fendrock

This is my fourth year as a subscriber to the Boston Ballet, and I would describe this year as the one in which Boston Ballet was "Nissinen-ized" -- the familiar faces -- Simon Ball, April Ball, Karla Kovatch, Ilya Kozadayev -- are gone, to be replaced by Nelson Madrigal and others. Many faces I recognized have disappeared, and I feel I must acquaint myself with an entirely different company. I enjoyed the high energy and spirits of "Stars and Stripes" this fall, and seeing Pollyana Ribeiro in "La Fille Mal Gardee" earlier in the year.

Actually, I heard that the company was doing some telemarketing to offer the following mini-subscription package: Nutcracker ticket for after Christmas + free companion ticket to the Nutcracker, plus single tickets to the remaining two story ballets.

On a more lowbrow note -- there is a McDonald's directly on Boston Common, less than a 10 minute walk from the Wang. I can give you more precise directions if you are interested.

My daughter is in a local Nutcracker for the third time this year, and I appreciate your sentiments! I'm racking up my Nutcracker viewings, having seen the production she was in the first two years a total of five times (different parts in different casts necessitated seeing it twice each year, plus the first time to check it out), and this will make the third time I've seen the production she's in this year (at Walnut Hill). For children, the "prestige" seems to come with dancing in a professional Nutcracker, but I enjoy these performances which are more of a family/community affair -- and we don't have to worry about taped music and whether the house will be full....

There was an article in a recent issue of BusinessWeek which made a similar point about the buying power of a certain large retail chain. The buying power is affecting the nature of goods offered, including what books and magazines are available to customers. Although this does appear to be a political topic, I think it has relevance to ballet because a ballet needs an audience, and the audience is, in the marketing world, a specific target market. The general trend in marketing to audiences appears to be for the large, lowest risk venture. This makes it less likely that ballets will be produced, which, in turn, makes it ever more difficult to educate an audience so that they will want to attend ballets. One thing I find disturbing in the Wang debacle is the reaction of Boston Ballet. They have been very hostile toward the Wang in their PR, suggesting that through letter writing campaigns the audience might be able to change the situation. The situation (lack of a profitable business model) existed prior to the Wang's decision to oust the Nutcracker; that decision was a symptom, not a cause. I agree with Citibob's posts elsewhere that what really needs to be done is more thinking outside the box. If the market will not bear a Nutcracker at the Wang, Boston Ballet needs to rethink how best to produce a Nutcracker.

I read in the paper today that Mayor Menino has suggested the Hynes Convention Center as an alternative. Apparently the Nutcracker was held here one season in the past (maybe 1982?), when what is now the Wang needed roof repairs.

According to the article, Boston Ballet gets a discount rate when using the Wang. So the Wang will make more money by having a more commercial venture in the house. I'm pretty sure there is no recourse (legally, anyway), and I wonder if this means they will end up with the show outside of Boston??? (Lowell or Foxborough have big auditoriums.) Parking is horrible for the Wang, which is right in the middle of Boston, so maybe a more accessible (read: suburban) venue would actually have some people attending who wouldn't otherwise.

In 2004, for the first time in 35 years, Boston Ballet will have to find a venue other than the Wang for their Nutcracker. Quote from today's Globe: Yet another salvo fired in the ongoing struggle between supporting the arts and having a profitable business...

I've had season tickets to the Boston Ballet for the past three years, and have only seen her appear twice (the first year in Bayadere, and then in a repertory piece). So it seems to me she was dancing less, even prior to the arrival of Nissinen.

I read an article on the retirement of Jennifer Gelfand (see link under Boston Ballet thread), and found it interesting that she gave David Howard much of the credit for her training. I know David Howard also contributed to the training of Gelsey Kirkland, and worked with Katherine Healy (dancer and also profiled in "A Young Skater") from a young age. It seems that this training was provided in addition to, and outside of, the training received at the student's school or company. Has this kind of training gone out of vogue? If so, is it because no great coaches are around to provide it? Or...??

Here's the link: http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/arti...where_it_began/ I find the article a little unusual in that it makes it sound as if the pull of her real estate career is forcing her to give up dance.

I just purchased a copy of "Window on the World of Classical Ballet," which takes the viewer "behind the scenes' of the Australian Ballet. It is very good for those new to ballet, as they include a company class and illustrate some of the basic steps, as well as show how they are used in performance. What I also found of interest -- Stanton Welch talking about all the ideas he has for ballets (and this was filmed more than 10 years ago), Maina Gielgud wearing pointe shoes while coaching a dancer for Swan Lake, and a male dancer with a receding hairline who made me wonder if going bald is a disaster for the aspiring male dancer (I've never seen a dancer on stage who didn't appear to have a nice, full head of hair....)

Shannon Parsley (who could forget a name like that) is in the Boston Ballet corps (or, at least she was last season).

Okay, maybe this deserves its own thread, but I had another, related thought -- how does the company school relate to the artistic director and his/her ability to build a company that fits his/her artistic vision? As an example, Balanchine founded a school for his company, whereas some artistic directors now have virtually no relation with the company-related school at all.

This topic, to a certain extent, has come full circle. How do we know that the situation at the Boston Ballet is akin to an ocean liner changing direction? Is something dreadfully wrong, or is it simply a case of an artistic director who wants to make a mark? If the direction is changing, what might be the nature of that change, and why does it require a change in dancers?

As a person who is not knowledgeable about ballet, I'd be interested to know the parameters within which these artistic directors are making adjustments. I guess the most obvious is body type and a certain Look -- What are the others? Unsuitablility for dancing the repertory in which the AD is interested? -- but surely most experienced dancers in a top company would be flexible enough to adjust, and would in many cases appreciate the chance to try new thing.s (As an aside, not sure that members of a ballet would appreciate being just "part of the furniture..." )

As a Boston Ballet subscriber, I received a postcard about my tickets which included the note that the entire box office would be closed (can't remember if it was for 1 week or 2) for an unpaid vacation, which ALL staff would be taking at staggered intervals throughout the year. I do know the school staff was pruned, and that they are not replacing some school administrative staff as they leave. So I do think they are trying to make prudent cuts to the budget. I've wanted for some time to start a new thread in response to an article in the Globe about Nissenen's changes at the Boston Ballet. Seems that many are leaving, some voluntarily. The issue raised in the article was that a new AD wants to form a company in his own image, as it were. What is the relationship between building a company in the AD's image and the dancers with which he/she has to work? Is it an artistic vision being fulfilled, or is it similar to a new CEO replacing key staff members with his people?

I attended Boston Ballet’s Romeo & Juliet yesterday afternoon. I spoke afterwards with two people who had seen it previously with a different cast. They commented that they had especially enjoyed this performance because Romeo (danced by a dashingly handsome corps member, Sabi Varga) and Juliet (danced by frail-looking soloist Sarah Lamb) looked the part of fresh, young lovers. What performances have you seen where the dancing was good, but you came away thinking that the dancers had not really pulled it off because they didn’t look the part? Alternatively, what performances have you seen in which the dancers were cast against physical type, but pulled it off brilliantly anyway?

How about "In Like Flint" (1967) with James Coburn? Yvonne Craig, best known for her role as Batgirl in the Batman TV series, plays a Russian ballerina. Incidentally, Yvonne Craig took class at the SAB and danced briefly with the Ballet Russe. This was before she went on to other things, such as acting in movies with Elvis Presley and playing an alien on the original Star Trek.

This heard yesterday as part of a radio ad for Boston Ballet's Romeo & Juliet -- [seeing this performance is..]"The best excuse for waterproof mascara since your first love affair...."

Guess Jennifer Gelfand must have seen my earlier post, as she is listed as dancing Juliet for two performances! I should think Pollyana Ribeiro would be very good in this role. I'll be seeing Adriana Suarez.

Of course, how would we all look on an average day, being observed as we were going about our daily business? To BW -- the donation required to watch a dress rehearsal is substantially less (although still more than $100), the large donation is required to actually watch a working rehearsal in the studio.

Boston Ballet School is generally closed to observers, except for the biannual "peek week." If you contribute generously to Boston Ballet (I think the number is over $10K), you are permitted to watch a working rehearsal. THAT is something I would really like to do.

Yes, for example, it's been two years since we've seen Jennifer Gelfand, in La Bayadere.

On returning from the All Balanchine program at the Boston Ballet yesterday, I thought I would look up remarks on the pieces in books I have by Arlene Croce and Robert Garis. I was very struck by how these reviewers seem to feel that they somehow could get "into the heads" of performers. This is in contrast to the Boston reviews I read, which tend to stick pretty much to a little history on the ballet and few comments on the execution of the performance they viewed. For example, Arlene Croce on Suzanne Farrell (1975) -- "Farrell's independent drive no longer seems unacceptably burdensome to her, and her mastery implies no rebuke." Or on Darci Kistler (1986) -- "I have the feeling for Kistler a performance is a precariously held-together illusion each separate second of which must be predetermined and delivered in a set form" -- [in the same article, she complains about how Kistler should be dancing more because she owes it to her audience, even though Kistler apparently was out due to injury] Or Robert Garis on the young Suzanne Farrell in Movements for Piano and Orchestra -- "Suzanne Farrell in Moavements seemed a further and perhaps the final extension of Balanchine's "Don't act." It appeared his new ideal dancer was not even going to be an instrument of dance as I ordinarily understood it. Maybe the new imperative would be "Don't dance." Are observations from critics such as these helpful? Or do such personal and unsubstantiable views just place their role as a critique under suspicion?