SanderO

Vishneva thought about figure skating but decided to get serious and has become one of the worlds best ballerinas.

Thanks to those who guided her in this decision. Our gain. Imagine see a genius like her fooling around on ice.

It looks like a 14 year old who speaks like an 8 year old is the US champion... but she is not old enough to go to the Worlds. This is appalling. She may be very skilled but something is very wrong here in my opinion.

Why are these children allowed to compete in these things?

This is really exploitation of children in my opinion.

I heard Nessun Dorma among other pop tunes kids would dance to.

Why do these competitions allow 14 yr olds to compete as adults? Arbitrary age limits make non sense, but I looked at one of these girls and I thought.. she is a child not a woman.

Why don't they have junior and adult division.. or do they?

Is anyone disturbed by this age thing or not? I am very off put by the promotion of children as "artists".

As far as these children as ballet dancers.... I can't imagine a 14 yr old as a principal dancer in ballet... maybe when she is 28?

Can someone explain the spitting over the shoulder custom?

I suspect that you can find dancers from the past who are amazing by ANY standards, but I thought the thrust was more about the entire performance genre... are most dancers performing at a higher level, are the corps more in sync today etc? Aside from perhaps choreography which seems to need some time to test it out... my sense is performances SHOULD be getting better.

But Ostrich raises the issue, assuming his observations ring true, that technique has evolved. Are these changes just moving horizontally.. ie a different approach, or have our contemporary dancers, teachers, choreography moved "technique" up a notch?

My gut feeling is that this geniuses study movement, and the body very closely and have some sort of platonic ideal that they try to acheive and the genre is improving.. that is getting closer to some sort of ideal. But the question is... whose ideal? Why is a high extension "more perfect" than a 90° one?

Anyone have the answer?

I am can understand how there could be nervousness and anxiety if one felt that they or the cast or partner was not fully prepared. I think that might be what many who do not perform think of a stage fright. I am not a performer and so I can project what this might be like. YIKES.

On the other hand, I am sure that many performers love being on stage and the experience is transformative and they can't wait for the curtain to rise and for them to appear under the glare of stage lights.

Since the house is usually so dark and the light so bright, typically, it must be rather impossible to see the audience, and regardless see any reaction in any but the few close up... after all most of the audience requires binocs to see the performers facial expressions. Of course there is the applause at the appropriate times. So, in a sense being on stage might be like going into one of the interrogation rooms with a one way mirror, you can't see those who are observing you, but you know they are right there.

Then of course, there is the issue that you need to perform the work and be into it and not distracted by the reaction to it by the audience... a strange dichotomy. You perform for them (and you) but you don't want them to break the moment and the concentration by being too present. I find it hard to imagine what that emotional space must be like... and then of course, the performers come and go off the stage into the wings, back down to "reality", perhaps waiting for another turn. When you think of 20 or 40 or more even, people working as one on that stage creating those exquisite illusions of reality or the reality of illusions, it boggles the mind.

Performing dance on stage appears very emotionally (and of course physically) demanding, doesn't it? Or is it ever just fun?

Bart,

Your post made me, and I am quite pleased I spent the time, view the film. As someone with little knowledge of ballet and its history except what I am reading on BT, I found the film to be a wonderful picture of Ballet, politics and this remarkable woman of ballet. The dubbing made it hard to understand... or was it the poor sound quality in general? The sets and costumes in the film are wonderful as well and really set the mood beautifully for the romantic story or this real life queen of ballet.

Pavlova was remarkable and driven and danced non stop around the world for almost 3 decades until she succumbed to pnuemonia before the age of 50. Everything she did, she did it with style and panache. What a great dame of ballet. I thought the actress who played her was stunning.

I would recommend it to those who want to get a peak at that period in the early 20th century when Russia gave the world ballet in no small part through the efforts of Ms Pavlova and her impresario friends. You get to see Petipa, Chechetti, Diagalev, Najinsky Saint Sains to name a few who are so important to what ballet is today.

Her entire life and death was like one of the romantic characters we see on stage in opera or ballet and it makes for a good movie was well. (Martin Scorsese plays a part too.)

Anna Pavlova left her mark on millions of people, even those who never saw her dance. Thanks for the link... it made for a lovely night in front of the small screen.

I am sorry if that offended others. I really see the AA as part of the dumbing down of what can be a rather high art form.

The purpose if only to gin up box office and art films get little attention. I am sorry, but I won't put on rose colored glasses and see this award ceremony as anything but.

In fact companies are campaigning films just for the reward it might bring with a win. The TV and the media get in the act as well as the haute couture industry and all the red carpet nonsense. Marketing marketing PR PR and more of the same.

Capitalism can ruin anything and the Academy Award Ceremonies are a prime example.

Color me cynical and that is about as far away from esoteric ballet discussions as I can think.

I hardly attend cinema anymore. Most is rubbish. The theatres are way overpriced, dirty ad noisy.

Hollywood has now given cinema a bad rep. The only movie we saw in 07 was Sicko. But we knew what he was telling us without seeing it on the silver screen.

The award ceremonies are marketing exercises. Screw that.

I find figure skating pales in comparison to ballet. And most of the costumes are so tacky. I recently popped on the telly to see Sarah Brightman singing along with some skating thingy. It was embarrassing.

Why is Sarah so annoying?

Alexandra,

I used the athlete as an analogy and did not mean to focus my comment on only the athleticism of ballet.

I would think you could A/B all the things you mentioned, epaulement, for example, of a dancer to those doing the same role today. I still maintain that today's artists are likely, as a rule, more perfected than those in the past. Classical choreography is another matter. To me this would be like someone tying to imitate Mozart, I sense that they couldn't cute it.

I have the same feeling about film making. There is lots of crap today, but some actors and cinematographers have really move the form ahead. It's part of progress for things to improve and I think it happens in ballet. I think it happens in a company over time.. it gets better or should. It happens to individual dancers in their own evolution... they get better over time.

Obviously, this trajectory cannot be endless and is limited. But I sense that devoted practitioners are improving on the past in all ways, some more than others.

Well, being completely ignorant of ballet history all you can rely on would be films and you could do some A/B comparisons of classic ballets.. Swan Lake whatever and review the performances compared with some of the 2008 company performances.

My sense is that in A/B comparisons Matthew would be correct. I say this because I believe that over time things get perfected even though the amount of incremental change gets smaller as time marches on.

Look at Olympic competitions, athletes ARE getting better, running faster, jumping higher and so forth. I would think the same would apply to ballet... more perfect extensions, high jumps and so forth. I have no evidence for this claim, but I suspect a study of the old films will indicate that today's dancers are a bit better... at least in the virtuosity WOW stuff.

I don't think the same is happening in Opera however. Voices are different but training a voice is not the same as training an entire body and moving it in dance.

If you don't preserve the classics then you have destroyed ... or at least completely evolved the medium into "dance"... anything goes.

It would equivalent to removing all the classic works of art from the museums and only mounting contemporary art.

Dance unlike painting or sculpture is a performance art and needs to be preserved real time.. It can't live on a wall in the museum.

We need to preserve the classics and we also need to encourage new artists and choreographers and the public needs to understand what is at stake.

I think classical ballet should be both frozen in time and preserved as a window into history. But I also think that contemporary SHOULD interpret the classics. I want both. Opera is doing all these "re-do" to make them more appropriate to the contemporary aesthetics.

Watching Barber of Seville last night at the MetOpera I was imagining what Mozart would have thought of the new production and I think he would have loved it. Why not? It was visually interesting and the music and story were preserved.

One observation I made last night is that most (not all) of the re do's of classics can look very new, but usually maintain somethings very historically accurate or referential.. such as costumes. But seeing the full out classic version is a real treat and journey into history.

People involved in all the aspects of classical performances are creative and not simply copy cats and want to contribute something and thanks for that.

I am in both groups of Sandy. I take the binocs to all performances and rarely sit in the orchestra as I like somewhat of a bird's eye view of dance. I don't like the nose bleed seats at Lincoln center.

Binocs used in the Grand Tied or Dress Circle do not compress the field of view as much as they do when seated in the orchestra. Grand Tier or Parterre are, in my mind the optimal seats (first few rows), but these are very expensive seats.

From that far back you cannot read a facial expression without a binoc, you cannot see some of exquisite detail of the hands, or even some of the port du bras. With the unaided eye you do see the entire sweep of the choreography. It like looking at a forest or looking at the trees in the forest. Both are interesting and worthy of a look.

Since I return to see a performance several times, I do get to see the forest and all the varied trees in it.

It's a crazy question because it goes to what we each find beautiful as well as what the conventional wisdom on the subject is.

I find many ballerinas stunning so it's hard to choose and why bother... we are blessed to have so many beauties with such talent and dedication to thrill us on stage.

The one who is dancing at the moment is the most beautiful!

Usually the dancers are on stage making dinner plans, gossiping and having a grand ole time

That's an uninspiring thought. You want to believe that they are really into the emotion of what they are doing... even it is very esoteric movement aesthetics... and not characters interacting.

On the broader topic of the use of binocs, what are other "looking at" with the increased magnification of vision?

Do you look at faces, feet, hands... costume details.. all of the above.

Does the stage make look odd under such magnification?

I find that without binocs and sitting back, I cannot read facial expressions and this is something I realize I don't want to miss in some ballets... such as Manon or R+J... other ballets the binocs provide way too narrow a view and I feel you miss the big picture like the wonderful corps work in Giselle or Swan Lake.

Which ballets do you feel binocs make a real difference to the experience and which ones can you do without them?

Casting rules of course, but as Aurora notes you can switch out. I try to find a sub with the casting I like and go from there, but that my question still remains:

Fewer performances with better seats

or

More performances in cheaper seats?

Speaking of renewing.... would you choose more performances with worse seats (higher up) or fewer performances with better seats? This assumes you have a fixed tix budget. I have selected one subscription and 2 single performances in the GT. What say you?

All I want every day is a peaceful world with less suffering.

Ballet is a rather structured and rigorous artform which is performed on a stage in front of an audience with live or recorded music, sets and so forth in "set pieces" which are choreographed, costumes and sets and all. We all love this.

But I was thinking, you have these trained dancers with all this "energy" in their body and do they have just let loose somewhere like a mountain top, or a gorgeous valley, under a sunset... along the seaside. I would think that the beauty of nature might inspire some dancers to dance almost spontaneously. Do they ever? Or are they only wind up and release on a stage?

I suppose that former dancers and choreographers might know of this, as it would be rather private. But I can't imagine someone who has all that movement energy wouldn't aside from their formal settings. Or do they let loose at a disco or something?

Any clues?

There are many forms of intelligence, verbal, mathematical, musical, movement, artistic and so forth. Some are gifted in one, some in several. While it's nice to think that people who have movement (dance) intelligence (skill) can be articulate and reflexive about what they do, don't expect it.

The creative process does require a certain level of thinking, analysis, knowledge and so forth, but I would think that many dancers are not the least bit creative. What they are is a "vessel" which dance can be created "on". I would expect a fair number of movement geniuses, including atheletes to be as inarticulate as the village idiot or as articulate as Shakespeare. The ones who can, do, the others who can't, shouldn't (probably).

But everyone is entitled to express themselves as they see fit.

Blogs are not meant as well crafted critique of ballet. They are simply a personal place to

"sound off" on whatever floats your boat. Dancers might range around dancer themes, but why should they be writing high brow critique? And why must critics be dancers to write about it? Of course to be a good critic you need to know the subject, the history of the genre, the current environment and then be a wordsmith who can convey something about the work that others may not see, or perhaps convery it more clearly.

I attended a Ferri presentation and she is not a native English speaker, but she was very powerful in conveying herself. Who cares? She's not asking to be graded in public speaking or English locution. She cam through loud and clear with her spoken English as she does on her toes.