omshanti

Dance, however, I would argue IS more complex than walking and perhaps one can after much rehearsal acheive the identical muscle memory to my walking.

Considering that dancers are trained for at least eight years before even becoming apprentices, I would say they have quite enough rehearsal to achieve muscle memory that, while not quite identical to walking, gets pretty close in a lot of ways.

I think this is a trap most dancers fall in and one of the reasons the level of ballet is falling now. Baryshnikov says in his movie Dancers that he can dance even in his sleep. I think it is ok for Baryshnikov to say that because he received his training in the Kirov in that era when their training was amazing , but for most dancers now when most ballet schools are not good enough to really ingrain ballet movements in to the dancers body, that will not work. It is not about the amount of the years or experience , but it is about the awareness that a dancer must have all the time, every moment untill he/she retires (without taking it easy and relying or giving the responsibility to the mustle memory) that really matters and dancers should not forget.

P.S Thank you very much bart for your explanation of duende and searching for it . To clarify what I wrote (I seem to be always clarifying recently) when I wrote life and soul I was not only meaning life and soul in the small sanse of those words but in the bigger sense which includes death depth darkness and many other things. After all I am an Afghan, death and darkness have been a very big part of life to me ( I knew duende would attract you and that you would be the first person to write something about it)

DefJef I would suggest you to read Leonid s posts in the dancers lacking technique thread. The answer to your question which I think you also asked in that thread is what Leonid has been trying so hard to answer and explain for the past few weeks in that topic.

My own answer to you is Duende if I use the word Andalucians in Spain use. I think it has something to do with soul and life , It is the difference between a dancer who looks like a robot or a doll and a dancer who looks alive ,human and with soul.

It's often the quieter, less bravura aspects of technique that get lost in a discussion of a dancer's technique,

That is what I wrote in this post which I posted in the beginning of this topic .

I just did not think having good technique equals virtuoso. I do not think having a good technique only means being able to do super hard steps. I think it is how you do even the easiest steps.

Eventhough I feel that there are many things that I need to ask , give my opinion , clarify, in Leonid s long post before his last one, I do not have the energy nor the patience to sit in front of the computer long enough to do that as this whole discussion and computer has really tired me out. However there is one thing that I could not let go.

The reason I am interested in dancers who did not have strictly academic technique as well as those that do, is because ballet is not just about the perfect replication of the established steps, it is also about the ‘flow of movement’ and a ‘ theatrical experience.’ I have to say that dancers that have meant most to me possessed as good a technique as can be achieved. Omshanti you mention “…. by the one and only logic” by which I understand you to mean the guiding principles of a school of ballet. Every dancer should find within the framework of the execution of steps and choreography on stage something that illuminates their performance and adds a layer of their own logic (the relationship between elements and the whole in a set of objectives), to that which they learn and practice in the classroom.

When I wrote ballet s way or the one and only ballet logic I was meaning the ultimate right way of using and controling the human body and mind in the context of ballet movement and dancing. It is more internal and deeper than things that can be seen easily on the surface such as the guiding principles of a school of ballet. Although it includes those things on the surface they are rather like the tip of the iceberg. Ballet positions are not the goal of ballet logic but guides in order to reach it. It involves mental and body control not only during the class but every minute of the day. Therefore it is a way of living. In my opinion only few dancers have attaind it perfectly and even fewer know it consciously enough to teach it. There is a Sanskrit saying that says a teacher can only show the way to or teach a student as far as he/she has gone. There are very few people who know by experience and have the eyes to see the ballet logic. That is one of the reasons I love ballet and ballet technique because in this respect of pursuing one ultimate goal it is very similar to the great meditation techniques and it is spiritual. I know that the aim of ballet is first of all performing to an audience and that ballet technique might not be as important as its theatrical performance aspects to many people , but to me it is very important because of the reason I stated above. ( this is my opinion so I am not saying it has to be this way)

As I wrote in my previous post it is the technique that gives a dancer freedom. The more technically accomplished a dancer is the more option and freedom of expression the dancer will have. So I do not understand why many people think that the technique comes in the way of [artistry]. If a dancer is technically accomplished it does not mean that the dancer dances as if he/she is in class on stage. On the other hand it means the dancer will have a stronger foundation and more freedom to add his/her own expression to the dance and the steps.

To answer Omshanti’s assumptions about my background I would inform her that I studied ballet in class, I have had the opportunity of watching legendary dancers from the Kirov and Bolshoi Ballet (i.e. Natalia Dudinskaya and Asaf Messerer etc) teach classes and have watched a hundred or more classes taught by famous dancers and other teachers with established reputations. I also in the 1960’s attended a long series of lectures on Vaganova technique (presented by Anne Marie Holmes) illustrated by I think 11 films made at the Vaganova Academy illustrating the classes over a 8 year period which were discussed by the audience who included representatives from the Ballet Russe era and those who taught the Cecchetti and RAD method. Watching films of Anna Pavlova and talking with many members of her company has for me also been inspiring. Escorting Galina Ulanova around a museum and discussing with her aspects of former ballet stars and her teachers was an unimaginable experience as has been listening to talks by famous dancers and choreographers. I have contributed research to published books and lectured on ballet history and staged a ballet festival and exhibitions about dancers. I am also a collector of books on ballet history and attend performances that I expect to enjoy so yes Omshanti, I do see ballet from the point of view of an audience but I also like to think as an informed member of the audience.

Leonid , my apologies for any misunderstanding. I was not assuming that you had never done ballet. I was only saying that I feel your perspective on the matters we were discussing comes from an audience point of view. I was only stating the difference in our perspectives, I did not say which one is better or worse. (I am male by the way)

I only asked you to name the dancers and let me know what they communicated because I simply wanted to know who they were and was curious.

To speak literally to the topic the way Helene did, I would name 2 male dancers. Jorge Donn and Patrick Dupond. I think these 2 dancers fit this topic in different ways from each other. Jorge Donn was not a technically accomplished dancer at all but he became a star dancing for Maurice Bejart. Patrick Dupond was a virtuoso or a bravura dancer but one of his feet was sickled , his ballet positions were not clean or beautiful and were all over the place , his batteries were awfull. Still he had much stronger and more eye-catching stage presence than more technically accomplished dancers such as Manuel Legris or Jose Martinez. I am not sure if he was a great artist but he was definitely very entertaining.

Dear Leonid .

Thank you so much for taking time and answering my questions. You explained your opinions really well and now I understand your posts much better. Forgive me for taking this long to reply.

One thing I realized is as you wrote we have completely different perspectives.I for one started loving ballet purely from doing it, the watching came later. Also I am influenced by my teacher about whom I wrote in my previous post. I feel you come from a pure audience perspective.

I have been asking many people (incuding my teacher) about art in general and art in the context of ballet, and am starting to understand and form an idea about it. I have few questions and few things that I want to clarify.

Ballet is a form of language because it carries meaning with it. Through certain ballet dancers it speaks with an intensity of power that at one performance it can make decades of watching ballet a worthwhile pursuit.

Can you please name the dancers who made you feel that way and let me know what was it that they communicated through their dancing? I am really curious.

I want to take up your mention of ‘elitist implication’. We live in a world where rulers shaped history and elite groups in society were formed. This is a reality. Patrons from the elite have shaped the development of the arts and up to today classical ballet companies could not do without the support of people who fit the profile of this imagined class. History is history.

When I wrote elitist implications my comment was not concerned with wealth but meaning that people who do [art] call what they do [art} to say what they do is higher in worth or importance compared to the things they do not call [art].

Regarding your mention of the importance of technique versus virtuoso exhibitionism

For me ballet technique and virtuoso exhibition are two different things.

My teacher always says never do ballet your own way, do it ballet s way. The more a dancer s way of dancing ballet is closer to ballet s way or ballet logic the more technically accomplished that dancer is. In my opinion a good teacher is a teacher who can find and show ways suited to each student s talent personality and physique to reach that one and only ballet logic. My teacher also says that it is the technique that gives a dancer freedom. It is not the other way round. Ballet technique is the most basic foundation for all dancers that gives them freedom. If we think about houses for example we can design a fancy beautifull house on surface but without a strong foundation nothing will stand properly. This is why I am saying that we can not ignore the technical aspects of ballet.

and Vaganova I agree on the first part of your statement but question the latter reference to the lady. I had thought for a long time, that we could always witness in particular dancers a high level of execution of individual steps but that the wider vocabulary that existed in the 19th century had disappeared.This opinion was formed from viewing the repertoire of the Kirov and Bolshoi I witnessed in the 1960’s and 1970’s. However reconstructions of ballets(and fragments) unseen in the West in previous decades seen in the 1980’s, 1990’s and this century have shown that the Vaganova Academy still teaches a method that allows modern dancers to effectively accomplish individual steps and combinations that one had read about in history books. The Bolshoi in Lacotte’s, ‘La fille du Pharoan’ showed that the seemingly forgotten steps of the 19th century Paris ‘ecole classique’ could be replicated. I agree that the contribution that Vaganova made to teaching cannot be underestimated but we have to remember; she was the product of three methods of ballet technique taught by superior teachers and she had they advantage of witnessing the developing method of teaching already innovated by Preobrajenskaya. It was during Vaganova's era that the virtuoso (Soviet heroic) type of dancer appeared with the emphasis on showy technique vulgar exhibitions of jumps and pirouettes that had a lot of force behind them – and it showed.

I mentioned Vaganova as one example out of many to mention the importance of technical aspects of ballet in respect of its survival, I was not meaning that Vaganova did it all alone . We all know that we are influenced by the teachers we take class from or dancers we observe or dance with. To be fair to Vaganova the disappearance of the wider vocabulary that exsited in the 19th century started in stages from when Petipa moved to Russia. In later stages I agree that there were things that were better preserved outside of Russia by people like Balanchine. I do not think it is fair to blame Vaganova for that. Just like ballet became more theatrical in Britain because of Britain s theatrical past, ballet bacame more physical and athletic in Russia because of Russia s Euroasian folkdance culture. It was also the soviet Union s system that created [soviet heroic roles] not Vaganova. Thanks to great teachers like Vaganova and their great folk dancing tradition the Russians were able to do those roles with lightness, style and logic. I do not think the emphasis was on showy technique because even though they were doing the showy technique it was within the dance and they were dancing it , and they were doing it with logic rather then force.

Fortunately, there were always pupils with an innate sense of taste and who later received coaching from other former dancers that carried on teaching the refinements of the school as opposed to strong execution of steps.A measure of this statement can be made if you compare various dancers who made ballerina status but who differed in 'artistry' to such a degree you cannot believe they were products of the same school.

That is normal for any school or teacher. Any ballet teacher aimes to develope each student s individuality, but there is always an underlining technical similarity within student s of a same school.

As regards a decline in technique I don’t think there is a problem with teaching at the Vaganova Academy for instance, and the technical achievements elsewhere. There is however almost universal crisis in respect of epaulement.

I think epaulment is only one of the many things that is in crisis. If you think how much time ballet schools now spend on modern and contemporary dance forms and also have made the school years from 8 years to 6years it is understandable.

omshanti, what an interesting thought.

Spain has always been -- despite the centralizing efforts of Castille-based monarchy and the Franco dictatorship -- a country of deep and intense regionalism. Some of it is definitely connected to the long Moorish presence, but some of it has developed and defined itself as resistance and in opposition to Moorish influence.

Thank you bart, but we should not forget that apart from very small areas in the north west (above Duero river) and north east (above Barcelona), Iberian penninsula was under Moorish (Arab) rule for many centuries, and this was long before the concept of Spain as a country was born. This means most of the regions and peoples in Spain apart from very small areas in the north were influenced by the Moors. After all you can not erase centuries of influence so easily.

By the way guitar which is associated with Spain so much was brought to Europe by the Moors.

How does this history affect Ballet? Ballet was developed in the courts of France (which neighbors Spain) at a time when most European monarchies were connected with blood ties and were families of each other. So I think there is a little connection between this history and the development of ballet.

I was thinking about the history of Spain , wondering what it is about Spain that attracts so many people. The muslim Arabs not only ruled the country for 8 centuries, but also after the reconquista many of them converted to christianity , adopted the local languages such as Catalan ,Castilian(Spanish) and stayed on in Iberian peninsula. This means many people who are considered to be Spaniards (and Portuguese)today are actually Arabs and many cultural things that are considered Spanish today have their roots in Arabic culture.

Maybe it is this foreign muslim(and Jewish) exoticness and its aesthetics within christian European Spain that attracts so many people to Spain and makes it a little different from other west Europian countries.

By the way the word Ole! which is very famous comes from the Arabic word Allah meaning god.

The girls will start and then the boys will follow.

I can guess from my own experience and background (my father was a Pashto Afghan)that in Persian countries such as Iran and Afghanistan, it will be the opposite. The boys will start and the girls will follow. I have heard that in the 50s when they were trying to establish a national ballet school and company in Iran, on the day of the audition only few girls and thousands of boys turned up . They ended up having a ballet school full of boys and very few girls.

I think even if a country has the soil in which ballet can grow and prosper, it needs a good classical company and the best of the best ballet teachers to become a ballet nation. Such teachers are rarities even in ballet nations. So it is not that easy to turn a country in to a ballet nation. Cuba is a good example of a country that did well.

I do not think that Spain can be called a ballet nation yet. I know that there are quite a few spanish dancers about but the only one who is truly an accomplished classical ballet dancer is Jose Martinez( my apologies to the fans of Tamara Rojo , Angel Corella , I am only being objective) and he received his ballet education in France.

But if we take the subject back to the original poster s question why men are considered sissys if they dance ballet? I think we can divide the reasons that caused or keep causing this stigma and prejudice against ballet in to two categories.

1. Historical facts surrounding ballet such as the decline of male dancing in the 19th century, prostitutionlike role of some dancers in the 19th century, Diaghilev- Nijinsky relationship etc...

2. Fixed ideas about masculinity and femininity which are completely different from one society to another and of which some people can not free themselves .

In either case it is not ballet itself or the nature of it that is the problem. The problem is in people s(who have the prejudice) head rather than ballet itself. We have a choice to be a victim of it or to be free of it.

The reason men have no problem with ballet in Japan even though its culture and language has huge fixed ideas about masculinity and femininity is that the gay culture is very much hidden here therefore ballet does not get associated with gay culture.

The reason that in Japan men do not get teased for doing ballet is because here ballet does not have the stigma or prejudice that comes as baggage in some countries( I am correcting my own post). I do not know why this is the case.

omshanti,

You post underscores how our cultures strongly influences how we see the world.

Yet as the world grows smaller as a result of travel and so forth... cultures merge. blend and there is cross pollination of values.

DefJef , I really agree with you. The world is growing smaller and every where is becoming more and more similar.

Yet I think it is not only the culture that influences how you see the world, but also the language you speak, maybe even more so although those two things are very much interconnected. Each language is a window and philosophy by itself ( If any body has difficulty undrestanding this please let me know, I will try to explain ).

Ostrich,

Very good point there! Asia seems to have taken to ballet in a great way, and not only the two countries you mentioned, but also the Phillipines, and a TV station broadcasting lots of ballet, Arirang from South Corea. (More details in another forum). They do not seem to have troubles with men dancing.

Yet, in Asia there are white spots on the map. India!? Quite a few Arab countries as well

Pamela , Even though India and some Arab countries are categorized as Asia geographically ,they are completely different from the Far east countries. And I think one of the reasons that ballet is popular in some countries and not popular in others is by chance. If you think about most of Africa ,it is not because they did not accept ballet but it is simply bacause nobody took ballet there. Countries like Japan and China simply had more people coming from Russia and introducing ballet. Also religion of the countries have alot to do if countries will accept ballet or not once they are introduced to it. Most Arab countries are muslim and they probably have more problem with the female dancers in ballet. India is completely different matter again. It has such a deep culture of its own which is very much alive that probably had no space left for ballet even if it was introduced to it. One more thing is that You can not overlook the wealth of each country or war situations. Ofcourse things will be different from now on since the world is growing smaller and smaller as DefJef pointed out.

But let me point out something about Japan which I imagine to be quite similar in other far east countries, since I am half Japanese (my mother is Japnese) and live in Japan at the moment. In Japan there is an underlining complex that caucasoid race is superior to mongoloid race, and people take in anything western with unnatural and twisted obsesssion to overcome this complex. Ballet is one of those things that they do to make themselves feel better. The reason men have no problem with ballet in Japan even though its culture and language has huge fixed ideas about masculinity and femininity is that the gay culture is very much hidden here therefore ballet does not get associated with gay culture.

Dear Leonid,

I have been reading your posts in this thread many times in the past few days since you wrote them, in order to understand them fully ( I have only been learning and using English for 4years). I do understand and agree with many things you wrote . I admire your deep thoughts and envy your experience as an audience of ballet.

But there is something that I have difficulty understanding. It probably sounds silly but when the words art ,artistry(you did not use this) and artists are used I am in the dark. My English is probably the problem here but in the few other languages that I speak, the concept of the word art or its equivalent word in each language all have slightly different meaning and feeling depending on the culture and the language. For example I understand well when someone says Nureyev s dramatic ability, his intense charismatic stage presence were great, his honesty and risktaking on the stage as if he was ready to bleed and die on the stage really pulled me in and I could feel his passion and love of dancing, as a result I could not take my eyes off him ( you see I love Nureyev and he is one of my favorites). But when someone says he was a true and great artist I am completely in the dark.

Since I found ballet talk I have been thinking what art (artistry,artist) is because it gets used so much all the time. I know that in general ballet ,music ,painting , poetry .. etc are called arts (sometimes high arts) and their practitioners artists. But I think this is just an empty labelling (with elitist implications) and has no real meaning . What makes an art art ? or an artist artist? If you ask 100 people you will get 100 answers. To me they are very convenient but meaningless words. So can you please explain to me what you mean by art and artist in the context of your posts? I am sorry for asking such a favour, but I just wanted to understand fully what you wrote.

Regarding the technique (not virtuosity) of ballet, I do not think it is possible to overlook it especially if we think about the survival of ballet. After all it is the classical ballet technique that makes ballet ballet and seperates it from other danceforms. I think the reason Soviet Union produced so many great dancers (including Nureyev) is because the great teacher Vaganova improved the technical aspects of ballet tremendously, and one of the reasons the level of classical ballet is dropping now is because so many basic technical aspects are being neglected and forgotten. In my opinion from observing my own teacher whom I consider to be one of the greatest remaining teachers (he studied In the Bolshoi in the early 50s, danced with Ulanova, Plisetskaya, Fonteyn and numerous other great dancers, was the director as well as the principal dancer of Tokyo ballet company in the 60s and 70s, was a judge of Lausanne in the 80s, gets invited by the Paris opera school to observe and comment on the teaching) some people can see and examine every tiny technical detail of a dancer like an ex-ray while also experiencing the theatrical performance as you put it. So it is not one or the other, as in if you look at the technical aspects you will not be able to experience the performance, and I think that the technical aspects of ballet are the most mathematical part of it with one and ultimate answer (if you really know it) which will not be subjective depending on personal taste. I think it is such a person (like Vaganova) with the real eyes and understanding of ballet that is really needed for the survival of classical ballet.

I am originally from Afghanistan and grew up in Iran where men always dance and every body reads poetry. Believe it or not when I started ballet I had absolutely no problem with men dancing gracefully and beautifully. And when I show ballet to my Iranian or Afghan friends who have never seen ballet in their entire life , they love it. One more interesting thing about this is that they do not love it for the athletisicm or virtuosity of the men, but for the actual dancing.

Who are some of the other dancers -- past or present -- who were (or are) exciting, eye-capturing dancers with a kind of star quality BEFORE they developed their technique?

Or, what about dancers who might never have achieved technical heights, but still commanded the stage and were able to carry off major roles?

And how did they do it?

I think that bart simply asked a question regarding the technical aspect of ballet and dancers whose strengths were in their stage presence or persona rather than the technique. And every body simply responded to that and named some dancers. Nobody wrote anything negative about the dancers they mentioned. Now there were disagreements about what technique is in ballet . Some take it as a display of virtuosity and others take it differently ( I think it needs a whole thread of its own). Why do so many people take things to the personal level and make a simple discussion difficult without reading carefully what other people wrote?

I think Nureyev is the most famous dancer in this category. He never had the technique, but he was captivating on stage.

I apologize (to Nureyev ) about what I wrote here. It was a mistake that I wrote He never had the technique. I should have written he struggled with technical aspects of ballet.

What ballet are you discussing. Don Q maybe?

I was speaking generally.

A great dancer who comes in to mind whenever arms are mentioned is Maya Plisetskaya. Her arms were amazing, although I am sure she never listened to her teachers in class about arm positions.

I assure you M. Plisetskaya did listen to her teachers about her arms in class as a student or she never would have been allowed to complete her study in the Bolshoi School. The great Russian schools do not allow lack of discipline in any area of study.

Then why when in third arm position(Vaganova style)were her arms so much behind her head? I do not think they taught it that way because other dancers of Bolshoi in that era did not do it that way. I was not commenting on lack of discipline. Perhaps it depends on the personality and talent of each dancer what they do with things that they are taught. Maybe she listened and then disregarded it to suit her own style.

Forgive me for the misunderstanding. I just did not think having good technique equals virtuoso. I do not think having a good technique only means being able to do super hard steps. I think it is how you do even the easiest steps. Consistency is part of technique too. Also I think it depends who you compare to. Nureyev certainly had the technique compared to most male dancers of the west at that time(ofcourse there were few exeptions like Erik bruhn ) but he was from the Soviet Union. I was comparing him to dancers like Soloviev. I would say Nureyev was an unfinished material.

I am really surprised about what was written about Ulanova too. I have seen a bronze statue of her in attitude position on point and it was the most perfect and beautifull attitude I have ever seen.

I think Nureyev is the most famous dancer in this category. He never had the technique, but he was captivating on stage.

Wow Hans! The school sounds great. I really hope it goes well with the school. You are my favorite teacher in ballet talk Hans. Reading your posts I feel that you are the kind of teacher who is really there for the students and ballet itself rather than for the display of ego or business , which I think is very important and quite rare.

A great dancer whose arms were all over the place and were not controlled well in a classical way is Zizi jeanmaire.

A great dancer who comes in to mind whenever arms are mentioned is Maya Plisetskaya. Her arms were amazing, although I am sure she never listened to her teachers in class about arm positions.

There may be disagreements about issues like this depending on what one sees and what one values, of course.

I disagree Alexandra. I do not believe that it is a matter of opinion or value but about really knowing what classical ballet is/how it should be and having the experience and the eyes to see the difference. My concern is that there are very few people left who have this and those who have are already very old. So soon there will be nobody left who really knows and has the eyes, and I would say that the true tradition of classical ballet will die with them.

But of course ballet will go on superficially and most people would not even notice what has been lost.

Forgive me for being off topic in this thread.

In my opinion, most of the dancers who are called classical ballet dancers are not truly classical ballet dancers recently. Most of them are in the grey area rather than classical nowadays. I am one of those people who think that the level of classical dancing is dropping. For example many dancers today seem to have difficulty differentiating between the up or in the air quality of classical ballet and the down or on the ground quality of modern dance, and dance classical ballet with that down or on the ground quality.

I think one of the reasons that this is happening now is because there really are not many people left who truly know classical ballet dancing and the tradition of it inside out , and those rare people are ignored in the ballet world.

This is my last post in this thread.

Athletic is a quality meaning pysically strong and agile. So of course any activity that requires physical movements needs certain athleticism. I guess trained soldiers in wars are athletic too. But athleticism is not the point. Ballet is a dance and dancing is dancing. Dancers are dancers, whether athletic or not.

I think this whole discussion is going nowhere because it is absolutely missing the basic points. I mean here we are talking about two activities (dancing and sport) and an element (art) which is perceived between a person who is doing an activity and an observer . Art is not an activity. It is a comunication between a giver and a receiver (even if the giver and the receiver are one person). So in this respect art is something that can be found in both dancing and sports or many other activities regardless of its degree.

Whether ballet is dancing or sport ? I think it is obvious that it is a danceform. Or is it not obvious?

Dancing and sport are both ancient activities of mankind, but they are completely different activities. Maybe some modern societies who have lost touch with the culture in which dancing is deeply connected to daily life are having difficulty distinguishing between dancing and sport.

Solor , I can only tell from my own experience of an after revolution situation in another country, Iran. I am not sure if this was the case in Russia but it might give you a clue.

In the 80s when I still lived in Iran many people were getting killed in the war with Iraq and also by the secret police of the revolutionary government in Iran. Eventually I lost my own little brother and father and had to flee the country. So I used to think it must have been so good before the revolution when the Shah was still around. Many people (especially rich ones) said that it was much better with the Shah. But one day I found out about the past of this woman who was our neighbour. That she used to have a husband and five sons, and that they were all tortured and killed by the secret police of the shah. I realized then that even though the situation was really bad after the revolution, it had happened for a reason.

So what I think is that unless it is brought about by another interferring country in order to create a puppet government , there is always a reason when a revolution happens , even if another dictator takes over and the situation becomes worse afterwords.

I think the children of the Tsar in Russia really did not deserve what happend to them , but then there are so many children in the world who do not deserve what happens to them.