justafan

I actually thought the article was less about what was wrong with Martins and more about what is right with Suzanne than most articles about NYCB. I thought it was refreshing, compared to the usual stuff I read about the company -- which typically has an overt tone of "he's no Balanchine, he's ruining the company through neglect, and if you want evidence, he fired Farrell!" I've never gotten the feeling that Acocella is a Martins supporter, but again, I think she takes a somewhat balanced view of things. Even though she is clearly not in the Martins camp, she has tried to avoid -- in print anyway -- overtly being one-sided. My beef with some of the critics is that they are so unhappy with Martins, they are blinded to what's right about the company. This story basically recited the facts, and said Farrell's a great coach, it's sad she isn't part of NYCB. But she lives on! To my mind, that's fair.

To see a true beauty, take a look at this one. http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?pv=XS02EN I particularly like how the Sugar Plum Fairy is timed to the music.

I second the nomination of Wendy Whelan, and I've seen quite a lot of her. I'm really surprised at the silence from the regular NYCB crowd -- everyone must be busy going to the theater -- because I think most regular NYCB-goers would agree that Whelan is clearly the best ballerina in the company today. And by virtue of her versatility, she would match many of the great ballerinas of the past. If you're going to allow nominations of those still dancing but possibly a bit past their prime -- you'd have to include Kistler. For me, she simply defined a ballerina and is the person who made me fall in love with the ballet. I admire Nichols, and she is a musical dancer, but she has never made my heart surge or my eyes tear or had me hold my breath in the way Kistler, or even Whelan, has.

Time Out New York does fairly frequent features about ballet and dance. I recollect a recent interview with Helene Alexopoulos on her retirement, some backstage gossip about what it is like to dance in NYCB's Nutcracker, and other things like that. I don't subscribe, so I can't check, but I think it also gets some small amount of advertising from NYCB and possibly ABT. And I think that's the point. I don't think there is any reason to doubt that the decision was made based on economics. This week's issue was very sparse in terms of ads -- a handful of display ads, an education advertorial supplement, and the classifieds and personals in the back. Dance companies -- even ABT and NYCB -- don't do much advertising. When times are tough, the reality is that a magazine editor must make cuts in content areas that won't hurt readership OR the bottom line. In my letter, I noted that the world wouldn't miss New York magazine's film criticism -- there are plenty of outlets for movie reviews. But cutting back on film coverage could adversely impact advertising revenue. Among the meager advertising in this week's issue was an for the new Clint Eastwood movie. Even though advertising is a reality, it is still sad that they cut the column. Although I have no idea of the costs involved, New York certainly wasn't running the column very often.

Time Out New York does fairly frequent features about ballet and dance. I recollect a recent interview with Helene Alexopoulos on her retirement, some backstage gossip about what it is like to dance in NYCB's Nutcracker, and other things like that. I don't subscribe, so I can't check, but I think it also gets some small amount of advertising from NYCB and possibly ABT. And I think that's the point. I don't think there is any reason to doubt that the decision was made based on economics. This week's issue was very sparse in terms of ads -- a handful of display ads, an education advertorial supplement, and the classifieds and personals in the back. Dance companies -- even ABT and NYCB -- don't do much advertising. When times are tough, the reality is that a magazine editor must make cuts in content areas that won't hurt readership OR the bottom line. In my letter, I noted that the world wouldn't miss New York magazine's film criticism -- there are plenty of outlets for movie reviews. But cutting back on film coverage could adversely impact advertising revenue. Among the meager advertising in this week's issue was an for the new Clint Eastwood movie. Even though advertising is a reality, it is still sad that they cut the column. Although I have no idea of the costs involved, New York certainly wasn't running the column very often.

My letter: Ms. Miller: I know all too well that times are tough -- particularly in the publishing world. But count me as one subscriber very disturbed by your decision to cut your dance column. Let me note that I have no axe to grind. I am not involved in the dance world in any professional capacity. I am just a fan. The key reason to subscribe to New York magazine is to be informed about life in our cultural capital. New York is considered by many to be the dance capital of the world, certainly the country. It's quite sad that when faced with budget cuts, you decided against continuing to provide an informed voice in this vital art form. To my mind, it is an indication that the magazine is a bit small-minded and has only commercial (advertising) issues at heart. Certainly, the world wouldn't miss New York's film criticism. Unfortunately, it seems that New York is bent on becoming merely a lifestyle magazine. What a waste!

My letter: Ms. Miller: I know all too well that times are tough -- particularly in the publishing world. But count me as one subscriber very disturbed by your decision to cut your dance column. Let me note that I have no axe to grind. I am not involved in the dance world in any professional capacity. I am just a fan. The key reason to subscribe to New York magazine is to be informed about life in our cultural capital. New York is considered by many to be the dance capital of the world, certainly the country. It's quite sad that when faced with budget cuts, you decided against continuing to provide an informed voice in this vital art form. To my mind, it is an indication that the magazine is a bit small-minded and has only commercial (advertising) issues at heart. Certainly, the world wouldn't miss New York's film criticism. Unfortunately, it seems that New York is bent on becoming merely a lifestyle magazine. What a waste!

Rereading this thread, I've given some thought to why I might agree with many of Gottlieb's observations and so few of his conclusions. For instance, although I love Jenny Ringer, I agree that she is somewhat underpowered in some Balanchine ballets. Do I think she was poorly cast in Who Cares, or would I prefer to see someone else in that role? Absolutely not! However, I did think Somogyi was the star the night I saw that performance. I think the difference is simply I want to see Martins succeed and Gottlieb doesn't. And by that, I don't mean that Gottlieb wants to see the company fail. I don't know either of these men, but I would assume that anyone who had such a close association with the company would want to see it succeed as an institution. But I think anyone with such personal enmity toward Martins would want to see him have his comeuppance. (I'd certainly feel that way in his position.) And that colors all of his conclusions. Thus, you can "see" what he sees but still violently disagree with him. Where I see Martin's long-term support of Whelan -- despite criticism that she was unsuited to certain roles -- as a triumph for both of them, he sees a fluke driven solely by Whelan's personal dedication. (Her dedication is unquestioned.) When I see a fabulous but young ballerina like Kowroski still growing and adjusting to the repertory, he sees an enigma that isn't being mentored properly. If you don't see NYCB regularly but read these reviews and comments, you might think of NYCB as a company in trouble. That is so sad. Indeed, it is simply a company held to standard like no other. Those of us in the New York area, of course, are used to this from local critics. We see it all the time -- particularly toward our sports teams. (Half the time, even the Yankees are treated like bums.) The only comments by Gottlieb that truly got my goat -- other than the over-the-top asides such as "teach what?" -- was his suggestion that Darci Kistler owes her position in the company to nepotism. I've often shuddered to think what the Martins' bashers would have done to Darci if she was not the supreme dancer that she is and has been for the past 20 years. Well, now we know.

Rereading this thread, I've given some thought to why I might agree with many of Gottlieb's observations and so few of his conclusions. For instance, although I love Jenny Ringer, I agree that she is somewhat underpowered in some Balanchine ballets. Do I think she was poorly cast in Who Cares, or would I prefer to see someone else in that role? Absolutely not! However, I did think Somogyi was the star the night I saw that performance. I think the difference is simply I want to see Martins succeed and Gottlieb doesn't. And by that, I don't mean that Gottlieb wants to see the company fail. I don't know either of these men, but I would assume that anyone who had such a close association with the company would want to see it succeed as an institution. But I think anyone with such personal enmity toward Martins would want to see him have his comeuppance. (I'd certainly feel that way in his position.) And that colors all of his conclusions. Thus, you can "see" what he sees but still violently disagree with him. Where I see Martin's long-term support of Whelan -- despite criticism that she was unsuited to certain roles -- as a triumph for both of them, he sees a fluke driven solely by Whelan's personal dedication. (Her dedication is unquestioned.) When I see a fabulous but young ballerina like Kowroski still growing and adjusting to the repertory, he sees an enigma that isn't being mentored properly. If you don't see NYCB regularly but read these reviews and comments, you might think of NYCB as a company in trouble. That is so sad. Indeed, it is simply a company held to standard like no other. Those of us in the New York area, of course, are used to this from local critics. We see it all the time -- particularly toward our sports teams. (Half the time, even the Yankees are treated like bums.) The only comments by Gottlieb that truly got my goat -- other than the over-the-top asides such as "teach what?" -- was his suggestion that Darci Kistler owes her position in the company to nepotism. I've often shuddered to think what the Martins' bashers would have done to Darci if she was not the supreme dancer that she is and has been for the past 20 years. Well, now we know.

I saw the performance as well -- and second the comments about Evans and Somogyi. Wonderful performances. I thought Kistler turned in a wonderful performance -- it really is a signature role for her. But the standout of the evening for me was Whelan in the divertissement. Transporting. Indeed, a woman in my row repeatedly moaned during the pdd. Although it was slightly irritating, it was a small moan and it was sweet that someone was enjoying the dance with such passion!

I'd do fewer -- this year they had 7 -- and divide up the money differently. Three or four seem optimal to me. I wouldn't spread this out over two seasons -- after all, this project is supposed to be every couple of years. But I would devote more time, money and energy to each of the ballets. One reason many of these ballets seem alike is that a choreographer is asked to parachute in to a company, select dancers and put together something in a very few weeks. To have the most chance for success, they select the obvious dancers (mostly principals and soloists), and dispense with a corps. Costumes are usually minimal -- although this year the costumes seemed particularly pretty in the ballets I saw. I think Martins should divide up the money differently and give experienced choreographers more time and money. Those given more should be expected to spend more time with the company and on rehearsals, employ a larger cast, and do something with the costumes. Ari's idea of a story ballet is a good one -- couldn't one choreographer be chosen specifically to mount a story ballet? (I can't imagine that Martins would object to that for the DP, but given such limited resources it would seem impossible.) If you did four ballets each project, two of which recieved more resources, it would still allow small sums to be spent on fledgling choreographers. And they too would have more rehearsal time. And I would agree that Martins and possibly Wheeldon, not choregraph for the DP. Maybe they should develop another fund for inhouse choreography.

There is a feedback button on the Rose site, and your link made it easy to send my kudos. I too am and editor and journalist, so I make it a practice to send thanks for programming that is of particular interest to me. I know that just a handful of comments can make a difference -- particularly if I agree with it. LOL!

I agree that she came across as very likable -- also as a typical American rather than an ethereal ballerina. It sounds like she is hoping for an acting career after her retirement from dancing, and one reason she decided to retire now rather than later. I found that interesting. I also thought it was simply wonderful that Rose had a ballet dancer on the program. I wish he would do it more often -- after all, he seems to have architects and artists on quite frequently. I think I'm going to write a note to the program thanking them in hopes of encouraging more ballet-related guests.

I saw the piece on opening night, and the "spider movement" was very brief -- but so striking that it stayed with you. I can't imagine anyone performing it so perfectly as Whelan. As for me, I had a mixed reaction to the piece. I thought the movements were amazingly fluid. Beautiful. I wasn't sure how much that was due to the wonderful dancing -- and it was wonderful -- or the choreography. . I also loved the lighting, even if I couldn't detect its meaning. And the costumes were very pretty for a leotard ballet. As for the Ligeti score, I thought it was easier to digest and enjoy than his more recent works. Neverthless, I found my mind wandering about 3/4s through the ballet. It did have the somewhat familiar and unappealling scent of a typical Diamond project ballet. One hopes that next year Wheeldon will slow down a bit and work on at least one ballet with a large NYCB cast. It seems to me that Martins wants to tie Wheeldon to the company but also give him the freedom he wants. I don't think that's a bad thing -- particularly at this stage of Wheeldon's career. It doesn't force Wheeldon to make a choice -- Broadway vs. City Ballet. The Royal vs. City Ballet, etc. It can only give him more experience and help City Ballet in the long run. And isn't that somewhat similar to the relationship Robbins had with the company?

I bought this book not too long ago from Amazon's used bookdealers. I got a great copy, but it cost nearly $40! I would have waited for the paperback reissue if I had known it was coming.

Wow -- this is a tough crowd! I'm not a fan of the Diamond project (although I like the idea of it), and I'm less of a fan of ballet on television. I just don't think it translates well, particularly without costumes and sets. So I didn't have high expectations. Having said that, I thought the company acquitted itself quite well. The dancing was very good. The interviews and backstage stuff was well put together, and provided interesting insights. Martins, I thought, came across very well, despite Beverly Sills fawning, etc. At the very least, he comes across as someone who is willing to put himself on the line, let the chips fall where they may. Some of the ballets that were presented -- Ancient Airs and Dances, Mercurial Manoeuvres, and Red Angels -- have been among the very few that I've liked in the past. Despite being a jazz fan, I've detested Them Twos. I don't like score or the choreography. Neverthless, I agree the Kistler/Soto pdd was much more successful on television than at the NYST. I had the same thought as Amanda and find it interesting. Is it this piece, in particular, or is it a bigger issue about ballet, how it relays intimacy to the audience and how it holds -- or doesn't hold -- the stage. I'd also agree that many of the pieces look similar, and it is one reason I really hate to see a full night of Diamond project ballets. (I think it is much more appealling to set them in a regular repertory evening.) But why is it that they look so much alike? The most obvious reasons are lack of costumes and set and the fact that they usually employ fewer dancers, But it seems to be more than that, and because I'm not an expert in choregraphy I can't really put my finger on it.

I found this perspective interesting, because although I found the evening enjoyable, the two bookends to the evening were quite cerebral. My husband, who likes the ballet but is not a ballet nut, grumbled about the programming all night. He likes more lush selections. Nevertheless, Bobbi must not be alone -- or else she was in the same party as the gentleman who I overheard stating that it was the most enjoyable night at the ballet he's had in a while. In general, I would agree with Bobbi about the quality of the dancing, although I can't compare it with a previous era. I don't like Kammermusik -- and I've had the dubious pleasure of seeing it twice this year. But it's a role that really suits Meunier -- she really stood out this winter when she danced the role alongside a different ballerina. Kowrowski is more than her match, but I found her hand gestures exaggerated to the point of irritation. Are they supposed to be so extreme? Janie Taylor is going to be a magnificent ballerina someday soon, and Tschiakovsky Pas de Deux demonstrates why she is a rising star. All she needs is a bit more of a lyric quality to her dancing -- and I think she's been adding depth all year. Millepied also did a wonderful job. He could become Damian's heir in the jumps and turns category. I think Bobbi was on the money with her description of Mozartiana. Although you couldn't find much fault with the performances of Wendy and Damian, the ballet lacked the ethereal quality it should have. I never saw Farrell dance it, but I have seen Darci Kistler in it and I remember it being appropriately from another world. That quality was definitely missing last night, and I think part of the blame needs to be assigned to the corps. Stravinsky Violin Concerto was quite a cerebral ballet on which to end the evening. I would agree that Ansanelli was the standout of this part of the night. Last year I became somewhat attached to Somogyi, but for some reason I think she's been slightly off in the performances I've seen her in this season and last. I thought it might have had to do with the roles -- and it may -- but last night the rush of excitement I usually have when watching her was missing. Overall, I would agree that the evening was lovely but I did think the programming a bit meat and potatoes. The question of why start the evening with Kammermusik came up on another thread. It seems to me if the evening started with Mozartiana, it would have really felt spartan by the end of the night! And now I know to make sure there is a rouser to end the evening if I bring my husband.

When I first read this thread, I thought "well, why should 30-year-old grad students pay less than anyone else?" Using that logic, we should all pay based on a "needs" basis, which of course is not only impractical but, imo, not right. Then I got to thinking about my own journey to becoming a ballet fan, and I remembered that I first started going to dance performances regularly when I was an undergrad. "Twofers" to Alvin Ailey, Joffrey, and some other modern dance troupes were distributed in college offices and I figured I'd go. That's not quite the same thing as discount student tickets, but I could imagine that students might call the box office inquiring into student discounts and be told simply that they were unavailable. My point is that the Fourth Ring society is a great alternative for people of more limited means who are already interested in NYCB and plan to go more than once a season. Those who are just beginning to sample the cultural experiences of the city might simply bypass NYCB, to NYCB's likely detriment. I do agree that the response to the query was somewhat rude and defensive (even if I agree with some of its sentiments) but I wouldn't hold it against the NYCB management in general. In my experience running large scale web sites and magazines, the person who responds to email -- regardless of title -- might not always be someone with the political skills necessary to deal with the public . Strange, but true.

Well, where does the new choreographic institute, or whatever it is called, come in? I'm a bit confused about the difference between this fundraising program and effort, and the Diamond project, particularly since some of the funding seems to come from the same donor. Other than funding sources, it seems that the Diamond project is designed to be something like a festival, with the choreographic institute taking place every year with a short window for works to be developed. Can anyone explain the difference?

I would agree with your assessment that although I like the idea of the Diamond project, I have not found this series particularly enjoyable. In the past, these works were compressed within two weeks or so, weren't they? If I remember, you saw more than one per night. Thus, you might see a couple of really inferior new ballets that tarnished the evening for any new work that might have been well done. (I don't expect masterworks, but inevitably some of the ballets have been notably unsuccessful.) I've actually liked some of the ballets that proved successful and made it to the repertory once I've seen them standing on their own. This year, all of the new ballets are interspersed with existing repertory, which I think is a much better idea. (Although they could suffer by comparison!) I don't understand your comment that maybe not this company, however. Certainly, I think that Martins emphasis on developing new choreography is one of this major achievements. BTW, hasn't Tanner and others participated in more than one Diamond Project?

I think Leigh's term "stretch queen" is quite apt -- it conjures a wonderful visual memory. Helene is just a wonderful dancer. Despite her age, she continues to dance at a very high level, and her flexibility and motion seem to be extraordinary. I too have wondered why she wasn't used more. It may be simply that her maternity leave fell at a time when she was needed most -- when Kistler began getting injured and Whelan was thrown into absolutely everything. (Wasn't Kyra Nichols on maternity leave around that time too?) Now, of course, there are so many up and coming 20 -somethings that her time has probably passed. Neverthless, despite her advancing age she has danced quite a lot in the last couple of years. As has been mentioned, I particularly love her as the Siren in Prodigal. She exudes a sexiness that I don't think is matched by Kowrowski,whom I love in almost everything. I also think of her as a mainstay of the leotard ballets.

I also subscribe to NYCB each season and use the ticket exchange policy. My subscription is for Thursday nights, but I haven't gone to a Thursday night performance in a year and a half! I no longer work in the city, and its much easier for me to go to weekend performances. But I love my subscription seats and haven't wanted to give them up. Every season I figure, oh, I'll probably go on Thursdays once or twice, but haven't been doing so.

And the ones that voted for the Canadians were Canada, USA, Germany and Japan. Poland and China voted for a tie, numerically, with the technical scores going to S&P, and presentation scores going to the Russians. Judges are also asked to "place" the skaters, which is what counts with a numerical tie. In the case of China and Poland, they voted #1 for the Russians and #2 for S&P.

It seems to me that the skating union gave the gold to S&P so fast in hopes that they could get beyond this scandal -- and quickly. But it's obvious a more thorough investigation and housecleaning has to be conducted. As someone said it wasn't just the French judge that should be punished here. She's the whistle blower, isn't she? It certainly seems scandalous that the other collaborators haven't been punished. What's more, I find it really amazing that this Ukrainian judge, Balkov, is scheduled to continue voting on the ice dancing. And with the full support of Ottavio Cinquanta, the skating union president. Balkov was suspended for only a year after a 1998 scandal in Nagano, where he was apparently caught by a Canadian in a similar incident. Cinquanta defends this as saying he served his suspension, and he has a right to judge again. It seems to me both the public and the athletes deserve better. Judging the Olympics doesn't seem to be a right to me. If this is the attitude Cinquanta and the rest of the skating union take to scandals like this, it's clear that controversy can only help. Without it, it seems there was little incentive to change. [ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: justafan ]

Thanks Alexandra. One of the failings of the book is that you really don't get a feel for how she danced. (Unlike, say, Allegra Kent's autobiography.) It's odd that she had extraordinary technique, because she downplays her technique in the book. She makes a point of saying she resents never having had the opportunity to study with Vaganova, as some of her contemporaries did (ie Ulanova). And she relates a story of Balanchine telling her she needs a good teacher, after she tells him she doesn't study with anyone. Thus, I thought she might have been like Fonteyn -- someone with flawed technique but great presence. I'll take your advice and purchase the "Stars of the Russian Ballet" from Amazon. After first clicking the ad at the top of this page, of course.