Alla

I wonder if there might be a connection here with the Nadine Meisner article posted on Links today, at the end of which she wonders if young Wheeldon has the "disruptive" fire needed to push the art form forward. Her phrase "freshness without disruption" seems to be a perfect description of the Millennial generation, at least as it's pictured in this NYT article. Wheeldon isn't a Millennial, but he's in the ballpark.

Hi all. I made the long trek out to Long Island from Manhattan Friday night to see the company at the Tilles Center. Despite a cold and some rather unreliable cabbies , I enjoyed the performance. The house was pretty full, though again with lots of people who didn't seem to have a clue about ballet. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a shame that more real ballet fans in NYC won't get to see the company this time around. The program was Scotch Symphony (Du and Fagundes), Momentum/Movements (Du and Fournier), Duo Concertant (Huys and Magnicaballi), and Apollo (Huys, Magnicaballi, Fournier, and Goh). My impressions were very similar to those of others here. I was particularly impressed with the corps, especially in Monumentum/Movements -- lots of detail, energy, clarity of line, rhythmic sensitivity. A beautiful performance of those two pieces. Huys and Magnicaballi got off to a rather hurried start in Duo, but their trust and sense of fun grew immensely as it went on. I liked Magnicaballi's flirty shoulders at the beginning! As for Apollo, the restored parts at the beginning and end are magnificent. Huys was a very refined Apollo, very light and clear. The three women looked slightly jittery; though her dancing was fine, Goh never quite got hold of her character. Fournier was very careful as Polyhymnia; her reserve was not as noticeable a problem here as in Monumentum/Movements, but it still dragged things down a bit. She is technically quite strong, but she needs to learn the confidence to take some risks. On the whole I thought the confidence level among the dancers was not too high -- someone here called it a lack of star power. Or maybe they are just exhausted -- after the show I saw them filing out to their bus, looking completely drained. Incidentally, on Friday the music was taped, except for in Duo. Dancing to taped music is in itself somewhat stressful! That said, there's no disputing the magic of Farrell's coaching and staging. In this performance, these ballets were brighter and fresher than I've ever seen them. [ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Alla ]

I was in my office 30 blocks up from the WTC when it happened. There was smoke billowing down the streets, then a giant rumble. One of my good friends was two blocks away when it happened; he is okay, thank God, but he said it was just unbelievable, the debris, the crowds, the fear that at any second another building might blow up. You just can't believe the sight when you look down 5th Avenue: there's nothing there at the end of the island. On the street there are hundreds of people being led up from downtown covered in soot and debris, hugging each other, trying to call their loved ones. There are just no words.

No, but some Sleepwalkers could. ;)

Essentially, I agree with your position. Of course the main thing is to look at this particular dancer's interpretation. But any good criticism requires points of reference. When you're talking about a role that has had many interpreters, and one or two who have been "definitive," it seems only right that that history should be taken into account when analyzing a particular interpretation. People still refer to Olivier's Hamlet when discussing Hamlets of today, and so they should. When an actor or dancer or singer takes on a role, he puts himself in the line of those who have formerly done it, and I don't see a problem with using that standard in one's criticism. As for comparing dancers themselves (rather than the interpretation of a role), that's obviously more dangerous. There may be a risk of not paying full attention to this dancer's characteristics, of letting a comparison do the work of description. But on the whole I think it helps more than it hurts. I am always interested to hear that some dancer is "after the fashion of" another dancer. It helps me to distinguish better what I'm looking at. There are very few dancers who can't be usefully described in terms of dancers who have gone before -- there's a good reason we call those few "incomparable"!

Alexandra, I couldn't agree more. Definitely two kinds of poets: the "wandered lonely as a cloud" types, and the "Fill high the bowl with Samian wine!" types. The former die in the countryside from tuberculosis, the latter from leaping off a cliff in despair or being gored by a bull. But what's the difference between poet (whichever sort) and prince? For one thing, the Prince's hair is never tousled. In terms of roles, both poet and prince are usually searching for something, but (in my mind, anyway) the poet searches in a private way, usually at night, while the prince's conflicts happen more in public. Siegfried definitely crosses this divide several times in the course of "Swan Lake." The part Nikolaj Hubbe (speaking of Danes) did in the pas de deux of Twyla Tharp's "Beethoven Seventh" last year was very Byronic. He has another Poet role in Balanchine's "La Sonnambula." Where (Danes again!) does Erik Bruhn fit into all this? [ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Alla ]

Leigh, I like that idea a lot. Angle has a sort of brooding quality onstage -- he'd seem to be a natural "poet" -- but "La Source" would be a perfect testing ground. He's already a terrific partner, and I'd love to see him grow to be a (much needed) prince at NYCB. Any other "poet" types come to mind?

Estelle, those links were great (sorry for the delay in responding!). And thanks, Alexandra, for such a helpful explanation.

It's online, too (scroll down a little): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...72521-3,00.html Does anyone know if the Nijinsky program will be coming to the East Coast?

Leigh, what about Jared Angle? He has a long way to go, but I can see him doing a gorgeous job with, say, the solo in "Square Dance." Of the young men moving up in the soloist ranks, he seems to have the purest technique. [ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Alla ]

Very glad to hear the news about Boal.

Novice's question: Alexandra, could you say a little more about why it's controversial to make comparisons in a newspaper review? [ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Alla ]

A path into the work is for me the most important thing a critic can give. I'm always interested to read how a certain ballerina interpreted a role (and whether a certain writer thinks she's worth going to see), but I'm more interested to know how that interpretation fits into the work as a whole -- what in the ballet it illuminates. In that regard, essayists are probably more useful (for me) than reviewers, because essayists can bring to their writing more history, more extended reflections on principles of style and relations between music and choreography and so on. Reading dance criticism (as opposed to reviews), you don't have to depend so much on the particular writer's taste; you can absorb (and agree or take issue with) a whole framework of interpretation. What I want is to be given a wiser set of eyes, a more intelligent way of perceiving things, so that when I go to see a ballet I can respond not just to the particularities of this performance but to the whole work, with all its historical, dramatic, and stylistic resonances. But of course, there are very few dance critics who have the chops (not to speak of the column inches) to offer that sort of education. ;)

FYI, at 5 pm (Eastern time) this evening and tomorrow at 11 am, the Bravo channel is showing a documentary on Nureyev.

Thanks for all these robust opinions! dirac, that assessment seems incredibly sensible. And I agree with Alexandra that in this and many other academic/critical takes on the classics, there's a lack of appreciation for the complex contexts of these works. What bothers me is the assumption that works of art which seem to say things we may now disapprove of therefore become fair game to be mocked and savaged, or simply ignored. Dances (modern dances, too) have their framework of conventions, just like poems and plays and paintings do. If one is going to look at a classic ballet, the least one could do is let one's mind and emotions play within the ballet's conventions for a little while, rather than instantly rejecting them as not being in line with our (supposedly openminded) 21st-century ideas! That approach just seems to end in more ignorance for the ballet-watcher, rather than more understanding. As dirac says, a classic might be problematic for this person or that person, but that doesn't mean there's not more to it than whatever was found offensive. Starting from a position of such suspicion seems unfair both to the ballets and to the readers. Having said all this, I do want to be fair to Elizabeth Zimmer. She started out covering modern dance, and that's still her main interest. Not to make excuses for what still seems a misguided point of view, but maybe it complicates things if you come to classical ballet from the direction of modern dance, rather than starting out with an interest in ballet. [ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Alla ] [ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Alla ]

This piece by Elizabeth Zimmer gets at something I've been thinking about while reading Sally Banes' book "Dancing Women: Female Bodies on Stage," and it's something my modern-dance-fan friends say all the time. They can't appreciate classical ballet because they find the stories absurd, even offensive. Sure, the second act of "Giselle" is beautiful, but they can hardly sit through it because of the things it suggests about women (e.g., women whose love was never consummated become vampires, or vengeful anti-nuns, or whatever). Personally, I don't have huge trouble with these stories or "views of women" (but then, I like Jane Austen, too ). I see them simply as part of ballet's heritage, and it can be fascinating to get inside the ideals and symbols and values (both cultural values and dance values) of another age for a couple of hours. I guess I just don't respond with a strongly "political" consciousness to the classics. What to say to people who find it almost impossible to like or even appreciate classical ballet because they just can't get past the "dead sweeties"? Do others here share Zimmer's dilemma? http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0133/zimmer.php

With Ethan Stiefel as the Neal Cassady character, perhaps? The motorcycle could make a cameo appearance.... [ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Alla ]

Along with McBride Eyes, just in case, a tube of Eyebrow Tamer ... for the ballerina whose coquettish and/or vixenish impulses seem to settle in the arching of the brow. (Perhaps a special order for those troublesome "Apollo" soubrettes? And some on hold for anyone preparing to dance Odile?)

It really was a sumptuous production, and the wedding scene was especially gorgeous, with jewel-like reds and blues and yellows. I agree about the scrim, etc., in the opening of the Shades scene. Finally I just took off my glasses and let the murky atmosphere flow by. And there were moments when I thought the corps wasn't going to make it. Some of the bobbles in arabesque were downright dangerous. (Imagine if one dancer fell over -- then another -- then another ... the domino effect in those lovely tutus would have been quite something!) In general, all the performances were neat and (yes) commendable, but I found the whole company unmusical and, despite their lovely Kirov-style port de bras, somewhat unfinished-looking. They seemed more concerned with getting the steps done than with dancing them. That said, Seh-Yun Kim definitely wowed 'em in her wedding pas de deux (one balance in attitude seemed to last forever). Two small notes. The girls with the parrots -- shouldn't they hold them upright while they're dancing? Last night the poor birds were tossed around every which way, and the effect was reminiscent of a certain Monty Python sketch. (And what about the plastic snake that the fakir conjures out of a basket before the Shades scene??) Also, cameras were flashing throughout the performance, even after the warning announcement was repeated a second time. It was very distracting, and I was sitting in the Fourth Ring -- can't imagine how it must have been for the dancers.

The collection of Arlene Croce's essays for The New Yorker ("Writing in the Dark, Dancing in the New Yorker") is must reading. Uncannily astute big-picture analysis woven into uncannily deft description. "Time and the Dancing Image" (I think that's the title) by Deborah Jowitt takes an interesting historical view. [ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Alla ]

The great thing about appointing someone like Wheeldon would be that the company would again have a gifted creator at its heart. Martins has of course made some nice ballets, but it seems to me that he hasn't known how to use his dancers well, to choreograph things that advance them. Already Wheeldon has pushed Ansanelli ahead light years. Also, he really appreciates (and, I think, understands) the style of Balanchine and Robbins; I can see him advancing that, as well. Would the board ever want to bring Farrell back?

Re: Askegard. I think this might have been discussed in another thread, but it was such a triumphant moment that I just have to mention it. The night he stepped in for Woetzel, partnering Weese in "Theme and Variations," I was very nervous (and so was the critic sitting next to me). Once he started, though, I thought: okay, he knows what he's doing! He didn't merely "get through it," as I feared he would. He really committed himself to the role and showed some wonderful things in the choreography. I remember his long body leaning back in those opening tendus -- beautiful.

Ditto Kathleen Tracey in Wheeldon's piece, Liebs. For me, that little dance was the highlight of the ballet. Also ditto Arch Higgins. I saw him in Divertimento No. 15 back in May, and could hardly believe it was him -- such beautiful tendus and classical port de bras! He is really developing wonderfully, though we don't see him too often lately....

This isn't quite in the format of NO7's list, but here are a few of my Great Dancer Moments: Maria Kowroski in "Monumentum Pro Gesualdo" and her debut in "The Concert." Nikolaj Hubbe, Wendy Whelan, and Jenifer Ringer in "La Sonnambula." Miranda Weese in "Theme and Variations" and "Stravinsky Violin Concerto." Antonio Carmena's debut in "Dances at a Gathering." Alexandra Ansanelli in "Variations Serieuses" and "Midsummer." Darci Kistler in "Duo Concertant." (I think I saw every performance she did!) Corps member I couldn't take my eyes off of: Amanda Hankes. [ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Alla ]

What a great idea! I think about this every time I see "Agon" -- what a great thing that would be to hear in a concert hall. And the recent double CD of Gergiev conducting "Sleeping Beauty" is packed with revelations. The trouble in hearing ballet music in a concert hall, for me (and this may be slightly off topic), is that I always feel that something essential is missing. With "Agon," for example, I can never hear the music without seeing the Balanchine shapes and gestures that "complete" it. Same with "Apollo." The choreography has told me so much more about the music than the music alone could. With Balanchine ballets especially, I have trouble separating the two; the music seems richer in the ballet theater than on my stereo. Does that make sense? :confused: Still, there's no reason for orchestras not to perform the many ballet scores that are unquestionably great musical works (you mention some ideal ones).