Reversing Gottlieb's Observation

[adagio1]

In his May 12, 2005 article in The Observer, Gottlieb writes:"Isn’t it odd how good choreography helps a dancer look better?"

Reminds me of The Men's Warehouse motto.

However, in the collaborative spirit present in the rehearsal studio, a dancer DOES very well make a choreographer look better.

This is why Jock Soto will be sadly missed. Not only for the roles he left behind, but for the ones he wasn't there to make better before they went out. And there are few left in the company that have this gift.

There are reasons why fashion supermodels are in such high demand, they bring glamor, visibility, credibility, they make anything they wear look great, and most importantly, they inspire.

Not only do we need choreoraphic talent, but superdancers to achieve this.

[Leigh Witchel]

I'll agree up to a point.

Speaking as a choreographer who has choreographed on some great dancers, there are definite advantages. Getting to work with Peter Boal is like having someone chuck you a Stradivarius and invite you to try a few riffs and see how it plays. In the solo I made for Alexandra Ansanelli, I put steps in (like a double pirouette from an echappe to second) simply because she could do them - it was like watching a bee fly while knowing it shouldn't be possible.

There are a few downsides to working with great dancers that a choreographer needs to watch for:

Their schedules. Obviously, this one can be completely circumvented with proper time and money, but one has to have them.

Their skill. Great dancers make bad ideas look acceptable, or even worse, good. You have to be aware of this constantly. They make things work that you'd be better off editing out.

And the most subtle problem, is sort of a Katherine Hepburn dilemma. You have to watch out that everything they do looks like them. Completely fictional example - what if Marie Taglioni made no distinction between dancing Noverre's choreography or Galeotti's - that it all looked like Taglioni? No viewer should care, but the choreographer most decidedly should.

[Alexandra]

I'd vote for BOTH "good choreography can make dancers look good" and "good dancers can make a ballet look good". And a good partner, in ballroom dancer, can make a klutz look good. Goodness rubs off, provides a shield. The old theater cliche, "She's so good I'd be happy to listen to her recite the phone book" is true, because a transcendant star can make the most mundane text (whether words or steps) interesting. Or because you just plain adore the speaker/dancer and would be happy to watch them take out the garbage. And a clever choreographer can make a weak dancer look fantastic -- by playing up their strengths and hiding their weaknesses and the simplest thing of all: putting the right person in the right place/steps at the right time.

I wouldn't want to live in a world of great choreography and only bored, bad dancers, and I wouldn't want to live in a world of only terrific dancers dancing only crapola. Hmm. Which are we in now? Or to which side of the continuum are we tilting? Perhaps a poll......

[Farrell Fan]

Or because you just plain adore the speaker/dancer and would be happy to watch them take out the garbage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also true of choreographers. My wife and I once saw Jerome Robbins taking out his garbage. It made us happy.

[Helene]

A great dancer making choreography look good ties to the thread about Suzanne Farrell Ballet's Bejart rep in next season's lineup.

[adagio1]

One only haas to look at Wheeldon's most memorable ballets: if it aint got that Jock, it aint good.

[Amy Reusch]

One only haas to look at Wheeldon's most memorable ballets: if it aint got that Jock, it aint good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does that include that Swan Lake on Pennsylvania Ballet or just the NYCB creations?