papeetepatrick

chrisk217--I'm virtually speechless, this exhaustive information is literally breathtaking and tells an enormous story. Well, it's far more interesting than I realized, and the historical context is especially appreciated. I will be reading it several times, and I bet this contains information a lot of us here don't know. Quite a tapestry you've given us! I can't thank you enough.

And neither do I. I chose the words "maybe a bit of self-destruction" very carefully. As I heard Allegra say in the subject Rose interview, Allegra seemed to say (in a quite Blanche like fashion) that her acquiescence to her mother's wishes to marry, and then her own insistence on having children while in the peak of her career, had a certain self-destructive quality. She said that one of the things she will always be grateful to Mr B for is allowing her to "come back" and dance after clearly disobeying his desire for her to devote herself more completely to her dance. It's not hard to imagine Blanche doing something similiar in the world of all powerful men they both inhabit. See what you mean, but it was only 'self-destructive' in terms of not adhering to Balanchine's wishes for further development of her career. The test is really how does the result look? Does she love the children that she may have had partially to thwart Balanchine? She is impressive because she will not 'mind Balanchine', for whatever reasons (she minded him enough, God knows), but she loves him and is grateful to him for allowing her to become both a great dancer and not condemn her rebelliousness. Also, even if that intense (I agree with that word for it) coaching that she does was made especially for the film, it's unlikely that it would be that different from what she actually does in her coaching. Impossible, actually. In any case, you can say both have 'artistry', but Blanche is not an artist in the literal sense as is Allegra; in fact, her profession usually does not suffer the income tax. The fact is, whether or not she's conscious of how she managed to make such a lot go such a long way, she actually made choices that gave her a real life that is not essentially tragic, however much suffering she's had in it (Blanche is tragic, and a victim to pre-sub-prime mortgages or whatever; of course, it's possible Allegra is too, but I'm not up on her now that she's about 70. Maybe somebody will tell us the news.) Which doesn't mean I don't see a lot of resemblances to Blanche in terms of taste and imagination, but we're all self-destructive to a certain degree when we have to choose what big decisions we have to make in order to make our lives, if only because we subtract one or more things every time we add one or more things. She might sometimes be wistful, I don't know, about maybe having followed Balanchine's edicts more literally, but that is the kind of regret we all have. There are some who would have thought she shouldn't have had the babies and obeyed Balanchine, but it was her business and 'motherhood as something she could have complete control over' sounds a little cynical, but it could also mean she was an especially good mother. We need more recent reports, again. Anyway, we all perceive people differently, and this thread has been quite a revelation along those lines. Baryshnikov may have said 'she's too crazy', but that could easily be said about him, according to where you were positioned in relation to him. Nureyev could be said to be crazy, Farrell could be said to be crazy, Balanchine could be said to be crazy (quiggin recently quoted someone as saying it) , and Kent seems to be a bit zany and very effervescent. Of course, that may be neither here nor there.

'And every Puerto Rican's..a lousy chicken...' may not be profound, but that, as well as 'Gee Officer Krupke' defines them as gangs with an enemy. There really isn't anything to say about street kids so much as they just are street kids and it's between slum white kids and Puerto Rican gangs. My idea is that it's less social commentary, than ethnic authenticity that Laurents wants. If they are Puerto Ricans, it will not hurt to have someone Hispanic doing it, although I concede they are never as impressive as the Bloods and the Crips of Compton and Long Beach.

Last night I happened to see a truly superb production of "Streetcar Named Desire" by Seattle's Intiman Theater. While driving home, this thread on Allegra came to mind. Blanche in William's play has a destructive streak that I can't imagine Allegra has (except maybe a bit of self-destruction, and certainly like Blanche, a tinge of preferring fantasy over reality), but I was struck by an apparent simularity btwn Blanche and Allegra. Neither may be "normal", but you have to be awed by their artisty and, in the final analysis, love them both. I'd rather spend an evening with Blanche in spite of her eccentricities than almost any other character in literature I can think of. An evening with Allegra might prove nearly as interesting. I agree with you on most things about Allegra, Sandy, but don't quite see her as especially self-destructive. She is more like Blanche with her water wings and camellias stapled to lily pad petals (Blanche's Japanese lanterns and, I guess, orange-waters, etc.). There is something totally lovable about Allegra, but she is too 'unsinkable' to be like Blanche in some of the heavy ways.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080721/ten-...th-1dc2b55.html For Wagner heads like me. And this one has a nice photo of the festspielhaus. They call it the 'most prestigious summer festival', which is fatuous, because there's also Saratoga for dance and Glyndebourne can be great too, although I wonder if there is anything as good by now as the 1973 'Marriage of Figaro' that is on DVD with TeKanawa and Von Stade (as Cherubino). The best Bayreuth production I've seen on DVD is that weird one of The Flying Dutchman with that beautiful voice Lisbeth Balslev as Senta. I don't always like the sound of the big Wagnerian sopranos, they're sometimes too harsh and hard.

It is, quite simply, because she did have a reputation for being difficult. If that is because of illness, that does not make it less difficult for other people. I didn't mean she was a 'bad person', but that she was difficult. So what? Katharine Hepburn was difficult too, Deborah Kerr wasn't.

He was surely one of the few people ever to get along with her as well, as she was notoriously difficult. I ended up watching this and her 'Anna Karenina' as well, after all. My friend kept asking me to fast-forward this one, and claimed she must be confusing it with one of her other films(he didn't stay long enough to see that she throws herself in front of a Red Cross ambulance in this one, as opposed to a train in the second, with the same vacuous emotion in either case). I'm afraid I couldn't stand it either, but thought 'Anna Karenina' was far worse, because it doesn't evoke any of the grandness of either the book or the Clarence Brown film with Garbo. That one is photographed with lots of full frames of figures and faces close-up, so that everything looks very vertical, glittering and aristocratic. Although by Duvivier, one of the great French directors, along with Renoir and Carne (of that period), this 'Anna' is, I find, extremely poor, and you have a hard time remembering that it's a matter of counts and baronesses. The Anna Karenina of Vivien Leigh is more like Emma Bovary, an ordinary middle-class woman, and she flounces around like Scarlett all the time, petulant and spoiled. It's nearly impossible to even follow the story in this one, which is barely distinguishable from the soapers of Joan Crawford and Lana Turner, but not as good: Because those were the real thing--especially things like 'A Life of Her Own', the kind of thing Turner did well, taking it seriously because naturally at home in pulp and the best of what were then called 'women's movies'. The script of the Duvivier film follows the Garbo film very closely, beyond that there is no resemblance that I can see, and Leigh often reminds me of Susan Hayward, although Hayward was not delusional enough to imagine that she could do things she was unsuited for. It never even seems Russian in the ball scenes or in any of the music, I have no idea if it was made into a miniature to suit Leigh's style, but it's all small-scale by comparison (or even not by comparison) to the Garbo film (the talkie one, that is--the silent one ends happily, I believe, and she is supposed to have hated it.) I thought Robert Taylor perfectly adequate in WB, and thought Kieron Moore better in the Duvivier than most do, but the only real highlights were Richardson and Sally Ann Howes. Speaking of Susan Hayward, definitely underrated is 'I Can Get It For You Wholesale', with Susan totally convincing as someone who really could go into one of those cutthroat Garment District holes and butch it out with the best (and worst) of them--and not just as an actress. Dan Dailey is very good as is the rest of the cast, and the location photography is beautiful 50s-New York stuff. This has never even been put on video, I had to get it off eBay from someone who had taped it, and had to pay $30 for it.

Nothing is real verismo or 'natural' in musical comedy, operetta, or opera. Anyway, Bernstein's first inspiration, if I recall correctly over many years from the old David Ewen book, was upon driving through certain slum areas of New York. Insofar as it is possible for a musical to be about street kids, West Side Story is about street kids (“You don’t treat these kids as little darlings, but as what they are,” he said. “They’re all killers, Jets and Sharks"), if not, then what is it about? " Actors getting gigs in shows? Yes, it's about that too. But 'Romeo and Juliet' was also not really about 'real teenagers falling in love and hiding in plain sight'. And West Side Story is also not about Romeo and Juliet, even if it is derived from it. Gypsy's Mazeppa, Electra and Tessie Tura are also no longer real strippers. The 'verismo' shots of New York in the Overture of the film and the Jets finger-snapping to Jet Song are the best parts of the film, and even though Beymer is not up to Larry Kert level for 'Something's Comin'', the song works about a romanticized New York City, and he does that one well. Actually, that 'romantic New York City' is a real thing, and has long existed. Bernstein was simply the best at putting it into this form, as he also did in a lighter way with 'On the Town'. Not that they couldn't ruin it, but with Laurents working on it, it's unlikely. Although he loves the current production of 'Gypsy' more than some of the rest of us do, it is still very fine. He doesn't want to put makeup on too light-skinned a Maria, he wants a Latina Maria who will have the experience in her blood. and this is not too demanding on an audience; that, and using some easy Spanish is not moving too far from what he knows the show should be.

Mashinka--thank you! That's a wonderful post and story, and I am so jealous I can hardly stand it--seeing the Royal Ballet in Athens almost seems like the perfect exchange for the Elgin Marbles, even though Jules Dassin was still trying to fulfill his late wife, Melina Mercouri's wishes, of getting them back to Greece up until his death a few months ago; seriously, I can imagine few more idyllic combinations of setting and event than what you've described. And the magic of the Nureyev moment is not only like Greece, but a new version of Ancient Greece. So that I can see that while we want to see a Greek ballet company, there is also something special about seeing some of the great international companies in this most rare and rarefied, mythical and real country.

Very cool, carbro. The Athens Festival sounds like heaven for the summer, and a film of 'Lysistrata' around the Parthenon I saw maybe 10 years ago may have been part of that. But I remember when I asked you about Swedish international dancers, and that was pretty obscure too, I believe you were able to think of one or two. I'd just watched that darkly lit Swan Lake Swedish Royal Ballet did, but at least there had been discussion of that. I hope Mukhamedov is as good at AD as he was at dancer, as I think he's great.

One can only hope so, the combination is almost too attractive to believe. But I could find little about it Googling, only a Hellas Competition. Even 'National Ballet of Greece' turns up no major website. There were some other Greek dance matters, but the competition the only place I saw any pointe shoes.

I recently noticed that in the European Ballet Companies Forums there is not a Greek one. This is strange to me, since I always think the Greeks are almost the only nationality in the world that have no envy whatsoever of any other culture and do everything well, even if excelling more at different periods. But I haven't ever heard of a famous Greek ballet company, although I am sure many companies do exist in Athens, in Salonika, etc. So then, what place has ballet had historically in Greece, and is there an important company in Athens today? I know that there are people here who will know!

Lazzaro Carreno Peter Schaufuss Angel Corella Vladimir Schlkyarov

I like this immensely, except Alicia Alonso instead of Guillem (I want to be sure sparks fly even if everyone is adult and imbued in the 'non-star system', having never known anything else...of course, none of these ladies even imagined anything else than disappearing out of their personalities into all things classical and enduring...NOT!)

Brava, Amy! And what I notice more than ever reading this is the way she was able to be fully involved with Balanchine and then completely non-involved with him when she was totally involved with her family life: It's this one where I think she managed to verbalize it perfectly. It doesn't seem like fireworks, but it is! Because she really did somehow manage to do both, and he must surely have allowed her to do this not only because of his generosity, but also because she could do this. Not that it would have always been seamless and smooth, but in just a few words she describes the near-impossible thing she did. I guess I keep thinking it proves her extraordinary independence and gifts, and it gives her her own singular profile among the Balanchine muses. I do agree with the person (vipa) who said 'she is special' and also with you that she does look beautiful. Anyway, this part of the interview, simple as it is, is the part where you see this amazing revolving-door life that somehow works while sounding impossible: But he wanted you to be devoted to dance. Totally. I wanted that. Dancing takes you 24/7, and I wanted that… but at other times I wanted to be a normal woman and have a baby, to be a mother, so I did. But he allowed me to do this which is immediatly followed by this: Unlike others... Well, everyone has their own story… but he was very generous to me. And that was the response to his prodding that I thought showed such skill and verbal elan.

No one thinks it, nor even considered it as a possibility.

I'm sure any dancer knows who Dulcinea is and where La Mancha is if they are in the lead roles. What this was about was 'What does reading have to do with dancing?' which was quoted as if it meant something because someone who is authoritative elsewhere--as a dancer, as a Dulcinea, as a number of things--is also authoritative about reading. The statement is frankly without any meaning at all outside the immediate context, because in most cases, the more knowledge relating to any subject, the better. But in Farrell's case, where the directive, 'just dance, don't think' may have been more easily followed than by other people, it is all right, because she was fine with that way of working with Balanchine in the purest sense. The statement refers mostly to her. It is like saying that you cannot understand nor appreciate, nay, even sing 'The Marriage of Figaro' better if you know about Mozart's life and Ponte's life and something of Austrian history and/or musical history. What has reading history or biography got to do with singing? You may remember something I wrote, Cristian, about this kind of statement that is made meaningful because the one saying it is acclaimed for some unrelated domain. This is where fame can make statements that are meaningful and meaningless alike take on a lustre that is based purely on fandom. It's quite possible that she didn't read the book because Balanchine told her it was not necessary, and it may not have been. If he had told her to read it, she would have. It is not that she should have necessarily read the book, since the results were what Balanchine wanted and have become legendary, it is that usually 'the more knowledge the better'. But it's probably that there just wasn't time to read it, and I'm sure Balanchine and Petipa had either read the book or large swathes of it themselves. They knew that whatever they did with it, that this was not one of their pieces that they came up with on their own, and that however little it may resemble the novel, it came from that novel, in precisely the same way that Midsummer Night's Dream came from Shakespeare. But there are all sorts of sophistries of this sort, and they can be played ad infinitum.

I agree. Not to mention that edtions of the complete work run around 900 pages (even the small-print Penguin Classic). Very little of this has made its way to Balanchine's version. (Almost none has made it's way to Petipa.) I see what you mean. I wonder if either Petipa or Balanchine read the book, or just looked at plates, otherwise 'oral tradition' like hearing a legend or something. Probably this has been done sometimes, but in the case of 'Midsummer Night's Dream' is less likely--althogh seeing the play would be part of it, the choreographer would still have to read the play in order to get the couples straight. However, the dancer would still not need to have read it, I agree, and that goes along with the ideas of small education that have been bandied about in the Allegra Kent thread today, as well as many other threads about how dancers don't have much liberal arts education that came out in discussions such as Ray's http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=27483. Some of them are bound to be well-read, but probably not usually when they're very young and almost never if they're working a lot.

I suppose you could say that Cervantes had no authorship of Balanchine's Don Quixote, in the same way as one wouldn't say that Shakespeare was one of the authors of 'West Side Story'. The character is not original with Balanchine in the same sense as what you see in Mozartiana or Chaconne, though. Balanchine surely was familiar with the original in some other form than hearsay, just as Titania in his ballet was derived from 'Midsummer Night's Dream'. Would it be unhelpful to know that play as well? It could not be, although that doesn't mean I could prove it was therefore helpful. The only way it could have been better not to have read the book and known nothing of how it originated would be because she would then be able to consume the choreography as if it were purely original (it was) and also the character as if it were purely original (it wasn't in the literal sense. There is still the basic Cervantes ownership of the property there, or Balanchine would have changed the names to 'Maria', 'Tony', etc.) She just chose not to read the book. Many dancers would have wanted to.

Agree totally, and also think over-analyzing a mere interview on Charlie Rose, with someone who is only doing it because of their book, is for the hobbyist. And I thought he was fine too, only pushing a little too hard once, but he understood he was getting a little too much the reporter that wants the scoop and backed off. Don't agree with Agnes at all that this is any kind of serious performance, it's just a television interview--what matters is does she manage to get herself expressed, it's not even that important if Allegra and Charlie have some ideal rapport; it's a minor form, as it were, and what's important is does she get her material across. She dealt with the questions about Farrell much better than even Tallchief on the 6 Ballerinas tape and infinitely better than Merrill Ashley, who let a kind of pall come over the proceedings--I definitely didn't think Allegra seemed as her own life had been much interrupted by the Farrell phenomenon and she had gone on and lived her life as she saw fit, was less obsessed with this matter than any of the others. If dealing with something like this as a professional, I can understand wardrobe, etc., matters, but Allegra Kent dressed 'too much like a secretary' is more of making of a small little television moment--meant mainly to be an advertisement--than it needs to be. But obviously, we all perceive things differently. I see it almost precisely as canbelto and Sandy, but that's life. And Ray, if you don't want to see her 'exploited', she certainly was anything but by Charlie Rose. All this talk of her fragility is so alien to me. She seemed like a Big Girl--and it would have had to always have been a Big Girl since she was a favourite of Balanchine's and kept insisting upon having babies when she knew he didn't want her to. That in itself shows her strong will. I fail to see her as especially vulnerable, and am glad of it.

Maybe reading is unnecesary altogether...Who knows..? For the record, I'll just mention that a NYTimes article covering well-known dancers' hobbies and pastimes did include Farrell talking about being an avid reader, although not whether she preferred fiction or non-fiction. About 1987 or earlier. Had things like Cynthia Gregory going to the races, etc.

I know for a fact she did delve into a minute amount of Cervantes, however... Nor do I think that answer is going to go to Bartlett's either, if 'A day away from Tallulah is like a month in the country' didn't. It is perfectly obvious that knowing Don Quixote by reading it would not have been an illogical thing to do, no matter whether she did okay without it (most of it.) Maybe reading has nothing to do with acting either.

I don't care it people are harsh, I just don't think any of these judgments are accurate. She was fully in control and even knew how to shove Rose off when he got too pushy. As for not having a high school education, that's not a legitimate complaint when you've proved yourself elsewhere. I've got degrees and 'qualifications' just like GWTW (although nobody had better call ME average... ), but I simply cannot see that Allegra was not articulate, and if you think Allegra holding her own is displaying 'borderline mental illness', then I'd like to know where you get that, because, if anything, that seems to demonstrate a problem that is current: Identifying something that many of us see as quite normal as 'borderline mental illness', so that no wonder so many people run to get the medications. And what are the self-debilitating ways in which her eccentricity manifested itself? I've yet to see any evidence of it. If her 'amazing and rich life' is known, how is that known, if she is so abysmally inept at describing it? People are referring to Allegra Kent as 'sad' or 'sad-making'? And how is she not 'aware of the workings of her discipline'? I even think Farrell and Kirkland are articulate in their own ways, they're not supposed to be intellectuals (and they're not.) But Kent, especially, seems to me very healthy on top of all of it--and that she is really the one who had the ideal relationship with Balanchine: He did not try to force her too hard, and let her make her own decisions. In different ways, neither Kirkland nor Farrell seem quite as obviously balanced (which is not a criticism, just an observation about Kent), and I'm not talking about the dancing of any of them, since they were all great dancers.

No, but there's a reason the curse in China is "May you live in interesting times." Cristian, this curse is supposedly one of three, so I utter the following two for your protection as you continue your slow progress through 'Holding on to the Air'... May you live in interesting times is reputed to be the English translation of an ancient Chinese proverb and curse. It is reported[who?] that it was the first of three curses of increasing severity, the other two being: May you come to the attention of those in authority May you find what you are looking for (My guess is that the 3rd one is particularly inscrutable, and that the second is the most compassionate and well-wishing despite curse.) Agree about watching 'Elusive Muse' as better than the book. There are even home movies from back in Mt. Healthy, Suzanne in huge summer shorts in Saratoga, Jacques d'Amboise, Bejart and always this strange-sounding way that she refers to 'George', like they were the Odd Couple or something. I guess she called him that in the pre-Bejart years, but it never sounds as though she's quite comfortable with it. Some of it is out of date (she has since divorced Mejia, which deflates some of the legend for me, NOT the dancing, mind you...Paul Mejia likes his then wife in 'Diamonds' as much as I do.) Her voice is very light and pretty, much like Allegra Kent's, so I think this film is the way for you to keep out of trouble...She is beautiful teaching her class.

Well, Haglund's was still talking about it recently, expressing gratitude and delight to the BTer who coined the phrase. I think there was still some Burger King left (and if not, then fine), but my point was not to describe the production disparagingly, but to find out something about why Macauley thought it seemed to work in many more ways than most have noted. But perhaps this is of little interest since most of the Macauley threads are about how best to point out how awful he is--which he may be in some ways, but some of the things he said in this article were just very good, and I hadn't heard them before.