SandyMcKean

.....especially dancing were particularly bad this year

I couldn't disagree more. I thought the dancing was fantasic. Truly creative, reflective of the what the "real" world is doing out on the streets with dance, and refreshingly not what I expected.

Even with my limited math skills, it seems that someone -- not the musicians -- was making a lot of money.

If folks haven't seen the entertaining video (available on Netflix):

"Dancing for Dollars" (a 2 part documentary with the 1st segment "Bolshoi in Vegas" being the most interesting IMO)

I highly recommend it. This "Bolshoi in Vegas" segment shows how a Christain connected mid-westerner got mid-western farmers to invest in a sure fire get rich scheme to bring the Bolshoi to America. Tragically, they picked as their first venue Las Vegas where the gambling public showed no interest (big surprise ). When this modern day Diaghilev finally ran out of money, he simply abandoned the company who then had to find their own way home by hook or by crook. One of the poignacies of this film is how nice a guy this impresario was, and how he fell victim to his own naivete and to his genuine love of ballet.

Here is the Netflix description:

The first segment of this two-part documentary recounts the Bolshoi Ballet's disastrous 1996 stint in Vegas, where they were met with apathetic reception and poor ticket sales. Part 2 traces the erosion of the Kirov Ballet's once-regal image amid allegations of corruption. Funny yet heartbreaking, this film examines the plight of post-Soviet dance troupes coming to grips with the diminished value of artistry and the impact of commercialism.

All or almost all the Met HD operas are being b'cast on my local Seattle PBS station. I can think of Tosca, Turnadot, Tales of Hoffman (soon) so far, maybe Aida was done too.....so Rosenkavalier would be next in line.

any idea where she is

My money would be in Italy somwhere.

Some works are very clearly examples of their time, their style or their genre. They represent something about the artists involved, and their view of what dance should do. They may be on the forward edge of the art form when they are made, but that edge continues to travel while the work itself remains in its place.

sandik, what I great image in that 2nd sentence. I'm saving these words. It opens up a whole new time-centric way of organizing "art" in my mind. Thanks.

Is it art?

It's art if the artist says it is.......period. Now, you and I can either like it, hate it, or be indifferent to it, but we can't possibly know what is art and what is not. OTOH, any of us can decide to be an aritst.

the photograph.......which is beautiful

Agreed!

I never saw her dance, but I've seen videos of course. My "fan-ship" became official after reading her autobiography "Holding on to the Air". She particularly beguiled me in the "Elusive" documentary. Her honesty and authenticity totally won me over. I have since gone to the PNB library to watch her in the Balanchine Trust Interpreters videos (Monumentum and Movements). That was the best of all.

Far more than criticisms of the choreography I'd say. My word for the "review" would be hog wash.

Anyone who listens to rumors (much less reading into the comments of 3rd parties as this critic does in this article) that somehow Lucien, Olivier, and Kaori have a spiteful, hateful relationship is out on Pluto somewhere. Besides, I can't imagine anyone who follows Olivier Wevers (or PNB for that matter), and claims to be knowledgable enough to be a critic, wouldn't know the personal relationships btwn these 3 over a 10 year period. Such a "critic" gets an F in my book for not paying attention. Both marriages and the split were well discussed even in public by the principles and other first hand observers (I know since I attended some of these events).

I think someone is allowing their personal prejudices to influence their "critical judgment" here.

Note that Perry died over 2 months ago.

Well, it's certainly Bejart supporting Farrell, with Donn watching, hands on hips.

bart, I thought it looked like Donn too. but then I thought it strange that a stamp commemorating Bejart wouldn't have his picture on it. I thought maybe it was a photo from his dancing youth.

sandik's comment raises the question in my mind: Who is the person on the actual stamp? I assumed it to be Bejart.....but now I wonder.

Quite amazing rg! Thanks for sharing your find.

The lack of Farrell's name when clearly, as you suggest, any dodo who might have gathered the materials needed to produce such a card could hardly have not asked "Who's the girl??!!", likely makes the card even more valuable. I have no interest in collecting such things, but that card, with that story, makes it desirable even to such as me!

.....several performances -- Aida, Tales of Hoffmann, Rosenkavalier, Carmen -- were sold out in all 5 theaters in our area which show HD/Live. (We managed to find Encores for all but Carmen but had to travel further than usual.)

I'm curious bart.......

Seattle isn't a suburb of NYC like Miami is , so I'm not surprised that Seattle theaters don't seem to be as busy as the ones you speak of. Here in Seattle, the downtown theater is always sold out (even with 2 screens), and one must arrive almost 2 hours early to get a good seat (1 hour in a line waiting for the 9am door opening, 1 hour waiting in one's seat). None the less, as long as I purchase the tickets online about 1 week in advance I always get tickets. There are 4 or 5 suburban theaters within 30 minutes of Seattle, some of which are not sold out for the Saturday morning performances.....altho most are crowded. OTOH, the encore performances in all the theaters are easy to get into (even the downtown theater is only 1/2 full). The "live" Saturday showings are at 10am of course, but the encores are at 6:30pm on Wednesdays (although one theater does them at 1pm on Sundays to suit the matinee crowd I assume). I've been to one suburban theater for an encore performance that had only 5 people in the entire theater (including my wife and I)!!.

I guess I'm surprized that your encore performances are sold out such that you must drive further away. Also have you tryed buying the Saturday "live" performance tickets ahead of time via the internet?

I keep thinking about this notion that Robbins was somehow "less than". Although I can't think if anyone who isn't "less than" when compared to Mr B, I still don't know how to doubt Robbin's genius when I think of the overall pantheon of choreographers. Robbins is the near equal of anyone IMHO. True, his stuff may be "softer" or even whimsical perhaps, but what sticks in my mind is me attempting to imagine the world of ballet without Robbins in it. What a loss! No one could fill that particular hole. He added a humanity to ballet that warms my heart (in spite of his well known failings in the realm of inter-personal skills).

.....particular performance, where the dances tend to blend together, the ballet as a whole turns to mush.

This I can understand. A poor performance of Dances could surely look like mush.

As far as Robbins being less than a genius, and that he may have been less than "in the zone" when he creates whatever he created, I guess I just don't give a flying leap. Jerome Robbins created some of the most memorable, fresh, and beautiful combinations of music and movement EVER......that's enough for me.

.....so that a wearying sameness crept in as the ballet progressed....

I can't accept this. Seems to me something similar could be said about such works as Bach's "Art of the Fugue". There are what, 20 fugues?.....all with the same theme. I could say "a sameness crept in", but I'd be missing the point. Dances is a subtle work, and that subtlety also contributes to making it profound (possible in a work of genius....which Dances is, IMO).

Patrick, you and I may be interpreting this issue differently. The question by the OP'er was whether an audience ought to observe a note in a program not to clap because the performance had religious significance.

My interpretation of that request is that an audience is presumed to agree and to understand such a request, and is being asked to observe such a request by virtue of the presumed deference inherent with religious subjects. It is that presumption that I am questioning (and why I posted my rhetorical question of: "Should I therefore not clap at the Rite of Spring"). I have no problem if a company, choreographer, or performer requests that no clapping occur, but I do object to the underlying presumption that somehow a religious theme should be given special consideration simply by virtue of the circumstance that the theme is religious in nature.

You are misunderstanding my position in another way. I am not saying that it is the audience member who is giving 'special deference' (each member can do so, or not, at their whim), but I am saying that when the organizers of the performance ask that you not clap because the theme is religious, it is the organizers who are giving the religious theme 'special deference'. You have put my cart before my horse . Now, if the organizers were to say: "Please don't clap because the choreographer (or the perfomers) has a strong religious commitment which forbides clapping during a ballet with this theme", I would not feel that would be giving 'special deference' to a religious themed ballet (and each audience member could decide whether or not they wished to observe that request). In my world, it is all about what is presumed (it is on that question of presumption that Dawkins has something relevant to say).

P.S. I agree with you that someone just might laugh during "Agon". I certainly have no problem with that (as long as the reaction was genuine and not done with some agenda). OTOH, I can't imagine that **I** would ever laugh. Each member of the audience can make their own choice.

Sandy, speaking just for myself, I'd want to honor the feelings and the honest thinking -- distinguishing these again from the actual content -- of the philosophical work just as much as the religious one. And I don't think religious views precede something like philosophical inquiry....

Thanks for the thoughts. I presume we can agree to disagree.

Like Dawkins, I still can't logically (to use your word) understand why society (including ballet audiences) seems to give the realm of religion special consideration. Reading your words above, I see you are comfortable adding "philosophical inquiry" into that "special" category. Frankly, I can't see why once you add philosophical inquiry into the privileged group, you could logically exclude the realm of politics, or almost any other discpline. I see no logical way to draw a line that makes some subjects more worthy of silent respect than others. None the less, I certainly agree with you that some subjects are more serious than others; for example, I might well laugh during Robbins "The Concert", but I find it hard to imagine that I would ever laugh during "Agon". My only point has been that, like Dawkins, I see no logical reason why societies (or ballet audiences) should give special deference to religious pursuits (excepting them from taxation being a good non-passionate parallel).

Further, far too many people, in my opinion, consider themselves to be "more special" than others. Claims like this can be resented and often turn out to be dangerous, as we see in so many conflicts throughout history and today.

BINGO......(especially in the realm of religious belief).

......I think religious views precede them (political views), or at least logically should for any thinking person.

I find this a fascinating point of view. kfw, I'd like to understand more about what would have you feel this way. BalletTalk is chock full of some of the smartest and most informed people I've ever run into. I don't often get a chance to get enlightened by a group of this calibre on issues that I've puzzled over for many years.

Just so this discussion doesn't go too far afield....kfw, in your world, how do you justify that religious views precede something like philosophical inquiry. Should I give "special consideration" to a ballet that contains religious themes which explore the fundamental aspects of human existence, but give lesser consideration to a ballet that contains philosophical themes which explore fundamental aspects of human existence?

Cynisism seems to me a veritable lexicon that is learned, along with sustained irony, among the young--modelled, perhaps, on the generation above them, to seem smart.

There is a difference btwn cynicism and alienation. (Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye might be a good example.)

P.S. It's been noted elsewhere on this board that I may have a "dry wit". I admit to having something like that whatever term best describes it. In any case, my comment above was meant to be a soft jab at a disproportionate amount of cynicism I find often expressed on this board......my opinion only, of course. (Now that I think about it, perhaps a better word for what I was getting at would be jaded rather than cynical.)

Sandy, I think Dawkins.....confuses respecting people's feelings with not questioning the thinking behind them. The former is about presuming, in the absence of evidence otherwise, that people deserve respect, both skeptics and believers.

I don't think Dawkins is confusing anything. I presume you feel that way because you may be missing his point. Allow me to reiterate his main point:

"But I am intrigued and mystified by the disproportionate privileging of religion......" (the emphasis is mine)

He (and I for that matter) are not saying, as you seem to imply, that it is OK to be disrespectful if you are so inclined (hurting peoples feelings in the process -- which seems to be your main concern), but rather he is saying: why do we single out the realm of religion for special consideration, such that for whatever the supposed reason is, we are expected to give extra leeway, or feel extra deference when a religious theme is involved.

Now tell me, would you really have the courage to boo Gaia Ballet Theater's Rite of Spring?

Like bart, I don't boo.....ever. I don't boo even at basketball games when the opposing team members are introduced as so many home team fans do (in fact, I often cheer for their best players in respect for their talent). I see no purpose in booing ever. However having said that, I would boo, cheer, or remain silent in exactly the same way, for exactly the same reasons, whatever the circumstance. I certainly would not modify my standard behavior for no reason other than the theme happened to be religious, or the performers were in a religious mood.

[As an aside, I can't for the life of me understand way we give tax breaks to religious organizations when a organization devoted to, say, the understanding of philosophy would not qualify for such tax breaks.]

kfw, no you not missing my "dry sense of humor" (bye-the-bye, my humor can be dry, but it's more often satirical, usually attempting to point out some hypocracy or inconsistency).

I could make my own argument why I think the idea of treating religious themes with special respect is silly, but a man for whom I have the greatest respect, Richard Dawkins, recently wrote an entire book on the subject. I could not possibily improve on this brilliant man's words so I won't try. Quoting from the 2nd chapter of Dawkins marvelous book "The God Delusion":

"A widespread assumption, which nearly everybody in our society accepts - the non-religious included - is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other."

....and then....

"I am not in favour of offending or hurting anyone just for the sake of it. But I am intrigued and mystified by the disproportionate privileging of religion in our otherwise secular societies. All politicians must get used to disrespectful cartoons of their faces, and nobody riots in their defence. What is so special about religion that we grant it such uniquely privileged respect?"

One complaint: the audience must be asked, before curtain-rise, not to applaud during a work of religious significance.

If I am to take this complain seriously, does this mean then that I ought not to clap during a performance of The Rite of Spring?

One distinction stands out very clearly to me: cynicism seems to be a quality exclusive to the "adult" realm.

Jayne,

Thanks for the review; I read it with complete interest......I liked the way you write about how you felt about the evening instead of restricting yourself to only what you thought about it (if that makes any sense). I concur with most of what your reactions were. I haven't seen all the same dancers you mention, but having seen 3 Beauties so far (my 4th will be tomorrow to see Leslie Rausch make the gigantic leap to Aurora.......I'm a huge fan of Leslie's).

If I had to give a "Most Accomplished" award to a single dancer at PNB, it would be to Carrie Imler. For me she is the penultimate professional. She delights and astonishes me every time: be it as Aurora, or as a stomper in Tharp's "In the Upper Room". I can easily echo your football fan cry (in fact, not being the shy type, I'm afraid I did a enough screaming of "brava" and "yo" the night I saw her to likely make you squirm ).

As I'm sure you have observed, Bold has never been very expressive. He is a joy to watch and his partnering is terrific (IMHO), but communicating emotion, character motivation, etc is not his strong point. I wonder if that was all that was happening during Act 3. I sure hope no injury is involved.

I would have loved to see Kyle Davis as Bluebird. He moves like no other male dancer I've seen at PNB. I distinctly remember noticing him the very first time he hit our stage. I didn't know who he was, or even that a new dancer of his type had joined the organization. There was just something about his dancing that strongly caught my eye. At the intermission I had to look at the program to figure out who that standout dancer was. Now I find it difficult not to focus on him and ignore other dancers when he is on stage in a more typical corps role. I've never seen him is such a highlighted role as Bluebird. I envy you again.

Wevers is more than a dancer; he creates drama in its broadest possible sense (which I suspect is why he is such a talented choreographer). As you say, his Carabosse is spectacular (in a dramatic sense -- just as his Friar in R&J was). I have jokingly called him "rubberman" given his ability to move seemlessly into the most unusual limb positions (not as a "trick", but to dramatic effect).