beck_hen

I wonder if a "mirror image" ballet would look the same, or startlingly wrong, like looking at your face in one of those true-reflecting mirrors (you think you look ugly because you are surprised into seeing the asymmetry of your face). In my studies as a graphic designer, I've found that, for a Western audience that reads from left to right, movement that flows that way is perceived as "progress," while movement from right to left is interpreted as "resistance". So that even purely visual arts are not entirely crosscultural. Imagine the final tableau of the full Apollo, where he and the Muses ascend the staircase (left to right). If reversed, would it look more like a "return" than an "ascension"?

I decided on the spur of the moment to attend opening night, and I'm very glad I did. However, I sat in the worst seat I've ever had at the very back of the family circle, so my comments should be read with that in mind. The production "read" but I missed the level of detail I usually enjoy. The company's investment in the work and acting ability was obvious. I've taken some time to digest what I saw. I feel there is a grain of truth in Amour's comments about Corella, but I noticed it in his solo work. When Vishneva is really on, as she was last night, she has the ability to make completely controlled technique seem utterly spontaneous. Corella was not able to achieve that fusion on the same level she did. In the first act, I did notice the clean technique of Cornejo and Radetsky, while I also noticed sloppy fifths and an ugly line of the foot in arabesque from Corella. (I'm not sure I would have focused on it if I hadn't read some of the comments in earlier threads, and I felt better once we hit the balcony pas, where his naked joy shone through in his characterization of the impetuous lover.) nysusan said: "His leaps soared but I don't think the quick Ashton changes of direction looked good on him." sz said: "Corella is an explosive powerhouse, but in the last couple of years has lost much of his refinement and elegance especially needed for a role like Prince Siegfried." The younger principals Gomes and Hallberg, with their different gifts, really bring a classical finish and polish to their work. I have seen Angel at a higher level when he has applied more of this element. I am not arguing that Romeo is a danseur noble role, but from what I could see his Romeo was a little too madcap and Mercutio-like. Romeo is a noble youth of Verona. There is a fascinating quotation from Andrei in a very old Emploi thread: I liked all the ingredients in this ballet, but felt it added up to a very good rather than transcendent night at the ballet. If anything, Vishneva stole the show.

I started looking through my old programs. One thing I notice is that the 2004–2006 programs use some of the same designs, so no easy sorting. The principal roster has changed quite a bit since Susan Jaffe's farewell performance in 2002. A generational shift indeed. When you break it down, there seems to be a clear policy of promoting from within. 2002 v. 2006 Gone: Bocca, Graffin, Hill, Jaffe, McKerrow, Tuttle Appearing less or intermittently: Acosta, Ananiashvili, Malakhov, Ferri New: Cornejo*, Gomes*, Hallberg**, Murphy*, Reyes*, Vishneva, Wiles* At the soloist level: Gone: E. Brown, S. Brown, Chen, de Luz, Molina Haven't moved: Abrera, Liceica New: C. Corella**, E. Cornejo**, Lopez**, Part, Pastor, Radetsky**, Riccetto**, Saveliev** *soloist in 2002 **corps de ballet in 2002

Perhaps it is because Lopez and Pastor are on the shorter side (I think?), and thus in direct competition for roles with Cornejo. Carlos Lopez did a vivid Benno to David Hallberg's Siegfried the other week. I thought they established a very realistic male friendship—since Hallberg was more introspective, Lopez served as his sociable face, or mediator, whose opinion was also valued. It wasn't just that meaningless backslapping you often see. What I recall as Pastor's signature role is Birbanto, where he is deliciously slimy. Interesting thought about another male promotion. Despite the talent level of so many, I feel the only dancer who is mature enough for it at the moment is Radetsky. He certainly staked a claim with Petrouchka, which I felt was the best interpretation at ABT, bar none. But of course they may bring in outside talent, as which has the potential to be exciting, even though I am rooting for the home team.

Well, despite the fact that I was the one to invoke the "stuck" terminology, I also feel strongly that dancers should not be viewed as disposable commodities. Even if they are not my favorites, they have spent a whole life of sacrifice to work their way up to principal level. They serve as living tradition for the younger dancers (there is a lot of discussion about the firing/exodus of a generation of Kirov dancers in the 90s and the legacy of that today). It would be bad for morale if everyone were looking over their shoulders. What if decisions were made politically, rather than artistically? (I'm not so naive as to believe ABT has no company politics, but still.) If performance quality slips, obviously the administration has to deal with it somehow. But I think that often comes through casting decisions—you appear less and less, until you're out, you fix it, or you quit in disgust. At tonight's R&J performance I overheard a complaint that Freddie Franklin got an ovation simply for walking onstage. It was said to be an insider thing the audience wouldn't understand, and that isn't justified by his performance. I say, for the living legend treading the boards after age ninety, applause is warranted. Plus, his importance is conveyed to those not in the know by the gesture. I've always gotten a lot out of his appearances even though my parents weren't alive when he began his dancing career.

An interesting idea, Cliff. Why did the Royal Ballet fold its touring company into the main company in 1970? Was that an artistic or a financial decision? One new principal dancer a year... indeed, it's not even that many most of the time. Which is why the promotion to principal dancer is so crucial, and discussion of it or even griping about it isn't surprising on the board. If someone doesn't live up to their potential, we're still stuck with them for the next 10 to 20 years, and wondering what might have been with someone else. It's a huge responsibility, for the AD and for the dancer.

Well, if you are on vacation in NYC, there is footage of both ballets in the Performing Arts Library. I became curious about La Source after seeing the Suzanne Farrell Ballet perform it. I've watched footage of Violette Verdy in La Source and it's incredible, beyond the interpreter I saw live.

Yes, I was deliberately sidestepping the "American style" issue as well. I think certain pedagogues may in effect be defining their own styles, such as Marcia Dale Weary at CPYB (who produced many NYCB dancers, including Ashley Bouder), or Hortensia Fonseca at Maryland Youth Ballet (who trained Julie Kent and Susan Jaffe). Or one could choose to say that Balanchine style is American style, and forms of it have certainly spread all over the country in the regional ballet movement. Or one could simply say that it is in general characterized by less structured training conditions and less epaulement than European schooling and leave it there. It seems to me that this situation would make it more difficult to become a great dancer, but there may be compensations. I noticed recently that Maria Kowroski and Julie Kent were given bad reviews by Russian audiences for performances of Swan Lake in St. Petersburg. I wonder which American artists are taken seriously abroad, and why. Are they handicapped, because they aren't seen with the weight of a tradition behind them? I find it upsetting to think about, since American audiences have been eager to be thrilled by dancers of many nationalities.

Buddy, I agree we are moving to the heart of the matter. I did not exactly mean that artistry is necessary to good technique, but that a mastery of style was. For example, for each position or step there may be one accustomed position of the arms, head and shoulders (epaulement). I would expect a dancer to have internalized this so she could present to me a beautiful image or movement. However, I would also expect the dancer to have mastered alternate versions, so that she could show me the step with a different emphasis. In this case, where an artist must be sensitive, she is not a technical "robot" or "machine". If a dancer really understands "the system," she can select from it or expand on it appropriately. She must master it fully, but if she adheres to it slavishly, with no imagination, she is a classroom dancer. As to reviewers, one begins to judge their relative sophistacation—they will mean different things. But I generally assume they are speaking of the lowest common denominator, or what vrsfanatic referred to in her first post as "the mechanical aspects of movement only." In the worst cases, the reviewer will be impressed that a dancer has performed a triple pirouette, without analyzing how well it was done. Technique is a question of taste—on this board we assume it is better to perform a good double pirouette than a bad triple.

Brava, vrsfanatic! It seems to me that much artistry is rooted in technique, in dance effect: the two cannot really be divorced, unless we are speaking of simply warming up the body. Similarly, it is impossible for me to say someone is a great technician if they have no nuance, or lack a complete style (like the student's development of Vaganova style vrsfanatic describes). It does not matter what the style is, just that there is one.

Nysusan, how did the Kent performance go? I thought it was funny that John Rockwell's NYT review of Sylvia seemed to respond to our complaints about casting: "Lovers of ensemble acting sometimes wonder why American Ballet Theater so restlessly switches its casts in the big-story ballets it offers during its spring season. Why not pick the best dancers and showcase them? But ballet is different from theater or even opera. Ballet Theater has lots of fine dancers who deserve to be featured. And comparing different dancers in the same roles is not a competition, or not only a competition — not just an Olympic-style event in which judges (balletomanes, critics, fans) rank their favorites. Different dancers shed different light on the works themselves." It also has lots of fine dancers who would appear to better advantage if they weren't miscast. Any more Wiles reports?

Yet another quotation, from Frederick Ashton. I don't know if it directly relates but it's a good sentiment: "If you want to keep a company happy, you can't always look after the talented dancers, the ones with gifts—you have to look after people who've been loyal, who've been useful, who happen to be good partners, good mimes—they all have to be considered, they must also be treated decently, and if you do that I think you can hold a company. It's when you start abusing them and only looking after the talented ones that a company falls to pieces."

A quote from Susan Jaffe (full interview ): SS: Why retire now? SJ: One of the biggest reasons I decided to leave ABT so soon — not that I am that young, but a lot of ballerinas have gone at least another five years — is that I love dramatic work. It turns me on so much. I love to work with characters. I feel there is not enough of that kind of work here (ABT). It is nice to do “Nutcracker” and “Sleeping Beauty,” but I have been doing them for so long. There are other dramatic ballets out there I’d like to do but they cost a lot of money to bring in. I just feel I can no longer wait around hoping that someday a few of them will be brought in. I need to take control of my life and do something creative, something new. I guess people may see me as being really spoiled for leaving, but if you don’t have creativity in your life, what do you really have?

This older thread seems relevant: Wish list for ABT Repertory. I would definitely like to see Monotones. Reading about ABT's history, I always come up against Miss Julie and Fall River Legend as repertory staples. Should these be revived or are they chestnuts? I suppose I am too young to have a full perspective on how well McKenzie runs the company. The only regimes I've watched under are Martins' and McKenzie's. Given that Martins is so often excoriated, I figured no news was good news with Kevin.

I've been thinking more about the changes Kudelka has made to the scenario, their moral implications, and the contrast with the Ashton version. I laud his decision to stake out his own territory with the ballet, even though I've decided it doesn't quite work for me. The clues come at the end of Act I. Ashton gives us the Fairies of the Four Seasons and the corps de ballet of Stars. We become privy to the celestial order, the workings of the universe. In the ultimate wish-fulfillment, Cinderella will leave behind the dirt of the hearth and ascend to a throne, graduating from the personal to the public sphere. There are two realms, earth and sky, the seasons binding them together. The inspiration (as for Ashton it tends to be) is Sleeping Beauty, only this time the princess has to earn her exalted position through love. Kudelka has brought us down to earth with his garden metaphor. At the end of Act I we get Blossom, Petal, Moth and Twig, and at the end of the ballet Cinderella and Prince Charming return to the nurturing bed of their garden. The description of the conclusion in the synopsis has always grated on me: "The Prince and Cinderella did what each of them would love best for the rest of their lives: they retired quietly to the garden, where they would always find peace and love in making their garden grow." This reminds me of the ending of Voltaire's Candide, where Candide says to his family circle, we must tend our own garden. In the context of Cinderella, this is a completely bourgeois resolution. Yes, the aristocracy is anachronistic in this day and age. But in ballet the aristocratic state can still symbolize something meaningful: becoming someone to look up to, joining the body politic and leading it. These royals renounce responsibility to the greater good and focus on personal development. Cynically, Kudelka implies the world consists of shallow socialites and intrusive paparazzi—it's corrupt and should be turned away from. So Cinderella and her prince selfishly reject the social contract. Kudelka says, "I also wanted to avoid the rags-to-riches theme; to me, this ballet is about personal transformation." He has done so, but that robs the ballet of an extra dimension. Cargill made a wonderful point writing about ABT's Raymonda: that the best story ballets have a spiritual aspect. There are contrasts between real and dream worlds, and choices between good and evil: The otherworldly dimension

I agree that children could be much more effective. I love the scene in front of the gypsy wagon in the Kirov's Don Q where the children act out a Don and Dulcinea scenario. Unfortunately they don't tour with that bit.

The concept of musicality has only clicked into place for me recently. I would say attending NYCB more frequently has opened my eyes to it. Balanchine's ballets, even when danced by dancers less renowned for their musicality, are very educational. The way he counterpoints his steps to the music opened up a vista for me—the choreography does not just happen pasted over the music—it chases it, or circles around it, or tunnels through it, and on and on. So I realized that Petipa ballets could also be danced that way, and that some of my favorite performances had been. Lately I have seen very musical performances by Ana Sophia Scheller, Ashley Bouder and Megan Fairchild. I became conscious of a sense of play, and surprise. Seeing different dancers in the same role is instructive, as is watching videos or performances with dancers who are known to be very musical, such as Margot Fonteyn, Violette Verdy, or Gillian Murphy. It seems that that something extra, the sense of seamlessness in a role, is often generated by playing with the music. Finally, today I found an interview with Gelsey Kirkland in the Sept. 2005 issue of Dance Magazine. K: How does a dancer become more musical? G: A person's body first has to learn to sing in silence. Then you can talk about what you are going to do with a phrase. First and foremost, anticipation. Then, where to rob and steal time: You might delay one part of the phrase, and catch up later. But the extent to which this is done is defined by the character you are portraying. For example, innocence moves in a certain way, and that affects how you use the music. If you are doing a character who is struggling between opposing forces, the movements need more resistance and weight. For example, in Act II of Giselle, Giselle is caught between Myrta, who is trying to pull her into the dark world of the wilis' bitterness, and her own need to save Albrecht from destruction. Mastering a binding quality in the transitions between the steps is essential in order to see the struggle, and this becomes a musical challenge as well.

Another plus: feeding the corps through the Studio Company and the JKO School, which should ultimately have the effect of improving the character dances and unifying the style a bit. The devil's in the details: my problems are more with his casting and promotions than with his big picture strategy.

Well, I'm not going to disagree with any of the points you've added regarding Herrera's performance. I think the overall feel of the acts, as well as Murphy's example, colored my assessment, since she was so indelible in Act 1. The first act is so dark, and hasn't begun well, and by the time it's over I feel a sense of anticlimax. It's really a bit unbelievable that Orion can overpower Sylvia no matter who's playing the roles. The third act has that empyrean sunshine, and the exquisite pas de deux. I would like to see that done as an excerpt. It goes to show that it is dangerous to cultivate an image as the technical whiz kid, since there will always be someone with more firepower coming up to take your place. Attention to line, musicality and expression is more important. Personally I would define those first two attributes as part of good technique, and Herrera has never really shone in them. I've also been thinking and hoping that Sleeping Beauty is around the corner...

I mostly agree with Acocella... But, I think McKenzie's strategy is pretty savvy. Acocella: "For the annual spring season at the Metropolitan Opera House, Kevin McKenzie, the company’s artistic director, seems to feel that he must always provide a new full-evening narrative ballet, with splashy sets and a plummy old score, to please A.B.T.’s largely conservative subscribers." Is he wrong? The Met is gigantic. Can you fill it with works that aren't operatic in scale? He is selling the grand history and tradition of the theater; it works from a marketing point of view. And yes, he is poaching works from everywhere to do it, but that reflects ABT's own mushy choreographic tradition. Acocella: "I have a solution to propose—not for McKenzie but for ballet fans. Go to A.B.T.’s three-week fall season, at City Center, rather than its long spring season, at the Met. The tickets are cheaper, and you get to sit closer to the stage. The international superstars, like Vishneva, sometimes don’t show up for the City Center gig, but without them A.B.T. looks more like a unified company, working toward a common goal. Most important is the fact that McKenzie seems to view the fall season as the sideshow, the “fringe” show." Doesn't he get credit for creating and developing the City Center season into the showcase for dancers and choreography that it is? It's the Joffrey influence. The works she praises look better there than on the big stage of the Met. I don't think he treats it as a fringe show, he just knows it has a different audience. Us! What specifically do we propose that he do differently? I've been browsing old threads and I believe it was Alexandra who mentioned that the practice of putting a different dancer in a role each night is insidious. One Swan Lake a year is ridiculous. It stunts artistic growth and the public doesn't get the chance to see a dancer who gets a good review if they weren't there in the first place.

Leigh's picks are all refreshingly non-chain, unlike some of my quick standbys right near Lincoln Center (no culinary paradise), so you'll eat better if you venture into the area he describes. Still, right across the street from the plaza is a respectable sushi place, Sushi A-Go-Go. Since I'm congenitally late and on a student budget, compromises are necessary—though there are star sightings! In that vein, there is the salad bar and an extensive selection of prepared food at the Whole Foods Market in the Time Warner Center, a few blocks away, with food court–type seating. I walked past Irina Dvorovenko today as I entered the building. Sometimes I go for a sandwich or dessert at Le Pain Quotidien on 65th. David Hallberg picked up some takeout while I was eating there the other day. My favorite thing to do is take the train up to 72nd Street and buy two hot dogs and a papaya drink from Gray's Papaya for $2.75 and then walk down. It feels quintessentially New York to me. But I've never seen a dancer eat there!

Thanks for your concern! I escaped to make it to see Herrera. I appreciated the ballet more as a whole tonight; it may be mostly a frame for the ballerina, but what a beatiful, gilded, rococo frame it is. I'm accepting it more on its own terms. But I like FauxPas' suggested plot revisions. I realize I should clarify that the ensemble has appeared to advantage in Act 3 throughout the run, with its large scale prismatic formations; it's Act 1 that's given trouble. The cast sheet tonight was not correct; I noticed Kajiya and Copeland in roles they played opening night in the first act. So perhaps the stopgap solution was fewer cast changes. The corps was more together; that is, they hit the high notes together and muddled through the transitions on their own tempos. But I don't want them to dump the ballet, so will try to carp less. I've figured out that it was indeed Remy Wortmeyer whom I admired previously. Herrera was a dud in Act 1, which I complained about to nysusan and Faux Pas at intermission—it was great to meet in real time and space! She looked awkward and never really seized command. I have to admit she was nicely sinuous in Act 2 and appropriately authoritative in Act 3. She gave a good performance. However, I'm not converted. One of the nice things about being a fan instead of a critic: no need for objectivity. I can't fall in love with Zakharova either and they share a flaw: at the end of a step they'll give a shove of visible effort to get that leg just a little higher, etc. I don't want to see it! I thought Gillian had the edge technically, musically, dramatically. I enjoyed Corella as Aminta more than I expected. He entered into the Ashton spirit with the quicksilver changes of his torso and fast, bright footwork. (Craig Salstein provided similar emphasis as Eros. And had a huge presence, was a deft comic, orchestrated the action convincingly... Hey, I already admitted I'm biased.) And, as always, Corella's joy at being on stage was palpable. I think he would be a wonderful Daphnis. His Chloe? I shudder to think. As a goat, Sarah Lane rivalled Herrera for ballerina presence and control! Veronika Part doesn't really satisfy as a minor soloist. She looks so different from everyone else, which worked wonderfully in Swan Lake. She needs a frame, though not Sylvia, clearly.

Disaster/farce has struck! One of the locks on my apartment isn't working properly, so, today of all days, my boyfriend locked me into the apartment when he went to work. I had a ticket for today's matinee! I tried going down the fire escape, but the bottom ladder to the ground wouldn't budge. Apparently, in case of a real fire I'm supposed to go up to the roof. I'm not sure what is supposed to happen after that! Rescue by helicopter? Needless to say I'm supremely annoyed and await your reports eagerly. If I had enacted the escape I'm sure I would qualify as a real balletomane. Do you think it's worth going tonight instead? Herrera is not a favorite of mine but she seems to be on a winning streak.

Yes, I read a bit more about the original version in David Vaughan's Ashton and His Ballets, and there used to be third act variations for the other characters. Streamlining was part of the reconstruction. I'm not sure that's really an improvement; I have a feeling the audience would have welcomed more solo dance passages.

The ballet began with a long overture—a preview of the tuneful music. I think if I were designing it I would have had a scrim there (I think everyone likes the two Swan Lake drops, and Petrouchka has the fabulous and fantastical Benois designs to look at), but probably musical purists don't mind the lack of visual distraction. The first act did not open well at all. "Ragged" and "messy" would be generous in describing the corps work; it seemed downright unprofessional how the dancing was so unsynchronized and the formations so unclear. I went through an agony of trying to decide whether this was intentional and decided it wasn't. Ashton's choreography was too quick and precise for some. There was a peasant boy with curly hair who navigated the choreography better than the rest (I think this was Remy Wortmeyer of the Australian Ballet), and things started looking up with the arrival of the hunt attendants. Stella Abrera demonstrated her versatility by adopting more of the Ashtonian twisting torso than her colleagues. However, the evening was a success because of Gillian Murphy's incredible, true ballerina performance. She carried the ballet, as it demands. To be expected was her power, pride and agility in Act I. At the beginning of Act II, where she is entrapped by Orion, she seemed like a wild creature in captivity; though she was not cowed, her vitality would be lost by further imprisonment (shades of Firebird). However, she quickly mastered the situation (her a-ha moment gleefuly legible) by getting Orion drunk and pretending to seduce him (shades of Odile). Marcelo Gomes' smoothness, control, virility and wonderful partnering were in evidence, and it was priceless watching him stumble around drunk. Murphy was a revelation in Act III where she appeared warm and womanly, her pride thawed by love, a new softness in her arms. She seemed to be dancing her own homage to the Royal Ballet style (her coach is Georgina Parkinson). She would hold a pose crisply and long and then melt out of it. More crescent curve, arms to her side and palms up, was given to her arabesques than the arrowy ones she did in Act I. It was all a bit reminiscent of Raymonda and Sleeping Beauty. She had witty legs a la Danilova. I have never seen her better, and hope she brings the same joy to her other roles. This may become her signature role, and ought to convince her detractors she is no empty technician. It was a pleasure to catch a brief glimpse of Eric Underwood's gorgeous line, partnering Veronika Part as Apollo to her Terpsichore (there aren't variations for any of the bit players besides the goats). On the goat question: I can't imagine anyone doing a better job than Craig Salstein. He had a serene upper body while he executed the challenging petit allegro cleanly. As to their overall effectiveness, the whole atmosphere is a bit twee anyway, with boys in shorts carrying in mythological statues on palanquins. I can appreciate the slice of ballet history (England in the 1950s reflecting back on the Paris Opera of the 19th century), but I think it would be interesting to redesign it. I know this criticism is made of some other Ashton ballets—that their sets or costumes date them—like Scenes de Ballet.