justafan

I didn't go to the ballet in the 60s and 70s, and I haven't seen Maya Plisetskaya on video. Yet, I'm fascinated by everything Russian and the ballet. So this autobiography holds a natural interest for me. A few questions for those more knowledgable: from reading this book (and the jacket) it sounds like Plisetskaya was THE Bolshoi ballerina, other than Galina Ulanova. Is that the case? Can anyone describe how she danced? What were her strengths? Does anyone have video recommendations? Although I am only about halfway through the book, I can only concur with what has already been said here. There is less about ballet than there is about the Soviet system. Although interesting, I find that a bit sad as Russian ballet under the Soviets would also be fascinating. It was clearly written for a Russian audience that is familiar with her career. I am dumbstruck, however, to learn that she was married before Schedrin. This is a biography, as has been noted, and one would think the major points of her life would be covered. I now think she viewed it less of a biography than a chance to get some things off her chest.

Somogyi is an amazing allegro dancer with an incredible attack. I wouldn't worry too much about her. There is plenty of rep to suit her, I would think -- and she does seem to be in favor, so she'll get casted. I would agree that her opening night performance was somewhat of a disappointment. I attended with a friend who no longer lives in New York, but was once a faithful NYCB-goer. When I saw Somogyi on the program, I told her she was in for a real treat. I felt I had to eat my words a bit. But then I saw Somgyi's Dewdrop at the Nutcracker. Wow. It was quite a revelation to me. She really did slice through the air, and kept me on the edge of my seat. I've seen lots of Dewdrops, but have never seen that role danced in quite that way. I bet some balletgoers wouldn't like such an aggressive Dewdrop, but it suited me fine. And it made an indelible impression on me. I wouldn't be surprised to see her make other roles her own in the same way.

I'd echo the vote for Sleeping Beauty. ABT is dancing both La Fille Mal Gardee and Onegin next spring in NY. It would seem to make sense to time discussions of those ballets either during or after those performances, no?

This thread caused me to hop over to Amazon to buy Fonteyn video to see for myself. But I'm wondering which one to buy. "An evening with the Royal Ballet?", "Swan Lake"?, "Fonteyn & Nureyev: A perfect Partnership" or "The Margot Fonteyn story" Or something else entirely? Does anyone have suggestions for the first Fonteyn/Nureyev video?. Also, I don't understand Mellisa's comment about Darci Kistler. Can you expand on it? To my eye, Kistler has fine technique, but it is her lyrical qualities as a dancer that make such a wonderful ballerina. It sounds as if you would disagree with one of those opinions. Cargill's comment about the Peter Martins Talk interview, is also interesting. I always wondered who he was referring to, but I thought he was referring to a male dancer.

My first ballet was NYCB's Nutcracker, when I was four or five. This was followed by ballet lessons (that didn't last long as I had little flexibility) and a visit to ABT or NYCB every year or so throughout my childhood. Although I liked the ballet, I never really fell passionately in love with it during my childhood. I think I didn't like some of the full-length ballets (at the time, I found Giselle and the non-NYCB Nutcracker's quite boring.) When I was in college, I started to go to a lot of modern dance. Indeed, I thought of myself as liking dance, not necessarily ballet. So I went to all sorts of dance performances. After a few years of this, however, I started to get a little cynical. So much of modern dance is of uneven quality -- both in performance and choreography. Readers of this board might be horrified to learn of what turned me into a ballet fanatic. It was NYCB's American Music Festival in the 80s, which was a critical disaster. Seeing that Ray Charles was performing with the ballet, I saw an opportunity to take my then boyfriend to a dance performance that he might enjoy. I don't remember much of the performance, other Charles, and that it was mobbed. But I do remember thinking "these people can really dance -- they are far better than what I have been seeing." So I decided to get a subscription to the ballet. I didn't fall passionately in love with the ballet until some time later, when I was transported by Darci Kistler in Duo Concertant. Since that time, I not only have retained my subscription to NYCB, but I now have a new appreciation for Giselle and full length ballets. Martins has really been criticized for things like the American Music Festival by traditonal balletomanes, and I can understand why. Nevertheless, when I go to a performance of something like NYCB with Wynton Marsalis, and see an entirely different audience than is normal, I am heartened by the fact that the audience for ballet is being broadened -- and maybe not for just one night. [ 09-05-2001: Message edited by: justafan ]

As a frequent lurker, I am moved to thank rkoretzky for her faithful -- and insightful -- postings keeping us up to speed with NYCB in Saratoga. It couldn't have been easy to do so, given that she attended each performance. I was also struck by the comment that this board has been an addition to her life, as it has been to mine. (Thank you Alexandra et al.) Now, I wonder who can keep us abreast of of the tour to the UK and Italy?

It's interesting that one can agree with some of his points, but none of his conclusions. The female principal ranks are of the highest caliber I've seen in the 15 years or so that I've been a subscriber. Kistler, Whelan, Kowroski, Ringer, Nichols are ballerinas of the highest rank, IMO. Alexopoulus, Somogyi, Weese and Meunier are all superior talents, and I'm never disappointed to see them on the program. I do agree that the soloists seem to get short shrift -- but that may be a natural result of having so many superior principals. And I agree that he is treating van Kipnis unfairly. What's more, the corps has a number of promising dancers. His point about lack of rehearsals is shared by many, but that seems to me a NYCB trademark going back to the Balanchine days. Maybe its unavoidable due to the large repetory. Gottlieb does have a point about the lackluster schedule, however. But again, balancing the needs for new choreography with the Balanchine and Robbins repertory is a difficult act. Most of the new ballets were those that recieved generally good reviews, and hadn't been rotated through the subscription evenings. And sometimes, a ballet needs to have more than one viewing to be truly appreciated. I found that with Appalachia Waltz -- a ballet I enjoyed more on second viewing. Of course, that doesn't apply to all of these ballets. I remember Burleske, a Martins ballet that premiered on Valentine's Day, getting quite a good review from the Times. I found it almost unwatchable it was so boring, even though I love Kistler in almost anything. I don't think this in any way adds up to a company in trouble -- particularly when it has such a stable of fine dancers. [ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: justafan ]

I think that the issue of critics is different from that of audiences. I would agree that in general, the New York critics are Balanchine-centric. But not necessarily for the same reason as audiences. That could be a very different discussion! And from an audience perspective, I wouldn't dream of speaking for all New Yorkers -- or those from the tri-state region --but I can detail my own experience. I am Balanchine and NYCB-centric, even though I frequently see other companies/choreographers throughout the world and in NY. Maybe Leigh was offended by the idea that New Yorkers see only NYCB. That's obviously not true, as we have more opportunities than almost any other audience to see various ballets. Neverthless, I would agree with the point that most people tend to favor what they are familiar with and what they see the most. (That argument, of course, cuts both ways. Because in NY we have the opportunity to see a lot of Balanchine in addition to other choreography, we have a better appreciation of its greatness!) For me, a key factor in my fondness for Balanchine (and NYCB) is its varied repertory. Very few ballets are alike, and for the most part, you see three in an evening. In my experience, if you go the ballet VERY regularly, it is natural to want to see a varied rep performed at the highest level. To me, that's NYCB. Still, I think in sheer numbers, more ballet-goers in NY are ABT fans. But my guess is that many of them (not all, of course) are casual fans -- they go once or twice a year. I was exposed to Balanchine first (what NY mother didn't take her daughter to the Nutcracker for her first ballet) but saw more of ABT as a child. My mother was a casual ballet-goer. She went once or twice a year, and thus chose the romantic classics. Because I lived in NY, my education could extend to all sorts of dance. In my early adulthood, I attended performances pretty much every week -- primarily modern choreographers (Paul Taylor, Alvin Ailey, Merce Cunningham and a host of others.) I believe that education really informed my taste in ballet. I tired of modern (too many bad performances of lesser choreographers). But even though I very much enjoy the romantic classics, I still think of them as a treat -- not dance at its essence. NYCB, for me, combines the best of both worlds. Purity of dance and variety, combined with the virtuosity and lyricism of the classics. One other case in point: About 10 years ago, I started going to ballet regularly with a friend. She had a subscription to ABT. I had a subscription to NYCB. We'd join one another at the performances and thoroughly enjoyed both companies. Nevertheless, we had a great time comparing technique, dancers and rep, both staking claims to their favored company. After about three years of this, my friend turned very sheepish and said "you know, after all this, I think I agree with you and prefer NYCB." She retained her ABT subscription. And Giselle will always be her favorite ballet. But her eye had been trained to appreciate the speed and intricacy of the Balanchine steps. [ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: justafan ]

I was at last night's performance as well. I agree that Korbes was lovely. She was very youthful in the role, which is a change from the last two times I've seen it performed (Kistler and Whelan.) I do think Korbes needs a bit more polish in her port de bras, but otherwise, she did a wonderful job. As you said, Boal danced as well as I've seen him dance. And Somogyi, well. . . I can't say enough about her virtuosity and energy. We were also treated to Evans as Puck. He is just stupendous. There were a lot of substituions last night, not just Kistler. Somogyi danced in place of Meunier, as well. Although I like Meunier, I can't say I was disappointed by Somogyi. And Fayette danced in place of Askegard as the Titania's Cavalier. All did well, but I wonder what happened -- were people really sick/injured, or was there just a reshuffling for scheduling reasons?

I saw 4T's last night as well, and I agree Amanda. I don't think Evans looked sad OR lethargic. On the other hand, I never saw Luders do the part (or the video) and I have a tough time envisioning that variation as embodying a phlegmatic, sad or lethargic temperment. Why is that? Is it the music, the dancing or the choreography? In fact, I think that the choreography in the entire ballet is quite subtle, in terms of mimicking melancholic, sanguinic, phlegmatic, and choleric temperments. The first variation does not seem to embody melancholy to me. And the women's parts, even though they are different from one another, are not obvious reflections of the temperments that they are supposed to represent. Overall, the subtlety seems refreshing. Balanchine doesn't need to draw us a detailed map, complete with mime, IMO. In any case, Evans did indeed dance beautifully. As you say, a work of art. So even if he didn't seem phelgmatic to me, he was totally enjoyable.

I had to chuckle when I read your comment, Alexandra. I saw this review yesterday and it sort of took my breath away with its absolutism. For some time I've read Greskovic's reviews of NYCB and Martins and have been simply amazed at his nastiness. I've chalked it up to just one more critic with an ax to grind against Martins. Now I see him in a new light -- obviously his venom is not limited to NYCB. Why do some critics believe that that they have to go over the top to make their point? For me, it always has the opposite effect. It discredits their point of view.

I hesitate to continue this thread about a performance of last week -- particularly since this is my first post and Alexandra gave such a kind wrap up. But I did have a couple of points to add. About Appalachia Waltz: I echo the praise for both the ballet, and Evans and Somogyi. They were amazing. But I thought it interesting that I saw this ballet last year at its premiere, and I liked it far more this time around. I really don't think it was due to the performance. Rather, I think it has more to do with the Diamond Project. There seems to be a big problem -- at least for me -- with putting a number of unknown and uneven ballets on the same program. Sadly, I don't expect to fall in love with a Diamond Project ballet. So, whether that expectation impacts my enjoyment of these ballets or whether the uneven quality of the evening drags everything down for me, I am never enthralled by the Diamond Project. My differing view of Appalachia Waltz the other night has given me pause. As for the Four Seasons, I was also wowed by Antonio Carmena. Have I been sleeping? Where did he come from? Although I am a longtime NYCB subscriber, I've never taken such notice of him before. And I have to disagree with the criticism of Damian Woetzel. Yes, he slipped a few times. But his recovery and his confidence in doing so were a sheer joy to watch.It might have been an off-night for Woetzel, but like most of the audience, I'd take an off-night from him before a great night from almost anyone else. And the adoration he invokes from the NYCB audience seems to me palpable. I always wonder why his fame is somewhat limited to New York, when a dancer like Ethan Steifel -- even before the recent movie -- seems to be known worldwide. Although Steifel is a fine dancer, (like Martins) I would choose Woetzel over him any day.