whitelight

Is there a thread about Rainer's AG Indexical? I did a search, and this was the most relevant thread I found. I saw it and absolutely adored it-- I keep trying to find people to talk to about it! And, just so I can add something relevant, Emily Coates was a fabulous found object. I can hardly think of a more accurate way to describe her role.

Actually, yes. I always prefer it, execpt maybe in drag scenarios, like Cinderella's step sisters. I think the pancaked shoe enhances Princess Aurora's youthful purity. Although now that you mention it, I could go for a shiny shoe in the Rubies section of Jewels, because there's a harshness to it.

I recently saw a work by Hong Kong native Abby Man-Yee Chan, which featured this program note: Do you guys think they represent chopsticks? Paul Parish: Tomasson's version sounds interesting. I wonder if I'll ever see it. I agree with many, the context is important. The ballets we're talking about pandered to European orientalism, plain as that. kfw suggested that "we never thought of the Chinese in this way, nor did we see Arabs as simply sensual," but from what I know, the audiences they were made for most certainly did. And if "we" refers to Americans, this country does have a history of bitter racism and stereotyping of Chinese people, although the "sensual" stereotype of Arabs is, it seems, more distinctly European. I admit I respond much more strongly to blackface onstage than orientalism. I saw the Bolshoi's new (new being key here-- it's not like there was much historical accuracy to hide behind) Pharaoh's Daughter, and I just thought, WHAT are they doing with those children in blackface? They were mere divertissment, not crucial like Petrouchka's Moor, and the whole display seemed completely unneccessary. I guess, again, it's context. I can see how the Russians, having a very different racial history, might have found this an innocuous anachronism. Orientalism, on the other hand, is somewhat more distant to our contemporary culture-- but only somewhat. Just watch a trailer for Memoirs of a Geisha. I do think orientalism in ballet should be handled with sensitivity: stay true to the original work, but remember that you are performing for a contemporary audience.

Hi there, kfw. I'm a Virginian myself (I assume we are talking about the same Charlottesville). This thread reminded me of an old ad for Richmond Ballet's Rodeo: just a pointe shoe with a spur on it. It a) caught your attention by pairing to generally unlike things, as in the football example above, and b) it did give some idea as to what the ballet was about-- although technically there's almost no pointework. Its ballet dancing with a cowboy twist. It didn't cheapen the product-- the company or the production. I guess I'm on the side with the realists. Dance companies have to get people in the theaters in order to survive, especially the regional companies. Look at the programming. From what I know of regional ballet (which, aside from Richmond Ballet, isn't much, but still), a lot of name recognition-- Romeo and Juliet, Cinderella, and how many Draculas are there now?-- and gimmicky "contemporary" ballets that are set to pop music or have cutesy Americana themes.* Anyway, those programs-- and of course the obligatory Nutcracker season-- allow the companies the security to keep going. If they have a good director, they can even take some risks here and there. As to advertising, I guess I think its hypocritical to balk at a gimmicky campaign when gimmick is obviously one of the means such operations stay afloat. On the naysayers side, however, I do agree that the kitsch shouldn't get so out of hand that it alienates the core dance-goers. Still, what's wrong with the Romeo and Juliet ad the original poster refered to? It does encompass the themes of the ballet-- with the shoes to show that yes, this is ballet. As for the football ad, I'm undecided as to how classy it is, but I don't think it crosses a sacred line. Also, on a sidenote, I think the ads for NYCB are positively boring. Probably just my personal photography preference, but they lack excitement. To me, NYCB is exciting, and I wish the posters highlighted that. I do appreciate the placement of dancers at New York landmarks, though. *I'm not against ballets set to pop music, or integrating mainstream culture into dance by any means. Obviously there are some great dances which do this. But there are a lot more duds, if you ask me.

I'm confused about why someone even asked if the triple bill is dead. I am pretty young-- about to get my B.A.-- so I don't have much context. But I haven't been to a full-length ballet in years. I love the concept of triple bills, and as far as I can tell, there's an audience for them. Certainly in New York, but I remember going to Richmong Ballet's triple bills in Virginia, and they did alright, especially for a smallish conservative city. Also, thanks Helene for posting the list of functions. I agree completely, and can hardly imagine a ballet company that didn't present such evenings. Can someone tell me what I am missing?

Back to the original post, I love the look of pancaked shoes. I think the shiny satin conjures up some fairy tale dream little girls have of wanting to be ballerinas for the costuming: all that shiny pink, pretty ribbons, and frilly tulle! I prefer a sleeker, cleaner line. I do like to be able to delineate the shoe from the leg, but I like it when pointe shoes look almost like flat slippers that happen to have a platform. I want to say the pancaked look is utilitarian, but that word has a bad connotation for pointe shoes. Say you see a beautiful woman in street clothes and no makeup, her beauty is all the more amazing because you can see that it's real. She might wear make up to enhance her beauty, but she doesn't really need it. Same thing with flashy pointe shoes. De-glossed shoes look utilitarian in the way a bare leotard and tights look utilitarian. A stripped down body doing something amazing is even more powerful, because we can see that it has nothing to do with nice lighting or pretty pinkness. To me, it allows the ballerina to have responsibility for what she's doing: sure, she needs the shoe, but the shoe doesn't steal her spotlight. I guess I can't explain it, but I find it very beautiful.

I wish that I had the Suki Schorer book here, but I didn't bring it to college. She does, as someone else mentioned, have an extensive section on port de bras. Plus, the entire book puts the Balanchine "Technique" in context like nothing else I have read. Aspects of the style that I found ugly-- especially the broken wrists-- made much more sense to me after reading her book. She does a very good job of explaining the "whys" of the look. I remember something about a flowery look, that by allowing more bending in the wrists and elbows the arms look more feminine. Obviously, their purpose in a ballet like Agon is quite different. Although, to be fair, I know just enough about Balanchine to realize that there is no definitive answer to questions like this. Balanchine was very specific about what he wanted-- sometimes revealing why, or at least giving a telling analogy-- but what he wanted changed over the course of his very long career. So the people that worked with him can say, "I know he wanted it like this-- he was very clear that it was to look exactly like xyz," whereas another dancer might be able to say he wanted the exact opposite, and with the same certainty. Still, the main reason I posted was to recommend Schorer's book. Balanchine singled her out to teach his style, so even if some artificial codification is inevitable, at least we can be comfortable knowing that he designated the job to her.