Alexandra Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 Ari posted this on Links and I'm moving it here for discussion: a very interesting piece -- imagine a newspaper running this in 2003!!!!!! -- in the Daily Telegraph "a global guide to male ballet styles." Link to comment
BW Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 Is it odd that American is not in this piece? Or are American dancers just an amalgam Link to comment
Alexandra Posted June 27, 2003 Author Share Posted June 27, 2003 Ari noted that, too, in her Links posting. Perhaps it's because the majority of our most famous male dancers have not been American trained but imported? And that while there's an American PRESENTATIONAL style, is there a distinct DANCING style for men? I'm editing to add that there's no mention of a German, Canadian, Australian, Swedish, etc. style -- and probably for the same reasons. Link to comment
Farrell Fan Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 Too bad that Jacques d'Amboise, Edward Villella, and Arthur Mitchell just wasted their lives. Link to comment
Alexandra Posted June 27, 2003 Author Share Posted June 27, 2003 A few stars don't make a style; I think that's a different issue. There was a lot of comment in the early '70s that Balanchine turned to Europe for his dancers -- Bonnefoux (then Bonnefous), Martins, Tomasson, etc. And ABT's great dancers were Bruhn, Nagy, Baryshnikov -- before the current Spanish and Latin American wave of dancers. Before this turns into a "how dare they not mention American dancers" thread, that's not the point of the article. It's not saying there are or are not great male dancers coming from a particular country, but rather discusses what the author considers the major styles in male classical dancing. Link to comment
Farrell Fan Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 But isn't it the case that in recent times we've bemoaned the blurring of national styles, and the rise of a homogenized international style? In that sense, this article seems like an anachronism. Link to comment
Alexandra Posted June 27, 2003 Author Share Posted June 27, 2003 I thought that too, FF -- but a nicely anachronistic article still, to my was of thinking I think there has been a blending, but there are still discernible elements of style. Or is it another generational divide? Those who remember what the stylistic differences were will see vestiges of them, and those who didn't/don't will wonder what the fuss is about? Perhaps if people write about the differences it will encourage dancers and audiences to celebrate those differences? Or is that just dreaming ? Link to comment
carbro Posted June 27, 2003 Share Posted June 27, 2003 Originally posted by Alexandra Perhaps if people write about the differences it will encourage dancers and audiences to celebrate those differences? Or is that just dreaming ? Probably (and sadly) so. So many companies are now being run by artistic directors who've had multi-national careers as dancers, who inevitably have fondness for certain stylistic elements that are not native to the companies where they preside. Perhaps the most conspicuous examples are Baryshnikov Russifying ABT, or a Dowell Americanizing RB. E Link to comment
Hans Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 If anyone would like to try to define the American male dancer's style, they can go right ahead. Good luck ;). I sure couldn't! I don't think there is one American style. We certainly don't have a national ballet school/company unit. I'd take more issue with lines like "The Danes can do everything better than almost everyone else"--what's that supposed to mean? Alexandra, I think there is still style, but I don't think you'll find much of it outside the major companies--or even in the major companies. To find style, I'd look at their schools, and it seems to me that places like the POBS and Vaganova Academy still have style, though not as pure as it once was. From my point of view, schools are more concerned with style than companies are. Link to comment
Alexandra Posted June 28, 2003 Author Share Posted June 28, 2003 Hans, I think you've made some excellent points -- it would be hard to define an American style for men, even at NYCB. And NYCB doesn't define American ballet exclusively. I also think your point that the schools are more concerned with style than the companies is a good one, although I think the Kirov and Paris still care about company style, especially for the corps. Anna Kisselgoff once wrote a piece about how there's no such thing as national style; it's all related to choreographers, and in a way I think that's true. The Danes' style was related to Bournonville; Royal, Ashton; Bolshoi, Lavrovsky; Kirov -- well, is it really Petipa? It's changed so. And Paris.....well, Paris now IS its style. They haven't had a great resident choreographer consistently turning out works in the native language since 1820. Link to comment
Mel Johnson Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Aw, everybody in Europe still knows that if you sail too far west on the Ocean Sea, you fall off the edge, so who cares how the men dance over there?;) Link to comment
Kathleen O'Connell Posted June 29, 2003 Share Posted June 29, 2003 If anyone would like to try to define the American male dancer's style, they can go right ahead. If I say "Gene Kelly," is that cheating? Since Hans said "male dancer's style," I thought I'd take the liberty of pointing to a model outside of ballet. I think America does have a particular style of male dancing, but it's more prominent in dance forms other than ballet. Nonetheless, I think elements of that style have percolated into ballet: they are brought out most obviously in works such as Who Cares or Fancy Free, which make clear references to popular culture, but they are present in more purely "classical" works as well. I also think non-American dancers can replicate the style (Hubbe comes to mind). Hmmm ... but how to describe it in words? Unfussy and relatively unadorned? A downplaying of preparation and recovery? (Here I'm thinking of other styles that acknowlege -- even relish -- preparation and finish: "OK, multiple tours coming, please watch! The tension should be killing you! Whew! OK ! What a lot of turns! Exciting, no? But please now observe my perfect repose! OK, I will even stay here for a moment so that you may savor it!") And there's something about where the center of gravity is and a degree of "play" around that center that I can't describe at all, but that seems distinctively "American" to me. Sigh ... just pop Gene into the VCR, and I think you'll see what I mean -- and I think you'll see it peeping out on the ballet stage as well. Alexandra -- I'm a little puzzled by the distinction you drew between "presentational style" and "dancing style." Wouldn't they be inextricably linked? Link to comment
Hans Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 You're right, Alexandra--the Kirov and POB do still seem to be concerned with company style:). I think that the Kirov's style is perhaps linked more directly to Vaganova than Petipa--maybe you could say they get their Petipa through a Vaganova filter, though of course she did work directly with Petipa. I think the point about company styles having more to do with the choreographer than the nation is right on. Kathleen, considering the many different ballet training methods (& therefore styles) there are around the country, I still don't see how a universal style could be applied to all of them, and I think Alexandra/Kisselgoff's point is relevant here--it has more to do with the choreographer than the nation. Americans don't all move a certain way, just as French people don't all move a certain way. An Americans can be trained Vaganova and he will have a totally different look from another American (even in the same state or city) who has been trained in another style. Link to comment
Alexandra Posted June 30, 2003 Author Share Posted June 30, 2003 Originally posted by Hans An American can be trained Vaganova and he will have a totally different look from another American (even in the same state or city) who has been trained in another style. I agree, and I think that whenever a generalization about "English style" or "Russian style" or whatever takes that into account. (There are English dancers who would never be mistaken for Anthony Dowell!) Kathleen, by "presenational" versus "dancing" I was actually thinking of Gene Kelly and Broadway dancing generally -- which is certainly an American style, and the style of some ballet dancers (Jacques D'Amboise leaps to mind ) -- while trying to distinguish this from a classical dancing style. Unfussy -- unpolished. Different way of looking at it. (Kelly is great in Broadway dancing, but when he tried to do ballet, he looked like a soft shoe man to me.) Link to comment
grace Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Ari noted that, too, in her Links posting oh! i have always assumed Ari was a male...as in Aristotle. - off-topic, i know, but at least this thread IS about gender. Link to comment
Mel Johnson Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 And let's not forget Fred Astaire, who was Balanchine's nominee for "best American male dancer"! Link to comment
carbro Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 And my favorite American dancing man, too, but I don't think his sophistication is typical of what we think of "American." Which is not to say that there have been no sophisticated AMDs, just that it's not a big part of the generalized image. Link to comment
atm711 Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 I think there was an American style, but it was never nurtured. For me, it started with John Kriza of Ballet Theatre, a terrific dancer who never received his proper recognition. He was comfortable in the classical and contemporary repertoire. He was the forerunner of D'Amboise, Villela and Mitchell. All of these dancers had an open-ness and lac k of pretense which I loved. Link to comment
Alexandra Posted June 30, 2003 Author Share Posted June 30, 2003 Originally posted by atm711 I think there was an American style, but it was never nurtured. I think that's a very good point, and part of the problem that ABT never had a resident choreographer who was interested in the language of classical dancing in the way Ashton and Balanchine were. Bujones was certainly a polished classical dancer, by any standard, but it was a generic kind of classicism rather than a specific one, like the styles that WERE developed, mentioned in the Telegraph article (which must be by Ismene Brown; it sounds like her, she's their main writer, and it accompanies an interview with Acosta that she conducted). I think it's telling that when you ask people to name an American male dancer they'll think of Astaire or Kelly -- both great dancers, certainly, and both recognizably American, but not ballet dancers. Link to comment
Recommended Posts