Manhattnik

Let's see.

Drosselmeyer, who likes to skulk around at night wearing capes, is, of course, a somewhat over-the-hill Dracula. The Nutcracker is the spirit of the Prince from Cinderella, whom he's entrapped in Nutcracker form. Instead of a battle between soldiers and mice under the Christmas tree, we have a battle between the forces of Light (hmm. Maybe toy soldiers would still work, led by Prince Charming/Nut) and Darkness (vampires led by Drossel/Drac, of course).

Just when it looks like it's curtains for the Nutcracker and everyone else, Clara/Masha/Marie/Buffy/whatevertheheckhernameistonight tosses her toe shoe (like any good ballerina wannabe, she sleeps in them) at Dross/Drac, discracting him enough so that Prince Nut can dispatch him with a freshly sharpened Faber No. 2 pencil. At which point, Masha/Clarie/Sissy runs off, horrified at the sight of blood or whatever Droc/Dross has in his veins.

The last act is a lightly restaged pastiche of Paquita and Apollo, in which each Princess-wannabee tries on the Magic Toeshoe (it might as well be magic, no?) and dances a sprightly variation or three in hopes of winning Prince Nut's heart, or at least his bank account.

Sasha/Phoebe/Marie-Claire is, of course, just a kid and incapable of doing more than a mere five triple fouettes, so she must instead capture the Prince's attention by smacking him on the head with the OTHER toe shoe, which, if he'd had any brains, he'd already have been searching for....

There. My day's work is done.

I've never seen a Dracula, although I have seen many ballets that, well, bite.

If doing such things can keep a company in business these days, and employ dancers, more power to them, I say. But if all a company does is offer Nutcracker and ersatz "full length" story ballets, it's really shortchanging both itself and its audience.

Bronwyn was a very strong dancer, although a bit on the short side. I remember a high point of her career must have been when she performed the lead in Daniel Levans' Concert Waltzes with ABT as a guest at the Met, in the late Seventies, I think.

They called their school the New York School of Ballet.

Every time I see that Barnes and Noble I feel so sad. Although I don't miss the chows traipsing through the studios.

"Ballet -- it's better than Opera!"

(Running and hiding.....)

Shot of a gravestone, with the epitaph: ""All things considered, I'd rather be at the ballet."

(Apologies to WC Fields.)

My very first ballet came on a trip to New York in the early Sixties, when my parents happened to stumble on someone selling four tickets outside City Center for NYCB's Nutcracker. They kept the program, but unfortunately, the leads could've been any one of three pairs listed, and I certainly don't remember! I do like reading now the mention of a "Susan Farrell" in the corps of snowflakes, though. All I remember is the red velvet of the seats, the falling snow, the moving bed, and the Nutcracker's transformation into the Prince. And, of course, the Tree.

I took an Effort/Shape class years ago. It was well worth it in learning different ways of observing and explaining movement. I'd recommend it to anyone on this board.

That problem was the persistent rumours coming from the dancers and spreading out into the wider ballet world that Stretton was involved in inappropriate relationships with members of his company.

God forbid an artistic director should treat the gals in his company like his own private harem. I can't help but wonder what kind of reception Balanchine's antics would receive today.

"He, he made me ... wear perfume!" she gasped, sobbing.

Well for me, good choreography is when I can never listen to the music again without the images in my head

Sadly, that is all too often true with truly excerable choreography as well.

I'm sure I'm not the only regular poster here who'll never again be able to listen to Capriccio Italien without wishing for some sort of aesthetic cross or clove of garlic to ward off images of the spectacular gay orgy Boris Eifman set to this music for his Tchaikovsky. Not to mention a wooden stake.

Agon in really really PINK tutus.

For the men.

Jessica is convinced that a ballerina who died during her premiere performance in a new ballet was actually murdered.

Casting suggestions, anyone?

OK Gang, any casting suggestions for the Russian Werewolf ballerina?

Hmmm. Dark hair. Sharp, angular features. Feral smile. Strong and slightly scary. Transforms into something both more and less than human at night....

Nah, I'm drawing a blank.

I wonder what Jorge Donn looked like when he danced as a guest with the NYCB

Well, if you'd have blinked, you'd have missed him.

He did look great in that tux in Vienna Waltzes, but given Bejart's proclivity for the barechested look, it must've been all Donn could do to keep from tearing it off once the lights came up!

I wonder what Jorge Donn looked like when he danced as a guest with the NYCB

Well, if you'd have blinked, you'd have missed him.

He did look great in that tux in Vienna Waltzes, but given Bejart's proclivity for the barechested look, it must've been all Donn could do to keep from tearing it off once the lights came up!

Is Part listed as doing anything? Dvorovenko?

I had better bestir myself to get a paper.

I don't know how McKenzie could look at Meunier and think anything but Second Movement of Symphony in C, but it seems Peter Martins had that same lack of vision, heck, common sense. I mean, look at her: she's nothing if not grand and sculptural. Sure she can jump, and perhaps McKenzie saw that. Let's hope he doesn't forget it when it comes time to cast Myrtha next time around, although then he'll probably decide Meunier would be dandy in the Peasant Pas. With Steifel. Dear God! Isn't she at least six inches taller than him?

At least she's doing First Movement -- that should be a treat.

Perhaps they could revive Symphony Concertante and give us Meunier and Dvorovenko in the leads? That would be the next-best thing to McKenzie's aquiring Concerto Barocco for the same leads. Neither is likely, but a guy can dream, can't he?

One wonders a bit about the priorities of a person who tosses around hundred-dollar words with such reckless (if rather incomprehensible) abandon, yet can't manage to make proper use of the lowly, but ever-so-important "its/it's." Reading that letter, I can certainly see why Forstythe has chosen a career based on non-verbal communication!

I guess the thing which made me sad about the Trocks was that their programs, if done "straight" (no, not straight that way!), would've made for some lovely programs of "ballet like it used to be." In the Trocks parody land, it's always 1955 or so. I saw their hilarious Les Sylphides (they've ditched the dancing Soviet general to the Military Polonaise I remember so fondly from years ago), and realized that it hadn't been done in New York for years, and, well, I missed it. Would most of the audience have gone to see a real performance of Les Sylphides, or appreciate it if they had?

And, although I was really pleasantly surprised by some of the things I saw at the Joyce (big guys with big jumps making soft landings in toe shoes!), the Trocks don't dance like women, or, for the most part, as well as women. Yes, I was thrilled by "Olga Supposova's" triple and quadruple fouettes, and certainly they're all technically accomplished (although how their feet can stand all that knuckling under is a mystery to me), but for every neat trick is offset by sloppy arms, floppy feet, frightening line, which would be totally unacceptable in a female ballerina. Yes, they have a lot of energy, but so does a tornado.

And it's besides the point. They dance well enough, more than well enough, to show us the ballets they're parodying. They dance well enough to create their ballerina personas (I got particularly fond of the one who chews gum through every performance, as a Sylph or as Kitri).

Maybe when I wake up I'll remember where I was going with all this....

I guess the thing which made me sad about the Trocks was that their programs, if done "straight" (no, not straight that way!), would've made for some lovely programs of "ballet like it used to be." In the Trocks parody land, it's always 1955 or so. I saw their hilarious Les Sylphides (they've ditched the dancing Soviet general to the Military Polonaise I remember so fondly from years ago), and realized that it hadn't been done in New York for years, and, well, I missed it. Would most of the audience have gone to see a real performance of Les Sylphides, or appreciate it if they had?

And, although I was really pleasantly surprised by some of the things I saw at the Joyce (big guys with big jumps making soft landings in toe shoes!), the Trocks don't dance like women, or, for the most part, as well as women. Yes, I was thrilled by "Olga Supposova's" triple and quadruple fouettes, and certainly they're all technically accomplished (although how their feet can stand all that knuckling under is a mystery to me), but for every neat trick is offset by sloppy arms, floppy feet, frightening line, which would be totally unacceptable in a female ballerina. Yes, they have a lot of energy, but so does a tornado.

And it's besides the point. They dance well enough, more than well enough, to show us the ballets they're parodying. They dance well enough to create their ballerina personas (I got particularly fond of the one who chews gum through every performance, as a Sylph or as Kitri).

Maybe when I wake up I'll remember where I was going with all this....

Oh dear God!

For an ostensibly well-educated and experienced critic to look at the Trock's witty, erudite and, above all, loving parodies of ballet and see only "ammunition" to be used in arguing for ballet's destruction speaks volumes about the deleterious effect an overpowering devotion to certain cherished bits of received knowledge can have on that critic's ability to see what's on the stage before her.

For one thing, how, pray tell, does an all-male ballet company strike a blow for the gainful employment of tall women dancers?

The Trocks and Grandivas aren't about breaking the "rules" of ballet. They are about celebrating them. If ballet went away, or if it turned into some sort of equal-opportunity employer, blind to the sex and/or physique of dancers, not only would travesti ballet cease to be funny, it'd cease to have a reason to exist. Does Zimmer seriously think that any member of the Trocks or Grandivas, past or present, would like to see ballet go away, or would consider travesti ballet's purpose is to bring about ballet's demise?

Perhaps, now that she's once again beaten the dead horse of ballet's alleged "sexism," (and, no, I don't think ballet is sexist at all, at least not onstage, and certainly no more sexist than most modern-dance companies) Zimmer will next assault the sacred cow of "technique" and "craft," as part of ballet's outdated, imperialist Western elitism. Why should some dancers receive better pay and more work simply because their movements fit more closely to some outdated and irrelevant ideal? How horribly exclusive.

I remember reading with some revulsion a recent article in The Voice celebrating the bitter end of a partnership between Martin Luther King high school and SAB which had allowed some SAB students to attend that school for its high academics, while continuing with their dance training at SAB. It's a lot to go into now, but the glee with which the writer recounted the slamming of this door in the face of "elitist" ballet students distressed me no end, and made me think that perhaps it is the Incredible Shrinking Village Voice (nothing sexist at all about all those hot-chat ads in the back which keep it in print, is there?) which is vanishingly irrelevant.

Oh dear God!

For an ostensibly well-educated and experienced critic to look at the Trock's witty, erudite and, above all, loving parodies of ballet and see only "ammunition" to be used in arguing for ballet's destruction speaks volumes about the deleterious effect an overpowering devotion to certain cherished bits of received knowledge can have on that critic's ability to see what's on the stage before her.

For one thing, how, pray tell, does an all-male ballet company strike a blow for the gainful employment of tall women dancers?

The Trocks and Grandivas aren't about breaking the "rules" of ballet. They are about celebrating them. If ballet went away, or if it turned into some sort of equal-opportunity employer, blind to the sex and/or physique of dancers, not only would travesti ballet cease to be funny, it'd cease to have a reason to exist. Does Zimmer seriously think that any member of the Trocks or Grandivas, past or present, would like to see ballet go away, or would consider travesti ballet's purpose is to bring about ballet's demise?

Perhaps, now that she's once again beaten the dead horse of ballet's alleged "sexism," (and, no, I don't think ballet is sexist at all, at least not onstage, and certainly no more sexist than most modern-dance companies) Zimmer will next assault the sacred cow of "technique" and "craft," as part of ballet's outdated, imperialist Western elitism. Why should some dancers receive better pay and more work simply because their movements fit more closely to some outdated and irrelevant ideal? How horribly exclusive.

I remember reading with some revulsion a recent article in The Voice celebrating the bitter end of a partnership between Martin Luther King high school and SAB which had allowed some SAB students to attend that school for its high academics, while continuing with their dance training at SAB. It's a lot to go into now, but the glee with which the writer recounted the slamming of this door in the face of "elitist" ballet students distressed me no end, and made me think that perhaps it is the Incredible Shrinking Village Voice (nothing sexist at all about all those hot-chat ads in the back which keep it in print, is there?) which is vanishingly irrelevant.

If Miller is truly searching for a "new voice" to review dance, that is indeed better news than dropping dance reviews altogether. But not much better. Given the ever-changing nature of Miller's comments, she's clearly decided that presenting the reason for Tobias' firing as editorial displeasure with Tobias' writing, rather than as a decision to ditch dance reviews. Of course saying "We love dance, it's Tobias who had to go!" is more palatable than saying "In these tough economic times we don't have the space or money for dance reviews," as she did originally. Certainly this spin is much more clever, as many in the dance community who took umbrage at Miller's original dissing of dance in general might eagerly welcome (as we've just seen) the her oblique promise of a new reviewer who might be less inclined to savage their particular offerings.

Is Miller now saying that she magically found a spot for dance reviews in the magazine's budget, a spot she'd somehow overlooked back when she was talking about painful economic necessities? Is this "reversal," if a reversal it be, a victory for anyone who loves dance? I think not.

If Miller really meant to replace Tobias, she'd have the replacement chosen and in print by now. Miller is clearly changing the spin on what's proven to be a poorly conceived and received decision on her part. The hue and cry may even have convinced her to start this search, and perhaps, one day, we'll see a dance review or two in New York magazine again (let me get my resume in the mail right away!). But it's extremely doubtful that these reviews will have even a fraction of Tobias' authority, discernment and morality (unless, of course, Miller hires me [note to presenters -- I CAN be bought!]).

Some says it's just not possible to be too cynical, is it?

If Miller is truly searching for a "new voice" to review dance, that is indeed better news than dropping dance reviews altogether. But not much better. Given the ever-changing nature of Miller's comments, she's clearly decided that presenting the reason for Tobias' firing as editorial displeasure with Tobias' writing, rather than as a decision to ditch dance reviews. Of course saying "We love dance, it's Tobias who had to go!" is more palatable than saying "In these tough economic times we don't have the space or money for dance reviews," as she did originally. Certainly this spin is much more clever, as many in the dance community who took umbrage at Miller's original dissing of dance in general might eagerly welcome (as we've just seen) the her oblique promise of a new reviewer who might be less inclined to savage their particular offerings.

Is Miller now saying that she magically found a spot for dance reviews in the magazine's budget, a spot she'd somehow overlooked back when she was talking about painful economic necessities? Is this "reversal," if a reversal it be, a victory for anyone who loves dance? I think not.

If Miller really meant to replace Tobias, she'd have the replacement chosen and in print by now. Miller is clearly changing the spin on what's proven to be a poorly conceived and received decision on her part. The hue and cry may even have convinced her to start this search, and perhaps, one day, we'll see a dance review or two in New York magazine again (let me get my resume in the mail right away!). But it's extremely doubtful that these reviews will have even a fraction of Tobias' authority, discernment and morality (unless, of course, Miller hires me [note to presenters -- I CAN be bought!]).

Some says it's just not possible to be too cynical, is it?

Well, I two questions here.

Are the new changes an improvement?

Are the changes a commentary on the classic, or meant to replace the "traditional" version?

Taking Swan Lake as an example, I rather enjoyed Bourne's funky Swan Lake with the all-male swans (the feather-pants were a little much, though). It was clever commentary and rethinking of Swan Lake. However, if I thought for a moment that Bourne's work might ever replace the Petipa/Ivanov version, I'd have to do something violent to somebody.

In other words, if a company called Adventures in Motion Pictures wants to do a bizarre Swan Lake, more power to them. If a company called The Royal Ballet or American Ballet Theatre decides to do the same, well, it could only be done (as we've seen) at the cost of eliminating the Petipa/Ivanov. And, frankly, I have NEVER seen an "updated" version of Swan Lake which improves on that. I look at videos of Makarova/Nagy in ABT's old, dusty David Blair staging and sigh. Look, there's a real Fourth Act. It was even nice to see that the Kirov's wacky Fourth Act (if Siegfried could beat up Von Rothbart, why couldn't he just do it in the Second act and spare us at least one act of the Jester?) had a lot of the old Fourth Act in it.

Because once a ballet is gone, it's gone, companies need to be very aware of the heritage of which their the stewards. Screw around too much with these ballets, and they're forever skewed.

I can see it now: "Lucy and Ricky and Stan and Ollie -- the ballet!"

And isn't the Joffrey lucky that Jame Canfield is now "at liberty" to create it for them?