Robert Johnson's view: Wheeldon should run NYCB.

[Paul Parish]

The thoughtful and knowledgeable critic Robert Johnson, who doesn't have the wide readership he should, found Wheeldon's new work so striking it made him think " "Evenfall" makes plain that Wheeldon has stupendous talent and he should run New York City Ballet." (See the article linked today.)

It may be a thought that came to him in the heat of his admiration, but it seems at least as worthy of debate as Rockwell's more widely publicized views. What do you all think?

[Mel Johnson]

Wheeldon is definitely a man of genius, and embarked upon a career in choreography which is most promising. I don't know if saddling him with NYCB at this time would be beneficial for him. I would want him to keep his choreographic options open, and create more, which he might not be able to do if he were managing the administration and nuts and bolts of a major ballet company.

[Michael]

A contrary argument can be made that "Evenfall" is not a particularly successful work -- The central pas de deux is empty and there is no chemistry at all between Woetzel and Weese. But maybe that's the point. But this is fairly consistent in Wheeldon -- If you go through all Chris's work, the only time he's made a romantic pas deux with real impact was for Wendy and Jock in "After the Rain." In this line of argument, to call Wheeldon a "man of genius" might be a bit strong. The argument proceeds that one wants a little bit of heart in a great choreographer.

People's reputations probably suffer as much from being excessively praised as from the lack of praise. The excess prompts a reaction to adjust in the other direction.

[richard53dog]

Wheeldon is definitely a man of genius, and embarked upon a career in choreography which is most promising. I don't know if saddling him with NYCB at this time would be beneficial for him. I would want him to keep his choreographic options open, and create more, which he might not be able to do if he were managing the administration and nuts and bolts of a major ballet company.

My thought too. It would be possible , I guess, but why saddle him with all the managerial stuff. Is there any indication that he has any experience or aptitude as an administrator?

Because of Balanchine, there has always been this idea that the NYCB administrator was the primary choreography and vice versa. I don't think that's necessarily valid anymore; they are two very different sets of skills.

For myself, I'd rather see Wheeldon work as a choreographer and try to develop along that line.

Richard

[Helene]

NYCB started out as a small group of people who were mainly dedicated to Balanchine, as an outgrowth of other small groups, the school, and from Maria Tallchief's own description, a marriage (or two). It was nomadic until being made the official ballet company of City Center, and then given a building in the new Lincoln Center. Balanchine, who was interested in anything that happened in a theater -- music, costumes, lighting, tiaras -- was less interested in the administrative side. As others have pointed out on the Rockwell thread, he had Lincoln Kirstein, Betty Cage, and Barbara Horgan, who were personally loyal to him and his vision. Kirstein was able to bring in Robert Gottlieb to take on the logistically challenge of creating sixteen weeks of repertory programs. Balanchine also had the friendship and loyalty of a hand-picked faculty and staff, and the mentorship of Stravinsky to fuel his creativity.

The situation at NYCB is quite different, and I don't think a choreographer can slot into the same roles, without a contingent like Balanchine's. To run an institution requires two kinds of abilities: on the one hand, the people skills and commitment to the growth of people, which, hopefully, the choreographer has, or s/he's an unlikely candidate for being mentioned, and on the other, those specific to the administrative and fundraising realm. As well as ability, it takes will. That's why I think it's a logical jump from "great choreographer who knows the company intimately" to "he should run the whole thing."

I'd be interested in reading an analysis of whether Wheeldon would be appropriate for this role (now and/or in the future) based on the range of abilities needed to fulfill it.

[Farrell Fan]

Where is the link to the Robert Johnson article? With all due respect, the little I've read of his criticism did not strike me as "thoughtful." Rather, he seemed someone who shoots from the lip.

[Helene]

It was in yesterday's links. Here's the direct link:

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/ledger/ind...4320.xml&coll=1

[Farrell Fan]

Thanks for the link, Helene. I don't know if this comment of Mr. Johnson's calls for a guffaw or a discreet Balanchinian sniff: "Because he trained and danced in England before coming here, Wheeldon has a broader frame of reference than most City Ballet alums."

[kfw]

I don't know if this comment of Mr. Johnson's calls for a guffaw or a discreet Balanchinian sniff: "Because he trained and danced in England before coming here, Wheeldon has a broader frame of reference than most City Ballet alums."

Farrell Fan, that sounds all to the good to me. Balanchine had a broader frame of reference than Balanchine. The broader the background, the potentially richer the work. Wheeldon must be 25-30 years younger than Martins, so perhaps he really will succeed him some day. Would he be a good steward of the Balanchine repertory? We know he can make a mean neo-classical ballet.

[beck_hen]

I've been trying to assess where I come down on the debate about Martins, and I feel Wheeldon is an important part of the equation. I found Rockwell's piece a non-event—as others stated, where was the new information; what was the occasion for the pronouncement from on high? I think that if Martins were doing a great job, the results would speak for themselves, eventually. And it has been twenty years or so! The debate is really over whether he is doing a competent, acceptable job or whether he is completely trashing the company.

I can accept the proposition that NYCB should be focused on presenting cutting-edge work rather than focusing primarily on preserving Balanchine's works (honoring Balanchine's vision rather than his ballets per se). But a choreographer of genius is required to justify that vision of the company. Otherwise we miss out on seeing good and great Balanchine and Robbins to see mediocre new work. Is this just like eating our vegetables or taking our vitamins? A necessary evil? I would rather see the ballets by Tharp and Morris ABT puts on. They are first-rate choreographers, even if ballet is not their primary vocabulary.

In my view, Martins' choreography is third-rate at best. I'll accept that some of it may be useful in providing vehicles for younger dancers. But I think the Diamond Project should be scaled back to place more emphasis on quality over quantity. Taking chances is one thing, but how many instantly disposable ballets do we need? Doesn't developing choreographers require more of an investment? Doesn't it seem like most great choreographers found a secure home with one company, where they could really know and show off the dancers?

We should see much more from Wheeldon, who should be building a new canon. Otherwise, why was he named resident choreographer? All his freelancing is dissipating his energies. Maybe he hasn't hit his stride, maybe he will never really arrive, but there are some things he seems to get. I like that he makes ballets like Carnival of the Animals and An American in Paris. Balanchine did not eschew the crowd- or child-pleasing either. A mix of highbrow and lowbrow, modern and more traditional works sounds about right to me, and he has shown that range. I don't think he needs to run the company to become the resource NYCB needs. Less Martins choreography and more Wheeldon should do it.

[bart]

... I think the Diamond Project should be scaled back to place more emphasis on quality over quantity. Taking chances is one thing, but how many instantly disposable ballets do we need? Doesn't developing choreographers require more of an investment? Doesn't it seem like most great choreographers found a secure home with one company, where they could really know and show off the dancers?

Sounds to me like an excellent point, beck_hen. Truly, it's a complex issue, especially in these days of quick international travel, the constant movement of major dancers and choreographers from one company to another, and the consequent watering down of distinct company styles.

Looking through the list of ballets produced and created by NYCB and its forebears from the 1930s through 1976 (Nancy Reynolds, Repertory in Review), it's staggering how many masterpieces were created. (Of course, it helped to have Balanchine and Robbins doing most of the choreography.)

But it's also interesting to see how many risks were taken with other choreographers -- , d'Amboise, Villella, Taras, Bolender, Clifford, Tanner, Lorca Massine --. a number of whom were dancers or former dancers with the company. Most of them knew the company, and the company knew them. Unlike much of the Diamond Project work, it seems that they functioned as a kind of a team, at least when working on the Stravinsky and Ravel festivals.

This approach did not guarantee mastepieces. On the whole, these works have dropped out of the active rep. Some were intended as occasional pieces or bits of fluff (even Balanchine contributed to these). Others simply went out of style or weren't good enough.

But the HOPE at least that something important would be produced made each new season interesting. And not only for the audience. The dancers and other artists of the company must certainly have benefited from the collaborative creativity that came from having so much choreographic talent (great and not-so-great) involved with the company on a regular basis.

[beck_hen]

Thanks bart. I like what you've said to extend my musings. It seems another thing that contributed to past success was that the programming had a controlling theme, i.e. different choreographers but one composer for the Stravinsky and Ravel festivals (I admit to being too young to have seen them, but Repertory in Review is a wonderful way to live vicariously). Have past Diamond Projects been themed? That, in addition to choreographers from "within the family" might give the event more coherence.

Sorry this is going a bit OFF TOPIC. But perhaps the question is: where does Wheeldon really fit? Who is his ballet family, NYCB, the Royal, or San Francisco Ballet? I know he is in demand everywhere because promising ballet choreographers are scarce.

[carbro]

Thanks for posing the question, Paul. I've been mulling this over since you did, and it's a very painful matter for me. Others have alluded to some of the practical matters -- does Chris want to take on the wide range of AD responsibilities, does he have the people skills, can he be a "public face" of the company?

Chris emceed the recent YAGP gala with poise and charm, ad libbing with a story (at his own expense) during a technical snafu. While that brief glimpse is not evidence of his ability to carry the larger mantle, year in and year out, it certainly indicated potential. Whether he wants it -- and all the rest -- is something only he can answer. It's entirely possible he'd choose a Jerry Robbins role -- choreograph and leave the larger administrative duties to someone else.

Even though I think Wheeldon is a more gifted choreographer than Martins, his ballets do not necessarily look like direct descendents of Balanchine. Nor, probably, should they. And NYCB under Wheeldon would be a greater step away from NYCB under Martins. I do not like the idea of the company falling into the hands of someone who absorbed Balanchine through Martins -- as opposed to, say, through Farrell or Villella -- but I cannot suggest any realistic alternative.

Yet.

[dirac]

All Martins’ successor will have to do to get off to a good start is invite a few older dancers in to coach. The results will immediately be greeted with ecstatic reviews declaring that The Magic is Back or On the Way. I think I could compose the reviews in advance out here in California without actually seeing any of the performances.

You could argue that NYCB already has a canon of ballets by Balanchine and Robbins, and the primary responsibility of any ballet master at NYCB is the custody of that canon. You don’t necessarily want someone who is building his own, because if that person is interesting and original enough he will quite naturally want a company that will showcase his own work with dancers coached in his manner, which may or may not be compatible with the central repertory.

[hbl]

You could argue that NYCB already has a canon of ballets by Balanchine and Robbins, and the primary responsibility of any ballet master at NYCB is the custody of that canon.

I think if that happened Balanchine would be spinning in his grave. He was very clear in that he never wanted NYCB to become a museum.

I think the reason he passed the mantle on to Martins was because Martins was starting to choreograph. And Martins does have talent. It was IMHO evidence from his first effort - Calcium Light Night. I really enjoyed that ballet and wish that he would bring it back. It was supposed to be on the program I think last year but whomever was doing it became ill or injured. And while many Martins ballets leave me cold, others are wonderful - Barber Violin Concerto for example.

I also give credit to Martins for binging in all of these new choreographers. It is a wonderful experience for everyone - the dancers, the musicians, the costum people, and certainly and most importantly the audience. And he risks being overshadowed by these new works. It takes a lot of guts to go out of his way to do this. Same with the Choreographic Institute. A wonderful idea. And in making Wheldon the "official" company choreographer I think he has show that he is not as self centered as one might have thought.

Martins is not Balanchine. But neither is anyone else. Probably no one in the lifetime of our youngest member is likely to see anyone of that genius. I haven't seen works by Farrell or Villela that make me yearn to have them do extensive choreographing for NYCB.

I think Wheeldon is best suited now to be Robbins to Martins Balanchine. In 5, 10, 20, 30 years who knows what will happen. When Martins is no loging willing or able to run the company Wheeldon may take the reigns capably. But I think that may not be for a very long time.

And all of this non-sense about Martins not bringing in Blanchine trained people is just that - non-sense. The only one that he has really distanced himself from apears to be Suzanne Farrell, and that is a shame and very unfortunate. But if you look in your program you will see many Balanchine trained dancers who are now serving as Ballet Masters with the company including: Rosemary Dunleavy, Karin von Aroldingen, JeanPierre Frohlich, Susan Hendl, Lisa Jackson, Russell Kaiser, Sara Leland, Christine Redpath, Richard Tanner and Martin's assistan - Sean Lavery.

And he is in contact with others I am sure - Bonefeuox is a perfect example. I know he has also used Violette Verdy, Merrill Ashley and others as well.

And lets not forget the staff at SAB which includes Kay Mazzo, Darci Kistelr, Susan Pilarre, Suki Shorer, Sheryl Ware and many others - all Balanchine trained.

So as for myself, thinking about what is possible - keeping a significant reperatory of Balanchine and Robbins while experimenting and producing new works is as much as I could ever want. And Martins is delivering that. Yes, maybe a few less Martins works and a few more Wheeldons or more of the Balanchine/Robbins rep might be nice if I was programming it. But on the whole over the last 24 years I think my hat goes off to Martins for all that he does right. The company is certainly in better financial shape than it has been in its history. Not a small task when you look at what is going on in the arts community these days.

I may not like much of Martins choreography, nor the fact that he has distanced himself from Farrell - my all time favorite dancer - but he has done so much else right that I am a huge fan of his.

[KayDenmark]

Well said, HBL!

[dirac]

I think if that happened Balanchine would be spinning in his grave. He was very clear in that he never wanted NYCB to become a museum.

True -- if by “museum” you mean “ballets with the life frozen out of them with neglect and the passage of time." I would agree Balanchine wouldn't have wanted such a thing. But having the care of classic works as a central concern doesn't mean presiding over a "museum" in that negative sense.