Eileen

Yes, in her bio she describes it as . Thank you!

I am in no way authorized to say what Balanchine Style or Balanchine Technique is or isn't... but my understanding is that adjustments were made to enable the speed of Balachine dancers in certain steps. I think it's possible to say that a hallmark of Balanchine technique is the speed it enables. I do know that after years of being admonished by Joffrey/ABT/Royal Ballet style teachers to make sure my heels reached the ground in landing every petit allegro jump; when I found myself in a major Balanchine principal's class, he specifically put his hand beneath my heels in little jumps to force me not to put them down (or I'd be hurting his hand). We used to be told we'd get Achilles tendonitis if we didn't stretch the heel to the floor, but in this class it was actively discouraged. We used to think there was a lot of tendonitis rampant at NYCB, but it could have been rivalry gossip. Certainly the Irish Step dancing and Highland Dancing seem not to put their heels down in fast repeated jumps... so there must be a way. Usually we discuss technique over at Ballet Talk/Alert's sister site Ballet Talk for Dancers, but because of the lecture demonstration I think it's okay to discuss it here a little. (Moderators, please let me know if I'm wrong) One other thing I noticed was the use of the hands. Peter told a Balanchine anecdote about showing all the fingers, but I wasn't won over to the aesthetic by the students' use of their hands... they didn't look natural... and yet when the company dancers used the same style hand position it looked natural and more relaxed... i think perhaps the company dancers flowed in and out of it a little more whereas the students were trying to be academically correct. Eileen, what a wonderful observation! I think you are right about the dancers' influence. I think America itself had an influence on his style. Would it have been the same if he had stayed in Paris? It would have been different than what had gone before, but would it have been what we know today? Thank you, Amy! Absolutely, Balanchine would have been different had he stayed in Europe. He would not have had the resources he had in America, first of all. He would have had the human material, but not shaped to his specifications, rather, there were already ballet traditions in European capitals and ballet schools. He totally was influenced by the American dancer (female), the energy of America, the wide open spaces of America (at least in mid-century), and the expansiveness of his aesthetic - the sweep across the stage which is characteristic of his ballets - can be viewed as a reflection of the freedom he found in America and the spaciousness, the freedom from want, the ability to breathe. Because there was no tradition of ballet in America, Balanchine was free to create one.

In a word, no. You are an achiever and want to make up for lost time, naturally. But I started out like you - at Fordham Law and impoverished. Then at large law firm and too busy. As time and funds permitted, I learned by watching the company dance over a period of years. It took me time to appreciate the Balanchine aesthetic - many years, and I started in 1978 feeling Balanchine was too spare, stripped down and unemotional. I was too young for Balanchine then. You are at the perfect stage of life to pursue an aesthetic goal. At 44 you are mature and more open to experience than a young person with more rigid ideas about what's "right". The only way to really become a connoisseur is what my teacher David Dubal called "comparative listening" - he meant to differing versions of the same piano piece. But it applies to ballet, too! By watching Serenade over many seasons, you build your visual library and each time you see a new performance of the ballet, you see new aspects you never realized were there. At first all is a-swirl. Then Serenade over the years begins to unfold its mysteries to you. When I first saw Mozartiana in 1981 I thought, oh it's so dark and not very interesting. But Balanchine was 77 when he created that dance and I was in my 20's. How could I appreciate it? Now - now I know so much more with perspective of life and repeated viewings. Appreciating Balanchine is a life's work. You have your work cut out for you! Onward!

Look at those heels on Jenny Ringer! Strong feet. That's what Balanchine does for you.

Wow Violin Concerto, you really socked me in the gut with that statement about Balanchine. It made me realize why I love his ballets so much. I've always been drawn to mystics. They vibrate to a higher tune than the rest of us. They have the ability to transcend normal human needs and wants in order to communicate and draw closer to the Divine. I think that's how Balanchine lived, loved and created. He did say he was a cloud in pants after all. Did he really say that? ViolinConcerto, I also started going to NYCB in 1978, but I did not appreciate the leotard ballets and stripped down aesthetic at that point - I was too young and callow. I wanted frou frou and scenery and stars like that other company. As time went by and I saw more, Balanchine convinced me of his way. I became a worshiper.

I thought this deserved its own topic, namely, the 5 pm studio talk with Sean Lavery, Sterling Hyltin, Chase Finlay and Jenny Ringer. This was a truly fascinating session. I sat three rows from these beautiful dancers and I have to say, they are lovely people and are well spoken and thoughtful. My favorite dancer in the company, Jenny Ringer (yes, she is my favorite among many!) is radiant, she just has a glow. And she speaks so intelligently about the dances and dancing Balanchine. I hope she is slated to be a teacher at SAB - but not too soon! I want her to keep dancing. Sterling Hyltin (pronounced Hylteen) is also wonderful. She represented a younger generation in her mid-twenties, and she too was eloquent. Chase - I haven't seen him in solo roles, he seems about 18 or 19, college student age. What impressed me about him was his sheer love of dancing. He said what attracted him to Balanchine was the opportunity to jump! He recently was cast as the Cavalier in Nutcracker, a major debut for a young corps member. He represented the newest generation of corps dancers, and he has the quality of spirituality and also presence that marks someone who could be dancing principal roles someday. I am impressed with how truly special the dancers who are chosen are. You can see it at a young age. Sean Lavery led the proceedings, not at all like the ringmaster in Circus Polka! He was a wonderful, warm and human personality. He remembered going into Scotch Symphony with only same day rehearsal on Jan. 22, 1978 when he was only 20 (he had been in other companies - Frankfurt Ballet and San Francisco he mentioned). George Balanchine rehearsed the catch with him (two boys throw the principal girl, Kay Mazzo) then Mr. B said, okay, you can do it. Then Mr. B announced he was leaving the theater, he had to cook all day for his birthday dinner! Well, Sean Lavery did it, and the rest is history. In that famous photo of Balanchine standing before the audience at State Theater, Sean Lavery is the most prominent dancer arrayed behind the curtain, watching Mr. B with admiration I also noted how Sean Lavery opened the panel discussion with the opening "theme" of the film, the uncanny diary entry of Marius Petipa on the very day that Balanchine was born. He led the panel with intelligence and had much that was interesting to say. Anyone else remember specifics from the panel?

Absolutely, Balanchine's overall work transcends categories. I meant to say (and didn't put the thought in the right place) that in Balanchine's treatment of American themes, he is a romantic. Thanks for clarifying. I just read Robbins' 1998 obituary by Anna Kisselgoff in the Times. She wrote: "''Dance is about relationships,'' Mr. Robbins said. But unlike others who created ballets with pioneers and cowboys, Mr. Robbins did not indulge in ''Americana.'' He was not concerned with the myth of America but with its reality." The "others" are Balanchine and DeMille, obviously.

Absolutely, Balanchine's overall work transcends categories. I meant to say (and didn't put the thought in the right place) that in Balanchine's treatment of American themes, he is a romantic. Thanks for clarifying.

I saw the film for the first time Saturday, and it was simply magnificent! It was an experience that moved me deeply. I learned so much about Balanchine, and I have watched his ballets and read about Balanchine for much of my adult life! (But I don't own a television or DVD player and for this reason have never seen the film.) I wish there had been subtitles for the early broadcasts of Balanchine speaking because the sound was not clear - maybe early broadcasts were inferior or the sound has deteriorated. Wish engineering could do something about this - remastering like they do historical classical recordings. I had no idea there was so much archival footage of Balanchine working and of his early (1950's) dancers. The footage of Violette in Midsummer (?) and Jewels was glorious. She had the perfume, and was as joyous in performance then as she is in the lecture hall today. And I'm sure teaching class. She must be such an inspiration to the advanced girls. The film is shows an arc of development - but it was all there in the 20's in the masterpieces Apollo and Prodigal Son. I saw from the film that Balanchine seemed to have fully accomplished the Balanchine style by his later years. Once he had a ballet company and a stage perfectly suited to his needs, and muses and cavaliers as human clay to mold, he canonized, clarified, his style. You see this in the Dance in America excerpts - the preciseness of the steps, the crystalline technique, the quickness, the exaggeration of traditional ballet vocabulary. The Balanchine film also showed that interaction with his dancers was essential to Balanchine's creative spark. His dancers created Balanchine as much as he created ballets for them. Balanchine was created by Maria Tallchief with her atavistic quality, by Tanaquil LeClerc with her cool elegance, by Diana Adams, who inspired Agon and the precursor to Suzanne, and of course, the immortal Suzanne, captured on film in her youthful beauty, impassive poise, and immaculate technique.

At the Studio Talk with Sean Lavery on Saturday afternoon, an audience member asked the dancers what they see as the difference between Balanchine and Robbins. Jenny Ringer said Balanchine is ethereal and Robbins down to earth. That in Balanchine, the dancers are directed outward, to the audience, and in Robbins the dancers are interacting with each other. I thought about it and had a few ideas. My first thought was: Balanchine never choreographed to Chopin, and Robbins most definitely did! (Well, Balanchine early in his career had two minor pieces to Chopin according to Choreography by Balanchine.) But Robbins - Dances at a Gathering, The Concert, please add more if you remember. But most significant, Balanchine was a romantic and Robbins a realist. Despite all the Chopin, Robbins' ballets are about the interactions of people in life. They satirize romanticism (The girl in The Concert), they display fellowship (Dances at a Gathering) and even dancing against the romantic music (one of the episodes of Dances has Sara Mearns dancing slowly to fast Chopin - which piece? Please tell me. I hear it but can't identify.) They deal with grittiness - NY Export: Opus Jazz, West Side Story, the sailors in Fancy Free (a sanitized balletic grittiness). Balanchine had experienced Russia at its best and worst. As a result of his privations in the revolution, he loved America and he idealized America in his American ballets - Square Dance, Stars & Stripes, Western Symphony. These are stylized, romantic ballets that observe all the courtly choreographic conventions. Robbins was born and raised in New Jersey - he was an American and he did not romanticize America. He had lived it and he depicted it. What is Glass Pieces but New Yorkers walking, walking quickly and intently, together but oblivious of each other, then jumping up, first one then another, to do their own thing. A real New York ballet. (I saw it when it first was created in 1983 and only appreciated it years later.) Please give me your thoughts.

I saw the Jan. 22 performance and it was my second time seeing the pairing of de Luz and Kowroski and I agree with you as to their artistry and power. Maria K is one of my favorite dancers, Balanchine would have loved her. And de Luz is fabulous!

I just got back from an entire day of ballet joy, specifically Balanchine joy, at City Ballet - film, studio talk, onstage class, performance. It's late so I have to go and tomorrow out of town, but I hope to write my impressions later and to hear yours if you were there. Do write!

Yes, that's it! Thank you.

I meant another pizza place with full seating and a full menu. Darn, I know Traviata and this is another place, west side of Broadway between 67th and 68th.

But the bathrooms in the Rubenstein Atrium are unisex, I found to my dismay.

Alistair Macaulay's review of the Tuesday night opening of the ballet brought back to me all the ballet joy I experienced that night. He wrote how City Ballet is dancing 27 ballets this winter season, more than any other in the country I believe, and they have a wealth of Balanchine repertory. We all know that, but it is lovely to be reminded by a critic who did not spend his entire career in New York City. His descriptions of the ballets, all Balanchine, were so detailed and impressive. Four Temperaments is a wonder that I always am amazed at. It epitomizes (for one thing) Balanchine's attitude toward money: He took his earnings from Hollywood movies he choreographed in the late 30's and gave it to a composer to create a ballet score. That's how Four Temperaments came about. I always am surprised at how Macaulay does not appreciate Wendy Whelan, who I feel is a sinuously beautiful dancer. I loved her dancing and Charles Askegaard's, especially the partnering. I am not enough of a connoisseur to see the missteps (faux pas) if there are. Perhaps Wendy fell off balance at one point, but it was almost unnoticeable. Another Winter Season at City Ballet! Cause to celebrate. And Balanchine's birthday celebration coming up. More ballet joy!

If you have a Juilliard or SAB ID or Juilliard or SAB Association card you can go to the Juilliard cafeteria in the Rose Building. Otherwise, there's a pizza place on Columbus Avenue and 67th Street on the West side of the street. Don't know the name. There's sandwiches at Starbucks but the line and the crowd!

Which ring are your seats in? Were they in the orchestra? Thank you.

I am very sorry to hear this. At least there wasn't an accident, or one was prevented.

I called Jacob's Pillow. Suzanne Farrell Ballet will be "in residency" at Jacob's Pillow in March, which means it's a sort of retreat for the company. At the end there is a performance, but only open to "supporters" of Jacob's Pillow, i.e., contributors at the $250 or higher level. So it's not open to the public. Sigh!

Does anyone have any information about Suzanne Farrell Ballet at Jacob's Pillow in March 2011? When, how to purchase tickets? Jacob's Pillow website is uninformative, and Kennedy Center website only mentions the company will be at Jacob's Pillow in March. Thank you for any help!

I had the good fortune to see Sara Mearns on Thursday night as the Sugar Plum Fairy in Nutcracker at City Ballet. What a complete artist. Yes, she is the American ballerina of the 21st century, but I don't think she will "influence" other dancers any more than Suzanne Farrell was an influence. These are unique artists, they are inimitable. You can only hope that each dancer will find his or her path to artistry within the classical vocabulary and in shaping the great roles of the repertoire. In addition to the questions you raise in your post, I'd love to hear what people think about the matter of "influence ... on other dancers."

These are very thoughtful comments about the drawbacks of the Ratmansky production. Although I was enchanted by it, there are some jarring elements. True, the big choreographic set pieces, Snowflakes and Flowers, are not fully realized. I think the small stage at BAM is a major problem which Ratmansky has "solved" by using dramatic/comedic ideas like Clara and the Nutcracker Prince dancing among the snowflakes and the bumblebees among the flowers. But that doesn't solve the problem of the overall need for choreographic richness, pure dance values, in these waltzes. I will compare to Balanchine's choreography hopefully in a post on NYCB page tomorrow, I saw Balanchine's Nutcracker tonight. So the cramped stage is a problem. I also feel Ratmansky has chosen to use comedy and slapstick whereas Balanchine is all high seriousness, while Mr. B is appropriately playful. I'm not sure how audiences will take to that in the long run. There's a lot more that Ratmansky can do to improve the dance values when he gets a full size stage to work with. BAM is a second tier choice.

The placement of the orchestra beneath the stage and almost beneath the audience is probably responsible for any muffling of sound. I could hear well but I was in the third row from the front. The orchestra is really in a sublevel and you can't even see the conductor when he takes his second act bow.

Yes, Balanchine's is definitive for the 20th century. But we have Ratmansky for the 21st. Time marches on, Balanchine is eternal, but ABT needed a Nutcracker and Ratmansky has produced a splendid one. I felt the production was cramped on the small BAM stage, but that is what was available.