papeetepatrick

Isn't Gomes, at least, an 'international star' by today's standards? If not, then who is and how does one determine it? By how much they guest with other big companies? I don't think the term means what it used to, because there aren't any international ballet names like Fonteyn, Nureyev and Baryshnikov. I'd seen NYCB for years, but until I came to BT, I never heard of Lopatkina or Vishneva, so I think they're only known if you're involved in a non-casual way as well. But I don't know either.

Yes, that's not mainly what I was talking about, and what I was talking about is a bit unfair, because the Balanchine Era as such is over, in that he is no longer there to make works on chosen dancers. I've seen a fair amount of Ashley Bouder and Maria and Nikolaj (while he was there); sure, there was lots of great work to see. What I'm talking about with the 'magic gone' is normal, things die; Petipa is long-gone too, and there's no way that the beginnings of these opening works don't have a special innocence and exceptionalism to them that can never be recpatured; and there's nobody around to tell us about those first perfs. For example, not announcing casts so that the NYCB seemed to have no 'star system' actually had a mystique back in the days of Villella, Farrell, McBride, Hayden, P. Martins, Verdy, etc., by now it really doesn't have any substance--which doesn't mean I haven't adored performances by Ms. Bouder. And Macaulaywrote about how Von Aroldingen danced with much personality but would probably not be chosen today as a result of higher technical standards (I'm not sure I understand this, and I can't find the exact quote.) It's the company as a whole is a continuation of the old company--so it cannot have the power of exclusivity it had when Balanchine was alive, and yet since it's mostly about Balanchine anyway and not Martins, nobody wants a 'pure Martins company', for heaven's sake (there's quite enough of it even without any more.) This is something people are very opinionated about, so cannot be answered exhaustively here even if I had the chops to do it. Gelsey not an 'inner circle' NYCB dancer, but she was dancing there in the Golden Age as well, but the others I named are more a part of the time that those of us who saw it extensively are doubtless always going to prefer to what we see now at NYCB. But if you mean purely technical standards of the principals, obviously these are kept high, but carbro and nysusan and faux pas and other regular NYCB-watchers can be more specific about this. My only point is that, as Helene says, yes 'this is the Balanchine house', but it is more accurately only 'originally the Balanchine house', it is now the Martins house whether or not anyone likes it, and it's not going to ever be a 'pure Balanchine house' again. While it's true that NYCB still has enough from the past to make if more 'famous' than PNB and MCB, this doesn't mean that a lot of what people are reporting, both at BT and Macaulay I believe was talking some months back about Villella's work at MCB, and then more talk about PNB's Jewels recently--these developments are valuable and should be celebrated; but they do mean that NYCB under Martins has no monopoly on 'excellence in 'Jewels', and the Kirov production of it last April at dread City Center I preferred to what I saw at NYCB in 2004, even with some terrible sets (these are best at POB). And recordings of Jewels, like the POB, very good except for Diamonds, Ms. Letestu may do it better now, I don't know. So all this spreading out of Balanchine all over the coutnry and the world inevitable means NYCB cannot be the kind of magnet it was when all eyes were on it. They're not anymore. Things like that. There's just no mystery at NYCB anymore, even though there are great talents. It's not some thing you go to as to a rarefied pilgrimage into an inner sanctum, it's rather prosaic while also being excellent. Don't know if I agree with Helene that the men don't drive ballet in some cases. I'd go to ABT just to see the men, because they are more interesting than in NYCB, they are big stars, whether Cornejo, Hallberg, Corella, or Gomes. I was interested in Carbro's assessment of Cornejo, but have only seen him on tape, because I hadn't heard of any contemporary dancer being thought to be the 'greatest male dancer they'd ever seen'. I think it's all right that ABT is mainly great male mega-stars, not everybody goes primarily for the women, except in some ballets. I also wouldn't care, for example, that Corella is not 'home-grown', nor Gomes either. It's the productions I have a harder time with, that Mackenzie Swan Lake on TV was enough for me forever. But I might go see an ABT R & J or a couple of other things, just not SL or SB--too tacky. Sketchy and a mess, but I don't have time to polish it. Probably full of inaccuracies, hope the gist of your question comes across.

I don't see how this can really be true, because it seems to say that Martins's company, with Balanchine's now-greater fame even than when he was alive, is in fact, more famous than NYCB was when Balanchine was alive and at the helm and running things. But also, since there is so much good Balanchine at MCB and PNB and elsewhere, I don't see NYCB as getting more famous than it was in its glory days, except in a superficial way. In any case, here in New York, NYCB and and ABT are both hugely famous, whatever else they are not. And even if NYCB is at least as famous now as it was under Balanchine, it isn't filling up the auditorium the way it once was. Maybe you mean famous within the dance world itself, but in that case, NYCB has always been hugely famous, as has ABT. NYCB has not only been undercut by the other good Balanchine companies, but it has a small percentage of the magic it had in the 70s and 80s and before. Of course, that in itself wouldn't make it less famous, but it's definitely different now that it's Martins's company, as has been discussed both ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

Oh my goodness, such good sense as that surely never crossed his mind, I daresay Believe me, 'seasoned London balletomanes' aren't the only ones who'd much prefer something else.

All very true but isn't that just the way ABT now works? And in the 'peak' you cited, with Misha, Makarova, and Nureyev, they were already doing that. ABT is a big importer, and the imports like to work there, for several obvious reasons. Lots at BT has been said about ABT's having no school, I'm sure that's very vital in terms of ABT's always glittering roster of imports, with little homegrown. Could explain why they do sometimes seem so superficial.

Doesn't have a thing to do with loyalty for some of us, I have very little interest in ABT, given the choice of other companies in all areas of dance. Definitely not in the 'TOP 5' in terms of quality--and I don't think the expert American balletomanes on this board would usually say there were either, and they go to all of their performances and nearly everybody else's as well. But they are, for whatever reason, big in New York and big in the U.S. in general, and that kind of fame is as important in terms of fame as anything European. This has nothing to do with national loyalty. For example, you could say Hamburg is a greater ballet company, but it doesn't mean much to say they are more famous than ABT--of course they are not. Frankly, if ABT isn't famous, then NYCB isn't either, and in New York, you get almost as many complaints about Martins's company--if not more--than you do about ABT. They're neither one as good as they used to be. But they are both famous, or neither is. RB doesn't come to New York and neither does POB, even if they used to. So people have to travel to D.C. for RB, and I guess Australia for POB, I don't remember the scant POB touring schedule.

ABT is unquestionably 'famous' in the U.S., which means it's famous, even in the 'top 5.' 'Famous' doesn't necessarily refer to 'high quality' (even though ABT is reputed to occasionally achieve this, like last season I think there was some Marakova polishing going on here), but ABT does have mega-stars, that's what it's all about. That's mainly what it has, and it's got Gomes, Hallberg, Part, any number of others and all the big guest stars. You could say 'ABT is not famous in England', but it's then also true that ABT is far more famous in the U.S. than is RB. Has nothing to do with quality of perfomance, I'd rather see RB any day and in almost anything (except maybe Corella in R PLUS J) Come on, Leonid, didn't you see Clive James's PBS special 'Fame'? That's where you find out what FAME is I think it even had music by Carl Davis, at least the theme had that 90s 'English-glamour sound' that used to be in some of the Masterpiece Theaters and Ken Russell's 'The Rainbow' to express English-pastoral the way D. H. Lawrence is said to have thought of it..(I'm not knocking this--I thoroughly love the sound, no matter how hackneyed...) But he spends most of his time on 20th century fame as an American phenomenon. Anyway, if ABT is not famous, and yet is one of the two most famous American companies, then we have no famous American company except NYCB, and they're not the ones getting Ratmansky. I definitely understand why ABT wouldn't sell at the Royal Opera House, and I won't spend any money on their Swan Lake or Sleeping Beauty no matter where they do it, but that isn't what famous is. Look at all the BT people who have to settle for ABT at the Met every summer and dreadful City Center, while complaining about some of the awful productions. I'd pay for RB or POB long before ABT, but I don't think that means they're more famous. As to 'status', that's not exactly the same thing, and that may be what you are more accurate about, as their status has sunk rather inexorably, while they still sell tons of tickets in the U.S., and for all the old pieces, not just Swan Lake. Your judgment of their 'status' among intelligent ballet-goers I trust entirely, as you've seen as many of the greatest performers as anybody I know of. And almost anybody would rather see RB's Sleeping Beauty than ABT's.

Colleen, I have absolutely no idea about how that system works, but on my screen, your number of posts appears to be 109 now. So perhaps it works correctly again ? (And there is no need to apologize, it's normal to be surprised if the number of posts seems to be unaccurate...) You might be seeing Colleen as 'member 109'. My screen shows her with 92 posts, and both posts--feb. 10 and 12--say 92.

I like this quite a lot, the problem is that it's so sophisticated that it is useless as P.R., (unless it's interpreted very loosely, as I mention below) because with the Druid, they'd been aiming low, which is where they presumably still needed to aim. If they'd said 'It's better than you think it really could ever be', that may have been more what they meant. But 'better than you think it has to be', means it's even better than what I'd think it would be at a high standard (or it could mean that, but most likely means some version of 'It's better than you think it is.') Therefore, their version means I think it has to be at least as good as a great Met performance, but surely it will pleasant surprise me in its supernal manifestations...whereas, another version of what they really surely meant is 'It's better than you thought it could be', given that the ones they're targeting haven't spent time meditating on the high standards that opera must surely routinely live up to. Of course, it's the 'has to be' that can be taken either way, and they obviously weren't targeting opera-lovers: they could have used 'must' and it would have worked for their purposes, as 'It's better than you think it must be', but 'It's better than you think' would have covered all of what they needed without going into ambiguity which they themselves were totally unaware of, most likely. To go ahead and 'do this to death', I could finally also add that to write it with their poor construction, it needs to read 'It's better than how horrible you think it has to be.'

Oh, laugh in the case of 'La Valse', that's one of the most deliciously grotesque things I've ever read--I mean it's virtually a novel. I picture the young woman, not wise enough to choose the right boite (but I also see her as having a choice of many, but being naive and too innnocent), falling through something either like what Alice went through or Keir Dullea in 2001 a Space Odyssey. "Waltzes through...with tragic results" is to die for. So much for getting captivated and giving in to temptation; the wages of sin is always death! Agree about that last clause, it's totally inane, almost like a Litte Moron joke.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/business...;pagewanted=all This is already excellent: Tommasini is a critic I unreservedly admire. He knows more than most because of his own hands-on experience.

"What this article tells me first and foremost is that I should never read any novel from James Delingpole. Didn't manage to capture my attention for a 1-page article, and started to sound like the gripes of an also-ran at about line two. Herbert on January 31, 2009 at 10:20 AM Report this comment" That was down the comments thread of the article. Totally agree with 'Herbert', worst thing I've read since Toni Bentley's latest, about whom I agree with every word leonid wrote. Writers that bad need an immediate polemic, since if they brought up an interesting idea, they brought it up so vapidly I won't address it under their auspices. I guess I did read both Dellingpole and Bentley's articles 'out of duty', I dont know. And it wasn't worth it. Might as well have been something Joan Rivers brought up.

Oh yes, Paul, and perfectly put. And this smile was never more eloquent but also inaccessible in its serenity than in 'Liebeslieder Walzer', in a 1985 performance I saw with Suzanne Farrell, Jock Soto, Bart Cook and others--all of whom were brilliant, dazzling even, but McBride went deepest. You could even see a version of it offstage as well. She was always so focussed, but gently so, as to be untouchable. That smile was also melancholy and peacefully content at the same time, and it is that face, quietly shining, that more than anything about that performance of Liebeslieder in 1985 I can never forget. And, between the two of us, we've not even begun to exhaust what might be said--although I love the comparison to Armstrong. But it didn't really call attention to itself, she was not self-conscious. And of course the dancing was the same. There was a performance of 'Le Baiser de la Fee' that was so uncanny that in it McBride reminds me somehow of Sizova (and she's the only ballerina who ever has)--that look of effortless perfection, no matter what the speed, always this ray of grace.

So tights were sometimes already worn back in the original Petipa? I've seen lots of Bluebirds, so there must have always sometimes been 'no expense spared' for tights. Or maybe that's the wrong emphasis. For the Puritan and Victorian, codpieces, etc., would cause as much hysteria as tights ever would, including those tassle-like things like Olivier wears in 'Hamlet'. In fact, a codpiece would freak out people on the streets in my neighborhood, although only because of the novelty, I guess. I just returned McDonagh's book on Martha Graham, and rg will remember exactly where it happened that a couple of House members wanted to take issue with Martha's great willingness to show male flesh--as in Bertram Ross's Oedipus costume, much later in all of the men's in 'Adoration', in general a lot more naked buttock got shown, something like a Rio back swimsuit. She was like this cultural ambassador by this time, sent by the Govt. on European and Asian tours, and more, and always honoured by the government from the time Eleanor Roosevelt had her perform in the White House, so nobody paid attention to this couple of prudes. That was a related, but different, example, since the Graham men weren't just wearing tights and bringing up only the frontal concerns, but were determined to be revealing too much buttock for some tastes to easily abide...Martha sewed costumes all her life until there was not more time for it, so I'm sure she loved these racy costumes for the men as well as those stretchy things she made for the women. I do think Bertram Ross looks good in 'Night Journey'.

Oh yes, because we can be proud again of what the Pioneer Woman represents. The pride was there when Graham made it, and we can now celebrate some versions of specifically American modes, of which Appalachian Spring represents supernally. I maybe love 'Diversion of Angels' almost as much, but it isn't probably as appropriate, not particularly American, and the older ones like 'American Document' aren't well-known, I don't even know if they've done it in decades in the company. Maybe they have some brilliant girl to do 'Frontier', though, I bet they do, and it's very short.

The first time I went to the ballet in New York was the Joffrey in 1969, and they did 'Rodeo'. Would you have been in that, Mel? I remember I had gone because I loved the piece from years before. Don't remember what else was on the program, but wonder if the Joffrey still has it in active repertoire. If so, then maybe they could do 'Rodeo'.

That's fascinating, Mel, and thanks for bringing it up, Eric. I wonder what a Bluebird looked like in its early performances, or a Siegfried for that matter. Since some of the difficulties involved in the dancing were the same back then, I suppose the older bulkier garments didn't restrict technique--but that's bound to have changed a lot in ways you can explain if you have time, i.e., whether variations in SB and SL were as 'electric', for lack of a better word--I guess I'm asking if the modern tights do, as they would seem to, allow far more freedom to dance athletically than these tunics, etc. Love the use of the word 'FORM', since it has obviously applied to both front and back, male and female, and not only in ballet. I'm trying to remember if baseball players in the 60s wore more loose-fitting uniforms, I think somebody told me they did.

I know...Ms. McGorian is so worldly, like a Park Avenue Socialite who gives charity balls and says things like 'I just think the ballet is perfectly lovely.' Actually, I liked the strange spaceship-thing set when I first saw it, but the innocence in the old Royal Couple on the Kirov movie (and that Queen actually shows real grief when Aurora falls, not just this 'well, I obviously can't do anything about it...' that some of them have) knocked all that moneyed dynamism out of me.

Good for you, Cristian, I admit that took courage, but not because I HATE it... ...she's one of the rose-snatchers. I don't like anything in it but the Queen, McGorian I think she is.

Totally agree, Peggy R. Definitely for foodies! and a most unique film--with the heroine at the end saying 'An artist is never poor'.

Recently watched Bunuel's 'that Obscure Object of Desire' for the first time and revisited 'The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie'. I don't love Bunuel, but I do think he is great and full of weird wit. My favourite actress (besides Deneuve), Delphine Seyrig, is very funny in the second, and her hair and clothes are all arranged to make her the same colour. I have a cousin who used to do this look, and it's a bit strange, all blonde and beige. Both have the homely Fernando Rey in them, resistible alike to Carole Bouquet and Seyrig. Bunuel also impresses me in 'Milky Way', which also has Seyrig as the prostitute at the end who gives relief from the long tension Bunuel always builds up, and 'Tristana', which was one of Deneuve's best young roles. I also admire 'Belle de Jour', but there is something about Bunuel--a friend says it is 'lack of heart'--that always impresses but does not move. Seyrig, for example, is much more moving in 'Muriel' and other Resnais films.

I'm glad we can all agree on something, and I hope this rare beauteous lady reads BT sometimes; because I think concensus on her Aurora is not just general, but maybe even unanimous. I love Lezhnina too, though.

Lovely indeed. I think that the 'Nocturne' had to be way back in the day too, didn't it? it says 'Filmed in 1970.' The Giselle is divine. I'd love to have seen her do the whole thing, she is perfect in it. Interesting that MacMillan said 'she didn't have a bravura technique, but somehow made people think she did'.

Oh...no, no..don't see it as an "atack" at all . It's actually very friendly-(here...some flowers... )-...and it gets to be even more interesting when some nice controversy shows up. (Honestly, when days pass by with not much to differs about, I start to get preocupied...and bored... ) Bienvenida!! Yes, you listen to Cristian, he tells the truth. After all, you and I both have a deep common interest in 'perceptive people', and we will search for these together! I don't remember the part about the ballet mistress with the stick, though, and I thought I'd memorized that thread, since it was deeply stimulating while remaining less than cataclysmic.... Anyway, enjoy yourself here, because that's what it's for.

I didn't say they couldn't, and in any case they do. What they cannot determine is if a digression from what they consider what the potential 'ought to be' is the same as 'not living up to his potential'. If it was fulfilling for the artist, he may have been living up to his potential even if it is not then projected in external, public form. An outside commentator can of course make a judgment, but it cannot come from the immediacy that the artist himself has with his own work--so the outside commentator is having to make the judgment based on ideas of what a 'successful career type' is, and yet the artist may have found something that is more private and less in the public eye that is where his potential may be most valuably revealed. For example, Martha Graham could be considered a quite troubled artist as well, drinking a quart of whiskey a day toward the end of her managing to continue dancing well into her mid-to-late 60s, so she was clearly troubled, ending up in and out (or just in, McDonagh was not clear on this) of the hospital for two years or so. After dealing with the fact that she wasn't going to get to dance personally any more (especially since dancing somewhat drunk had not been getting great reception), she had the nerve to live another 20 years, and create many more works. So that's just another example of someone who is usually thought to have 'lived up to her potential', even though she was clearly not doing it in those besotted years. It's a multi-dimensional matter, I don't think it even precludes agreeing and disagreeing at the same time. Lots of people would say Garbo didn't live up to her potential because of quitting the business early on; but as we've found out recently, Van Johnson thought several big 30s film stars had 'bowed out gracefully'. (I was obviously also saying that my impression of Streisand's career is that I perceive it somehow as not fulfilling its potential, so it's not that I don't do it too; but I do know that I don't know, etc., and you or someone else may surely believe that Ms. Streisand has 'still got it'. I also don't care if she's not doing what I imagine I'd rather her to be doing, because she's been generous enough to me with her talent already. It's her business. We're not saying anything all that different, which is why I said that you said it 'elegantly' and was not being at all sarcastic.)