SanderO

Just a point of information/question.

I would have thought that classical ballet being rather formal would have a natural filter as far as body types are concerned. Too tall, too long limbs or broad shoulders or whatever would not be advanced to principal status.

I'm not saying that female dancers are clones, but the variation is often quite subtle. And even then, the variations are not necessarily less than perfect. When I see Julie Kent I often think that she is thin... but not too thin. I think her line is beautiful.

In fact most dancers I find beautiful, some are more beautiful! And those preferences for me have more to do with non ballet things... so my judgment is not objective or informed.

Is it possible to be a principal dancer and not be a "thing of beauty"? I think not.

What say you?

What do I know?

Diana Vishneva

Nina Ananiashvili

I got the mailer and Dina Vishneva is not shown as a principal dancer. Is that just for the winter season.. or has she been dropped?

I don't know how many of the BT posters are dancers or former dancers, but they are brilliant, educated and articulate... and I am assuming that at least some of them are/were dancers.

I have to admit that I am / was somewhat surprised for no logical reason except I assumed that all dancers did was work at dance 18 hours a day and had little time to work on the mind. Boy was I wrong! It makes me view dancers in even more awe than I did when I just observed them at their craft.

I think in the end you can't be good at the arts without a good mind which can process content from the world around you. And a good mind without articulation can't understand itself and the world or art. I'll shut up now.

Excuse my ignorance as I have never seen Rudi dance. As far as the dancing, his spinning/turning was simply amazing or did they speed up the film? Was this something he was famous for among other things?

Mel,

Your point is well taken. It's the way authoritarian governments abuse the notion of freedom which is a part of humans (and animals) which is appalling. Seeing how such incredible dancers existed despite of and not because of the Soviet is indeed a lesson that the artist is driven by something inside and their love and passion for art. Rudi seemed to be very in tune with visual beauty and actually cried (so they say) in Notre Dame and I don't think it had a think to do with the Christian god, despite the church being responsible for so much of the art from the dark ages through the enlightenment.

There was no mention of Rudi's religion... unless I missed it. Was he an atheist?

Can I propose Leigh? I think he has a way with words.

I enjoyed the film and how it revealed the complexities that lived within him and how he expressed it as art and passion for life. It's hard to imagine how he found the calm to study and perfect his craft amidst all the swirling forces around him. The dancing footage was fabulous.

It's it amazing how an artist can become a political tool or football? I mean really, what doses dance have to do with communism or capitalism? Great artists are passionate about life.

It showed.

Here's an interesting PR piece about the PBS special on Rudi:

This all sounds like it reduces to some very quantifiable metrics. A dancer of a specific defined height and proportion who can get their body to move in a prescribed "classical" manner would be exhibiting perfect classical line. Is this defined somewhere?

Leonid,

Thank you to that interesting link at the Library of Congress. It provides some informative reading with videos as well.

I think Plato would understand the concept "perfect classical line" and this is obviously something that only some can attain who begin with the "right stuff".

On a meta level, the structure of the Ballet "genre" has its roots in a era which very much was about more rigid structure in society and so forth. While there have always been prodigies who skyrocketed ahead of everyone, the vast majority in all fields seemed to confined to a system of "apprenticeship" before they could be considered "master" in their field.

Fast forward to today and the cult of personality and it is understandable why talented individuals want to be and are put on the fast track to "stardom". Circling back to ballet, it would appear that corp work (I don't know ballet history, just a guess) was the equivalent of "apprenticeship" and the base of the hierarchical structure of the genre. Hierarchies are pyramidal and require a vast base which support the structure above right on up to the pinnacle. This is a very simple and basic notion of structure and it is only in "modern" times that we have discovered other workable and cohesive structures.

So ballet needs the more classical structure to preserve it historical and formal appearance with many corps and fewer soloists and few principals. You can't have a tribe with all Indian chiefs, can you? It appears that the means to build the pyramid is not always aligned with the historical model... and driven somewhat by a worship of the cult of personality associated with youthful excellence. How talented and how young!

When you get on an airplane, you often feel more comfortable with a captain with a little gray on the temples, no? When your own safety is the issue, the notion of "experience" changes.

I haven't a clue how ballet dancers are trained. But it would seem to me that someone who studies ballet will be evaluated by their teachers and whomever may do the casting that a particular dancer is capable or performing some role. While it seems like there would be a progression up from the corps to soloist to principal it seems that the principal roles are often very different and require different skill sets as well as being able to "interpret" a role.

I am not sure how doing time as a corps member would always prepare a dancer to be a principal and might inhibit them. Do most dancers see a vector from corps to principal? Or are there many who have no aspirations for the principal parts?

I would suspect that a highly motivated dancer who shows that they are capable of a principal role could be "tested" before they are actually cast. Someone(s) has to make the decision that that dancer is ready for prime time and pulls the trigger and off they go.

And don't forget that dancers start their studies as young as 5 or 6 and by 18 or 20 they might have been studying for more than 10 years. This is much shorter than the preparation of an engineer before they can be fully qualified for the big time.

Perhaps some Ballet Talkers who are familiar with the culture can explain this process. Is it possible for some director to select a young student dancer and groom them to be a principal right from the get go? But even that, couldn't really be shorting the study. It seems that making a great dancer is a very long process.

I've seen some young dancers in principal roles in R&J at NYCB and they seemed quite capable in the roles... So youth is no impediment to greatness. hahahaha.

Welcome,

What a lovely story.

You're gonna love this place. The posters here are brilliant and are incredibly knowledgeable about ballet and all the arts. Everyday you learn something at BalletTalk.

Don't wait for your 11th... there's more than enough reason to come to NYC and see ballet. We're waiting for you.

The Met Opera book is certainly lovely. Mine is accepting autographs from my favorite singers. Is it true that Nancy Ellison and her husband have donated a huge amount of money to the MetOpera? The play bills list the donors, no?

What is the deal with getting to take photos of the Met and the ABT? I have seen several photographers ensconced in the center of the orchestra at a dress rehearsal, Ms Ellison, and Mr Schiavone among them. Nice gig if you can get it.... ha?

I am sure this book is going to be stunning if the MetOpera one is the model. I'm there.

In the Upper Room has amazing use of color... but it also has that continual anticipation of the never to come crescendo Philip Glass music. Don't you feel drained after seeing it. Like good sex or doing a double diamond shalom without falling? I think Twyla would do... if she hasn't done already... some incredible choreography to Mozart with great color. I don't know how much choreographers think about color... but they should.

There is something to be said for the idea that a presentation needs to stand on its merits. Of course we all bring our own experiences to the theater or presentation. I used the term "goofy" to describe some of what I saw. I don't know what other word to use. It was movement. I don't know how to place value judgments on movement .. serious, less serious, whimsical, goofy and so on. There were things about his choreography I simply did not understand. Why are some of the pieces only men? Or only women? There are so many things I simply could not make sense of, if that is the right word. I suppose I am a prisoner of context and when I have a conflicting context I am confused. I think that is a valid response. I am sorry for my poor communication skills.

I attended a talk at the Met this Spring with Alessandra Ferri who I thought was intelligent, well spoken and had interesting insights about her work as a dancer. She says she's a New Yorker now, but she still has her Italian sensibility. She has a lot to say and says it well.

Ray,

I am unfamiliar w/ MM's work and this was my first exposure so my feelings were based on a very small sample space. I am also an uneducated dance goer, but have been attending on and off for decades and now with more frequency ballet, which I find more interesting for any number of reasons. I have seen PT and I thought he work was very energetic and inspiring. Mind you, not all of the MM was unappealing, but too much of it was. It's a personal thing of course, and I may grow to like his work.

Nothing the matter with abstract art except when I don't like it. There is good non objective art in my opinion and junk. Lots of art today is meant to make you think and is less about "aesthetics". I thought the smudges were visually interesting, but not something I would "hang on my wall".

I suppose, I have opened up to more classical forms in dance which is where ballet is coming from and like classical architecture it has a certain richness that Gehry lacks. Classical expressions have endured for millennium and I suppose that there is an underlying reason for that. Frankly I don't think a lot of what we are shown as modern dance will survive the test of time, but surely some of it will and it should. I can't be more articulate because I only giving my gut reaction. I don't the wide perspective of others, just the narrow prism I see the world through.

I did not get the choreography of Mark Morris. It reminded me of abstract art.. and the backdrop of the stage.., visually interesting but I couldn't really relate the choreography to the Mozart. I love Mozart's work. Perhaps I see Mozart's work as a very structured classical type of music and this choreography often seemed so whimsical and almost "goofy" and the movements to my eye often lacked the musicality of ballet. I grew bored and listened more than watched.

Apparently I don't understand Mark Morris and he is not getting through to me. I suppose when you venture off into such individual approaches to dance, you are not going to get to everyone. Can anyone shed some light on what he's doing? The rehearsal bits they showed did not help a bit in my understanding of his work.

There was a telling bit about his biography where he said he was drawn to dance because his love of Flamenco which is a very rigorous structured style of dance.. but when he couldn't make it when off on found his own way. I'll give him credit for getting as far as he did. He's a dance celeb. But I am not familiar with his work except these pieces and was not impressed.

What's the buzz about MM about?

The bit about Beverly Sills was very enjoyable, I wished that had more of her singing and less MCing and smiling. She had done some amazing performances and she should be remembered as an artist primarily and a arts supporter cheerleader second. My sense... usually wrong.

Are the tears always related to the emotions of the storyline... or can anyone actually cry because of the beauty of the dance? I would think of so they would be tears of joy rather than sorrow.

I haven't shed a tear but I have thrilled very deeply when seeing beautiful dance... and it need not be virtuosity. It almost takes my breath away. I like the feeling... and wonder if dancers and choreographers are aware of how this can effect some people.

Hans,

That was excellent. I am starting to understand how this term is used. Of course it appears to be more than JUST the arrangement of the body, because it has to also deal with.... I think... with the dancer's body... shape, proportion and even musculature.

I would think a dancer with a great body, well proportioned who was able to arrange their parts into a perfect form would them have a perfect line... and classical line would... be represented by formal classical steps, positions etc. I suppose to achieve this requires a complete awareness of the body in space and how to make it appear thus beginning from the skeleton right out to the skin from toe to finger tips.

Check out some of the work of Gene Schiavone:

http://geneschiavone.com/

He has some very lovely and graphically powerful images.

Hyper extension is not classical because?

Is this the result of extreme athleticism?

What's the deal with hyper extensions? Is it virtuosity.

If line involves musicality, then one cannot see it in a still photo... no? What would be the word to describe such a perfect "pose/position" revealed in a photo?

Sorry for all the dumb questions... but this is my learning lab and you geniuses are the best teachers.

Bart,

Thanks, but I must say that that is really a whole lot of words that do not provide a definition. I don't know who that author is but I think he might find a better editor.

Sorry, now in one paragraph, Line is: