SandyMcKean

Thank you Tutu......I haven't figured out exactly what this is, but it looks very interesting.........especially to a OFTR nut like me.

Thanks everyone for the input.

As a small business owner I am quite familar with how unemployment insurance works from an employer's point of view (at least here in the state of Washington). Given that dancers regularly claim unemployment benefits, then the unemployment premiums a ballet company (the employer) pays must be quite high. I guess this is just considered a "normal" business expense in this industry.

P.S. In my experience most folks who collect unemployment insurance have no idea that doing so ultimately costs their employer. I certainly didn't until our small company once had to layoff a couple of people only to have our mandatory state unemployment insurance rates go up 500%. It took us years of no layoffs to get the rates back down.

When the rep is over, you are off and you are intitled to go on unemployment.

Are you sure dancers are eligible to take unemployment?

The full name of this benefit is normally "Unemployment Insurance". Many people don't realize that this is just what it is: insurance. The funds paid to someone who is laid off come from insurance premiums paid by employers. Contrary to popular belief, these benefits do NOT come from the tax payers in general (except in severe rccessions like now when the federal or state governments sometimes throw extra money in the pot). Most employers control unemployment claims since the employer's insurance rates will go up dramatically in future years until the paid out unemployment payments have been recouped. A ballet company whose dancers regularly claim unemployment every year would pay horrific premiums in future years.

Furthermore, you can't claim unemployment simply because you lose a job. It has to be for the "right reasons". I don't know the details, but I'm not sure a dancer under a defined contract to dance say 35 weeks would qualify for unemployment simply because their contract was over. (It may be however that if you are released after only 30 weeks in a 35 week contract, you might get unemployment benefits).

In any case, I'm not certain how this works in the world of ballet........I'd be very interested to know if dancers qualify year after year for unemployment benefits since they rarely work 52 weeks a year.

Lesley Rausch debuts in "Slaughter on 10th Avenue" with Jeffrey Stanton, who is a great hoofer.

Perfect....................I still remember this duo in similar roles in "Take Five" last year.

P.S. It's also reassuring to see Lesley dancing again since she had to be pulled from doing a role in Rubies due to an injury (ankle I think).

If I squint at it just right, it looks like Lucien Postelwaite is cast as Tony and I think it's Sara Ricard Orza as Maria....

That's who I thought they were too when I saw this video for the first time. In fact, I'm 99.5% sure that is who they were.

Helene, you are a wonder. As printscess said, your numbers are fascinating.

I was particularly struck by how large the companies were that enjoy state funding. Older cultures, it appears, find more value in art than do younger cultures (ballet instead of 50,000 square foot houses ).

The woman who sat next to me turned around and hollered, "Shut up!" at one person with an obnoxious cell phone.

This reminds me of an incident I was a part of at the Seattle Opera last year. I don't remember the opera, but right in the middle of it, this lady sitting in front of me gets a ring on her cell phone (one of those "musical" ring tones). That's irritating and highly distracting as we all know, but I guess it can happen to any of us if we happen to forget that one time to turn the cell phone off.

However, what happened next blew me away. Instead of quickly turning the phone off, as I think we all expect, this lady opens the phone and starts talking! Something about a party that night she was going to. After 10 seconds of this, I couldn't take it anymore, and since I am not by any stretch of the imagination mild mannered, I poked her relatively hard on the shoulder (yes, I was mad), and told her in a quiet voice, but with a voice full of harsh distain, that she could not talk on her phone at the opera. She looked at me as if I were a mugger, but she did get off the phone . (Interestingly, at the intermission, it was quite clear from the conversation I overheard btwn her and her 3 friends/family that none of them went to the opera often, or even perhaps ever before. They didn't even seem to like opera.....perhaps they knew someone in the cast.)

I think I could listen to and watch Emeralds non stop forever.

I couldn't agree more. I think I've said before how this set of performances converted me into an Emeralds devotee. It took me several performances (starting in 2006), but Emeralds is now my favorite part of Jewels. As you say glebb, I think I could see it every night for weeks, if not longer, and not grow tired of it.

Hey, but in the final analysis the credit has to go to Mr B. That one human being could have devised these 3 gems, all at the same time, in one work, is genius pure and simple. Perhaps it seems obvious, but one of the things that crystallized for me is how eerily each part of Jewels reflects the qualities of the gem for which it is named. Emeralds is quiet, subtle, and grows on you like something fundamental from nature and from the earth -- not flashy, but ever more beautiful the more you look at it. Rubies is dazzling, brash, and "in your face" with its slightly garish but totally captivating cheek. Diamonds is the Lord of the gems, pure white, without the need for common color. Jewels does not name its parts just with whimsical artistic license -- Jewels manifests the essence of each of its gems such that the dance reflects how humans have responded to these 3 stones since forever. Once again Mr B......my hat is off to you.

I had hoped to get to a performance in the second weekend, but that's looking less likely now -- anyone who sees any of the other casts please report back!

I was able to go 2 more times, so I saw 4 of the 5 casts. What a treat. I think I could have seen it 4 more times if given the chance. This company just hums when it does Balanchine, and Jewels is such a magnificent piece.

I read your post with great interest. I'm sort of limited to "how I felt about the ballet" comments, so posts from people like you who know so much about the actual craft of ballet and its history always open doors for me. Like you, I was ensnared by Carla in Emeralds, and by Maria Chapman, but I also was struck by Sarah Ricard Orza with her fabulous French partner Jerome Tisserand in the Mimi Paul role. Sarah and Jerome both had a lyric quality to their dancing that fits Emeralds like a glove. I actually thought Lallone didn't fit the role that well. I love, love Ariana's dancing (in fact she was the 1st PNB ballerina whose dancing I really fell in love with years ago). But I felt her strengths didn't fit the flowing musicality of Emeralds.

Again like you, I was blown away by the absolute grace, precision, and artistry of Benjamin Griffiths. I was lucky enough to see him 3 times, and I was ever more impressed with each performance. He is quiet grace to Lucien's charismatic power. Two promotions well deserved! (And I too heard that #@#$%$ cell phone....why didn't the caller wait until Rubies . Plus I can't get Thomas's R&J nurse out of my head either. Hopefully we see her do that again next year.)

I don't know which of Carrie Imler's performance you saw, but interestingly at the Q&A after the Sunday matinee (2/1) she said that she felt her performance lacked something on her first night out Friday (1/30). I must admit that as impressed as I was on Friday, her performance on Sunday had magic to it. I'm not knowledgeable enough to pin point what it was, but Sunday she was "perfection" to her only "great" on Friday. Boal was just beaming over her performance as he sat next to her at the Q&A. One of the reasons I went to that Sunday matinee was to see Miranda Weese in Rubies. Frankly, somehow she didn't do it for me in this role. I can't help but think that she would have nailed something in Emeralds, but Rubies requires a younger dancer IMHO. She seemed to lack crispness in spite of her obvious unquestioned talents.

Another interesting dancer in these casts to me was Laura Gilbreath. She was the other reason I went to the 2/1 matinee. Talk about a tall girl (Laura is about 6' 7"....just kidding). But somehow Laura didn't raise to the level I was hoping for in the tall girl role (certainly compared to Lindsi and Ariana). But Laura more than made up for that at the last performance I saw Friday night 2/6. Laura danced the Farrell role in Diamonds. It was her debut in that role. WOW! I can't say it was polished (yet), but that girl gets it! We are only beginning to see what this corps dancer can do in terms of bringing more, much more, than steps to a role. She was at the Q&A and was bubbling all over....and I was bubbling right along with her. She could surely be proud of what she did that night. I see a new soloist very soon at PNB . She partnered with Karel Cruz which was terrific since Laura is so tall (Karel must be 6' 4" or something). I thought he did terrific -- perhaps more in the partnering than in the leaps. It was his debut in Diamonds too, as it was for James Moore dancing with Rachel Foster as one of the quartet of couples.

One last thing regarding the 2/6 performance. I got a big kick out seeing Andrew Bartee, Kyle Davis, Eric Hipolito, and Sean Rollofson as the 4 men in Rubies. All but Eric are apprentices, and Eric just joined the corps in 2008. We are overflowing with talent at PNB . These guys were right on the money. I doubt anyone who doesn't know the dancers by name would never have guessed that this quality of dance was coming from apprentices!

Is there any good news about any company?

PNB in Seattle went from 46 dancers to 52 dancers (I think those are the right numbers) this season. There were 5 promotions (I think) too this season.

Not that ticket sales and charitable contributions aren't down, because they are. Also, Peter Boal recently said that PNB picked its just announced 2009/2010 ballets in large measure based on what they thought they could sell. For example, the wildly popular Maillot R&J is coming back next season (I'm confident right about this time of year ).

I know the Seattle one I watch often programs these specials at odd times or a few days later.

Since I live in Seattle, I just checked KCTS website. This documentary is scheduled for 2/18 from 9pm to 11pm on ch 9 (analog) and ch 9.1 (HD).

Maybe the audience's expectations about how and how much to engage with the artist has changed.

Perhaps.

OTOH, as I have thought about this entire discussion, more and more I am thinking the "too much, or not enough" aspect of this aesthetic issue (the overall subject of this forum section after all) is all about a matter of degree. Frankly, I'd hate to see the 4th wall broken very often. I think something we all love about ballet is its abstracted, "other worldly" quality. If one broke the 4th wall too often, ballet would lose that vital quality IMHO. OTOH, in the right work, in the right production, done by the right performer, the breaking of any standard can be both dramatically and artistically appropriate and satisfying. Naturally, we could all disagree about whether a specific instance of this "standard breaking" is aesthetically correct or not, but surely that it can be appropriate from time to time should be embraced.

I think your point about us desiring to "reduce the distance" created by the wall that separates us from "the artists we love" is a good one. We respect and admire them so much, and it is a thrill when human, sometimes personal, contact is made (even when I see a dancer in a grocery store check out line, it is a thrill for me). So we, the audience, seek that contact, but at the same time familiarity breeds contempt (as they say). So it's a knife edge. To bring it back to my initial point, perhaps just the right amount of breaking the separation is the key. (Of course, we will never be able to agree where that line is......such is the stuff of art!)

....the dancer who gave a "hearty winking laugh and devilish look directly at the audience" during the run-around-the-stage near the end of Rubies. Here's Alistair Macaulay in the NY Times.....

I presume every dancer is free to give whatever interpretation they desire. Some interpretations will work, others won't. Whatever one's opinion, I felt Porretta's "over the top" puckishness at PNB worked for him and for the audience. Perhaps Mr B would have been pleased, or perhaps he would have toned it down, but I personally feel that Porretta's actions were in keeping with the spirit of Rubies. (The more I see Rubies, the more I see the humor and irreverence in it.)

My gut feel is that Mr B loved a good belly laugh......if cleverly done.

P.S. I also suspect that Macaulay's reference to "fun, repartee, naughtiness, even devilry" had mostly to do with the tall girl's attitude, and with the overall approach PNB took for the entire piece.

"martyr-going-to-the-scaffold" look

I love it! (....but I hate the look you are referring to!)

I like dancers when they appear to be listening intently ahead for the next phrase of the dance. As if they don't know what it is quite going to be--and they're going to quietly meet it half way.

I love this mental image. I couldn't have put it so nicely into words as you do here, but I think this is exactly what I see when a dancer's performance truly moves me.

Is it really just a choice between smiling or not smiling? A smile -- whether serene, joyful, slap-happy, exhilerated, or coy -- can be integral to a role. Acocella seems to be focusing on the "knowing smile" -- the "self-conscious smile" -- even the "conspiratorial smile."

You are right on the money bart. There is nothing wrong with smiling; and in fact, smiling might be mandatory if the role calls for it. It's the "pasted on smile" (for smile's sake alone) that is inappropriate. Certainly the types of smiles you quote from Acocella are completely out of place.

This makes me wonder if, to use bart's wording, the conspiratorial, wink, wink smile is appropriate in Rubies, or in other ballets or sections of ballets where showing off is part of the point.

Ironically, the production of PNB's Jewels gives a perfect example of how even the conspiratorial smile can work in Rubies in spite of it not working in Diamonds. Opening night Jonathan Porretta danced what I call the "cheeky boy's" role in Rubies. When he is on stage with the quartet of male dancers, leading them around the stage as if they were some sort of team of horses, there is a moment when the "cheeky boy" runs along the edge of the stage, completely down stage. When Porretta did this, he not only smiled, but he gave a hearty winking laugh and devilish look directly at the audience. He completely broke the 4th glass wall in that moment. It was appropriate for that moment, and invoked great laughter from the audience (just as it should IMHO). Notably when Peter Boal made his comment a few days later at the Q&A about having chastised the dancers for too much smiling in Diamonds, he did not say a word about Jonathan's outrageous cheek in Rubies. Interestingly, on Sunday afternoon when Olivier Webers did the same role, although he is an excellent actor and very accessible to the audience, Wevers did not ham up this moment as much as Porretta had opening night. Personally, I thought Poretta's choice was the better one (and judging by the laughter, so did the rest of the audience). Rubies is so full of wit and playfulness that "showing off", as you put it kfw (later edit...initially I said bart here, sorry kfw), is completely appropriate.

Just to overkill the point about Rubies, I can't resist mentioning another part in Rubies where the music is somewhat serious, and the dancing wholly into that syncopated Stravinsky thing, when suddenly the music totally shifts to light-hearted laughter. At at that moment four girls (I think it is 4) come out and whoosh though the other dancers. I call these four girls the "bathing beauties" because to me their movements remind me of flappers from the 1920's in whole body swimming suits frolicing on the beach! Too serious there and the entire illusion, and wit, of "seeing" that particular music would be lost.

The photo shoot was done for the January 2009 cover of Dance Magazine. Here's a link to that cover:

http://www.dancemagazine.com/issues/January-2009/

The related article was entitled: "25 to Watch" subtitled "Who's looking fine for '09"

I was also at the Q&A last night where Boal talked about smiling.

Interestingly, his comment was in response to an audience member who asked why some dancers smile and others don't. There seemed to be a definite element in this lady's question where she seemed to be wanting ever more of the happy-happy smiles. I think it was that implication that had Boal slam the practice....and slam it so hard that he even admitted that he had told some dancers to cut it out in Diamonds.

P.S. While talking about this issue Boal painted a very interesting image. He said that he imagined a dancer to be in a box with 4 walls -- one of which was glass. We the audience were privileged to be able to watch the dancer thru that 4th glass wall. He clearly sees separation of dancer and audience as vital (while also saying that the audience was of the upmost importance in any performing art).

P.S. I wouldn't be surprised that Boal read the article of which you speak bart. Not hard to imagine that a NY'er like him reads the New Yorker. (Of course I have no evidence of this.)

I saw opening night (Thursday 1/29), and then again last night (Friday 1/30). Incredible ballet danced by an incredible company. I could swear that Balanchine was in the hall somehow.

The opening night cast did a great job especially Carla Korbes in Diamonds. But IMHO last night's cast was even a notch higher. Boal, by chance or by design, created a near perfect cast for last night. Carla Korbes and recently promoted principal Lucien Postlewaite were the epitome of elegant, understated, perfection that Emeralds is so justly famous for. Their musicality was of the highest order. The "tall girl" role in Rubies was done by Ariana Lallone Thursday and Lindsi Dec on Friday. Ariana has "owed" this role at PNB for a long time, and she is superb in it (besides she's about 6 feet); but dare I say it, corps dancer Lindsi Dec has stolen it away from her. Lindsi, for whatever reason, totally "gets" this role. She dances it with a confidence and panache (not to mention sexiness and sass) that is remarkable to see. I have little doubt that this role will be one of the highlights of her career.....always. If you can see a performance with Lindsi in Rubies, do it. Carrie Imler did her usual flawless performance on Friday in Diamonds partnered by Bathurel Bold whose leaps (and more importantly landings) wow'ed the crowd to cheers. But perhaps my favorite aspect of having seen these 2 performances back to back was Rachel Foster. She danced in the PdT in Emeralds and one of the 4 main couples in Diamonds on Thursday, and then the PdD in Rubies as well as her role in Diamonds again on Friday. Her dancing was riveting in all three styles on both nights. I've heard her technique is not outstanding, and that may be true, but she dances with such commitment, energy, flair, and feeling that I found myself drawn to watch her regardless of who else was dancing. It's clear to me why Rachel is so adept at anything that is more modern and "off the straight and narrow". Seeing her so nail all three of the styles in Jewels, and then remembering her epic effort on Fenley's State of Darkness in 2007, and her natural understanding of Tharp late last year, have to make her one of the most versatile classically trained dancers around.

I've had VideoReDo (mentioned above) for several years and recommend it highly (becasue it is easy to use, but comprehensive). One version only does the edit so you have to have something like Nero to construct, compile, and burn a DVD out of the edited video files. There is another version of VRD that includes a somewhat awkward, but quite useable, compile/burn facility.

Warning: the world of DVD creation isn't simple unless you use prefab templates etc. The good news is that the editing is a snap with VRD.

Naturally there are lots of dancers that guest in one way or the other, but bart's question was:

Are there any other principal dancers with long-term associations to a single company who have retired from the company and then gone on to real commitments to a smaller company?

.....differences among the three ballet companies I distinguish, because of how they look on stage: Balanchine's NYCB (i.e. up until early 1986, say), Martins's NYCB (from then to the present), and MCB.

I'd sure like to hear more about this! Is there an existing thread on this, or would you be willing to start one?

Are there any other principal dancers with long-term associations to a single company who have retired from the company and then gone on to real commitments to a smaller company.

bart, as sandik mentions here in Seattle we have a new company (10 dancers, company is 2 years old I think): the Seattle Dance Project. Having talked to the founding directors (Julie and Tim), I gather from them that their objective is well summarized by your statement above. They are highly trained, and in most cases are retired from full time dancing, but still want to perform. Obviously, it takes a huge personal commitment to actually start a company, but they felt this was the best way to both expand their style of dance beyond classical (but including classical), and at the same time maintain a very high level of quality. Amost all the dancers have strong connections to Seattle's PNB (including at the principal level), and to SAB.

See my post on the the company and a recent performance here.

FYI, here is Seattle Post Intelligencer's (one of the two Seattle daily newspapers) excellent review of this program.

Seattle Dance Project (SDP) had its opening last night for its latest program: Project Two.

I highly encourage anyone within driving distance of downtown Seattle to find a way to attend either tonight or Saturday night's performances. This program is remarkable, danced by remarkable dancers, in a remarkable space. You don't want to miss this.

In terms of people, last night was a sort of "PNB reunion". Nearly all the dancers at one time or other have been a member of PNB (from students to principal dancers). Scattered throughout the audience were many current PNB dancers (Arianna Lallone, Josh Spell, Jordon Pacitti, and others), as well as previous Directors of PNB Kent Stowell and Francia Russell -- each hugging one old acquaintance after another. Even one of the 4 featured choreographers is a PNB member (Kiyon Gaines).

The dancing was exhilarating. Frankly, I can't imagine that one could see a small company of seasoned professionals at this level of high quality dancing, doing pieces of such creativity and diversity, anywhere in the country except maybe in NYC. SDP is performing in the well respected ACT Theater in the Convention Center (Falls Theater -- click here to see photo). It is an intimate setting seating 400 where many in the audience could literally reach out and touch a dancer if they had wished. Seeing this caliber of dance in such close proximity is a remarkable experience all by itself.

There were 4 pieces: 3 of which were world premieres. Maureen Whiting's "Self and Other/Chopin Etudes" was a marriage of dance and music, but done with a dramatist's eye, and with its roots firmly in the modern idiom. That Whiting had the courage to take on Chopin is a measure of her willingness to put herself "out there". Next came Edwaard Liang's "Flight of Angels". This is the first piece Liang ever choreographed. He staged it on SDP last year while he was in Seattle staging his "Fur Alina" for PNB's 2007/2008 season. It's a haunting piece evocative of "relationship" without being literal. After the intermission, we saw Heidi Vierthaler's "Surfacing". I've never seen anything like it. Vierthaler has clearly been influenced by her one time mentor William Forsythe, but she takes his unorthodox movement to even fuller extremes. I was strongly reminded of Forsythe's "One Flat thing, Reproduced" (done in both of PNB's last 2 seasons) except Vierthaler's piece added character and humanity to create less an athletic display and more a display of souls lost in a world they don't really understand. To use Vierthaler's own words: she is exploring "all the in-between places" a classically trained dancer's body goes as it moves from one classically defined position to another. It left me saying, "I don't believe what I just saw". The program closed with Kiyon Gaines's "Altogether....Different". What a great piece to finish with. It has all the energy, inventiveness, playfulness, and freshness we, who are lucky enough to see his works done for PNB, have come to appreciate. In my estimation, Kiyon Gaines will one day be a well known choreographer. His talent is undeniable. His works are so classical at their heart, but at the same time have such a contemporary spirit. I hesitate to make this comparison, but Gaines makes me think of Balanchine in the way his movement derives from the music (and what an eclectic choice of 4 pieces of music for this 4 act piece). The old rubric "see the music" is easily applied to Gaines. "Altogether....Different" is pure delight.

Go see this program if you possibly can. This program is truly an opportunity for the dance/ballet lover as much as it is an opportunity for this young company.

Any thoughts?

I was very impressed by the poem. It has such deceptively simple words, and yet invokes immensely powerful "everyday" American images......images that in total can only be America.

I have had an inordinate interest for a long time in how we all create our lives, our very selves, with language; and in how our views are shaped by the words of others -- especially while we are still very young. From that perspective, these 2 lines struck me deeply (particularly the ending phrase of each line):

------------------------------------------------------------

All about us is noise. All about us is noise and bramble, thorn and din, each one of our ancestors on our tongues.

In today's sharp sparkle, this winter air, anything can be made, any sentence begun.