Farrell Fan Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 Toni Bentley's one-column letter to the New York Times Book Review is one the most cogent and beautiful things I've ever read about the relationship and difference between Balanchine and Robbins. (And Martins). It's posted on the links for Sunday, August 22. (Sorry I don't know how to link it here.) "No one understood Balanchine's depth better than Jerome Robbins," she writes. It made me think again of when Balanchine died, and my wife and I went to the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Sign to pay our respects. Robbins was a little ahead of us in the line filing past Mr. B's open casket. He gazed at Balanchine for a long time, with a look of such devotion and grief on his face that it still haunts me. Link to comment
Herman Stevens Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 "There was Jerry before us, embodying -- unmistakably and famously -- the suffering and tortured artist," writes Toni Bentley, and, you know, true as this may be, it's also a matter of what you wish to emphasize. One of the reasons I do not find Suzanne Farrell's Holding on to the Air (written in cooperation with Bentley) the best Balanchine memoir is this emphasis, again, on the artist as a victim of his / her creative drive. I think that's a very clichéd and ultimately exploitative way to write about creative people. BTW thanks, FF, for that glimpse of Robbins. Link to comment
Farrell Fan Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 I think in her letter Bentley chose to emphasize Robbins as "tortured artist," to contrast him with Balanchine, who, Boris Eifman to the contrary notwithstanding, was untortured and "made his ballets with kindness and an open hand." I'm not sure what you mean about "Holding on to the Air." Can you elucidate? Thanks, Herman. Link to comment
dirac Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 A beautiful letter, although I’d not compare Robbins to Salieri – particularly not the Shaffer Salieri. (I didn’t really see the need for a dig at Martins in this context, either.) Link to comment
carbro Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I didn't read it as a dig at Martins -- just a placing of matters in perspective. I thought it was a very compassionate letter, especially considering how difficult Robbins was known to be. The tortured artist is a cliche, but it has become that for a reason. Not all artists are tortured, of course, nor is it necessary in all cases to suffer in order to produce Great Art. But unless you're Balanchine or Mozart -- blessed with boundless creativity and fluency, able to find to the necessary element on the spot -- making it "right" can be the source of tormenting frustration. Link to comment
sandik Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Without going into the cliche aspect of "tortured artist," I appreciated the distinction that Bentley points out in her letter -- Robbins was greatly acclaimed for his accomplishments on Broadway, and yet chose to work next to Balanchine. He held himself to very high standards, and put himself in the position to be reminded of how high standards could go. Link to comment
tantris Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Hmm. I would find it more to the point to ask a nycb dancer who has worked w/ all 3 - martins, balanchine, and robbins what the differences were. anyone? i suppose the asnwer would be funny indeed and not as loftly as one may expect. Link to comment
Dale Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Welcome to the board tantris. I hope you will acquaint yourself with out rules on postings and gossip: http://balletalert.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9591 http://balletalert.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16070 Link to comment
Recommended Posts