papeetepatrick

I'm afraid I do agree with this, as much of an admirer of Ms. Farrell's work I have long been and continue to be (except I am obviously not part of a cult myself, not being nearly as interested in her own company as I was, and continue through DVD's, to be interested in her dancing) It reminds me a bit of the original hypnosis around Barbra Streisand when she was young, in which there was a sense that 'nobody else was quite up to that level.' How these kinds of auras come about is hard to say, but they do have to do with the large talent of the worshipped one, but as well to make it more special than those of others (I have found since joining Ballet Talk that there are other great ballerinas). There have surely been these cults around other ballerinas, although I don't know if there has been another American ballerina quite so revered. But Alonso, Fonteyn, , Martha Graham, Nureyev (it is big with the men too), Baryshnikov and Balanchine himself, all have 'cults' in a certain sense. Saying Farrell doesn't have one is a little like saying that the 'non-star system' under Balanchine actually existed in a literal sense at all levels. Also, this idea of a 'cult' around any kind of star is not even an insult. It has been used at least as long ago as Walter Benjamin, although he did refer to 'the bad cult of the film star' (if he were to see the bimboes now, he might well realize he lived in a semi-enlightened age.) And in 'Far from Denmark', Peter Martins, praising Farrell as 'a great ballerina' and making 3 categories of dancers (I thought this was pretty tacky), some 'born to dance', or some such thing like that, and 2nd category which I can't remember, and then Farrell by herself. He wrote something also about how she was the 'last of a breed' of Balanchine dancers in working toward a ballerina image, that the newer ones think more in terms of the working at being a dancer in a more business like way. It's hardly abnormal for an occasional star cult to happen, and certainly no worse than a 'Garbo cult', which indisputably exists (usually hates Dietrich), and a 'Mozart cult' (which usually makes a point of hating Beethoven, which is especially tedious), but the desire to keep certain talents pristinely separated off from all the rest does happen--it's just that it won't succeed with everyone, especially if they take a look at the Kirov at its best, etc. This does not take away from 'Mozartiana', 'La Valse', or 'Davidsbundlertanze' and what Farrell brought to them. To my mind, recognizing that there really are other dancers of that greatness (while recognizing her own rare qualities, which are definitely her own and nobody else's) actually enhances hers, is not detrimental. For example, when I started with BT in 2006, Farrell was definitely my favourite ballerina; she is now one of about 5, but that has not made me appreciate her art as a dancer any the less (although I can't say I've become interested in her own company as I have other companies.)

Some may think it, but I am glad somebody said it primarily to let it begin a discussion here. It doesn't have any realily (or does it?), so that I'm even surprised such a letter was published. 'Artistic consultant', as suggested by Slate, however vague, would at least be within the realm of the possible, although I don't know why she would or would not want to do it. What was her job called when she was fired? But the 'rehire Farrell' to include 'retiring Martins' is not really very interesting, if is mostly fan-letter stuff (okay, but not really mover-and-shaker material.) It's a matter of the two principals themselves, isn't it? I don't know if they communicate at all. Do they? That might be insider stuff (unless they really don't at all.)

Yes it WOULD. It would not only renovate NYCB but rejuvenate the whole TOWN!

Yeah, well, this has some of the colours, especially in the woman's dress at right and the man at left seated holding this pole or musical instrument or whatever it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pieter_...%C3%84._014.jpg The colours are not all of it (some dancers not in this Giselle production would exemplify this on a regular basis, some not, but that's too subjective possibly, so I won't name them), but they are the most literal given that real peasants and ballets peasants do not project plumpness of the same order--although there are plenty of other Breughel peasant paintings that illustrate some of that aspect more. It's probably that these warm earthy colours do allow the dancers certain freedoms of a more 'naturist' sensuality than the more severe colours used for princes and the starched look some ballerina-tutus for princesses have, and which are perhaps more vertical and stately. The peasants are a little 'easier' than Siegfried's parents, for example.

Yes, should have been Breughelian.

This is always interesting, but at the outset, it is surely the case that the opera singers and orchestra are not nearly as often in a state of alienation with each other as are dancers with their orchestras. We've had NYCB dancers tell us how it was so rare an exception for a dancer to make a serious criticism to a conductor, that only one example was remembered. It goes without saying that this doesn't mean the dancers didn't have serious grievances about the orchestra tempi and other matters. This is the fault of both musicians and dancers, but had probably always been there. It has not evolved so that dancers would be specifically trained enough in more of the technical aspects of music. And while opera singers are often not nearly as knowledgeable about music beyond vocal styles the way instrumentalists have to be, they sometimes are, and in any case, even with having to work on many other aspects like acting and different kinds of projection, they are definitely stuck with being musicians and so have to know a minimum--this always makes interaction much more possible with opera and other singers, even if the interaction is hostile and there is a lot of fighting. Dancers are not usually musicians as well (in the sense that Sander0 points out that Domingo is both singer and conductor--of course even then he is exceptional in almost every way, being a genius of an opera man), so they are then either musical to greater and lesser degrees. Balanchine was both a fine musician and great choreographer, but this is not usually the case. Plus, things Helene have said about orchestras being part of the ballet and opera, as they are in Russia, Paris, London, and Vienna, makes for the better sort of orchestra, paradoxically, than those which are exclusively ballet orchestras. I haven't been to NYCO for many years, but I would imagine the orchestra is more reliable there than at NYCB. But here we get the glorious Metropolitan Opera Orchestra which would be unthinkable any other way (unfortunately for NYCB or ABT, they cannot also have the Met Orchestra, so this isn't at all like that usual European doubling). From what I've gathered from recent glut of opera and ballet DVD watching is that even the slightly smaller European orchestras, as with RDB and Royal Swedish Ballet, have the same orchestras for both opera and ballet (correct me if I've got this wrong.) This doesn't directly address the matter innopac has brought up about Fedotov, though, but those points quoted from Bussell are revealing and may describe why the recentLY-watched Kirov DVD's of SB are so good--in that case, the orchestra and dancers are wed in a comprehensive way I've never even begun to see in even the best American productions. But what Helene has said about this combination opera/ballet orchestra has definitely got to be better than the Met being the only place that isn't a purely instrumental orchestra being way up to those standards (and the Met is.) Complaints about the NYCB orchestra have been frequent, but something else I recently watched made them seem much better than just having the 'occasional good night' with Maurice Kaplow doing less prestissimo, etc. A performance of of 'The Marriage of Figaro' by the summer Drottningholm opera in Sweden sounds less good than student opera performances I heard in Aspen, Colorado decades ago at the Aspen Music School. But 'Figaro' is so happy a piece that, if there is at least some good singing by somebody in it, you don't get furious at the hard time the little orchestra is having, esp. singers and orchestra not being together a lot of the time. This kind of provincial thing does not work as well for heavier 19th things like 'Rigolette' (heavy in terms of vocal demands), in which bad singing just sounds bad (and one's perception is much less forgiving, as in an Alfredo Kraus 'Rigoletto' from Parma I recently watched--he sounds marvelous but you 'skip to the good parts' and then get a Met recording with Domingo--but I've gone on about these provincial orchestras also because after watching (and accepting within its range) that Drottningholm performance (which is in Stockhom but is not the same thing as the Royal Swedish Opera and its orchestra, which is thoroughly professional, and you can hear this same excellence on the RSB's 'Swan Lake', one of several reasons to watch this good, but not great SW), I began to realize that the NYCB, even if it's got horns which persist in the rude noises, it is still usually pretty serviceable at least by comparison to many squawky and squeaky orchestras--except when the tempi are sped up so that the dancers have to rush like crazy. The European model won't be emulated, I imagine, though, so it's a matter of whether the Musical Directors are satisfying to dancers and audience. I've heard people praise and condemn Karoui; I hated what he did with 'Nutcracker' in Xmas 2006, but maybe he's good at some things. An important point, though, is that balletomanes, even when noticing bad ballet orchestra work, do not usually let that stop them from attending (it does stop me.) Metropolitan Opera goers would NOT be the same about frequently sloppy orchestra work. Now that I think about it, since most of the great European companies have the same setup Helene described, I see that most ballet and opera are also in the same house, and that this same opera/ballet orchestra must also be the case at La Scala, so that you would always be getting great orchestra work, but whether these people that do both forms are equally sensitive to dancers or less so than even somewhat sloppy but exclusively ballet orchestras, I'd be interested to know, as it may vary tremendously. There's an old thread by nysusan on the Vienna State Ballet's SW, and that is not even a very famous ballet company from what I can tell; but this is one of the ones that has the same orchestra, which would allow for fine playing at all times. So it's two issues, isn't it, with the ballet orchestras? Do they play well enough as musicians? and Do they often play with the Fedotov sensitivity to the dancers? I know that some had criticized Gergiev as not being sensitive enough to the dancers till he conducted NYCB last year, and then the reports were that he had been fully successful, and that one could wish for more of it. Maybe a 3rd issue too: Do these orchestras that play for both opera and ballet naturally play equally well for the dancers. I would think the discipline is such that they would, but would like to hear about this too. I did read that the Vienna State Opera Orchestra players are schooled there before being eligible for the Vienna Philharmonic. This indicates that the very finest orchestras are still going to be the symphony orchestras, though. And why the greatest opera conductors are not averse to seeing that job as a step up. The Vienna Phil. wiki says this: "The members of the orchestra are chosen from the Orchestra of the Vienna State Opera. This process is a long one, with each musician having to prove their capability for a minimum of three years playing for the Opera and Ballet. Once this is achieved they can then ask the Board of the Wiener Philharmoniker to consider their application for a position in the Vienna Philharmonic."

Last year's 'The Pirate Queen' was hopefully part of this new trend. Sounded dreadful beyond belief (by Claude-Michel Schonburg and Alain Boublil of 'Les Miserables' and 'Miss Saigon'), and giant flops are necessary if fashions are to change. I wouldn't even listen to the score of this for purposes of informing myself, given that I don't like their famous scores very much either. Obviously the best music heard on Broadway in the last 5 years was 'La Boheme', although I'd rather still see a more traditional treatment. But I like that they were able to be pretty successful with real opera music on Broadway, and their rotating casts did prove (to someone like me who wasn't paying attention at the time) that they were making sure that it was really sung.

So this was discussed quite a while back and I just watched it. Some of this dark look is beautiful though; I really think the sets are some of the most elegant I've ever seen, and both they and the costumes are marvelously subtle with all that dark blue and burnished rust colours. I also imagine it's best on stage, because the Prince's black tights against this dark do make much of his movement invisible (and I don't think that is meant here in ways described to me about Bournonville crepuscular lighting). But in Act II I think I never enjoyed the night-blooming beauty of the Swans more, I was transfixed by them. Loved some of Nathalie Nordquist's Odette, but her Odile is not in the least seductive to me--I prefer something much more brazen for Odile, if it gets demure I lose interest, and that's why I like Mezentseva's Odile; she's shocking. Anders Nordstrom I do not find princely enough and liked Johannes Ohman probably most of the featured dancers. He's got a lot of charm, and while I seem to like the whole production more than most here--just love those understated but also deeply rich colours--sometimes it does lag, as in Act III, when the divertissements do seem to go on forever (do these vary in quantity from production to production? sometimes more of them, sometimes less?). Well, this was a beautiful company to discover, though, I knew nothing about them, and see that they are about 250 years old. Do they sometimes come up with major stars like the Royal Danish does? Well, that's not phrased quite right, because they must. Wondered if there are some internationally recognized names someone can fill me in on. Wonderful orchestra too, Royal Opera House must be a gorgeous place.

His narration of Patrick Keillor's 'London', an extraordinary obscure semi-documentary art-film, is also wonderful. From 1995. Also narrated 'Robinson in Space' a few years later by same arcane and interesting director. I still like 'A Man for All Seasons' a lot.

Having just watched this again with this, among many other things in mind, I wasn't able to perceive a 'just after the beat'. I thought with the claps and at the end of more boisterous and robust type music, as in the very Scottish dance toward the end of Act I there was always a sharp period with the physical and the musical. Can't be sure about this if yu stilll doubt it, but I thought the music and dance exactly interwoven. Alexandra, the problem is much worse than I thought, viz., my jaded excess-desiring sensibilities not being able to turn down the circuits without outside aid. Of course, much of what fits into and does the knockout thing I've gotten addicted to is great--the Kirov, La Scala opera productions, some Balanchine--but I will then lose the ability to even see what something as delicate as this piece is. Really sobering, because it did not even take any time to enter immediately into this very rarefied world once I had some pointers as to how to find it (or re-find it in some ways.) There are many things that come to mind so I'll just start anywhere. The matter of 'dancing through the music' was not so much an obvious thing here as it was something that would seem to happen or be a part of both the particular delicacy of quality of both the dance and the music (which I also could really hear the second time, as if deaf the first time). I had actually thought of a 'dancing through the music' and not on the beat when I first started going to NYCB. although only with the soloists (never the corps, which even if if wasn't always precise was always pretty high-energy and sharp) and not with all of them either--I associated it most with Suzanne Farrell's dancing, and although I became a devotee of her work, she left me cold when I first saw her as a student, with still academic and pedantic attitudes of the sort you have to have to some degree to learn a discipline like the piano. Later, I began to see her own individual musicality as like another mujsical instrument in a couterpoint with the orchestra, it would stretch through and make new lines of meter and/or rhythm both opposing and joining the other lines of music. This was very flexible and I came to be able to see it. A few other very long-lined dancers I've also thought I have seen this in. Now here--one gets this impression too, but it wasn't so much that they were going against the beat as that there were no hard beats to begin with, there is always this gentleness even with the rigour, and this therefore makes an environment for the Sylph. Musically, the orchestra was mostly first-rate in this production, with some minor fatigue in the first act in one of the less important interludes but which needed more energy. Until those Scottish dances (don't know what they would be termed), which are played beautifully, I began to wonder if this kind of gentle--and simple, in the best sense of the word--sound-world had to choose between absolute precision or not in order to favour keeping this mostly quiet mood (quiet in a sense even when the emotions go toward the fierce, at least by comparison to other music and dance with which I'm more familiar), but for some reason from there on and throughout Act II I could barely detect a flaw, and there was noteworthy trumpet solo work, as well as those cellos someone mentioned. The music is 'hard to get used to' as well, because it is a different kind of gentleness than, say English pastoral music of various composers, whether Delius or Vaughan Williams, and the sound of much Scandinavian music has a slight foreignness to those of us formed primarily by the bigness of German music and the more urbane sounds of much French music for several centuries. Another thing about the ballet as a whole that made it possible to understand then the individual dancers and the details of the choreography was simply seeing that it was a very short ballet and only two acts. This form may have been more common way back in the 19th century, but my knowledge of ballets is the full-length, three-act (or at least much longer) romantic ballet or the one-act ballet, or anyway I can't think of another that is structurally like this one--so that all this quiet pastoral and ethereal quality (also not at all like the much more extroverted sounds of Beethoven's Pastorale, which is much more showy by comparison) is reflected in all parts, whether looking microscopically or at the whole piece. Problems I had with it also included half-conscious memories of Peter Martins's 'Far from Denmark', when he would talk about getting used to the high energy of American ballet after having always worked in this very precise Danish style. But that was much less than that I could accept sylphs quite well (and 'Les Sylphides' is one of the most immediately gratifying ballets one can ever see, but much of it much more exuberant in some of Chopin's Waltzes, whereas here there are changes, but they are not in such strong contrast, are more subtle and stay within a certain realm of related sounds and steps), but could not for the life of me get this business of a Scotsman in a fairy-tale ballet. Anything in Sleeping Beauty, Bluebirds, Jewels, Lilac Fairy and Friends, all of that was what I thought was the 'Authentic Fairy Tale World.' Scottishness seemed somehow so earthy, especially a Scotsmen having a liaison with a Pure Sylph. Also, with all the talk of tights, I personally never think about it and always expect it: I couldn't get used to the kilts. And this time I saw that the boys and girls all had long green or purple stockings on as well, so they are not 'almost-naked' as in most ballet. This must surely add a certain modesty to the ballet, although the sylphs' dresses are beautiful. So, finally, I can see that what happened is that most people also don't usually think of Scottishness as something to use in ballets, since I can't think of anything else but 'Scotch Symphony' and I've never cared so much for it (I mean I'm about to watch 'Napoli' too, but Italian is again something I would not resist somehow...I don't know...I guess Scottishness somehow doesn't ssem like 'ballet lexicon', never heard of a Scottish Fairy Tale (have even known of Dutch Fairy Tales, although I'm told they're actually American), but both Sylph and Scots are then brought within this Danish environment which of itself doesn't call attention to itself; and if you try to find it you can't, because the Danish sensibility here is something that requires less that you strive for it than that you let the dynamics go down to piano and pianissimo, and some mezzo piano, mezzo forte, an occasional bit of brio and forte, but never fortissismo; and of a sort you wouldn't find in the same way in the more theatrical brightness of Petipa/Tchaikovsky--and then you can see it and hear it, but not from putting the usual kind of effort into it, but rather just exposing yourself to it.. Yes, that's part of it: It's not theatrical in the sense we usually think of it. Once past that hurdle, the fact that Danes taught in the French style portrayed Scottishness becomes exotic even while so gentle (of course there may be others, but I don't know them). I noticed Ippeson a lot more the second time and you can see all those minutiae of movements like diaphanous moth-wings in the arms and feet (her feet are shown quite a bit; I did note that in one of the variations where Nikolaj is hopping about with the charming entrechats(I think that's what they are, I am now trying to get these down with the ABT glossary) you don't see the feet lit up. There was even some of the same sensation in the Lacotte choreography for James as I recall, although it was less slender with Denard and more coltish with Hubbe. She's exquisite and musical, as you say, profoundly so. So, ultimately, I thought it was a kind of very inward and introspective (and all related words) in which the music and dance blended into each other perhaps that is the same thing as 'dancing through the music'. What I associate with Farrell might be a little more 'dancing sometimes with and sometimes against the music', not qujite the same thing. In any case, I fell in love at last with 'La Sylphide', because of all sorts of things, including those perfect little wings on the Sylph's back, and how heartbreaking it is when they fall off. Also love the little moment at the beginning of the 2nd Act where she feeds him the berries. But yes--la Crepuscule! so that the lighting all made sense as part of completing such an artwork.

Well, it sounds magnificent no matter whether they are dancing with each other or next to each other in separate ballets. Is it really possible they are dancing with each other? That truly sounds fantastic, but either way I hope it means POB would then come and do that at the State Theater--even if I could only afford POB by itself without the gala, because that's the company I most want to see. Do you see this 'exchange program' possible for the future years?

I'd like to know a bit more about this, not being able to quite figure it out from Cygne Blanc's first post. Is there going to be a night when both companies dance--I suppose separately if they do, but can't quite tell. There are NYCB programs there and POB programs, as well as the other things like National Ballet of China, but I couldn't tell if POB/NYCB in Estelle's and Cygne Blanc's posts were something else. If one saw both companies in one night, it would be most enviable, and might make it seem possible to see them together here, which I'd certainly try to see if it happened. Thanks.

No, but the St. Patrick's Day Parade in New York could be said to be about putting down gays, although I have little interest in that and never cared about it. Likewise, since I have so little gay identity, I can see when someone wants to proclaim straight identity, and I find both pretty boring. I think Radetsky wants to get the privileges he perceives in the straight establishment by making sure to identify himself as 'not gay'. Because Nureyev managed to become famous despite a gayness and even outrageous promiscuity that was even flaunted, and that's what's crucial. He certainly didn't mean Nureyev 'opened minds' toward accepting anybody's sexuality, but rather opened up ballet to bigger audiences--especially though that he was hugely successful. I know plenty of people who don't spend their time at a keyboard, including dancers, who write decently and often very well. I don't think he writes well by any standards, so that it has to be accepted that some want to take a somewhat Christian-compassionate attitude toward it, and some are not going to. Almost any quoted remark by Suzanne Farrell, without any forethought, is better, when she talks about 'fantasy and how she likes it, that there's little enough of it in the world' when she was doing 'Cinderella' in Chicago years ago, or just even talking about how 'I like dancing with Peter, it's a pleasure.' It sounds banal and nothing, but it always rings true and makes you rethink that very simple thing. I use that example only because she, so silent and reserved, is not even one of the ones we usually think of as being the most verbal, but every time she opens her mouth, there is something there that is not advertising itself. And the many others who speak a lot more, like Melissa Hayden, really tell you something about how dancers can articulate and speak truly: Nobody was better than Hayden at explaining certain things about Balanchine's musicianship, for example. There are even some dancers and dance writers here at Ballet Talk that really write, and not just the fine professionals like Alexandra but also just dancers themselves posting like we are. People who are literate and know how to compose a sentence that makes sense, not sentences that people have to contrive and work at and give 'extra credit' to force them to make sense they don't have as written. I parsed several of his 'sentences', and some of them are not even grammatically decent, much less in a decent spirit. As a writer myself, I can tell you something about what writing is and is not. It is obvious that one can give anybody the benefit of the doubt. It is something some here want to do, it can feel generous but it needs to be sincerely believed, so these do believe it. I don't. I think it rings false, and so do others here. While it is true, as Hans says, that one is often assumed to be gay because of being in the ballet profession, it is also true of pianists, in the exact same way--I have been through this myself and been called sissy years ago when I was a budding pianist, been beaten up by rednecks in Alabama, been thought sissy because a pianist and thought gay for not dating girls in high school (they don't know that I then started dating them and having sex with them as well as men). I then toughened myself and nobody fooled with me. Radetsky seems to have as well ('we need to go outside', my version was 'meet me after school'), but wants to talk about it and get special sympathy, which he has found somehow. Frankly, he sounds a little like a sissy to me in some ways--you know, if you've been through that, it doesn't necessarily mean an insult. Perhaps I should phrase it: 'Some of my colleagues are straight sissies. Can we move on now?' Of course, by 'sissy', I do not mean 'gay'. That is what he meant. He wrote: "Ironically, the stereotype of the sissy male dancer has given rise to a male dancer who is anything but." By 'sissy', he clearly meant 'gay', and he meant the established perception of 'ballet sissy' to mean 'gay'--there is no way to mean 'sissy' without meaning 'gay'. He was not thinking of 'straight sissies.' Ballet has as much to do with gay male ballet dancers as it does with straight male dancers, no matter what anyone wants this to be. He was talking about straight male dancers as opposed to gay male dancers.

I finally got to the superb Pennebaker movie last week. Thanks, dirac, for pushing me to watch it. One gets to see Sondheim a lot (looking much younger than I had thought for even that period), and the songs focussed on most are 'You Could Drive a Person Crazy', 'Not Getting Married Today', 'Another Hundred People', 'The Ladies Who Lunch' and 'Being Alive'. There's a bit of 'Side by Side by Side'. Really terrific for Stritch fans, as much time is taken on very small details of her takes. The best thing for me, as having always treasured that long-ago memory of hearing 'Another Hundred People' for the first time (when I saw it, before I got the LP), is that I then remembered that, 2 years after hearing Pamela Myers knock me out singing it, I worked with her, as one of twin pianos, in a benefit at the 46th St. Theater, which was itself for the Phoenix Theater. I much more frequently think back to Rosemary Harris's Lady Teazle soliloquy, Susan Watson's beautiful singing with Jack Cassidy (I just remember a phrase of their song), and Bibi Osterwald growling out her already-then-old song from 'The Golden Apple'. We did do a song with Pam Myers, but I don't remember what it was anymore; I only remember telling her how marvelous it had been to hear her sing 'Another Hundred People' and she replied that she knew that it was one of those incredibly rare things that could hardly happen to you, the special privilege of being in such an electric production. It was also a pleasure to finally see Dean Jones, and the time warp gets worse when I realize that the taped recording session was even a bit longer ago than when I saw the show, as Larry Kert had taken over and was a more seasoned Broadway performer. But Jones is charming and you can really match up the exact sounds with his performance of 'Being Alive' with the record. I cannot remember the reason for Jones's very short stint in the show, but maybe sidwich knows. It was all quite full of energy, Beth Howland marvelously quirky in 'Getting Married Today' and Stritch most enjoyable. I found an old VHS and think people who may be interested can find it on eBay in either vhs or dvd. And here is the place you can really see the instruments that were used, including some closeups of strangely unexpected counterpoint in instruments that you don't hear so obviously once it is blended into the full orchestration.

Since he wrote such an unintelligible sentence in the first place, in which the sissies give rise to the 'anything but sissy' male dancer--but doesn't know he wrote such a sentence and the editor didn't catch it--I would imagine it could be his version of almost anything he wants it to be. And certainly the 'some of my colleagues are gay. Can we move on now?' can be anything he wants it to mean too. It could be the Rush Limbaugh version of 'We're here, we're queer, get used to it', which is just as tiresome as the original one. One deals with black or white racism as it comes up, or female spousal abuse when it comes up too--the fact that only 5% of spousal battery is from the female doesn't make each individual case any the less serious. Not really, considering how the 'stereotype-debunking' is so limited, is parasitic on stereotypes itself for its very existence, and is written in so colloquial a voice that it sounds like something in a high school paper (even if that is the one in 'Fame'.)

As Hans mused earlier, there could be something in the regional differences. While I find much contemporary urban gay culture purely fashion-oriented, the generation prior to mine, pre-Stonewall and in the closet, definitely was full of its 'ballet queens' quite as much as 'opera queens'--at least in New York. They were so many gay Suzanne Farrell fans you couldn't even count them. But this can vary from place to place, and Hans's observation about it 'still not being okay to be gay' may be true in D.C., although I can't see how it follows that they find ballet 'silly' (although I don't dispute that they do so if that's what the evidence is, and Hans would know), i.e., the closeted gays of the 50s and 60s in New York were very involved in ballet-going (although if they were in New York in the closet periods, they were still only semi-closet--that's why they came here, so they wouldn't have to be.) "Ironically, the stereotype of the sissy male dancer has given rise to a male dancer who is anything but." This is the kind of thing that some can overlook in the article and some can't. After having already declared his own sexual preference, he is making a statement which doesn't make any sense, because there is no evolution from the 'stereotype of the sissy male dancer' to the 'anything but sissy male dancer' any more than there is from the 'sissy male in general' to the 'anything-but-sissy male'. One would be able to derive that this new masculine non-sissy dancer in fact, owed a great debt to this very stereotype of the sissy male dancer, since that is from what this new dancer rose phoenix-like. The thread is, but the article is not, IMO. He would have needed to say explicitly that "gay does not equal sissy" as well, which he does not do--especially if he needed to proclaim his heterosexuality as well. Without including 'gay masculine dancers' explicitly, he puts them back in the closet. He says 'some of my colleagues are gay' and adds 'Can we move on now?' which is like saying 'That's the bad news. Now here's the good news.' It also brings up the even more difficult matter of 'does sissiness exist?' People usually don't want to answer this, as it involves political correctness. Sissiness means male effeminacy (which can be straight or gay, by the way), and it does exist. There is plenty of it everywhere, so it must exist in the dance world--I've heard that it does. So that some of the forms of effeminacy among males--someone mentioned that there is problem 'trying to act masculine' and that gays often want to do this to make them feel a 'better person'--are considered not very desirable. I think all these points of view are fair. I know I want to 'seem masculine', not effeminate, and don't care what the verdict on that is (I certainly am under no obligation to do so in the environment in which I live.) But there are some very famous male dancers who are what I would term 'very feminine' in some ways which I find attractive and that adds to their art as ballet dancers--and seeing 'the feminine' in males is not the same thing as 'effeminacy' (or not exactly the same and/or not nearly always the same), although most don't make the difference, and it does need to be made, as does the fact that there are many effeminate straight men as well.

which is an ad hominem attack on the credentials of the poster even to comment on the mighty issues before the House. Such discourse is not in accordance with the basic rule of discussion on the Ballet Talk boards, in which matters of evangelical religion, proselytizing politics, sexual practices and the other things you don't bring to the dinner table are discouraged. They always lead to a thread going to hell in a handbasket. Do ask you like with posting etiquette, but kindly remember that controversy does not have to lead to one poster disparaging another. It was no such thing. Not even minutely was I trying to disparage you. I was even showing respect to whatever this work might be by saying that you got your definitions for 'sexual harassment' from a source that is not known to me and it is not the popular understanding of the term, i.e., if anything, that work, whatever it was, gave you the credentials to call it something the rest of use would not. But in nothing I wrote did I say you should not have reason to operate with that in mind, only that most were not going to understand it that way. I was not trying to disparage you as a poster and tell you you 'didn't have proper credentials' to discuss this. I do disagree with the phrase of 'society as sexual harasser', which you may think I criticized too brutally, but I fail to see how it can mean much in such a general form. In fact, if you haven't been convinced by the above, I thought surely it must be somehow something about how I interpreted Radetzky's article that had been off-topic, but the matter of an 'ad hominem' being derived from what I wrote is a wrong interpretation. I was not doing it. I probably just hate the article.

I just found that there is a VHS of 'Napoli' from 1986 that I can get at NYPL. Anybody have some ideas about this production? this is also Royal Danish Ballet and I think if I see that I may get a better idea of how some of these different aspects of Bournonville style, as described by Alexandra, exist from having a second one to look at and compare. The other Bournonville ballets I am not familiar with by name. If there is anything in particular to look for here, please let me know if you have time.

Is it too much to ask how we were off-topic? We followed from your statements and made interpretations of the article, didn't we? If related matters of this sort of obviously controversial things cannot be discussed here, I'm going to just stick to the strict information swapping, and forget about any opinion posts.

Thanks for most wonderful lesson, Alexandra! I will now watch tonight or tomorrow and look for these specific things. I really should have done some research beforehand. I think, though, I will already be more ready to accept the delicacy and intimacy of the steps, so will be looking more for what I can see with the way the 'dancing goes through the music', because that is such an exciting concept, and which will probably also be a sensation one gets, that I am fairly sure that is the key to appreciating what I had not been able to the first time.

I understand your explanation of why you think, as a result of your government work, you would think operationally about some things differently, even though we don't know the nature of that work. But to anyone outside this, the phrase 'harasser identified as society as a whole' doesn't mean anything. I do not see that society as a whole is harassing male dancers except by being the particular shape of society with its codes of masculine or feminine which vary according to which society it is. Agree with kfw on some of this part. As such, it could be said to be harassing everybody in some way or another. And it's hardly a stretch to see Radetsky's article as a homophobic bit of business, telling straight people who have wrong ideas about ballet that it isn't 'about gay men'. Tights as business suit. And even if I think there are more straight male stars than gay in this period, that doesn't change the fact that ballet is often identified with women as ballerinas and many gay male dancers (I don't know if there are more than in the gypsy Broadway chorus lines where I worked, but they were literally all gay in one of the ones I worked with.) That should be the thrust of any grievance, whereas this article is really an attempt to point out how Radetzsky was always interested in the girls. It's definitely an attempt to distance himself from any gay attitudes, which implies that he must be on the defensive about this--whereas that has never mattered before as any important issue, people just live with it. And Radetzky has to live with the fact that what he's said doesn't change the fact that a lot of male dancers are gay. And yet with this article he has chosen to speak for the 'straight ballet dancer'. He is not speaking for the 'male ballet dancer'. I don't find the article anything beyond narcissistic, and fail to see it as being like Vilella's old speeches in the Bronx. That was the way to do it. This reads like a feature from an old Modern Screen more than some plea for tolerance. The way people were going on about it, I didn't read it only because I got the feeling ballet must have finally gotten a surprise cover story. It turned out to be a couple of paragraphs, mostly self-promotion from what I could tell. Long-winded this time, but I see it as Aurora does. The glass ceiling is sexism and bigotry and discrimination, but sexual harassment is something more specific in the way not only I understand it, but in the way it is popularly understood. Hans, I hadn't thought of the D.C. tie-in, I guess that could be possible. But I would never ever have guessed it, and it may have to do with contemporary gay attitudes both about image and culture. Contemporary gay culture is a lot more (at least from what I see in New York) about doing the most superficial trendy things--so that may exist here in the gay community more than I've realized. But since I probably have more straight than gay friends, I might not know it; but I think I can tell that there are fewer gay people interested in traditional classical cultures across the board, not just ballet, than there were 30 years ago. Don't know if that speaks to what you were talking about exactly, but I do think much contemporary urban gay culture is all pop all the time, and it gives it this hyper atmosphere combined with a lot of campy silliness.

Now that is very helpful, and will make me work at it some more--I hope I am able to see this 'dancing through the beat', which is very interesting if I can then find the opposite to compare and be able to see it. I thought it might possibly be something like this, but wasn't sure if it was possible for something more or less Western mainstream to be so singular that it reminds me a little of getting used to some Eastern musical and dance forms (some of them I have loved immediately, others I could never.) I think also if the lighting were not so badly done (this looks like ordinary videotape, and not only the faces, but even the feet, especially of James, were dimmed or obliterated, and very often), I might have already been able to see more. It reminded me of a Parma 'Rigolette' with Alfredo Kraus which was far worse still--there were total black scenes with singing; but that I could not even get through. I should add that I had phrased that wrongly about Hubbe. I didn't find him dull at all, it was just the style I couldn't get used to yet. I thought he was actually delightful, very fresh and spirited.

I just watched this and then read the thread but, while not proud when I (must) have bad taste, I hereby have it. I'm a big Hubbe fan, but everything at the NYCB I've seen I've preferred to this. I probably don't have a taste for pure Bournonville like this, but the lighting is ridiculous--much of it so in darkness that even the faces were often dark. Thenk looked up in wiki some of the facts. So the LaCotte version for Paris has the original score by Jean-Madeleine Schneitzhoffer and the second version is this one by Bournonville with music by Lovenskiold. I recall liking the Parisian one infinitely more and the Schneitzhoffer music much preferable to this, in which I was not struck by anything. While watching, I primarily noticed that everything is more demure and modest than I had remembered it in the Ghislaine Thesmar/Michal Denard video, but I hadn't known they were totally different other than noticing what I was pretty sure was a different name for the composer. Well, this is I think something you automatically have a taste for or not. I remember Denard's dancing being a lot more energetic and exciting than that given to Hubbe, but having no knowledge of what would be needed for Bournonville purism, that's not a criticism of any of the dancing I saw, all of which seemed to be of fine quality, yet again for devotees of this sort of thing. Is this a thing of the small gesture at all times? Is all Bournonville like this? If so, I can respect it, and I think understand what its appeal might be, but I am pretty sure I don't have a taste for it: I was not bored by Thesmar and Denard, thought it seemed quite delicate as well (I read that Lacotte had worked from old photos and drawings to try to recreate Taglioni's choreography, and many thought it non authentic, but since I wouldn't know about that, I had liked it) and never thought I'd be bored by Hubbe, but was. [Edited to add: I was not bored by Hubbe himself, but could not enter into the style, as per Alexandra's post below and mine following.] Wiki also mentioned the Petipa variation used in Paquita from Petipa's 1892 'La Sylphide.' That sounds interesting, has anybody ever seen that full-length version? I noticed the music was Riccardo Drigo, whom I know from 'Le Corsaire' only. I love 'Corsaire', no matter how broad, so might be interested in that. I'll be seeing a DVD of Paquita soon, so imagine that's the only piece of that version still extant. Just checked again--it seems Taglioni's choreography was used, so had not yet been lost. Some details are missing, will appreciate anyone filling in, in any case was a mounting by Petipa.

I just read the article. I don't think it really says anything of value at all. It's little more than a piece of fluff, and would encourage most only to keep their prejudices if they already have them, I would think.

Oh dear! things aren't that dire. anyway, the execrable cable show 'Queer as Folk' surely educated all of Pittsburgh based on civic pride (however filmed, I think, in Toronto)...I think you want to try something a little more like Dothan, Alabama to make the experiment credible--possibly leading to public lewd conduct charges. But probably even there--just some of the old-fashioned redneck harassment.