Dale

What I wish for 2003 is for the ballet world to look to its past for its future by reviving and reconstructing old or "lost" ballets. Not only is it important to rescue great works before they are forgotten or destroyed, but they would provide new challenges for today's dancers (to go along with new works) and help educate today's dance makers of ballet history. Cincinnati Ballet's recent Ballet Russe celebration is the perfect example. But also the Kirov's recent reconstructions, some of the Millicent Hodson reconstructions (ones such as Cotillion, where most of the original choreography was able to be dug up, not the ones such as Jeux, where everything had to be rechoreographed), and ABT's sometime revivals of Tudor's works, most recently Offenbach in the Underworld. So I look to NYTB's upcoming evening of Tudor revivals of Les Mains Gauches and Judgment of Paris in May and the recent news (posted elsewhere on the site) about revivals of Ashton's Sylvia, Balanchine's Don Q and Petipa/Ivanov's Swan Lake. Even revivals at NYCB of Ballade and Piano Pieces.

Lovely photos. That ballet doesn't look like a "museum peice" to me.

As Farrell Fan pointed out, there has been many makeovers of Dance Magazine. I believe there have been at least three in the last 5-6 years. That's probably a sign the magazine isn't doing well. And I think it is because they have strayed from what people enjoy about the magazine - dancer profiles with beautiful pictures (both from the photo studio and on stage) and features about ballets and companies. I understand that the average age of the DM reader is very young. Do they want all those articles on competitions, schools, equipment etc...? I would guess some. But when I was very young and reading DM, I wanted to read about the dancers. They were longer than in the recent editions - I still have old issues with interesting in-depth profiles of Farrell, Gregory, Fonteyn, Paul Taylor. And one of my favorite articles on Serenade was in DM. Do I expect complicated analysis of ballets in DM? No, but they can still celebrate a work without alienating those who are not interested in reading Ballet Review. And it wasn't so long ago DM used to do a full-color preview when a major international ballet company came to the United States. And a extra long review before the regular review sections - NYCB, ABT and a few other local companies also received this treatment as well (the same for top modern companies). Now the Kirov came to New York with a major reconstruction and it received a tiny review in the back. The ad-editorial content confusion is not new. The first magazine I really remember making an effort to mesh ads with editorial was Fame magazine. Talk also did it, but some magazines do it more seemlessly. I think DM has to understand what it is, especially in the internet age. It appears to have made a change for the better in the news section. The days are over when a monthly, or even a weekly, can deliver breaking news. What a monthly can to do is interpret the news, go deeper, have experts comment. And I can understand a certain skimping on the reviews. In the 1980s, I couldn't go on line to read how Oakland Ballet's opening night went. I had to go the DM, or to the New York Public Library on 42nd street and look at the regional newspapers. Now you can just look it up online. So what can DM do? Its edge over some newspapers is its cadre of top reviewers. On the other hand, DM's main revenue is those ads for ballet schools, camps and competitions. Maybe the only way for the magazine is to turn itself into Dance Spirit. Pointe started out promising - lots of profiles both small and large. Beautiful pictures. Even the articles on technique and coaching were interesting to the non-dancer. However, the magazine seems to be going in the same direction Dance Magazine.

While for many of us, the Farrell story is well-known, many of the magazines' readers might not know it. The piece was listed as a profile and put in the middle of the magazine for general reading, not in the critics' section under dancing. Acocella also describes certain ballet steps in a way I don't think she would have if she was writing for a dance publication. I did notice that JA quotes from Farrell's autobiography and the film, but I can imagine, as a writer, what might have happened. Sometimes, you just don't get the access you need to get a full profile. I don't know, but maybe Farrell talked to JA for just 30 minutes and let her watch rehearsals. From what I've read and been told, Farrell doesn't grant interviews easily and prefers to talk to writers she knows. Maybe that's a black mark on her perfect image... But now JA has to write the promised profile. She has to fill in the gaps with interviews with other people and quotes from Farrell's book and film. Of course, I'm not sure that is what happened, but I've had it happen to me and you do what you've got to do. I agree with Alexandra in that I hate to paint the picture that if you're pro Farrell, that you're anti Peter Martins and staff. As I said, I've seen excellent work done by certain coaches at NYCB. And sometimes I worry that articles such as the one on Farrell or Homans' reviews only make the powers that be at NYCB get more defensive. I'm sure Barnes will be dispatched to the front shortly Regarding Don Q - I was worried when Farrell scheduled La Sonnambula two years ago. Even Scotch Symphony. I just didn't know if she had a real corps de ballet and soloists to do the variations in the party scene. But La Sonnambula was well done. It was true, the corps and the demi soloists didn't bowl me over, but I could imagine that if they kept working together, the ballet would be extremely well done. So, I guess I would like to see at least the Act III dream ballet staged, and then add the Act II party scene and build the ballet up from there. Ideally, I think the best chance for a permanant Suzanne Farrell Ballet company would be for her take over an existing small school-company. Right now, the troup seems like the early Balanchine-Kirstein ventures. They didn't have a lot of performances, but when Balanchine called, dancers came. They wanted to work and work with him. Farrell isn't Balanchine in that she is not a creator of ballets, but she does have something that dancers want (or should want).

I remember there were reviews of the program in the Chicago papers.

Calliope, are you thinking of Svetlana Zakharova?

There also are two old articles on George Balanchine available through that link.

I've been thinking about the article all day long too! First, what a wonderful thing it is to read Acocella's words on ballet in the New Yorker. Even if she writes about the pinky on the last girl in the last line of the corps, I want to read it. And I want her to write about it. Secondly, it was wonderful to read about my all-time favorite ballerina, Suzanne Farrell. And the thought of the restaging of Balanchine's Don Q. is a delightful prospect, not one of dread. I think the variations and moonlight ballet were some of the most astounding choreography ever made - off-balance, creepy, heavenly - but I have doubts that dancers today could tackle some of it. Morris' variation, for example, with those lightning fast triple turns with little preparation, or Farrell's jumps where her body is leaning in the opposite direction. I'd like to see it. That morality, mystery, or sense of doing something special is missed sometimes at the theatre now. Is it old fashioned? Yes, I think it's wonderful that dancers have better healthcare now, that they get educated for life after dance, but I miss the surrender to the dance that Farrell exhibited. There are still some dancers around who have that spark, imagination and musicality. And I'm sure they'd be more around if there were more coaches and ADs that could bring it out. But I'm not criticizing NYCB coaches. I've seen Hendl, Leland and even Martins in action and I could see positive results. But I also believe that Farrell has a special way with coaching too. Although I didn't see her most recent stagings in October, I did see her company the last two seasons they came to the New York area and the performances in 1995. I've also seen her stagings at Miami City Ballet (Diamonds), the Kirov (Scotch Symphony), the Bolshoi (Mozartiana) and DTH (Prodigal Son) and the proof of her talent as a coach is right there on the stage. Was she perfect when she started? Maybe not. Everybody has to learn. But under SF, I've seen so-so dancers become good, good dancers touch greatness and great dancers do some of their best work. There has to be a reason why top dancers such as Peter Boal and Goh make the time to work with her. Alexopolous, Calegari too. It would have been wonderful to have Farrell spreading her "Ballerina Polish" at NYCB. She wouldn't have had to replace anybody. Merrill Ashley was given a spot at the company, AND a title when she retired. Ah, maybe it is just as well Farrell has her own company. I only hope she brings the group up to the New York area every year But regarding the article, it was interesting to read Farrell's view on dancing and performing. Her teaching reminded me of one of my french horn teachers, William Brown (ballet connection - he played in the orchestra during the Royal Ballet's visits to the United States). He was the teacher we all went to understand what our "real" horn teachers were trying to teach us. The part where Farrell is described tell her students to make every moment of a developpe interesting reminded me how I was supposed to make even a scale or a finger exercise musical. When Farrell talks about having her dancers stop looking in the mirror, I was reminded about Brown's constant instructions about forgetting the product, just concentrate on the process. It would be interesting to see how many of Farrell's summer students get into NYCB. I thought the company missed out on Amy Watson, a tall Farrellesque mover. But they have Sophie Flack. Didn't Teresa Reichlen study with Farrell?

How about Elvis as Apollo? He could wear a white jump suit with rhinestones. Some of his "women" can be the muses. I would cast Elvis as the Lilac Fairy and he could put the court to sleep with pills. Alexandra, is that Adam Luders in H.C. Andersen? A ballet about Princess Diana? Yick!

I think sometimes choreographers can do very strong work when thinking about the company's needs. It helps the dancers. For example, when Balanchine wanted to improve Farrell's bourrees, he put different kinds all through Don Q. It forced Farrell to improve them, since she was going to be on stage and wouldn't want to look bad. Or when Balanchine was excited about a particular quality, such as Ashley's quickness and hops on point, he made a ballet with all sorts of hops on point and lightning fast variations. I think it also adds variety to the choreographer's work, so they don't get stuck using all the same steps, even if the style is different. I wish choreographers would think about the company's needs more often. It makes them really see the company. For example, if a company has a lot of strong, promising corps dancers, why not make a ballet to show them off. Or a ballet that shows them how to become ballerinas and danseurs. The possibilities are endless - doing a ballet for a principal dancer that isn't doing much, a french ballet to open a program, a big company work to end the night. I don't think ADs/choreographers think enough of what the companies need. They all want to do their vision. Many new ballets today come from choreographers who creat the ballet on their own dancers, then set it on the company for the premiere. It has nothing to do with the dancers who are actually dancing it. Creating obsticles or putting themselves in a box to figure out can really help focus a choreographer.

Thank you Foryourinfo. You review was the only one I've seen of Weese's return to action. I miss Weese a lot and think the company misses her too. She's doing another Dewdrop this week. Regarding the Sugar Plum, I agree that the best interpreters were Ballerinas with a loving, gracious quality.

Sofiane Sylve will make her NYCB debut next week in Nutcracker. Here's the link to the casting: http://www.nycballet.com/nycballet/html/ti...ts_casting.html

Fabulous, Manhattnik. Thanks for the laughs.

Opera Alert anybody?! Ugh... I'd probably go to Forsythe when he does his throw back night to see ballets I do like such as Behind the China Dogs and In the Middle... I'd go to Edios Telos when I wanted to blow my ear drums out and have a good laugh. I'd go to Eifman to practice my Russian out against people in the lobby (I do that when the Kirov comes to town, asking people what the time is and do you know where the bathroom is in my bad Russian) and for those all-bare buttucks nights.

The casting/schedule have been filled in a little bit more: http://www.abt.org/performances/met_subs.html Vishneva and Malakhov are cast in the June 11 Romeo and Juliet, but all but one of the other TBA R&J have been filled with other dancers (although Malakhov will be doing one with Kent). The mixed bills have been rounded out with some of the rep. from the City Center season - Clear and the George Harrison tribute - with various pas de deux, including the Leaves are Fading. The open Swan Lake has been filled with Kent in the lead roll (with her partner to be announced later), leaving out the possibility (at least my hope) that it would have been filled by either Meunier or Part. Meunier is cast in one Offenbach in the Underworld. No Balanchine scheduled.

Alexandra, I think you've hit on something that is very horrible but true -- it's a man's world. Regarding the idea of the average man and ballet, I try to tell the men in my life that being a real Man is liking what you like and not caring what other people might think or say. At work (I work with all men in sports), they believe that liking ballet is effeminate (they have a long, horrible list of other things). And I'm not sure it is really the tights -- football players practically play in tights (very tight lycra pants). I think that some men don't know why they don't like ballet. Sometimes they have a preconceived notion of what it is - snips of old ballet, usually - but have never really watched it. They just know that they shouldn't like it. I have noticed that the men I come into contact with (outside of people who post here) that enjoy ballet (or at least won't feign illness to get out of seeing it) are people who enjoy the arts and were exposed to art and high culture from an early age.

The Kirov at the Kennedy Center and Lincoln Center, especially Jewels, La Bayadere, Veronika Part in Swan Lake and Solugub as Queen of the Dryads in Don Q. ABT in Ashton, Murphy and Gomes in Tchaikovsky Pas de Deux, Murphy in 1st mvt Symphony in C at the Met and Murphy/Stiefel in 3rd mvt. in Symphony in C at City Center. At NYCB, Maria Kowroski and Monique Meunier in Kammermusic No. 2, Kowroski in Agon, Ansanelli in Allegro Brilliante and the Voices of Spring section w/Woetzel in Vienna Waltzes, and maybe my performances of the year - Jenifer Ringer and Nikolaj Hubbe in Who Cares?, Meunier in Cortege Hongrois and Ringer w/Neal in Raymonda Variations. Peter Boal in Witchel's Equillibrium (my favorite new ballet of 2002, with Wheeldon's Continuim coming in second).

Thank you. I think Smith did one of the more beautiful NYCB campaigns. Raymond Meeks also did a lovely campaign for the company: http://www.raymondmeeks.com/

The Fall, 2002 issue of Ballet Review is out (I think they might catch up at this rate!). There are articles on the Kirov's reconstructed La Bayadere, Balanchine's Davidsbundlertanze, Eliot Feld, ABT's 2002 Spring Season, Music and Movements and Graham's Legacy.

Thanks Dirac. I loathe Mayerling so I missed that thread.

Does anybody know if Ashton's three-act Sylvia is revivable? I have thinking about the ballet since reading recently an old article on Svetlana Beriosova, saying that she had a great triumph in the main role. Doing some research (I don't yet have David Vaughn's book on Ashton's ballets), I read that in the 60s Ashton made a one-act work out of the ballet. But I'm not interested in that work - a review for that was titled, "Sylvia Revived and Ruined." I also read in a Ballet Review that when Violette Verdy was running POB, she tried to revive the original full-length ballet, but had problems because all the old ballerinas were telling her different things. Is there a three-act Sylvia around? I think there was one by John Neumeier, but... Sylvia has such gorgeous music and I would think with the constant need for three-act story ballets, one of the big classical companies would want to stage it.

Vishneva doing Ballet Imperial should be interesting. I know people who are interested in the Kirov doing more Balanchine mention Ballet Imperial as a logical choice. Malakhov did the ballet at ABT and I remember he was OK (his foray with Apollo was not a success, but he was good in Symphonie Concertante). I wonder who is going to set and coach the ballet in Berlin. I'd rather see Vishneva and Malakhov doing BI than McMillian's Romeo and Juliet. Ina, I hope you find time to post about what you've seen recently.

Arlene Croce on Tricolore: "Overcast skies, dankness, gloom. A spiritless tribute to the French nation, Tricolore is a ballet to forget as quickly as possible. The New York City Ballet, which introduced it this season out of some misbegotten loyalty to the virtue of finishing what you've started -- in this case, a trilogy of nationalist extravaganzas which already included Stars and Stripes and Union Jack -- seems to forget it in performances. The dancers look as if they hated it quite as much as the audience does; their dour little faces and dutiful movements tell us that they won't help the least bit, even with a turkey that they know will fold. .... The ballet, a failure in every department, turns out to have no partisans -- none. " I saw it once and all I remember from the ballet was the women's costumes (lots of peasant-style dresses with schmatas) were awful.

I hope people in London consider this wonderful news, because I do. I was trying to explain why I was happy after just reading the news to somebody who is not interested in ballet, "You know how we're always complaining that the people who get put in charge are the wrong ones, who are only interested in their own betterment and make self-centered moves and then tell everybody how great it is? Well, for the first time in a long time the right person with good judgement and the best intentions was given the reigns some place."

I liked Goriacheva in the first movement of Symphony in C. It wasn't really the 1st movement the way I'm used to seeing it at NYCB, which I admire very much. She was light, fresh and musical, not mannered. I believe it was her birthday when she went on, too. And I never tought of her doing the 3rd movement because the Bolshoi because the divine Ms. Maria Alexandrovna did that movement and she was something special. A big woman with a big jump, she had so much verve.