Spring 2005 Ballet Review

[kfw]

The latest issue of Ballet Review looks just wonderful. The contents:

Daniel Jacobson -- Sylvia: "Can These Bones Live?

Debra Jowitt -- Working with Robbins: Helene Alexopoulos and Jean-Pierr Frolich

Joeb Lobenthal -- Gillian Murphy

David Vaughan -- Further Annals of the Sleeping Beauty

Marc Haegeman -- The Bolshoi at Covent Garden

Don Daniels -- The Bolshoi in Transit

Catherine Kerr -- Pilobolus

Barbara Newman -- Birthday Parties, London and New York

Catherine Pawlick -- Classical vs. Modern at the Maryinsky

Oleg Levenkov -- Apollon Musagete: Sculpture, Painting, Geste

Clement Crisp -- London Reporter

Music on Disc

Among the eight regional reviews are reports from Boston and Nova Scotia by Leigh Witchel.

[Jack Reed]

Maybe some of the actual contents of the articles disappoint expectations aroused by the list in the front:

I did find Levenkov's article on Apollo more than interesting; the text refreshed and enlivened the ballet in memory for me, and the historic photos, fascinating in themselves, make me all the more appreciative of the powerfully clarifying and simplifying effect of the ending of the last (complete) version I think most of us know, including the slight alteration of the arms in the last moment to the linked arrangement, compared to some earlier stagings with both of each dancers' arms forward and with some pretty amazing concepts for Mount Olympus.

But Levenkov lost me completely where he plunges too abruptly, and without explanation, into his geste concept in a publication intended, I thought, for the general audience or at least one of of aficiandos, not academic scholars (not that these are entirely separate); and speaking of the photos, am I the only one who suspects that the caption under the one on page 85 is wrong and that that is Ib Andersen, not Peter Martins, as Apollo? (I'll bet someone here can clear me up about both matters.)

But really peculiar to me was the article by Barbara Newman (page 62), who thinks it was the printed and graphic decorations in the New York State Theatre lobby that were "evidence of the [NYCB]'s pride and respect for Balanchine's accomplishments" rather than how authentically the ballets were danced on the theatre's stage, a matter she says she doesn't want to "debate," not that she's completely oblivious to matters of style, saying in the context of the Royal Ballet's anniversary that Fonteyn's personal qualities "Ashton transformed into an entire style and repertory."

So does the repertory exist without certain qualities and style in its performance? It looks to me like in saying there is good news in their still being danced she wants us to believe that ballets still exist in performances lacking the style their choreographers made them in, in contradiction of herself.

[Farrell Fan]

Jack, I took Barbara Newman's point to be that the look of ballets changes over time, and those of us who remember how Balanchine's used to look at NYCB realize this, but should be nevertheless grateful that they have escaped the fate of Ashton's ballets. Balanchine's are still performed in quantity at NYCB, whereas Ashton's are doled out in miserly fashion at the Royal. I'm not sure I agree that badly-staged Balanchine is better than none, but her Balanchine/Ashton statistics seem inarguable.

[Paul Parish]

Am half-way through my copy -- wonderful picture of Lifar on hte cover, as Apollo, with a magnificent curve passing through his spine as he does hte "neon-lights-in-Picadilly-Circus" thing with his hands -- both hands at hte same time, by he way -- We don't see line like that very often, no wonder Mr B thought Lifar was remarkable for his plastique.

My favorite thing in the very good issue is the Jowett/Alexopoulos/Frohlich discussion of Robbins -- it's just fascinating. Check it out.

And indeed, here's some very tasty writing by Leigh Witchell on the Bolshoi's "house special," DonQ -- wonderful piece.