SandyMcKean

-- whether to include the elephants?

Definitely.............

The key would likely be who directed the movie. Nice change of pace for Martin Scorsese.

Gary Oldman might be a good Balanchine.

The concept of "under-rehearsal" is one that arises constantly in accounts of life in the New York City Ballet. I wonder, however: wasn't this also the case (though perhaps not to the same extent) in Balanchine's day

Ah, but there is a difference. In those days Balanchine was there. He was the genius: he made the decisions months, days, even minutes before that curtain went up. The lack of his presence changes everything.

'Mozart' is only the buzzword of the 'general populace' because of the boon created by the movie 'Amadeus'

I tend to agree.

Now, would this be interesting???? How about a similar movie based on Balanchine's life. It seems to me (seriously) that Balanchine's life would make a fascinating movie. It would have it all.....escape from an oppressive regime, wild life of youth, success and failure, genius, 6 marriages (or how ever you count), beautiful sexy babes everywhere, great artistic achievement, Hollywood, Broadway, his friendship with Stravinsky, the Suzzane Farrell entanglement of unrequited love. Makes Mozart's life seem humdrum in comparison!

"So why now?"

Should I conclude that he didn't care last month or last year?

Macaulay's been doing his research, travelling extensively for over a year. He's made multiple visits to a Balanchine programs outside NYC. Perhaps he feels that his basic research is now concluded and that it's time to start publishing the results.

This makes sense to me. Your thought also provides a potential explanation of why the article was so long and so prominent. Thanks for the insight bart.

P.S. One of those "outside NYC" visits was to PNB not so long ago.

I can only be a spectator in this conversation since I haven't been to NYC in over 20 years. But what I'm curious about is why such an article (especially of this length) is being written now. What do you suppose prompted Macaulay's decision to publish such sweeping statements right now. Surely these ideas have been in his mind for a long, long time. As far as I can tell such ideas have been in the minds of other "knowledgable ones" too. So why now?

"So why now?"

Perhaps because he cares.

Should I conclude that he didn't care last month or last year?

All in all, he could have been clearer.

Granted.

I can only be a spectator in this conversation since I haven't been to NYC in over 20 years. But what I'm curious about is why such an article (especially of this length) is being written now. What do you suppose prompted Macaulay's decision to publish such sweeping statements right now. Surely these ideas have been in his mind for a long, long time. As far as I can tell such ideas have been in the minds of other "knowledgable ones" too. So why now?

I hear what you are saying Patrick, but I don't take it as seriously as you do.

I sort of liked Macaulay's comparisons of Balanchine to other "greats" such as Mozart -- and particuarly how the preception of greatness evolves over time. OTOH, if I thought that Macaulay was really proclaiming who the "greatest of the greats" are in the arts, I too would have a problem with his statements. However, I don't read him that way. I see his comments as interesting examples of possible ways of looking at historical figures in order to put flesh on his overall points. I see nothing wrong with such specualtion, and I have a very hard time believing that Macaulay himself actually thinks that somehow he is picking the absolute #1 great of all the greats in any given field. He's giving us analogy that's all......and like most analogy you can't take it to extremes.

Well, he has figured once more on how to solve the problems.

.....and I think I know how he did it. It's 3 words: The Metropolitan Opera. It rings around the world.

I'm a big fan of Gaines's choreography. I predict big things will come from him over the years. One day we will remember that it started here in Seattle.

P.S. I go tonight! Yea!

Heidi Vierthaler (hope this is the right spelling)....

Yes, that is correct.

I understand your feelings about Upper Room. But -- if you look at it as an exercise in the variations in dance style -- it can be riveteting.

I certainly find it riveting.

Interesting that Kiyon seems to be pretty much the same person on and off stage (to use the dancer's most frequent word in this video: energy).

Not to shift the subject, but it sure seems to my eye that the company has had an injection of enthusiasm with Boal in charge now.

I think there is no question about it. Not that Kent and Francia lacked anything: they built the company to an amazing level where it could participate as a first class company. Boal has seized that opportunity, taken the company in a bold new direction, and in the process taken everyone (including us: the audience) to new heights. If nothing else look at the flow of new dancers into PNB, and look at the flow of new choreography into the PNB repertory. I think the most amazing vignette along these lines is Kyle Davis deciding to apprentice at PNB after having won one of the seven Grand Prix at the 2008 Prix de Lausanne competition (one of the most prestigious competitions in the world). Kyle could have gone anywhere after he turned down the initial apprenticeship with the Royal Ballet due to the high cost of living in London. I have little doubt he chose PNB primarily because of Boal being here. (BTW, Kaori Nakamura won this same prize back in 1986.)

....the Balanchine/Petipa lecture/demonstration as well. That's - as far as I know - an entirely volunteer gig

Yes, Doug Fullington made it very clear in his remarks after the session how grateful he was to all the PNB dancers for volunteering their time to make that wonderful demonstration possible. Learning those re-constructed "turn of the century" dances was in addition to all the other duties these dancers have.

(During the lecture, Tharp referred to her once as "Kitty", a nickname I've never heard before and do not expect to hear again!)

I could be wrong about this, but I'm fairly sure Kitty is the nickname the company often uses for Kaori. The way one pronounces her actual name ("Kaori") is completely different to how it is spelled (it sounds more like "Kelly" to my ears). My guess is that the spelling and sound disconnect causes enough confusion that "Kitty" became the easy way out.

Nakamura...........initially impressive for technical and physical prowess and only after a few years as principals did I start to see more artistic emotional expression.

I couldn't agree more. Frankly, a few years ago it was only Kaori's faultless "technical and physical prowess" that attracted me. She just wasn't one of my favorite dancers....principal or not. In the last 2 or 3 years that's totally turned around for me for exactly the reason you mention. (Incidentally a similar thing is happening inside me regarding Batkhurel Bold last season and this.)

I don't have broad experience, but I'd say things are in decent shape here in Seattle.

I have a few pieces of evidence for this:

1. By chance one evening last season I sat next to PNB's board President. I asked her about this question. She said that revenues including overall ticket sales were just fine. The one thing she wished for (besides for the moon) was increased numbers of full subscriptions. We didn't get into it, but I assume such a circumstance would provide more stability in terms of knowing a certain number of seats will have butts in them, and thereby reduce risk in their planning.

2. Essentially all our performance days are subscription days, so that provides a base. However, during festivals or other special performances, attendence still seems good. There have been a couple of times during a festival when I've seen a 40% full house (we seat about 2500 I think).

3. We had 1700 attend the Tharp Demo/Lecture the other nite which Peter Boal said he was thrilled at such a turnout (this is not a financial measure tho since tickets were free for subscribers, but it does show tremendous interest).

4. One of the Board's and Boal's goals is to grow the younger end of the audience. I believe I've noticed definite evidence that this is happening as I glance around at intermission.

5. PNB went from 46 dancers to 51 dancers this year (I think those numbers are correct; if not, they are close).

6. The after performances Q&A sessions are often near "standing room only" -- even at matinees. I'd say that the Q&A room holds 200-300 people, so that's probably something like 15% of the attendees.

7. I often buy single tickets to attend extra performances. I am often amazed how tough it is to get my favorite seats in whatever section a few days before performance.

If I had to guess I'd say that a typical night at PNB is 70% sold with most of the remaining 30% being seats in the nose bleed areas. Of course that's probably 50% for more adventurous programs, and 80-90% for a Swan Lake. I think we even sell out occasionally.

I too saw the last performance on Sunday afternoon of this "All Tharp" program........bottom line: I'm no longer disappointed; in fact, I am excited.

I learned a new wrinkle on an old lesson: previews are just like dress rehearsals in that the electricity of a "real" performance is missing, except worse, since in a preview (at least at this one where I saw Opus 111 and Afternoon Ball for the 1st time on 9/18), one doesn't even have lights and costumes to complete the work. I'm chalking up my initial disappointment to simply that (and my unfortunate handicap of not being a Brahms fan). I saw my first "real" performance on 9/26 and the second about a week later on 10/5.

I can't yet say whether I love these new works, or am just "in like" with them, but what I can say 100% about last Sunday's matinee performance is that I am in love with how the PNB dancers dance these works. They were good on 9/26, but they were great on 10/5 (in spite of the fact that the 10/5 matinee performance was essentially a second cast). Giving myself the latitude to speculate, I'd say the difference was that the PNB dancers got the "kinks out" over the 8 performances, feeling more and more comfortable to "let it go" as they accumulated positive audience feedback with each performance (not to mention to be free of Tharp's watchful eye for the 2 months she was in Seattle mounting these works). This was especially evident to me in Opus 111. The 10/26 performance was the night after opening night and the 1st performance without Tharp in town. Somehow a week or so later it seemed to me that the dancers were truly dancing Tharp-wise, with confidence and even abandon, whereas on 10/26 it seemed to me that they were a bit cautious and stiff (except for Charlie Hodges). Stiff is the last way you want to be for this piece (any Tharp piece).

Helene called Opus 111 a "company piece" and I think that is a great description. Opus 111 didn't open new doors except perhaps a door for me personally to Brahms -- wasn't it said of Balanchine that he could have you see the music and hear the dance?.....well, I owe Twyla Tharp a big thanks for helping me to "see Brahms". Opus 111 is a lovely piece "to see" with its musicality and innovative Tharp gyrations. If I were an Artist Director looking to introduce my audience to a more sophisticated and subtle Tharp, I might well choose Opus 111 for the program. Stand out dancers for me were the recently promoted (to soloist) Rachel Foster who always shines with the loose, fluid moves of more modern choreography (who can ever forget her in "State of Darkness") perfectly partnered with Kiyon Gaines -- what a great couple for more contemporary dance ; and Lesley Rausch paired with the tremendously talented Jerome Tisserand (new to PNB last year). As I've mentioned on this board before, I must be Lesley's number one fan because she mesmerizes me time and time again. Some dancers leave doing steps behind and become one with the music: Lesley is one of those dancers. She has a very bright future IMHO. I won't say anything about Carla Korbes + Batkhurel Bold, or Postlewaite, or Imler, I expect them to be brilliant and they were. In fact, as I said above, the entire company danced this piece in joyous abandon that was exciting to watch.

Afternoon Ball is a different kettle of fish altogether. This piece would not be my choice for an audience's first Tharp. It was dark and brooding but with a sense of redemption at the end. This is a piece that sticks with you; a piece that is not easily liked, but one that has a depth that makes you think about life and dance. I'd be happy if I had a chance to see Opus 111 again, but I would go well out of my way to get a chance to see Afternoon Ball again (while still not knowing ahead of time how I feel about this piece). Helene calls it "a great, great work" and she is probably right. It opens up a whole new world I've never seen on a ballet stage: a world of street youth, alienation, loss of connection -- a world unfortunately that may be far too common in today's American urban centers. I'm not smart enough to know what Tharp is saying with this piece, but it feels like she has something powerful to say, and with a tweak here and a tweak there, this piece might speak to a whole new audience for ballet. I find myself haunted by Afternoon Ball, and I will be very interested to see whether or not it has a life beyond its world premiere during the last 2 weeks here in Seattle.

Interestingly, I had the opposite reaction as Helene to the main female role in Afternnon Ball. For me Kaori Nakamura captured the frenetic intensity of the role better than Chalnessa Eames. Quite honestly I had expected the exact opposite. Chalnessa did a superb job, but Kaori electrified me (perhaps simply because I wouldn't have thought of her doing this role.....obviously Tharp's vision isn't as limited as mine ). Whether you liked this piece or not, you would have to be impressed by ALL the dancers cast in these complex roles. Special kudos to Olivier Wevers and Lucien Postlewaite in the somewhat thankless role of "the outsider".

Nine Sinatra Songs is after all Nine Sinatra Songs. Like Helene, I find it "irresistible". Not being a huge Sinatra fan (but appreciating his talent), I am sometimes moved by his music, and sometimes not; but the choreography is just so indescribably infectious. Each couple has its story to tell: some with elegance, some with humor, some with clowning. Not a great ballet perhaps, but a perennial audience favorite surely. I could say much about how well the PNB dancers grab these roles and make them their own, but I will only echo Helene comments on Maria Chapman. I've always appreciated Maria's dancing, but somehow in the semi-drunken "One For My Baby, (and One More For the Road)" number she made me sit up in my seat and say "WOW" (both times I saw her). She and Anton Pankevitch worked together like a well oiled, drunken (sic) machine. Bravo to both of you.

I'm leaving town early this morning so I can only post a single line right now.

The Gala was fantasic.....if I had to summarize it in one word, that word would be CARLA.

it was GREAT to see Carla Korbes on stage again!!!!!

I second that!

Carla seemed in full form and took a major role in Opus 111. Not only that but she is dancing in 3 out of the 5 pieces being presented tomorrow night at the "First Looks" presentation (the Gala which is kicking off PNB's 2008-2009 season -- see sandik's post of yesterday for details).

Helene is being her normal positive self by sticking to what she liked in last night's preview of the new Tharp works (premiering at the season opener next Thursday). I don't disagree with her observations, but I'll stick my neck out and say that overall I was disappointed. I am a huge fan of Twyla Tharp's work. I don't pretend to know enough to say whether her work is great ballet (or even great ballet/modern) but her work does thrill me, inspire me, and completely entertain me. I particularly like her ability to have me see movements I have never thought of before (as does Forsythe).

However, I found Opus 111 less than inspiring. It could just be the Brahams music (I've admitted on BT before that I am luke warm on Brahams -- my problem, not his). Maybe it was the lack of costumes and lighting -- on which perhaps I depend too much for that entertained feel. Somehow, through all 4 movements, I felt I was seeing basically the same moves over and over again. I agree with Helene that my favorite part was the section with Arianna Lallone (the minor use of costume for Arianna probably didn't hurt my reaction there).

Afternoon Ball I liked much better; however, it is far from what most folks will be expecting when they go to an evening at PNB. Even Forsythe's One Flat Thing Reproduced (done last season) is more likely to be recognized as ballet by the Seattle audience than this new Tharp. I'll say one thing: it was wild! I liked that wildness, that freedom. I felt as if I were seeing every move possible by a human body, and with a new twist for me, every move possible for a human body at all ages (from 2 years old to 82 years). I don't even know what to make of the piece. One thing for sure (in my judgment).....it requires virtuoso dancers. My hats is off to these pros.....and like Helene, a extra kudo to guest Charlie Neshyba-Hodges who swims in this strange water like a fish.

I'm anxious to see these 2 works on a regular performance night (which I will do on its 2nd night 9/26). Perhaps I will love them as I do most other Tharp pieces. But so far, I repeat, I was disappointed since I was so excited to see new works by such a brilliant choreographer on our PNB dancers. Unfortunately, that excitment did not last past the 1st movement of Opus 111.

I could go on, but it's 1 a.m. here in the UK and past my bedtime....

That's plenty....thanks. I get the distinction now.

Curiously, what you say captures my interest in spite of me being an American . I'd like to see some themes like that. (Lately here in Seattle we had an fantastic stage production of Streetcar Named Desire. I thought at the time how much I'd like to see a ballet based on those characters. I guess MacMillan would be my man.)

.....because MacMillan is too starkly realistic for American tastes.....

Ann, I know very little about MacMillan (I wish I did). I am very curious about what you mean by "starkly realistic". Maybe I could learn something here. Thanks.

Massenet - Manon / Penney, Dowell, Wall, Royal Ballet, Covent Garden

Massenet - Manon / Sir Kenneth MacMillan, Australian Ballet, Justine Summers

Both are available on Netflix

Another thing I've noticed in the color video is how Margot Fonteyn allows her cavaliers to stay 2 steps away from her when she does the "crown" pose. All the other ballerinas I've seen in the videos have the cavaliers stand in such a way that the hand of the previous cavalier and of the next cavelier are immediately next to each other (within inches), so that when Aurora needs to switch hands, she can do so almost instantly. Fonteyn, OTOH, allows her next cavalier to be but a short distance away so that she must hold the balance without the parachute of the next cavalier's hand in close proximity. I'm impressed.

P.S.. Thank you for the reference to Sizova......I didn't know.....what a gift.

I'm having a lot of fun watching these videos all you "oh-so-well-informed" BT'ers are posting. Lately I've been trying to educate myself on some of the great dancers of the past, so these videos fit me to a tee.

One small thing that has struck me is how the suitors costumes have become less and less cumbersome over the years. In one of the oldest clips given in posts above I simply couldn't believe that the production folks would have put those male dancers in such huge costumes (they nearly looked like a bunch of firefighters in asbestos suits.....OK, I exaggerate ). Even though the suitors don't dance per se, I would have thought such costumes would be in Aurora's way during the Rose Adagio.

Interesting how aesthetics change over time.

I am a bit isolated here in New Zealand......

True, but how lucky you are to be in one of my favorite places in the whole world. I shall never forget the generosity and straight-forwardness of the New Zealanders I met while touring there in the 80s. You may be isolated, but what a heavenly place to be stuck .

And I agree that Bach and Balanchine are in fact almost certainly in the divine sphere as we speak.

Actually we don't agree. I'm afraid I very definitely see no point in considering metaphysics beyond that for which there is repeatable evidence which is allowed to be falsified by new objective evidence. Richard Dawkins is one of my top heros......(need I say more ??). I assure you my "breakfast image" was entirely metaphorical -- which I used (perhaps poorly) to indicate what I consider to be a "mathematical" quality to the work of both Bach and Balanchine (an "architectonic gift" as you termed it).

P.S. No problem with the "Sean" vs "Sandy". Coincidently, I am often mistakely called Sean since I am male and folks normally don't associate the name Sandy with a man. Sean seems to be a common "mis-hearing".