The Perfect Odette/Odile

[MelissaK]

For me, this is a difficult question because I have yet to see a ballerina who masters both roles. Makarova was a model Odette: she lived and breathed the part, possessing all the vulnerability, pathos and lyricism required, as well as the supple upper body and liquid arms that made her Odette unforgettable. I think she was a good, but not great Odile. She was seductive but just not evil enough for my tastes.

The best Odile I've seen hands down is Maya Plisetskaya. She was seductive, riveting, technically brilliant and eclipsed all the princesses at the ball. She was deliciously evil and I'll never forget when she reveals herself to Siegfried at the end of Act III she laughed maniacally at him and pushed him away contemptuously when he still thought she was Odette.

This should be a good thread and I look forward to reading everyone's opinions on O & O.

[Alexandra]

This is a good question, Melissa -- any candidates?

By the time I got to "Swan Lake," I think the whole idea of the dual role had changed. Instead of Odile being enchanted to look like Odette, and having to hide her true nature to seduce the Prince, we now get Odiles trying as hard as possible to look different from Odette -- they come at Siegfried with all sirens blaring, and he'd have to be an idiot not to sense there was mischief afoot.

I have several older friends who tell me that Fonteyn was ideal in both roles, and they've never seen anyone like her since, and I'd go along with that, even though I've only seen her on video. The Odile is slightly more sophisticated and rather cold, compared to an innocent, warm Odette, but the differences are subtle; they don't scream at you.

Any others?

[Mary J]

Alexandra, I have to concur with those who said that Fonteyn was probably an ideal Odette/Odile. Of course Odette fit her like a glove, especially the fragility and vulnerability. But her Odile was enough like Odette to make the Prince's confusion credible. She took on a slightly harder edge, and the seductiveness was manipulative rather than overtly sexual. What was most chilling was the sheer triumph when the Prince mimes the love pledge - a mixture of pride in her accomplishments and disdain for the Prince. I have seen a lot of finely danced Swan Lakes but Fonteyn was unique.

[cargill]

I think those of us of a certain age will all vote for Fonteyn! I only saw her last few Swan Lakes, and for me she has never been matched. Odette was so moving, so hopeless--even though she loved Siegfried and believed he loved her, she knew something was going to go wrong. There was such an undercurrent of tragedy in her performance. I will never forget the last act, when she mimed I will die with those beautiful arms and her whole soul. And I know I have said this before, but in the first act, when she first meets Siegfried and goes to the corner of the stage and folds her arms, I really did see wings. By then she really couldn't dance Odile, but yes, I could see that she was hard and crisp, trying to be Odette, rather than just slutty and trying to seduce him. Much more subtle and difficult.

[Manhattnik]

I've sung this song before, but I thought Martine van Hamel was to die for as O or as O.

[Alexandra]

Ah, La Van Hamel. I remember watching her, hard, in her last seasons, saying, "This is the one I'm going to miss the most." I have to say, in retrospect, I think Gregory was "better." (And nearly everyone else would vote, loudly, for Makarova). But it's Van Hamel that I remember. And I feel cheated not to have seen Kirkland own this role. She SHOULD have been the great Double O of her generation.

[carbro]

From her dismissive comments about the roles in Dancing on My Grave :confused: , I don't think Gelsey would have poured the heart into Swan Lake to own it. She seemed not to have much interest in exploring the role. I wonder, if given a few years over which to return to it, she might have found something to latch onto. Still, Alexandra, it should have been a great fit.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda . . .

Martine van Hamel is my choice, too. Grand, yet vulnerable. And what gorgeous line! By the end, she was able to fuse her mime and dancing, making it hard at times to distinguish one from the other. When I see Swan Lake in my mind, it is invariably Martine whom I see.

[atm711]

This ballet-goer of a 'certain age' does not vote for Fonteyn. In 1949 when the Sadler's Wells Ballet awed New York with their evening long ballets, Swan Lake (or Le Lac Des Cygnes, as it was then called) had four performances---all of which I saw---three Fonteyns and one Beryl Grey. By this time I had been watching Danilova's Odette for about 4 years--an Odette I still use as a measure for other dancers, which probably explains why my favorite later day Swans have been Makarova, and to a lesser extent, Ananiashvilli. I did not see any other 'live' performances of Fonteyn's Swan after that initial season---but at the time, I found her too cold and contained--and a 'line' that simply did not flow....

[Mashinka]

A pity you never saw Fonteyn after 1949. You would have found that in later years Nureyev warmed her up considerably. As someone who first saw her in Swan Lake in 1966, the last thing I would have described her as was cold.

[Alexandra]

Mashinka, I thought Fonteyn a warm dancer, as well, but we've had discussions about her on the board before, and several posters here found her cold -- an interesting division of opinion!

[Hans]

Did anyone see Ulanova?

I find Fonteyn (on video anyway) cold, but I feel that way about a lot of British-trained dancers. Too stiff in the upper body & mushy in the legs. So far I haven't seen anyone ideal in both roles, though Makhalina makes a good Odette and has the technique to pull off an impressive Odile. I wouldn't say she's my favorite, though. Did Asylmuratova ever dance Swan Lake? I could almost put her as my favorite by default!

[psavola]

Yes, Asylmuratova did dance Swan Lake. I haven't seen the whole of it, only the black swan pdd on video, but I tought she was glorious. Technical brilliance combined with fake meekness. I'd love to see the whole Swan Lake.

Päivi

[Marc Haegeman]

Hans, Asylmuratova did dance Swan Lake with the Kirov and I would say with almost every company of the world. In 1998 she even created a new version by Roland Petit for his Ballet de Marseilles, "Le Lac des Cygnes et ses maléfices".

There is an interesting documentary about the subject on video, "Backstage at the Kirov", where you can see a very young Asylmuratova preparing her debut in the role at the Kirov. She developed a great deal during the years, but came quite close to the ideal Odette-Odile in my book.

[Alexandra]

I saw Asylmuratova in "Swan Lake" when the Kirov first came back to the States, on the cusp of glasnost. She was third cast, as I remember it, and we couldn't figure out why. I admired her dancing very much, including her Odette/Odile, although I think she's more an Odile than an Odette, not because of a lack of anything, but because her "voice" is a dark one. Alan M. Kriegsman, former critic for the Washington Post, wrote of her [in "Theme and Variations"] that she was "an orchid and not a rose."

A story that some may find interesting. When "Backstage at the Kirov" first came out, there was a lot of excitement here about Asylmuratova, whom the film seemed to annoint as The Next Great Ballerina. The first thing I heard about her was from a colleague who saw the film before I did, and it speaks to how the aesthetic changes over time. "There's a new Kirov ballerina, and she's very liinear," he said.

Hans, I don't know which British dancers you've seen with squishy legs and stiff upper bodies, but I don't think that's the traditional English style -- or at least, I wouldn't describe it that way. It may be a different way of looking at things, and in the interests of aesthetic diversity -- that no one style is the only style -- I wanted to quote from Alastair Macauley's piece on Makarova's staging of "The Sleeping Beauty" in the [London] Times Literary Supplement. (Makarova was reproducing the Kirov style of the 1970s.) "British dancers were suddenly adopting the unnatural faux-Kirov posture of stuck-up gymnasts: jawlines pulled up, shoulders and pelvises hiked back. In a complete reversal of the local tradition that was established by Margot Fonteyn and her contemporaries in the 1930s, the line of the wrists was generally broken, the fingers splayed. The bright articulation of thighs and insteps looked very Kirov - and yet it didn't make the impression it should have. Everything looked mannered, nothing organic."

[Rachel]

The videos that I've seen of the Royal from the '60's could definitely be described as mushy legs and stiff upper body. I think some of those videos, especially An Evening with the Royal Ballet are painful to watch.

Rachel

[Alexandra]

Rachel, I'd argue that this is a difference in style. It's perfectly fine for you to dislike it, but I think it's important to realize that it isn't "wrong" or "bad." The Royal Ballet in that period was an excellent company. One of the differences between then and now -- aside from Extreme Technique, extensions, height of arabesque, etc -- was that the AIM was not to be overstretched never stretch a limb all the way, always leave a bit of room for more movement, otherwise the movement looked dead, finished. This was a conscious decision -- it was the look they wanted to achieve. Feet were also not, as they might put it, constantly "clenched." There was a distinction between pointe work and off-pointe work. Small footwork was emphasized. The torso was relaxed -- again, a conscious decision. It's not sloppy dancing. I don't see a stiff upper body, but a classical, rather than romantic one -- squared, rather than slopping shoulders, a raised torso, though not a pulled up one. Again, a matter of style. Line has been extended throughout the 20th century, from a very rounded one in the late 19th to the stretched-on-the-rack approach of today.

[carbro]

Alexandra, I am so with you on this. I love the distinct national styles that were so identifiable until they started to blend during last 10-15 years. I found the unforced lyricism of the earlier English generations so beautiful, and while that style would not have been my choice as a steady diet, having a chance to relax into it for a couple of weeks every few years during RB's semi-regular visits here (something else I miss), was a great treat.

[Alexandra]

Yes, carbro, that's what I mean. I'm not trying to promote one national style over the other; I'm greedy. I want them all! And I think it's fine if someone ABSOLUTELY HATES one of them, and thinks that an arabesque MUST be this or that, and has definite ideas about feet, hands, line, heads, etc. The more definite ideas, the better! I do think it's important to recognize stylistic differences, and understand them, and I think sometimes today that's hard to do. So my comments were meant in that spirit.

[Hans]

Yes, it is a different style. I see it even today, though--the arms are not actually locked into place, but they are moved all in one piece, so they look stiff, even if they are relaxed. The shoulder blades are pulled apart instead of together, which leads to a more rounded look in the shoulders. Also, the heads tend not to incline, only to turn, which does not involve the upper back, so the torso does not move much, only the limbs, which contributes to the stiff look. It feels nice and comfortable to do, but I do not prefer it for both aesthetic and technical reasons.

As for the lower body, it's not that the feet aren't pointed, but the legwork is not sharp and clear; it's a softer, less elastic look that many prefer over the crisp Russian footwork. All this leads to problems (for me) when a British-trained dancer does Swan Lake--the arms don't look soft enough and the legs look too soft, IMO. Of course, this is all a matter of style, and the British style certainly feels nice to do; I'm just used to the Russian approach.

[Marc Haegeman]

The matter is getting more and more complicated. I’m with you Hans when you prefer the Russian manner for the 19th century classics (even if I hasten to add: the Russian manner as sublimated in the Kolpakova-era, not the terrifying look of extremes they decided to have today) - but that’s just a matter of personal taste, not a judgment of good or bad, right or wrong. On the other hand, the English style with, as we used to call them nastily, those “little semaphores” (arms moving in one piece etc), is seen less and less above corps level. With a majority of Royal Ballet principals trained all around the world except in English schools, the idealized vision of the English balletomanes to see a "Sleeping Beauty" anno 2003 danced the way it was in the days of Fonteyn, makes about as much sense and is about as real as asking the Kirov’s Svetlana Zakharova to dance from now on in the manner of Kolpakova or Ulanova.

What Makarova achieved for her recent (and already condemned) Beauty at Covent Garden (I know it’s a nightmare on Floral Street for most of the English watchers) is that the company moves in a different way, with a clarity of purpose, an amplitude of shape, providing in my opinion a much better frame to the choreographic text they adopted than we are used to with the Royal Ballet. Yes, it is, oh, dear me, a “Kirovized” Royal Ballet that Makarova is serving us now, but within the present context and the present state of the company that didn’t bother me for one second, as everybody, corps to principals, seemed to believe in what they were doing.

But we are way off topic now .

[Jane Simpson]

Originally posted by Marc Haegeman

...everybody, corps to principals, seemed to believe in what they were doing.

Marc, I take it you didn't see Darcey Bussell?

[Alexandra]

I don't think anyone is saying "back to the 50s." The point is that the Royal Balle t had a continuous, 60-year tradition of dancing the ballet -- whether one likes it or not -- which has been replaced by a 1970s version in the style of another company. I think the reaction might be the same if the Kirov suddenly dropped its "Swan Lake" and replaced it with Balanchine's one-act verison? (They may well, within minutes, of course, replace it with Neumeiers'....)

The reports I've read about the Kirov's attempts at restoration from those who dislike it don't look at the company's history with the ballet as a whole. They seem more to be "this isn't the version I grew up with and I don't like it." This is perfectly understandable, but I think there's a difference.

[Rachel]

I'm a youngster and never saw Fonteyn or that older generation of British dancers. I firmly believe that artistry is as important if not more important than technique. I also know that artistry cannot be successfully captured on tape. For that reason, Fonteyn and other dancers fail to capture me when I watch them. Because I really can't judge their artistry, I do look at technique and what I see is a lack of technique. What Alexandra describes as "a not completely stretched pose to allow for additional movement," comes off as bad line. Their feet look mushy and buttery. It appears that they couldn't execute quick or precise footwork even if they wanted to. I suppose such things could be called stylistic, but bad technique is bad technique. Lack of turnout and clean positions cannot be justified. In many of the earlier Royal videos, it looks like the dancers are marking through everything and never hit any positions or achieve any lines.

Rachel

[Alexandra]

Rachel, I know that you only know what you can see, and videos are not a substitute for live performance. Try to dance Ashton, and then say those dancers didn't have good footwork. There are probably a dozen different views on line -- from country to country, choreographer to choreographer, and decade to decade, and it really is useful to try to understand that, I think. I found that the more I saw, and the more I read, the more the differences became differences and not "ew, that's awful."

[atm711]

Rachel, you said..."Ifirmly believe that artistry is as important if not more important than technique"--and I wholeheartedly agree with you, but then you go on to say how a less than clean technique offends you. I am afraid you would have missed the artistry of Alicia Markova, who really was "marking through everything". I also believe that artistry does show up on videos. I never saw Nadezda Pavlova in person, but was awe-struck when I saw a video of her in the Shades scene of Bayadere (from the early 1980's, I think). I wonder what we would think if we could see Nijinsky dance---lousy footwork--or wonderful artistry? Sometimes you just can't have it all.