Margot Fonteyn!

[Solor]

I just watched her in Nuryevs Swan Lake for the Vienna Ballet. Her Odette and Odille was so splendid....she was like a real swan. I have noticed, that dancers today seem more occupied with the technique of thier bodies, which are more evolved, than say the acting or the "heart" of the roll. Fonteyn was an "Old School" ballerina - she didnt have high extensions or that linky-ness that dancers today have, but she had more than that - the emotions! Why do dancers of today differ so much more then the dancers of the time she came from? Is it becasue they are more occupied with technique?

[canbelto]

I have the video, and I think Fonteyn's Swan Lake was one of her worst video outings, EVER. She's saddled with Nureyev's rather unorthodox production, but she also seems shaky on balances, and sorry, her arms are rather floppy and inexpressive *in this video* I think. Compare the way Natalia Makarova or Maya Plisetskaya use their arms in Swan Lake -- now THOSE are wings. Or to compare to Fonteyn, she uses her arms to much greater effect in the Firebird film or the Giselle excerpts. I was SO disappointed in this video. I thought I'd see an incandescent performance, but the whole thing was so earthbound. The corps? Unacceptably sloppy, and cramped on a too-small soundstage. Nureyev looks hideous with his bright-blue eyeshadow.

Also, I've seen quite a few modern-day Swan Lakes and they are anything but "soulless." (Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine to think that ballet's soul died with Margot Fonteyn.)

[Alexandra]

I agree, Solor. Thanks for posting this. This "Swan Lake" was actually the one where I "got" Fonteyn. After this one, I could go back and see all the others and see what she was doing. The performance is particularly astounding, considering her age. I saw Fonteyn only at the end of her career, and she had the same effect on stage. The first time I saw her she was 57. I knew nothing about her, and thought she was older than I was (I was 25), like, oh, maybe 35! I had to read that she was 57 in three sources to believe her. I've never seen a ballerina with the same authoriity. It really is impossible to make a judgment about a dancer from only having seen them on video, however frustrating that may be, but I think this one gives a sense of her.

Canbelto, I'll trade you a pet peeve Mine is people who never saw a dancer insisting that comments that this dancer of today isn't up to that dancer from the past, etcetera, is bunk. Everyone goes through this. When I started watching ballet I was constantly told by people who had been going for 20 or 30 years that "Well, she's not bad, but you didn't see X in the role," or (and this was in the 1970s) "Yes, technique has improved in some ways, but we've lost some things too," or "There was a quality that X or Y had that Z or B does not." etc. I remember feeling confused, and sometimes as though I'd been slapped, but I always learned from it. I have to say that when I had a wider range of viewing experience, I understood what they were talking about and rarely, in hindsight, have disagreed with them. When I was 25, my life's ambition was to be 55 and able to say, "Ah, but you never saw Gelsey Kirkland in the role!" There has to be some reward for a long life spent watching ballet

[Jane Simpson]

Compare the way Natalia Makarova or Maya Plisetskaya use their arms in Swan Lake -- now THOSE are wings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But Fonteyn wasn't trying and failing to use her arms like Plisetskaya or whoever - she believed strongly that Odette was not a swan, she was a woman, and would have no reason to have arms looking like wings! I don't think I've ever seen this video, and maybe her arms weren't at their most expresssive - but it's not for this reason.

[dirac]

I was SO disappointed in this video. I thought I'd see an incandescent performance, but the whole thing was so earthbound.

I agree, alas. Of course, any record of the past is valuable, but it would be no great disservice to Fonteyn or Nureyev if this one went missing. (Nothing personal, Solor, different people see different things, it's what makes life interesting. )

[canbelto]

For a better representation (IMO) of Fonteyn's Swan Lake, I'd say the 1960 film is better. It's really cut, and you only see the second act pdd really, but I have to say she's less obviously "over her head" there. The Nureyev filming experience was evidently not happy -- they fought over the ending, Fonteyn was unhappy and insisted on no closeups. I really dont think it's a very good souvenir of Fonteyn AT ALL.

Good souvenirs of Fonteyn: the recently issued Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty from VAI. The R&J with Nureyev. The Les Sylphides, Aurora's Wedding. Various films of Marguerite and Armand. The film of Firebird and Ondine. all of those are much, much better than this Swlan Lake, which I really like to think of as a blemish on two masterpieces -- Fonteyn and Nureyev.

[richard53dog]

Canbelto, I'll trade you a pet peeve   Mine is  people who never saw a dancer insisting that comments that this dancer of today isn't up to that dancer from the past, etcetera, is bunk.  Everyone goes through this.  When I started watching ballet I was constantly told by people who had been going for 20 or 30 years that "Well, she's not bad, but you didn't see X in the role," or (and this was in the 1970s) "Yes, technique has improved in some ways, but we've lost some things too," or "There was a quality that X or Y had that Z or B does not." etc.  I remember feeling confused, and sometimes as though I'd been slapped, but I always learned from it.  I have to say that when I had a wider range of viewing experience, I understood what they were talking about and rarely, in hindsight, have disagreed with them.  When I was 25, my life's ambition was to be 55 and able to say, "Ah, but you never saw Gelsey Kirkland in the role!"  There has to be some reward for a long life spent watching ballet

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alexandra, I hate this too and this dinosaur approach is also very prevalent in the opera. Yes, I go back a fair amount of time, but what's the point of living in the past? It's gone. Memories are fine, and actually a good point of reference, but often they get "enhanced" a bit over the years.

So I keep my memories and enjoy today's performers too. It's an apples to oranges thing. Style and technique change and blend over the years.

Now I have to say, though, I don't like the Vienna Swan Lake film. I don't really think Fonteyn looks comfortable here. I didn't see her in the role until a few years after this, but she was much more like the 1960 film, stylish, elegant, expressive, and musical.

But do I think she was the last Odette/Odile? No!

Richard (looking forward to Vishneva's Odette/Odile with ABT )

[Alexandra]

Richard, I think you misread me. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but what I said was that I'm sick of people insisting that if you say that a dancer of the past was better in this or that role you're accused of wallowing in nostalgia or having an "enhanced" memory.

To Solor, I had neglected to address the question you posed in your post (about what is the difference, is it the current emphasis on technique?) First, I have seen ballerinas in the past decade who, to me, danced emotionally satisfying "Swan Lakes," so I don't think that whatever Fonteyn, and others of her generation, had is gone. I do think that some dancers are now cast in leading roles solely because of technical proficiency -- management knows she'll be able to get through the fouettes, for example -- rather than emotional depth, and there's the problem of not enough coaching (or good coaching) and especially not enough rehearsal, not enough working with the same partner, not enough performances. In Fonteyn's day, everyboody didn't dance Odette, and she had the luxury of dozens and dozens of performances. Today's dancers may only get to do 2 in a season, and then 2 more after a few months, etcetera. I don't think Terpsichore could develop in a role under those circumstances.

[canbelto]

Well one thing I pride myself is the fact that I call a spade a spade. I enjoy many historical performances, as well as contemporary ones. For instance I dont think Alicia Alonso's fouettes in the black swan pdd can be improved. Tanny LeClercq's finale to Western Symphony is something I cant imagine being bettered either. And Natalia Makarova's Giselle is probably always going to be a standard for me. But Margot Fonteyn's performance in this particular video of Swan Lake? There's no kind way I can put it: she's not good.

[bart]

.  Today's dancers may only get to do 2 in a season, and then 2 more after a few months, etcetera.  I don't think Terpsichore could develop in a role under those circumstances.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting point, which suggests an ironical possibility. In Fonteyn's day, fewer dancers were considered qualified for parts llike Odette/Odile. Perhaps the large number of technically skilled dancers today means that these great classical parts have to be divvied up among a large pool of dancers -- for reasons of company morale, fan loyalty, etc. More dancers means fewer performances. These dancers will never have the luxury of enough time, enough performances, to develop the role to its fullest.

[Alexandra]

And an interesting observation, Bart. I think, too, it's a difference in emphasis. The last time I saw a performance of "Les Patineurs," watching the two female soloists, and remembering what I'd read about the dancers who created the roles, I thought, if the sensibilities in operation today were the norm in the 1930s, Mary Horner (Honer? I may be mispelling that name) would have been the company's prima ballerina. We (or at least some company directors) look for different things now. What, during the Ballet Russe period, would have been a spice -- a bravura solo or pas de deux -- is now the main meal. And what would have been the centerpiece of an older ballet -- a mime role, a character solo -- is now "not dancing" and some people can watch the ballet and not notice those roles. Is that becuase our viewpoint has changed, or because the people doing the "nondancing" roles aren't schooled in them, or they have fewer models or a different frame of reference? Or all of this? I know that coaching can make a difference. I've seen several school performances by traveling Russians that are astounding -- they'll do a piece that is very, very old-fashioned -- the perfume is of the 1920s or 1940s -- and the kids are doing it in a very convincing style. (I wasn't around in the '20s or '40s, so all I can say is that it matches the style of the few videos I've seen of that period. Remembering always that you cannot judge a dancer or a ballet by a video alone.)

So.... is it that there are more technically skilled dancers today? Or that the champion turners get the roles and the dancers with beautiful upper bodies, eyes that speak and act, and the ability to bring poetry and all those other ineffable, unquantifiable qualities, to a role are passed over in favor of "Look! She can do triple fouettes!!!"

I wanted to say something about Fonetyn's arms. I agree with Jane about the difference between Odette the woman and Odette the swan, but I think here, too, is a difference in taste. Fonteyn was subtle; the English style was subtle. The Bolshoi style was not. Croce wrote, "If it's swans you want, go to the zoo!" of Plisetskaya's arms.. For some, the obvoius swan imitation is too much; for others it's just what the role needs. I think this, like many things we talk about here, is a matter of taste, not that one is wrong and the other right.

[canbelto]

But dancers like Natalia Makarova aren't Bolshoi-trained at all and yet they also effortlessly melded the bird and the human together. Odette/Odile, IMO, shouldnt just be a ballerina with a white tutu and furry white headband. The "soul" of the bird should be there. When I saw Nina Ananiashvilli dance this, I forgot honestly where the bird ended and the human began. I'll never forget it.

[Alexandra]

I realizee that Makarova is Kirov and not Bolshoi trained. I did not mention her. I wrote about Plisetskaya, choosing her because it's a more extreme example and because that was who Croce was referring to in the quote I used. I saw Makarova more than any other ballerina in "Swan Lake" and I never cared for her. I never believed her, not in "Swan Lake" nor in "Giselle." (I thought she was terrific in the Don Q pas de deux and in "Other Dances," though). I am not saying that she was bads, nor not good, just that I didn't care for her performance in that role. There

are things that aren't a matter of right and wrong, but of taste and preference.

We've gotten away from Solor's original post, which raised some interesting questions. Perhaps there could be a thread on "Why Fonteyn was overrated" or "why X was great?? But here's what Solor posed for discussion.

[editing out reference to the video] I have noticed, that dancers today seem more occupied with the technique of thier bodies, which are more evolved, than say the acting or the "heart" of the roll. Fonteyn was an "Old School" ballerina - she didnt have high extensions or that linky-ness that dancers today have, but she had more than that - the emotions! Why do dancers of today differ so much more then the dancers of the time she came from? Is it becasue they are more occupied with technique?

I have a question for you, Solor. I wasn't sure what you meant by "linky-ness". Do you mean the body type? Or were you getting at something else.

Edited April 6, 2005 by Alexandra

[nysusan]

I have to agree with Canbelto and Richard53dog on this. The Nureyev film simply isn't a good representaion of either of them in Swan Lake & it does their memories a disservice. The Royal's Fonteyn/Nureyev Swan Lake was the first ballet I can remember. My grandmother had been taking me to the ballet since I was 2-3 years old. I guess I enjoyed it but I don't really remember any of it till my first Fonteyn/Nureyev Swan Lake circa 1964-66. Loved it. Fell in love with the ballet and with her. I remember her Odette so fondly, so I ordered the DVD, popped it in...and was thoroughly disgusted. Seriously, after the 2nd act pas de deux I stopped the DVD and didn't go back to it for a week. It was NOTHING like what I remembered of her interpretation. It had nothing to do with the arms and it's not just the lack of technique, that I could live with. It's just that it had none of the warmth, none of the "essense" of her Odette. In watching it I thought that her sense of loyalty to Nureyev overcame her better judgement in agreeing to appear in this one (my thoughts on this -not based on any knowledge of the situation) - so it's interesting to hear about the disagreements during the filming. The old Paul Czinner Royal Ballet film is a much better representation of what she was like in performance, at least when I saw her. It's so old fashioned, it's almost quaint but it's absolutely gorgeous. Even though it dates from 5-10 years before I saw her (as opposed to the Nureyev film which is from the mid - late 60s) it is much more representative of what I remember of her.

At the retrospective the NYCPL did on her this past summer they showed a tape of her & Nureyev performing the 2nd act pas de deux on the Ed Sullivan show. Even without scenery & corps this was still much truer to the spirit of her Odette than that Vienna State opera production. Avoid it!

Regarding Solar's question of emotions vs. technique- I don't think it has to be an either/or situation, but it often is these days. The only dancer I've seen in recent years that I felt combined technique and artistry in a fully integrated SL was Pavlenko. I think Nina A might have too, if she weren't hampered by McKenzee's soulless staging. So, of course, I too am looking forward to seeing what Vishneva & Part can do with it this summer!

[bart]

I remember her Odette so fondly, so I ordered the DVD, popped it in...and was thoroughly disgusted.  Seriously, after the 2nd act pas de deux I stopped the DVD and didn't go back to it for a week. It was NOTHING like what I remembered of her interpretation. It had nothing to do with the arms and it's not just the lack of technique, that I could live with. It's just that it had none of the warmth, none of the "essense" of her Odette.

I'm not familiar with this video, but I did see Fonteyn perform at the old Met (not Odette/Odile, but Aurora). And I have seen a few ballerinas of her generation, performing at or near their prime: notably Tallchief, Alonso, and Hayden. So I recognize this feeling: what the old films or videos show is NOT what I remember. Nysusan mentions the loss of "warmth" and "essence". That's just what I feel.

When Fonteyn made her entrance as Aurora at the birthday party, the entire house seemed to be suffused with the joy that she herself appeared to feel -- joy at being alive, at being young and beautiful. To be honest, the aura, the "star quality" was so great that it may have been impossible to focus critically on the technique. The unsupported balances and the promenades of the Rose Adagio, for me, will always be Fonteyn's, despite a degree of wobble and despite having seen them done perfectly (on video) by others (eg. Viviana Durante, early 90s?). Similarly, I have never seen a video that even came close to the effect that Tallchief, Alonso and others had alive on stage.

What made that effect so powerful then and memorable now? Undoubtably nostalgia plays a role. For many of us of a certain age, these were our first experiences of great female dancing. Like a first love, we continue to see them as unique and special. It may also have to do, as Alexandra says, with the chance these dancers had to hone and re-create these roles in numerous performances.

Do we have to think of this as the opposition of technique v. the "heart of the role" (to use Solor's phrase)? Maybe the job requirement to be a prima ballerina was simply different in those days. Maybe the ability to convince audiences of your "heart" was considered a prerequisite BEFORE you were given the role, not something you might try to learn from a coach after you had mastered the steps. It could be largely a matter of different standards of success.

Edited April 7, 2005 by bart

[richard53dog]

I

At the retrospective the NYCPL did on her this past summer they showed a tape of her & Nureyev performing the 2nd act pas de deux on the Ed Sullivan show. Even without scenery & corps this was still much truer to the spirit of her Odette than that  Vienna State opera production. Avoid it!

I think Nina A might have too, if she weren't hampered by McKenzee's soulless staging. So, of course, I too am looking forward to seeing what Vishneva & Part can do with it this summer!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nysusan,

I saw the retrospective too last summer, and agree the tv clip they showed was terrific. I wonder how much other dance is in those vaults. They have released on DVD a lot of the opera stuff from the Sullivan show.

I'm looking forward too to the ABT Swan Lakes this Summer.

Richard

[Solor]

Maybe its my own observation of how dancers today think about technique more than emotions (on stage anyway) because in todays dancing world, technique has become, well, like, THE FUTURE....if you get my meaning. Right now, my fave ballerina is Svetlana Zhakarova of the Mariinsky. Talk about night and day compared with Fonteyn! But both give emotional performances........I guess one will pay more attention to technique instead of emotion when the dancer they are watching is performing 8 pirrouttes or has sky high extensions. I came to this conclusion after careful thought of this topic I started here. I guess I noticed Fonteyn's emotions more than her technique because her technique, however great, does not make a performance of itself, than say, (for example) a ballerina like Zhakarova.

Zhakarova, and some of the Ballerinas today (Most of them Russian it seems to me) - are, like, SUPER BALLERINAS. They are so technically awesome and so evolved, that I suppose one can get lost in the 'extreme-ness' of these highly evolved dancers and not notice the 'heart' of the role being danced. I am guilty of this! (especially in a ballet I have seen 100,000 times).

Anyway, in conclusion, I think this is why I have noticed todays dancers being more technical than emotional. IM just NOTICING the technique more, because, well, theres more to see TECHNICALLY than the OLD SCHOOL dancers!

But hey - theres no school like the old school......

[Alexandra]

I do think that part of the difference is more logistics. Part of this is lack of rehearsal time, and part of it is that 20 or 30 years ago (and before) dancers grew up in a company and were not only trained for a specific repertory but grew up watching the company. So they learned lessons of stagecraft by osmosis. Today, that's only true, really, for the Kirov, Bolshoi and Paris Opera Ballets. There are criticisms of those companies, too, that today's dancers are more technical than emotional (I'd say there are exceptions to that). Why? Because dancers see what's going on in the rest of the world and imitate it? Because the people coaching these days aren't always up to the level of previous generations? Because the artistic directors are selecting dancers for technique rather than emotional resonance? I think it's all of the above.

I was comparing videos of an original cast with a recent televised version of a ballet, and there were some things the contemporary dancer could do that were way beyond what the dancer from 40 years ago could do. BUT there were several things that the first dancer did far better than the younger one. I'm sure that if the contemporary dancer had been shown the proper way to do the steps, and had the time to master them -- they were outside the dancer's training -- s/he'd have done them perfectly. So there are a lot of variables in there.

And then there is the Fairy's Kiss to contend with

[Daniil]

Well, sorry if I disagree with most of you, BUT

you seem all to be influenced and not objective, as I think.

"Good Old Days..." seem to be your motto.

Everything in our world is improving and so is ballet! When I watch Fonteyn, Vladimirov, or even Nureyev I think "Oh my god...". [Edit] To clarify things: technically they can not be compared to the new generations of dancers. But for their time they were pioneers and made things onstange no one else could do.

Also I find some of their acting too much. I personally think that the acting in the ballet and interpretation has to be in the middle. Too much is bad and too less is also bad. To find the middle is the most different thing a dancer can achieve.

About the technique. I can not understand why everybody laments upon good technique and bad acting. Of course there are cases where this is a fact.

Good technique does not mean subsequentaly bad acting and interpretation!!!

I think the Interpretation in the old Videos is just so visible, because there is nothing else to see! (Ok I exaggerate )

And now, you can tore me in pieces

Edited April 8, 2005 by Daniil

[atm711]

Well, Danill, you have a bit of growing up to do When I saw my first ballet I didn't know an arabesque from a glissade. The dancers who have always thrilled me on the stage are those who can make me forget about technique, and sadly, today, they are few and far between.

[cargill]

About overacting, I think it may be part of the video problem--the dancers were not performing for the camera and its closeups, but for an audience several hundred feet away, so they often do look stagey and artificial--but believe me Fonteyn and Nureyev in person could make you cry, which is much more memorable in the long run that any amount of gasps.

[Mme. Hermine]

For some reason this brings to mind a day some time ago when I was at the Ballet Shop. Two ballet students were looking at a poster of Maya Plisetskaya and seemed to find it very funny. I couldn't resist, and told them "Just think; in 25 years, if you're lucky, someone will be laughing at you!"

Cargill I think you have hit on something there also. Most often these videos are capturing stage acting for a television-type audience. I think that sometimes the acting comes across as too broad for that reason. But the same would happen when capturing a current performance unless those involved "tone it down", I'd think.

I saw Margot Fonteyn only once, in a performance she did with Ruth Page's Chicago Ballet in 1975 or so. She did a pas de deux with Ivan Nagy and also the Raymonda Pas de Dix with him and the Chicago Ballet. All around her were younger, more technically accomplished dancers, but even then she didn't fade into the background.

[Guest nycdog]

Bravo for Daniil's post, "'Good Old Days...' seem to be your motto."

I couldn't agree more except that I think Nureyev was and is great.

A year ago I had this Swan Lake movie being discussed here in a DIVX .avi file and I hated Fonteyn in it, all I remember is that she seemed to be flat on her feet a lot. I thought Nureyev was wonderful in this movie. He has a way of moving that is incredibly beautiful and so much better than anyone else.

atm711:

"Well, Danill, you have a bit of growing up to do When I saw my first ballet I didn't know an arabesque from a glissade"

Obviously you haven't been to Daniil's web site and watched the videos of him dancing. He's definitely all grown up!

[Daniil]

...

I couldn't agree more except that I think Nureyev was and is great. 

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I think Nureyev was an unique person and character! Personally for me it is obvious, that Nureyev was the most important male dancer in the 20th century! I have read his biography and watched everything I could get. Maybe I didn't point out right what I wanted to say. Of course Nureyev was on stage "Like an animal" I didn't see him live, but I can imagine. He will be all my life in my mind as an idol. Technically he was also very far for his time (especially his landings and balance). But nowadays these things are mostly requirements for being a porfessional dancer. These things Nureyev was the first to master them and that made him a pioneer.

"Well, Danill, you have a bit of growing up to do When I saw my first ballet I didn't know an arabesque from a glissade"

Sorry atm, but I didn't understand your post. Why do I have to grow up? I come from ballet family, so I lifed my whole life with ballet. And you can be sure, that I know what an arabesque is

About the overacting problem: I think it was just normal to act to such a degree in old times.

I find overacting not so good, since then all your role becomes not believable for the audience (I've seen dancer cry onstange and that was too much for me). As a viewer you become suspicious, when something is overdone.

Maybe it's just me :rolleyes: ...

Edited April 8, 2005 by Daniil

[Mme. Hermine]

Well, Daniil, I think it is not so much a question of improvement or progress but rather of taste. I think you can rest assured that at some point in the not so distant future there will be those who find Zakharova or Guillem or Carreno or even you old fashioned or even weak. I am not saying anything about you, but I do feel that it is somewhat inevitable. You are the product of your time as others were the product of theirs. If you see that they didn't do 5 to 10 pirouettes in a variation certainly doesn't mean that there was no one who could, just that there was no one who was asked to do them. I also don't think that Nureyev was the first to do what you're thinking of, just that he is the first one that a lot of us saw do them. Add to that his incredible personality and you have something special even when tastes change. In my opinion of course.