beck_hen

I'm going tonight to see Murphy/Beloserkovsky/Lopez/Gomes. Last year I saw the Kent matinee and found it a pallid mess, though she was still getting back in shape after having her baby and I've really found my way into Ashton in the past year. My turning point was seeing the film "Ashton at 100: Fred's Steps" at the 2006 Dance on Camera festival at Lincoln Center, and I would definitely recommend watching it if you can track it down. As a next step, archival footage of Sibley and Dowell in Thais and Sleeping Beauty's Awakening pas de deux at the Performing Arts Library excel above the contemporary interpretations. Ashton at 100: Fred’s Steps Ross MacGibbon, UK, 2004; 138m This beautifully shot documentary captures an evening of choreography by Sir Frederick Ashton marking his 100th birthday. Featuring the Royal Ballet Company, the film also includes priceless archival footage of rehearsals, interviews with former Royal Ballet stars, and biographical insights into an extraordinary artist. Dance performance highlights include “Brahms Waltzes” in the style of Isadora and “Daphnis and Chloe.”

Interestingly, the audiences I've been in recently seem to have appreciated our lyrical favorites. At the Part performance, I heard one woman say, "That was the best performance I've ever seen" and another say "She is a real ballerina—I must find out more about her." And the women I sat next to for David Hallberg's Siegfried thought he was gorgeous, full of soul and the best person onstage. Part of the enjoyment of these performances for me was everyone else's palpable enjoyment and satisfaction. Leonid wrote in "Dancers who may have been lacking in technique, but who still commanded the stage and captured the eye": "To take control of an audience so that it becomes a single massed response in theatres across the world is an achievement that very few ballet dancers can attain. Some achieve through their perfection and control of their technique, their musicality, physical beauty, dramatic skills a recognized high level of performance, but few dancers have the universality of appeal that perhaps only fifteen or twenty in the history of classical ballet have achieved." Obviously something extra is required of either a soubrette or a sylph, to make her truly great. It would be interesting to compare them to past greats, i.e. Part to Makarova and Herrera to Plisetskaya or Danilova to take the true measure of their achievement. I do concede (as discussed in the recent Ballet as Sport thread) that bravura feats initially wow audiences and drive their appreciation of the art. But such feats become boring, repetitive and shallow as one's appreciation matures, and I don't think overemphasizing them is the way to build a devoted public. NYCB, with all its flaws, comes to seem a more meaningful enterprise, with a real mission of pushing the art form in new ways (though I find Martins' Friandises as great an offender as Le Corsaire in terms of empty virtuosity).

The question of Kevin McKenzie's development of dancers is an interesting issue (and thank goodness it does not provoke as much bloodshed as discussions of Martins, Gottlieb et al). I do see some important pluses. He has fully appreciated the value of Gomes and Hallberg and I have read many accounts where Hallberg describes McKenzie's painstaking mentorship of him, particularly in terms of partnering. He clearly has much to share in this regard. Tall danseurs nobles: check. He seems to promote a healthy culture in the company in terms of body issues, not enforcing an anorexic standard and offering help to dancers who need it. I think Gillian Murphy is a splendid find and she is growing, though ABT's repertoire perhaps does not show her off fully. Someone once wrote that a ballet should be choreographed with her as Queen Elizabeth. I agree. (At least the Diamond Project provides vehicles for Whelan, Weese, Sylve, etc.) However, I suspect Sylvia and Kudelka's Cinderella were acquired predominantly with her in mind. Isn't it great that I have magic mind-reading capabilities? He has put a lot into the Cornejos and they deserve it. I was wondering if Erica would be promoted to principal if she had stayed, since she seems to be hitting some sort of personal peak, where she is always fantastic. But oh well. I think he hired Reyes to be Herman's partner even though that partnership hasn't really worked out. Sarah Lane? He tries out all our favorite youngsters in soloist roles, but there is nowhere for them to go and last year's sensation edges closer to "near the water" status. But what could he do about that, unless he fires other people? The level of the corps is just incredible now—the Studio Company pipeline. I do feel like many of those we discuss have more potential than the current soloists. I had a new find this week: I thought Cory Stearns showed much elegance and flair in the Spanish Dance. Bo Busby jumped beautifully as an aristocrat in Act I. They are all too good! There is no way they can all be absorbed. The biggest black marks against McKenzie are the sidelining of McKerrow and Meunier... I'm not sure Ashley Tuttle was treated as graciously as she might have merited, and whatever happened to Yan Chen? But that was before my time. I am willing to reserve judgment, but clearly a new lyrical ballerina should be his next priority.

I definitely appreciate the impressions of drb and Danseur85. I also would not care to or be able to make the argument that Michele Wiles has regressed since her promotion. She was a breath of fresh air in Le Corsaire and In the Upper Room. I just think she is still finding her way in the role. It is an intriguing challenge for a principal to develop her individuality without becoming a caricature of her best qualities—her virtuosity is solid, and she did enough turns to impress me today. I did not realize she had been injured and that that might have compromised her line. I actually have a similar opinion of Diana Vishneva's Odette, based on what seems to have been an off night Wednesday. I can see in some way why she was not cast in Swan Lake at the Kirov for so long, out of their more rigid sense of emploi. Since she is a hot, Rubies dancer (if we can use Jewels as our template, as I have read in some reviews), she must find her own path to lyricism. She has been able to make Giselle her own with a very individual interpretation, as an intense, mercurial teen in the first act and using the force, control and flow of her pure dancing in the second to present a beautiful spectre. I do not feel she was there yet with her Odette. She seemed to tamp down her natural enthusiasm to become a cold, remote abstraction. There were some intriguing hints of wildness coming from her manipulation of her shoulder blades, but she was not dancing from the center of her back. My personal preference in Swan Lake is that the upper and lower body work as one and I felt Veronika Part showed me this. She turned her liabilities (height and plasticity, almost weakness) into assets, curving her long body into exquisite shapes that showed us bird and woman. She camouflaged her weaknesses as best she could and made us see what she wanted us to see. Right now, Wiles is showing us her strengths, but her portrayal will be more complete when she goes through the same struggle Part did. I agree she was more expressive this time around and next time she can dial it back a notch to arrive at a happy medium. My contention is that an emphasis on bravura technique at the higher ranks means we are not developing as many naturally lyrical dancers, though some of our favorites at the lower ranks do have this quality, like Fang, Lane or Hamrick. I have come to believe Odette is the more difficult part of the role for most dancers now, in contrast to Fonteyn's ongoing problems with Odile's 32 fouettes. In my view, Vishneva and Wiles were actually trying too hard to be lyrical and overshot the mark, obscuring the qualities we prize in them. Yet this is no death sentence. The most intriguing example of an unexpected flowering of lyricism is Wendy Whelan, whose adagio I now prize. Her main characteristic has been described on the board recently (I can always remember these things and not where they came from) as uncompromising honesty. Vishneva and Wiles need to tap into their own inner core of sincerity. Now this is my own rambling, but we are living in a prosaic rather than a poetic age, and our dancers are not immune to the temper of the times, so it seems to take them longer to access certain emotions. Susan Jaffe is a dancer who grew much more compelling and vulnerable at the end of her career. Amanda McKerrow reached a quiet, yet sublime depth that often went unappreciated. So that's the general point of view that guides my opinion.

I've gotten way behind in my postings and have three performances to write about (fruit for some interesting comparisons though). I'll start with Michele Wiles' Swan Queen at today's matinee. Unfortunately, I have reservations about the approach she took. (I'm sure I'll end up overstating the case to make my rhetorical point about this young and talented dancer.) Today, she seemed to me to be hardening into an overly-mannered dancer, committing some Soviet-style sins, and not showing herself with the freshness and directness lauded here in the past. First off was applause-milking after variations. I say wait to get your full glory at the end of the ballet. Diana Vishneva is good at bows in the very grand manner, coming in front of the curtain and bowing right, left, and center stage. That is better than lingering too long during the ballet and stopping its flow. Second sin: musical abuse. She slowed down her tempos too much, and then used the extra time oddly. I felt as if her upper body and her legs were moving to different clocks. She would conclude a phrase where she'd stopped her lower body in a pose with VERY... SLOW... PORT DE BRAS, in a stab at lyricism. To me, the result was that she kept squandering any momentum she'd built up. The effect was, weirdly, both syrupy and static. This was most marked in her white swan solo, which received very tepid applause. The coda was more energetic and much better. As Odile, in particular, she displayed some of her impressive, trademark balances, notably a lengthy unsupported arabesque in the black swan pas de deux, warmly applauded. Another interesting thing she did with balance happened during some double pirouettes en dehors on diagonal. She slowed her momentum at the end of the turns, balancing in passe without coming off pointe as she came around to face the audience. So she is doing some unique exploration and coming up with flourishes that are unique to her. However, she is not showing enough sensitivity to the music, which she doesn't stay in sync with. She is not following an organic line through the musical phrase, but rather is shoehorning effects into it, sometimes unsuccessfully. In contrast to this was Veronika Part's musicality on Wednesday. She also slowed down her tempos, but she unfurled her arms and legs like the sails of a ship to fill and echo through the extra time. She gave out the trademark swan-armed arabesques and attitudes like pearls; every single one was beautiful. I wanted Wiles to show these to me more clearly. The beautiful moments of hers I remember are all in passe (a backbend in Odette's pas de deux with baroque, twining swan arms). As is nearly always the case at ABT, I preferred her Odile to her Odette. I felt her Odile was very cruel and powerful; she seemed to have some of the same mind-control power over Siegfried that von Rothbart does over the princesses. Very cool; I wouldn't mess with her. The Odette rang a bit false to me with the complicated port de bras and a bit of the tragedy queen face. I think it would be fine if she kept it simpler, with faster tempos and a sustained attack. Too often she was standing still on stage. Basically, I am in sympathy with the strategy David Hallberg appears to be following in developing his interpretation: keep the dancing clear, simple and beautiful, build up dramatic nuance, and eventually add greater virtuosity when you can pull it off. More to come on his admirable performance!

It is possible to access the Sun article indirectly; PM to find out more, or moderator, delete my post if it is inappropriate.

I never knew there were student discounts for ABT at the Met! That is not well publicized. Now I look it up, and I am too old for them anyway, at 25+. NYCB's outreach, with $12 student rush tickets (and the chance of landing in an expensive orchestra seat), and the Fourth Ring Society a very good deal for balletomanes who aren't students, is far more inviting. I see many more young people at the New York State Theater. Not to mention it's possible to see what's going on without opera glasses there. It's really almost enough for me to switch allegiances entirely. At least the City Center season isn't totally bankrupting.

I would usually prefer to see a ballerina in tights, since they smooth out her line, but I think Vishneva's choice not to wear them fits the role. It would be odd to wear tights in Ashton's Five Brahms Waltzes in the Manner of Isadora Duncan, or other barefoot ballets, and grotesque not to wear them with a classical tutu. Simply a matter of taste. Obviously this detail was so jarring to Kourlas thta she had to mention it in her review, but for many of us it magnifies a minor incident out of proportion. The perfect thing to discuss in an online forum and an odd thing to read about in the New York Times.

I noticed recently watching Concerto Barocco that Wendy Whelan had very fluid, soft wrists, which enhanced the heartbreak of her adagio dancing and set her apart from everyone else on stage (she also used her eyes expressively, directing her gaze in counterpoint to her movements and to the music). So I agree with the thought that the quality and effectiveness of port de bras can vary within any period or style of dancing. I'm not sure I would have noticed the quality of her work when I was a little less familiar with Balanchine style, since I would have focused more on its overall strangeness. I think good port de bras can be split into at least two aspects. One, that there is a beautiful line in academic positions (arms are not simply tacked on to the torso, but flow from the center through the back out through the fingertips). Two, that parts within the arm (shoulder, elbow, wrist, fingers) can be isolated and used expressively. I love one bit in Altynai Assylmuratova's pas de trois variation in the Kirov's Corsaire video where she is doing passe releves. In that short sequence, she uses port de bras as if she were a jazz musician—creating a spontaneous, improvisational gloss on academic positions. I remember trying to break down what she did for myself in the past, and finally abandoning the effort so that I could simply enjoy it. A week or so ago I had some fun mirroring the arms in the Royal Ballet Les Sylphides video, not that I quite succeeded. Good port de bras really pay off in terms of artistry, so it is an area that would repay more attention from any dancer. But I don't think a dancer can get there by thinking of her arms in isolation—they must be part of a total body expression. That must be why training is so important in developing beautiful arms, which go deeper than style and cannot just be tacked on at the age of 16 or so.

Thanks for the information, Natalia. Not being as familiar with the workings of the company, I'm wondering what it means. Is this a usual pattern or does it indicate turmoil at the Kirov?

I think I looked at this book the other day in a used bookstore. If it is the one I'm thinking of, it had some classifications I hadn't heard before—Tamara Karsavina and Alla Osipenko were classed as "decorative ballerinas" (or ornamental?). It could be interesting to fit contemporary dancers into the scheme, although there would have to be a category for "acrobatic ballerinas." On the men's side, I remember Nijinsky, Nureyev and Baryshnikov being put together "in a class by themselves," or some such vagueness. It seems to me that their great reputations are all that really bind them.

I am in the same camp as MarkD, richard53dog, and zerbinetta. The production was a success on its own terms without providing as much classical dancing as one might like. I thought the references to Jazz Age social dance were apt, and kept things moving along nicely in Act II, the strongest act. On the question of the stepsisters: Erica Cornejo absolutely triumphed as the Other Stepsister. I rarely laugh out loud at any type of performance. I did repeatedly last night, and the rest of the audience was with me. Given her performance, I wouldn't want the sisters to be any less prominent. We've discussed in other threads how rare successful comedy is in ballet. The qualities she showed—fearlessness, heart, and the willingness to look ugly or silly—are valuable in any dramatic context. Ashton's stepsisters are said to overshadow Cinderella in his version too, but we have heard about great performances by Shearer, Fonteyn, Grey, Sibley, Cojocaru, et al. I think the burden is on the individual performers to create the right balance, but I also find I cannot fault Cornejo for stealing the show. I think the way to set Cinderella and Prince Charming apart is by giving them the best classical choreography. In the Ashton version, Anthony Dowell didn't have to do anything other than dance beautifully and nobly. But that was enough for me, and certainly something Gomes and Hallberg could pull of as well. I think it's okay for Prince Charming to be more an icon than a person. To be fair, the Kudelka choreography of soft leaps, waltz steps, and pirouettes opening into developpes was very flattering to Gomes. Or vice versa? I thought Act I was the weakest act. My father, who had never seen any version of Cinderella, felt that Cinderella's dance with the broomstick wasn't really developed and was an obvious missed opportunity. I may check out Gillian Murphy in the role. I can imagine that this tomboy version suits her better than a more traditional version would.

I have not seen this film, but I found the experience of reading the recent Fonteyn biography to be bittersweet. I read her autobiography at a young age and was transfixed by the eloquence of her writing. Its tone and voice is still the richest to me of the dancer autobiographies I have read, though Allegra Kent's and Lynn Seymour's also provide an intimate view of those dancers and the way they think and feel. The added details about Fonteyn's personal life in the biography depressed me and led me to believe that she showed the most beautiful part of herself onstage. As a performer, she had the right, and even duty, to craft a special image of herself for the public. I am not judging her in any way or denying that she could be a real person instead of an idealized image, I simply find what she revealed onstage to be more interesting than a litany of loving the wrong men and manipulating or being manipulated by colleagues, acquaintances, or hangers-on. Now a story I would be interested in is the part Ninette de Valois played in shaping or thwarting the careers of Royal Ballet dancers, since that is inextricably tied up in her legacy of building the company. No doubt there are books and films for that I have not read or seen. But if the result hadn't been so glorious, no one would have cared about the back story anyway. Basically, I see the merit in canbelto's view, but in this particular case, I found the results of the glimpse behind the mask saddening rather than edifying. I suppose one thing I do understand better is the bond between Fonteyn and Nureyev. Neither lived to what I consider a ripe old age—though I am aware of the medical issues of both, my fancy tells me they were such creatures of the stage they couldn't live fully off of it.

The competition for female soloist positions is pretty fierce. Lane, Zhong-Jing Fang, Yuriko Kajiya and Melanie Hamrick have all been tried out in prominent soloist roles recently, and I wouldn't view it as an injustice if any one of these ladies were promoted above the others. As one poster pointed out at the time, Sarah Lane looked like a perfectly radiant Aurora in her outing in Kaleidoscope. Personally, I'd like to make a plug for Kajiya. I always find myself watching her, even when she is only a peasant girl in Giselle. She brings a joyful attack and limberness to contemporary work like the Tharp and Gong. She seems to dance with a twinkle in her eye. If Fang is a future Giselle and Lane a future Aurora, I see her doing well in La Sylphide. She is light on her feet in a way few dancers are today.

I felt that Hallberg showed clearly the initial tentativeness and struggle in the birth scene, and the realization of his godly powers at the end of the ballet, when the music demands it with a sort of clarion call. The evolution from one state to another was not made clear over the course of the ballet. Still, I liked the way the movement looked on him; he was not mannered or self-conscious. I liked his phrasing: in sequences of repeated movements he built the momentum higher with each pass, and then stopped on a dime to unfold into his poses. Maybe that's Apollo 101; I haven't seen very many. Anyway, we know he can act, so he'll get it. I don't want to rely too heavily on his own quoted words, but he has said that partnering has been his biggest challenge. I believe this was in the NY Sun profile recently? So partnering three ballerinas in such convoluted moves could well be the most intimidating and tiring part of the role. Veronika Part should be a principal dancer. She has the stage presence to carry a ballet. She made the most of her long legs; raising them sky-high in developpes (over the top is right for this ballet, I think). I wasn't entirely sure what to make of the smiles. Finally I decided she was a bit gleeful that she was, for the moment, Apollo's mentor rather than his follower. She always seems to dance with the air of unfolding a mystery. Since she can be both playful and vulnerable, there are many roles I would like to see her dance: Nikiya, Medora, and, despite her height, Giselle. I agree with atm711 on Jeu de Cartes. It's funny, but it's slapstick. Good sets, lighting and costumes added to the work. At each deal, dancers emerged from behind giant cards that were shuffled on and off. The backdrop was a woman's torso, clad in and Elizabethan-style brocade gown with ruff, hands poised to play. For his entrances, the Joker crept on from behind her outstretched hand. I think my favorite part was Craig Salstein in a tutu doing a Trock-like number—he nailed it. Erica Cornejo has a real instinct for comedy. It seems effortless with her. My fantasy casting for her is Swanilda in Coppelia. Gillian Murphy was very amusing also; I'm interested to see how she takes on Cinderella. Petrouchka is better close up, since gesture is as crucial as dancing, and last year my seats were closer to the stage. I didn't notice the herding at the sides then that was evident yesterday. Radetsky always let emotion shine through rather than wasting all his focus emphasizing his puppet's body. Not that he wasn't convincing; he simply kept that element subordinate, so that the contrast between him and the utter superficiality of the other two puppets was quite marked. I thought the missing element was the magician's malice, which motivates and pervades the entire story. The flute solo associated with him gives me chills! Gary Chryst and Freddie Franklin were, in their own ways, much more evil last season. They had each embellished the role more than Kirk Peterson has so far.

To oversimplify: as always, one can choose to view the glass as half-empty or half-full. On the one hand, ballet could continue to evolve into a sport, which might kill it as the art form we love. On the other hand, I've begun to think that ballet as sport will run its course. Once everyone has a six-o'clock penchee and can do triple fouettes, dancers will need something extra to stand out. I'm hoping that is artistry. Historically, weren't we in a similar situation a century ago? Italian virtuousas like Pierina Legnani and Carlotta Brianza gave way to sensitive interpreters Anna Pavlova and Tamara Karsavina. Meanwhile, Fokine reacted against dancing as empty spectacle. I know the danger is that choreographic and interpretive nuances will be lost in the meantime. However, I think it is very interesting that Margot Fonteyn had never seen the Sleeping Beauty performed before she took on Aurora. Though she consulted with experts, she had no models, so she conceived the role from scratch, with a result that was personal and dramatically coherent.

Reading ballet.co.uk, I've noticed that Pavlenko is a huge favorite with the London audience, perhaps the favorite Kirov dancer. And she is often left out of tours, so this seems like a don't-miss.

This article over at danceviewtimes sheds light on the contract issues, and the concept of the series: John Goberman interview I share everyone's disappointment at missing these films, and I've never seen the ones from the 70s and 80s, but I like the idea that Live at Lincoln Center records performance as an ephemeral experience, as it is in life. I agree that the current situation hurts the dancers and their reputations. My favorite clips of Fonteyn and Sibley are in the NYPL. And is there commercially available video of Violette Verdy? I watched her there in La Source and was overwhelmed by her musicality and wit. That clip was interesting because it had been filmed without sound, which was rerecorded later under her supervision. Who knows what the original was like, but at least she had some ownership of her performance. Shouldn't dancers be able to compile their own best-ofs? And I'm worried about the condition of all those library holdings. Some are very fragile. Are they being transferred to DVD? I would certainly contribute money to such an effort. Even if they are unavailable commercially they must be maintained in libraries. It would be nice if the collection could be digitized and available online, although that thrusts us back into thorny contract issues. Couldn't there be an inter-library loan program, at least? I like living in New York, but it doesn't seem fair that you would have to travel here to see these things. If a larger audience had access, I imagine balletgoers might have more sophisticated taste. That is, an appetite for more than the warhorses on tours. Kristin Sloan and David Hallberg were addressing this issue recently on The Winger by calling for more video clips on company websites, like some European companies have. It makes sense to preview what you're paying $50 for. Overall, I wish companies and dancers could seize more control of how they are presented. I'm pretty unsatisfied with the quality of commercial DVDs, which have scant liner notes, no extras, and are poorly mastered.

On the controversial costumes—I've recently watched video snippets of Margot Fonteyn and Antoinette Sibley as Aurora at the New York Public Library. The most charming feature of their costumes was that their tulle underskirts were a different color than the silvery/gold/white brocade of the bodice and overskirt. I remember red for Fonteyn and pink for Sibley. This wasn't resurrected? A disappointment.

The Part-Gomes Swan Lake came up for discussion on another thread about the Murphy-Corella telecast, with the overall sentiment that the former have more chemistry. I wish they would dance more together, and would like to know other pairings people covet. Who is the best partner for Xiomara Reyes? I agree with what others have said about her with Herman Cornejo; shared short stature does not guarantee rapport. She dances a lot with Angel Corella, but that pairing does not fully satisfy me. Both have a childlike aura. I felt his boyish Albrecht undermined what she was trying to do with her Giselle. I was excited to see her put together with Ethan Stiefel this season, but his unfortunate injuries have taken him out of it entirely. I'm not sure who is best for Gillian Murphy, but I have seen Ethan Stiefel bring out her dramatic side more than others when they were paired in La Fille mal Gardee and Kaleidoscope. She and Carreno together are too formal. People speak of him as a hot Latin, but he can have a reserve. I miss Susan Jaffe for him. Gomes is good with everyone. I have seen Michelle Wiles at her best with Gomes, but never saw her performances with Acosta. I think Hallberg has been very good with Maria Riccetto and Stella Abrera. He was also good with Julie Kent in Kaleidoscope. Paloma Herrera isn't my favorite but maybe the contrast between their styles, heights and temperaments will be effective, similar to the Dvorovenko-Beloserkovsky pairing.

Thanks bart. I like what you've said to extend my musings. It seems another thing that contributed to past success was that the programming had a controlling theme, i.e. different choreographers but one composer for the Stravinsky and Ravel festivals (I admit to being too young to have seen them, but Repertory in Review is a wonderful way to live vicariously). Have past Diamond Projects been themed? That, in addition to choreographers from "within the family" might give the event more coherence. Sorry this is going a bit OFF TOPIC. But perhaps the question is: where does Wheeldon really fit? Who is his ballet family, NYCB, the Royal, or San Francisco Ballet? I know he is in demand everywhere because promising ballet choreographers are scarce.

I've been trying to assess where I come down on the debate about Martins, and I feel Wheeldon is an important part of the equation. I found Rockwell's piece a non-event—as others stated, where was the new information; what was the occasion for the pronouncement from on high? I think that if Martins were doing a great job, the results would speak for themselves, eventually. And it has been twenty years or so! The debate is really over whether he is doing a competent, acceptable job or whether he is completely trashing the company. I can accept the proposition that NYCB should be focused on presenting cutting-edge work rather than focusing primarily on preserving Balanchine's works (honoring Balanchine's vision rather than his ballets per se). But a choreographer of genius is required to justify that vision of the company. Otherwise we miss out on seeing good and great Balanchine and Robbins to see mediocre new work. Is this just like eating our vegetables or taking our vitamins? A necessary evil? I would rather see the ballets by Tharp and Morris ABT puts on. They are first-rate choreographers, even if ballet is not their primary vocabulary. In my view, Martins' choreography is third-rate at best. I'll accept that some of it may be useful in providing vehicles for younger dancers. But I think the Diamond Project should be scaled back to place more emphasis on quality over quantity. Taking chances is one thing, but how many instantly disposable ballets do we need? Doesn't developing choreographers require more of an investment? Doesn't it seem like most great choreographers found a secure home with one company, where they could really know and show off the dancers? We should see much more from Wheeldon, who should be building a new canon. Otherwise, why was he named resident choreographer? All his freelancing is dissipating his energies. Maybe he hasn't hit his stride, maybe he will never really arrive, but there are some things he seems to get. I like that he makes ballets like Carnival of the Animals and An American in Paris. Balanchine did not eschew the crowd- or child-pleasing either. A mix of highbrow and lowbrow, modern and more traditional works sounds about right to me, and he has shown that range. I don't think he needs to run the company to become the resource NYCB needs. Less Martins choreography and more Wheeldon should do it.

I am looking forward to ABT's run of Apollos, since I have only seen it once, with Jose Manuel Carreno. I was very surprised not to enjoy his performance, since I have thought of his dancing as godlike. I tried to think of one word to describe it, and all I could come up with was antiseptic. There was early awkwardness, but it came across as discomfort with a different movement vocabulary rather than acting. The choreography seemed to thwart him instead of revealing him.

Does ballet have more to offer as a sport or as an art? It is a bit amusing to think of pointe shoes as "apparatus," like a pole in the pole vault, or a tutu as a uniform, and 32 fouettes in terms of degrees of difficulty. But if people only want to see amazing physical feats they can watch the Olympics on tv; they don't need to go to the theatre. Why bother to watch a whole ballet, and not just instant replays of the "good parts"? Why not get rid of the easy steps? Why use music at all, or why not use a rousing medley of "We will rock you" and "It's getting hot in here"? While moments in ballet can be taken out of context and compared to athletics, I think it's missing the point. Existing sports do a better job focusing on purely physical achievement and paring away everything else. The experience of going to the ballet also involves entering an imagined world. There is no reason to "compete" dressed up as Romeo and Juliet, instead of wearing aerodynamic, high-tech outfits like swimmers and track-and-field athletes. There is a reason to dress up as Romeo and Juliet if you are trying to evoke another world, and make a statement about enduring love and family conflict. Does it matter if it is day or night, or if you are on a balcony or in a ballroom, if the height of the developpe is what counts? In my view, ballet makes a rather silly sport, but does very well as an art form. Can selling ballet as a sport build a loyal, knowledgeable audience? Will that audience sit through Jardin aux Lilas, or will we lose part of our heritage because it isn't interesting athletically? I just watched Fonteyn and Nureyev on video in Les Sylphides. I enjoyed it more than recent performances by ABT because Fonteyn wasn't straining so hard. Her movements were understated, her energy controlled, and so she looked light. Today's dancers are turning the fluttering of an arm into an event. What I want is to see the fullest possible range of movement: hard and soft, high and low, quick and slow. That full range doesn't seem to fit into an athletic paradigm: we're only getting the biggest, fastest, etc. No one is "winning" for best musicality, and so on. If ballet becomes a sport, we get into the whole nasty business of judging. That isn't working so well for ice skating or gymnastics. I don't want to completely disparage anything that brings people to the ballet. But viewing ballet as sport seems at best a transitional attitude—if people aren't hooked by other aspects of it, will they remain enthusiastic, and keep attending? Will I be forced to sit through semi-ludicrous technique fests like Le Corsaire over and over again?

Well, I hope the Awakening pas de deux doesn't disappear from the tradition. I watched a video of Dowell and Sibley dancing it at the New York Public Library and it's one of the best things I've ever seen.