stan

The "bad blood" goes back to the days when Gottlieb was editor of the New Yorker and Arlene Croce was turning on Martins. See, for example, "The Balanchine Show" from 6/7/93 (reprinted in Writing in the Dark, Dancing in the New Yorker) in which she asserts that "Today, the ruin [of NYCB] is all but complete." Martins understandably took offense at this, blamed Gottlieb for allowing the piece to be published, and forced him off the board.

Lara, I hadn't read any notices because I didn't want to be influenced one way or the other but I see we are of the same mind. As to the "cutting the dance space in half" point, here's an example of what annoyed me. During the Peasant PDD, the guy does some tours en l'air, but since he only has half the stage to work with, he just does a semi-circle. Someone in a "great moments in ballet" thread mentioned that one of his favorite moments of all time was Baryshnikov doing the brisees en volante in Act II. This is also one of my strongest memories from those classic performances of the 70s. Here, instead of brisees, we get Murru going up and down like a jumping jack. What is the point? They used to have some pretty bizarre productions of Wagner in Bayreuth, but since it never occurred to anyone to change Wagner's music, the singers soldiered on and often had a great success in spite of the weird staging. Ballet, of course, is different and no one wants museum-like reproductions of 19th century stagings. But surely there has to be some anchor to tradition and surely you should have dramatic reasons for the changes. Here, as I've noted, I thought most of the changes were simply perverse. Certainly, if the point was to highlight the drama, that didn't work since she made a hash of the drama in any event.

Doubtless I'm in the minority on this (the audience did go wild at the end) but I hated it. I've been a huge Sylvie fan for many years and loved everything she's done from the classics to William Forsythe (and including that TV thing; what was it called, Wet Woman?). But this was just bad. It seemed like every choice she made was not just wrong but perverse. The costumes: maybe those of you in the orchestra were luckier but from my lofty perch in the 5th ring, I couldn't see any feet at all. And there was no differentiation between the peasants and the royals. For a while I couldn't figure out who Bathilde was. The sets: Not only did the moving wall have no discernible dramatic point but it also served to cut the dancing area in half. I felt like we were back at City Center. And the second act! What's the deal with those Stonehenge-like boulders? For a few minutes I had the horrifying sense that the rocks were going to stay there for the entire act. Fortunately they were lifted and we got, what exactly, some sort of crop circle in Kansas at high noon? Maybe you could put up with the bizarre staging if the dancing carried the day, but it didn't. I have been to many Giselles, good, bad and indifferent. (For the record, the best was Makarova and Baryshnikov back in the 70's). I have never until now been to a Giselle that left me completely cold.

I didn't much care for Amarcord because I had no idea what was going on and the rather extensive program notes in the Playbill weren't much help. I thought it might be because I had never seen the movie. But then I read Clive's review (he also hated it) and he said: "It might have meant more to people who didn't remember the original movie, but I doubt it." As far as Carmen is concerned, I'm not sure I would describe Durante as a cold fish, but I certainly agree that there are no sparks and that is something that's disastrous for Carmen. I had the same problem with the opera which I saw last season at the Met. Borodina is a wonderful singer but she's just not sexy. There's clearly a limit to how far technique will take you.

Martins is what, 50 something? That means that, unless he gets bored, he's going to be around at least 10 and maybe 20 or more years, so it's a bit premature to be writing his obit.

My resume used to have an "Other Interests" section which recited simply: "Opera and ballet". Then it occurred to me (for the reasons Ed mentioned) that I probably ought to balance that out with: "Basketball and running (3:51 NYC marathon)." Finally, I just chucked the whole thing.

How about this: the other day I heard that a couple of people were fired. I didn't post anything on this because: (a) given the source, the information was at least double (and likely triple or more) hearsay; and (B) my supposition is that if word gets around (whether correct or not) that you were fired, it might make it more difficult to get a new job. On the other hand my source has been accurate in the past and a post might lead to an interesting exchange along the lines of "Why in God's name does he fire X, while keeping Y?" Any thoughts on this?

Speaking of Quinn, was it my imagination or was there a false start at the beginning of the second scene. I had the impression that one of the winds blew (so to speak) his entrance.

Carla Körbes made an unscheduled debut Thursday night (Darci cancelled). I thought she was sensational -- regal and completely at ease as if she was born to the role. Boal was as impressive as I've seen him recently. And what about those doubles by Jennie Somogyi! The house was packed last night as well. I got the impression there were a lot of non-regulars.

"The divertissement is the Mendelssohn string symphony (no. 9), written when Mendelssohn was fourteen." --Leigh I was going to ask how is it that he wrote his ninth symphony at the age of 14, but a quick check of Grove confirms this is correct. Apparently he wrote a dozen or so string sinfonia at an early age. The Scottish Symphony (no. 3), in contrast, was written near the end of his life. [ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Stan ]

I agree, it's a spectacular reference book but with some odd omissions. For example, why does he not refer to his Sylvia pas de deux which we have talked about elsewhere? Luckily, I also have Nancy Reynolds' Repertory in Review which is another great reference book. If you want something to read cover to cover, I suggest Arlene Croce's collected New Yorker pieces which have just been republished as "Writing in the Dark, Dancing in the New Yorker."

The NYCB Winter season typically runs through the end of February and I can advise for sure that the City Opera opens on March 1, so there will certainly be no prime time ballet around March 23. Probably the Joyce Theatre would have something going. City Center often hosts travelling troupes.

Incidentally the Cornejo/Reyes Bluebird was the other thing that brought down the house on Saturday.

Re PAMTGG: the old timers used to call it PAM-TA-GAGA which pretty much summarized their memories of it. One "lost" ballet, though not by Balanchine,that I remember with some fondness is John Taras's black leather version of Daphnis & Chloe, done for the Ravel festival and never seen since. The fabulous cast included the two Peters (Martins and Schaufuss), Karin von Aroldingen and my all-time favorite member of the corps who never made it, Nina Fedorova.

Finally got to see the Spectacular last night and, in view of the comments, I was particularly interested in the Tchaikovsky PD. Though I haven't been a fan of Corella, I thought he and Kent did a fabulous job and deservedly brought down the house. As far as "deviations" are concerned, there is one thing he did that I've never seen before in this piece: during what I believe are the tours a la seconde just before the (incredible) pirouette, he does a sort of hop step, the effect of which is quite astonishing. The only other person I've seen do this is Damian in Four Seasons. Two questions: is there a name for what he does? And do the purists object to this sort of interpolation?

While I'm not one of those "Everything has gone to hell since Peter took over" types like Arlene Croce, there are some things about Peter that really annoy me. His casting (haven't seen Monique Meunier all season), his curious obsession with the music of Peter Torke. Most of all, his repertory decisions. Last night I was listening to Jellinek who was featuring Chabrier's Le Roi malgre lui. When they got to the Fete Polonaise, I said that's terrific ballet music. My friend said that she thought Balanchine had used it. Some slight research revealed that Bouree Fantasque had been done in 1949 for Tallchief, LeClerq and Robbins. It was also revived for a few performances in the Balanchine Festival in 1993. Since then, to my knowledge, it has not been done. Another story. In one of my other chat groups, the discussion for some reason turned to favorite ballet music. Someone said that his favorite score was Delibes Sylvia. As the so-called ballet "expert" in the group, I knowledgeably remarked that Delibes was one of Balanchine's favorite composers and that that were a few Delibes pieces in the current repertoire but not Sylvia. What I had forgotten was that Balanchine had in fact done a Sylvia pas de deux (again for Tallchief) that was likewise revived for the festival and likewise forgotten. My question is: why go to the trouble and expense of reviving (and perhaps reconstructing) these ballets and then forget about them? And it's not just "lost" ballets. When's the last time we've seen Bournonville Divertissements? Is there some logical reason for this or is Peter just being perverse, as to to say "I have some wonderful Balanchine ballets in my repertory but you're not going to see them; instead I'm going to make you sit through my latest collaboration with Torke.

What about Rojo's quadruple fouetté that Kisselgoff reported on today. Can anyone confirm it? And is ballet in any danger of devolving into figure skating?

What's the thing that Odette does with her arms just before her exit in Act II when she's boureeing across the stage with her back to the audience? When it's done right (and maybe you have to be double-jointed to do it right), there's a magical sensation of utter fluidity, as if there were no bones in the arms. I missed that in Kent's performance. The Firebird does the same sort of thing just before her exit and I thought Bouder was better. FWIW, the best I ever saw was Makarova.

Among the other felicities of the new Tanner was some excellent piano work by Susan Webster. I particularly enjoyed Carla Körbes performance in the Romanza. The costumes were done by Carole Divet whom I remember as a corps member from ten or so years ago. She now works in the Costume Dep't. There were a bit garish but I wasn't particularly bothered by them. After her star turn in the Tanner, Bouder returned to the corps in the pas de cinq of Chaconne where she was joined by Alina Dronova who is so new that she isn't even listed in the corps. Is she an apprentice from the School?

What's the deal with the two Rothbarts? Is this just Kevin trying to be different or is there some dramatic point which completely escaped me? In Friday's performance, Julie Kent was lovely, although she isn't my favorite Swan Queen. Corella, typically, was all flash and little substance. Needless to say, the audience went wild.

Bouder substituted again for Tracey in Firebird last night. I saw Tracey earlier in the season in this role and frankly I prefer Bouder's commanding presence. There were no jitters whatsoever last night and the audience loved it.

Here's a question. There was a clue in the New York Times crossword the other day, "Kirov debutant in 1928", the answer being ULANOVA. Ulanova's obit in the Times said that in 1928 it was still the Maryinsky. Another source said that in 1928 it was called the State Academic Theatre for Ballet and Opera, but confirmed that "Kirov" wasn't added until the mid-30s. Does anyone know the facts? Also, what about this story that the reason Ulanova went to the Bolshoi is that Stalin was a big fan and wanted her in Moscow?