concerto Six Twenty-Two and The Moor's Pavane was not a blessing for them. I had several significant problems with this work. The lead ballerina looked like she was wearing a hula skirt from where I was sitting, which was VERY jarring. More problematic for me (and for Tzigane) was the lead ballerina's complete lack of expressivity -- she just did not register from where I was sitting. Add to this the faux gypsy claptrap of the work itself and a certain raggedness on the part of the entire troupe and I was ready to head to the refreshment stand. Mercifully, it was the shortest work of the first half. Sorry Farrell fans but this was, in my opinion, the worst performance of the evening. (Intermission) Second Half Martha Graham Dance Company Cave Of the Heart (1946) Graham's take on Medea didn't hold my interest as a dance drama for much the same reason The Moor's Pavane didn't entirely hold my interest this time around -- it lost something in translation from stage to seat. Certain acts of stage business were unintelligible from where I was sitting and made following the storyline something of a trial. BUT, Miki Orihara was so powerful and so expressive as Medea that she swept all such concerns before her and gave the performance of the night. This got the biggest hand of the evening, largely on the strength of Orihara's performance. Oregon Ballet Theatre Pas de deux from Rubies (1967) Yuka Iino and Ronnie Underwood performed the pas from Rubies. Rubies is my least favorite part of Jewels (I'm an Emeralds man) but they performed this cleanly and with verve. However, they were at a decided disadvantage for two reasons. First, coming hard on the heels of Cave Of the Heart was a thankless task and proved to be. Also, on a night when the other companies brought their major calling cards, a mere extract from a larger work ended up looking slight in comparison. Nevertheless, I admired these two dancers for going out there under unfavorable conditions and performing with great professionalism and conviction -- it couldn't have been easy. Joffrey Ballet Cloven Kingdom (1976) The best part of Paul Taylor's meditation on the struggle between base and noble instincts in human beings occurred roughly at mid-point in the dance, when the four Joffrey guys lit up the stage. This was just spectacular. Unfortunately, I thought the dance sort of peaked at that point. Ultimately, Taylor's premise (which isn't terribly original in any event) wore out its welcome about two-thirds of the way through the dance. Still, it was worth sitting through the entire piece for the sake of seeing the four guys. (Oh, and nice cartwheels ladies!) There you have it. In the spirit of the Olympics, here are my medals: Gold: Miki Orihara, the Joffrey guys Silver: Kathryn Alter Bronze: Yuka Iino and Ronnie Underwood I got back to the Palmer House Hilton around 10:30 and I could swear I saw the Elusive Muse herself in the lobby; looking suitably elusive and remote . . . Coming soon: A review of Day 2, in which the ghosts of Martha Graham and Doris Humphrey debate which one of them "Miss Ruth" liked best and Jared Matthews strikes a pose!

Oh, the part about the "VP for Marketing" and the "family wealth management adviser" didn't bother me. Believe me when I say I've read much worse! I just like how they wrote the whole thing. It was charming and they had fun with it -- such a welcome change from so many of the grimly self-important announcements that populate the Sunday Styles wedding page. I didn't even mind the reference to the country club. I wish they had received the coveted "feature" on the wedding pages. Did Misha and Mark Morris go to the wedding? Was Twyla Tharp the Best Woman?? Where is the Enquirer when you really need them!

So, if you're like me, one of the highlights of any Sunday is reading the wedding announcements in the Sunday Styles section of the New York Times. [Carrie Bradshaw's comment that "the wedding announcements in the Sunday Times are the women's sports pages" applies to at least some portion of the gay male populace as well.] Anyway, this week's edition has the wedding announcement for Twyla Tharp/White Oak Dance Project dancer Bishton and his partner. The announcement is actually a nice read compared to the usual, tiresome announcements involving Ivy League schools/country day schools/investment banks/Palm Beach. Check it out if you get the chance! I wish we could see more dancer wedding announcements in the Times! [i'm still waiting for the Abrera/Radetsky announcement -- "The groom is well-known to enthusiasts of the Oxygen network for his portrayal of Charlie in the film Center Stage."]

A couple of replies to points made by other posters: 1) Maggie Gyllenhaal was right to take a part in The Dark Knight if for no other reason than to raise her profile among casting directors for big budget Hollywood films. I'm sure Gwyneth Paltrow was of a similar mindset when she agreed to appear in Iron Man. (Although in Paltrow's case, I imagine her primary motivation was to associate herself with a big Hollywood action movie after a series of indie and art house flops.) 2) The trend toward ultraseriousness in Batman films actually began in the Batman comics of the 1970s as a reaction against the lighthearted tone of the 1960s TV show and comics. Thirty years later, the trend toward a more serious Batman in the comics has resulted in a Batman film that is SO serious in tone that it actually begins to reek of pretension. My own feeling is that the Batman comics and films have gone too far in the direction of a false seriousness and would benefit significantly by lightening the angst of the lead character and the nihilism of the villains. (And no, I'm not suggesting going back to the tone of the 60s TV series, fascinating as it is in its own right.) 3) One thing I did like about The Dark Knight but forgot to mention is how the film addresses the problem of Batman being as much a part of the problem as its solution. In the absence of Bruce Wayne donning the Batman costume and becoming such a larger-than-life figure, would marginal personalities like The Joker and Dr. Jonathan Crane (a.k.a. The Scarecrow) turn to crime in such an extravagant manner? Or would they remain psychotic figures on the fringes of society?? In other words, does the theatricality of the Bat costume (which, after all, is supposed to strike fear in the hearts of criminals) have the unintended side effect of provoking fringe personalities into adopting theatrical personas of their own and committing ever more spectacular crimes??? (The 60s TV show also touched on this issue with Frank Gorshin's spectacular performance as The Riddler, who turned to crime precisely to outwit Batman.)

The trouble with the Rachel Dawes character is that she only really exists to cause tension between Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent. Really, why bother to hire a talented actress like Maggie Gyllenhaal for this part when any Hollywood starlet could play the character? (I don't fault Gyllenhaal for wanting to break out of the indie ghetto she's resided in for some time but I'm not sure how much of a career bump she'll get from this.) One reason I prefer Ledger's interpretation to Nicholson's is that -- to me -- Nicholson's Joker is merely a variation on a theme (the theme being the Nicholson persona.) Ledger, in contrast, disappears so completely into the part that you forget you're watching an actor. He really is that mesmerizing.

I saw The Dark Knight this afternoon. I liked it . . . but didn't love it. While it has its moments, I'm not convinced it's the masterpiece everyone is chalking it up to be. Here are my likes/dislikes:

I don't understand your post dirac. I was the first one to admit to having seen it (see the first page of this thread.)