Robert Gottlieb on ABT

[Leigh Witchel]

Thanks to Dale for catching this article by Robert Gottlieb on ABT (note, the link is probably date sensitive) with this inimitable pronouncement:

Apart from the satisfactions we may receive from any of these up-and-coming performers in any specific part, we’re beginning to be able to watch A.B.T. the way we spent decades watching New York City Ballet—that is, tracking talented young dancers as they make their way through the company. And for serious ballet lovers, there’s no greater satisfaction.

And thanks to Gottlieb for always giving us something to talk about!

So - do you agree? As for me, the dancers can make a great ballet perfect, but it's the dance I watch first.

[Farrell Fan]

On the evidence of the posters on Ballet Alert, undoubtedly serious ballet lovers all, Gottlieb is absolutely correct. Corps members are continually singled out, their performances brilliantly analyzed, serious questions raised when they are perceived to go into temporary eclipse, etc. The performances in Mozartiana are what's dissected, not the ballet.

[dirac]

Well.....I wouldn’t say no greater satisfaction. I do think the ballet comes first, although the ballet may not be what we discuss first – especially if it’s not a new ballet. I might rephrase the sentence as, “And for serious ballet lovers, there are few greater satisfactions,” or something along those lines.

Gottlieb is correct in that this particular pleasure is reserved for initiates. You must go regularly and frequently to do this kind of tracking of a young dancer’s progress. (And to feel the smug satisfaction of saying to yourself, “I was right!” when the company powers-that-be see things as you do and promote that dancer. ) Although it is possible for people who are not regular balletgoers to spot someone promising – potential stars in any field have a way of making you notice them.

[liebs]

For me it is usually the choreography not the dancer. Halberg is a terrific dancer but I would not cross the street to see him in a piece by Trey McIntyre. I am of the opinion that you can not really judge a dancer in bad choreography - give me Petipa or Balanchine and then I can see the dancer.

In theatre, we say that you can always get something from a Shakespeare play not matter how bad the performances. I think that is true in dance as well, the better the choreography the more you see the dancer.

[Amy Reusch]

I don't think I can choose. For me the dancer gives life to the choreography. Lifeforms isn't as interesting as live performance (nor videotape for that matter). The number of works that are "dancer-proof" is so small that each one is remarkable.

I think what Gottlieb is referring to is a sort of proprietory feeling... like an aunt or uncle's pride in their neices/nephews. ("I saw the spark in that dancer when they were just in the corps" gives the viewer kind of a feeling of ownership of the dancer's career when they come into their own?). Sort of allows an audience member to "own" a troupe in like way to a dancer "owning" a part.

Perhaps it's just because I tend toward the Dionysian than toward the classical, that I find the dancers key to the pulse of any work.

[Dale]

I look at both, but I agree with Liebs in that I have favorite dancers but I just won't see them in a piece I can't stand. Picking out young dancers has a bit of scouting in it -- like following an athlete from college or the minors to the big leagues. There is a bit of the cult or ego in that, too. For ex. SAB allows us to see the dancers through school to the State Theater.

And there's not much exceptional new choreography, IMO, being created for the major companies. When the rep. is lackluster, than I look to the dancers. And if there aren't new masterpieces to be had, at least I'd like to see a choreographer show of the dancers to advantage and (I hope) reveal some aspect of them or challenge them in some way, then I watch to see how "my dancers" cope with that challenge.

Of course, I do appreciate the choreography, the ballet itself. Like at the Ashton Festival this summer. I was interested in dancers, but I'll admit, when it came to the Birmingham Ballet or even the Joffrey, I didn't know these dancers and had no attachments, so I was able to focus mainly on the ballets themselves (and what great ballets they were).

[carbro]

I will not cross a street to see a favorite up-and-comer in a piece I don't like, either. In fact, a categorical thumbs down is "I wouldn't go to see Gelsey in it."

I think ABT's problem is the lack of a choreographer on the premises who really knows the dancers -- their limitations and strengths, the emotive range, the personality. So the new ballets can't show the dancers who create the roles to greatest advantage. But that also assumes that the new ballet is inherently interesting.

Gottlieb touches on the issue of knowing dancers' capabilities:

Why doesn’t this side of his ambition reveal itself at City Ballet, where he’s the official resident choreographer?

Maybe he doesn't trust their dramatic abilities. (Over the decades, the company has been uneven in this regard, but it is at a high point lately, IMHO.)

But familiarity doesn't always breed . . . familiarity. I'm still waiting to see Peter Martins create a leading female role that doesn't look like it was made for Heather. Even Darci ends up looking like Heather, for crying out loud!

New Smileys Thanks, Alexandra! :ph34r:

[sandik]

I think what Gottlieb is referring to is a sort of proprietory feeling... like an  aunt or uncle's pride in their neices/nephews.  ("I saw the spark in that dancer when they were just in the corps" gives the viewer kind of a feeling of ownership of the dancer's career when they come into their own?).  Sort of allows an audience member to "own" a troupe in like way to a dancer "owning" a part.

I agree with this -- I was at PNB again last night, and spent a chunk of time watching the corps members who were stepping into soloist and principal roles, and was pleased to have been able to watch a little bit of their development.

[Jack Reed]

Maybe Gottlieb takes for granted that you are seeing the choreography, that it has become familiar; he says, "Since when has Mozartiana been a grin fest?", which reads to me like he assumes some familiarity with it. But we do sometimes speak of a dancer's having shown us something freshly, or a side of something we didn't see before, without our having any sense that the work has been violated or corrupted or whatever. I think I see the ballet "first", but I see it through the dancer's performance, each time.

By the way, the link above has a new destination, but this one goes to the original subject of this discussion, and might continue to do so for a while:

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=9848