Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Suzanne Farrell's "Holding on to the Air"


Guest primasmom

Recommended Posts

cbmb, I think if you find "Holding Onto the Air" stiff reading (and I'll be honest: I do too), you might want to get its companion piece of sorts, Elusive Muse. That's a documentary which of course doesn't go into as much detail as the book, but is rounded out with dance clips, interviews with Suzanne's colleagues and family, and also, Suzanne's own voice, which I found stifled in her autobiography. She was IMO much clearer, more articulate in Elusive Muse.

Link to comment
For those who read it alredy...does it gets more interesting...?

No, but there's a reason the curse in China is "May you live in interesting times."

Cristian, this curse is supposedly one of three, so I utter the following two for your protection as you continue your slow progress through 'Holding on to the Air'... :wink:

May you live in interesting times is reputed to be the English translation of an ancient Chinese proverb and curse. It is reported[who?] that it was the first of three curses of increasing severity, the other two being:

May you come to the attention of those in authority

May you find what you are looking for

(My guess is that the 3rd one is particularly inscrutable, and that the second is the most compassionate and well-wishing despite curse.)

Agree about watching 'Elusive Muse' as better than the book. There are even home movies from back in Mt. Healthy, Suzanne in huge summer shorts in Saratoga, Jacques d'Amboise, Bejart and always this strange-sounding way that she refers to 'George', like they were the Odd Couple or something. I guess she called him that in the pre-Bejart years, but it never sounds as though she's quite comfortable with it. Some of it is out of date (she has since divorced Mejia, which deflates some of the legend for me, NOT the dancing, mind you...Paul Mejia likes his then wife in 'Diamonds' as much as I do.) Her voice is very light and pretty, much like Allegra Kent's, so I think this film is the way for you to keep out of trouble...She is beautiful teaching her class.

Link to comment

I think anyone who opens Holding on to the Air expecting an exciting read, something on the order of Farrell's performing, is bound to be disappointed. As Farrell herself once said when asked whether she delved into Cervantes while preparing her role(s) in Balanchine's Don Quixote, "What does reading have to do with dancing?" The book is a modest, matter-of-fact story of her career. It probably won't end up on anyone's short list of great autobiographies, but it's interesting enough to those of us interested in her.

Link to comment
As Farrell herself once said when asked whether she delved into Cervantes while preparing her role(s) in Balanchine's Don Quixote, "What does reading have to do with dancing?"

I know for a fact she did delve into a minute amount of Cervantes, however... Nor do I think that answer is going to go to Bartlett's either, if 'A day away from Tallulah is like a month in the country' didn't. It is perfectly obvious that knowing Don Quixote by reading it would not have been an illogical thing to do, no matter whether she did okay without it (most of it.)

Maybe reading has nothing to do with acting either.

Link to comment
Maybe reading has nothing to do with acting either.

Maybe reading is unnecesary altogether...Who knows..?

For the record, I'll just mention that a NYTimes article covering well-known dancers' hobbies and pastimes did include Farrell talking about being an avid reader, although not whether she preferred fiction or non-fiction. About 1987 or earlier. Had things like Cynthia Gregory going to the races, etc.

Link to comment
I don't think reading the novel would necessarily have helped her (or anyone) interpret the ballet; the "author" whose work she performed was not Cervantes but Balanchine.

I suppose you could say that Cervantes had no authorship of Balanchine's Don Quixote, in the same way as one wouldn't say that Shakespeare was one of the authors of 'West Side Story'. The character is not original with Balanchine in the same sense as what you see in Mozartiana or Chaconne, though. Balanchine surely was familiar with the original in some other form than hearsay, just as Titania in his ballet was derived from 'Midsummer Night's Dream'. Would it be unhelpful to know that play as well? It could not be, although that doesn't mean I could prove it was therefore helpful. The only way it could have been better not to have read the book and known nothing of how it originated would be because she would then be able to consume the choreography as if it were purely original (it was) and also the character as if it were purely original (it wasn't in the literal sense. There is still the basic Cervantes ownership of the property there, or Balanchine would have changed the names to 'Maria', 'Tony', etc.) She just chose not to read the book. Many dancers would have wanted to.

Link to comment
I don't think reading the novel would necessarily have helped her (or anyone) interpret the ballet; the "author" whose work she performed was not Cervantes but Balanchine.
I agree. Not to mention that edtions of the complete work run around 900 pages (even the small-print Penguin Classic). Very little of this has made its way to Balanchine's version. (Almost none has made it's way to Petipa.)

Looking at the artwork inspired by the book would certainly have been useful, I would think. Especially the Dore engravings. They express much of the spiritual, emotional aspect of the story that Balanchine was trying to convey on stage.

For example:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...GLR:en%26sa%3DN

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...GLR:en%26sa%3DN

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...GLR:en%26sa%3DN

Link to comment
I don't think reading the novel would necessarily have helped her (or anyone) interpret the ballet; the "author" whose work she performed was not Cervantes but Balanchine.
I agree. Not to mention that edtions of the complete work run around 900 pages (even the small-print Penguin Classic). Very little of this has made its way to Balanchine's version. (Almost none has made it's way to Petipa.)

I see what you mean. I wonder if either Petipa or Balanchine read the book, or just looked at plates, otherwise 'oral tradition' like hearing a legend or something. Probably this has been done sometimes, but in the case of 'Midsummer Night's Dream' is less likely--althogh seeing the play would be part of it, the choreographer would still have to read the play in order to get the couples straight. However, the dancer would still not need to have read it, I agree, and that goes along with the ideas of small education that have been bandied about in the Allegra Kent thread today, as well as many other threads about how dancers don't have much liberal arts education that came out in discussions such as Ray's http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=27483. Some of them are bound to be well-read, but probably not usually when they're very young and almost never if they're working a lot.

Link to comment
I don't think reading the novel would necessarily have helped her (or anyone) interpret the ballet; the "author" whose work she performed was not Cervantes but Balanchine.
I agree. Not to mention that editions of the complete work run around 900 pages (even the small-print Penguin Classic). Very little of this has made its way to Balanchine's version. (Almost none has made it's way to Petipa.)

Wait there...now i have to disagree...it's not about what does Cervantes has to do with any dancing or choreographer whatsoever-Petipa, Balanchine or John Smith- but rather what the dancer NEEDS to know about a ballet in which some degree of interpretation is involved. Good that Farrell did know who Dulcinea was at the time she became her, or where La Mancha was located-(now, try to go and ask some dancers who actually perform DQ about this geographic place, or even better, for the book's author...and be prepared for some answers). Sad to hear comments from dancers mouths which involves a generalized accepted theory of "non-knowledge" of the written basement of some of their roles.

Link to comment
Wait there...now i have to disagree...it's not about what does Cervantes has to do with any dancing or choreographer whatsoever-Petipa, Balanchine or John Smith- but rather what the dancer NEEDS to know about a ballet in which some degree of interpretation is involved. Good that Farrell did know who Dulcinea was at the time she became her, or where La Mancha was located-(now, try to go and ask some dancers who actually perform DQ about this geographic place, or even better, for the book's author...and be prepared for some answers). Sad to hear comments from dancers mouths which involves a generalized accepted theory of "non-knowledge" of the written basement of some of their roles.

I'm sure any dancer knows who Dulcinea is and where La Mancha is if they are in the lead roles. What this was about was 'What does reading have to do with dancing?' which was quoted as if it meant something because someone who is authoritative elsewhere--as a dancer, as a Dulcinea, as a number of things--is also authoritative about reading. The statement is frankly without any meaning at all outside the immediate context, because in most cases, the more knowledge relating to any subject, the better. But in Farrell's case, where the directive, 'just dance, don't think' may have been more easily followed than by other people, it is all right, because she was fine with that way of working with Balanchine in the purest sense. The statement refers mostly to her. It is like saying that you cannot understand nor appreciate, nay, even sing 'The Marriage of Figaro' better if you know about Mozart's life and Ponte's life and something of Austrian history and/or musical history. What has reading history or biography got to do with singing? You may remember something I wrote, Cristian, about this kind of statement that is made meaningful because the one saying it is acclaimed for some unrelated domain. This is where fame can make statements that are meaningful and meaningless alike take on a lustre that is based purely on fandom. It's quite possible that she didn't read the book because Balanchine told her it was not necessary, and it may not have been. If he had told her to read it, she would have. It is not that she should have necessarily read the book, since the results were what Balanchine wanted and have become legendary, it is that usually 'the more knowledge the better'. But it's probably that there just wasn't time to read it, and I'm sure Balanchine and Petipa had either read the book or large swathes of it themselves. They knew that whatever they did with it, that this was not one of their pieces that they came up with on their own, and that however little it may resemble the novel, it came from that novel, in precisely the same way that Midsummer Night's Dream came from Shakespeare.

But there are all sorts of sophistries of this sort, and they can be played ad infinitum.

Link to comment

I'd be very surprised, although I don't think Farrell mentions it, if she wasn't aware of the symphonic tradition that Cincinnati was so proud of. Or if she never heard a Met performance on the radio -- even if only though a neighbor's open window.

Farrell and I are more or less of an age. (She's several years younger than I.) Gorwing up in America in the 50s we shared a surprising rich and varied cultural experience. She mentions reading stories from classical mythology in her Catholic high school Latin class. She got to dance with the Ballets Russes when they visited down (Nutcracker, Alonso, Youskevitch). She played a mouse in Sleeping Beauty when the Royal Ballet on tour. She danced in a student demonstration with the Cincinnati Orchestra. She saw NYCB in Bloomington, Indiana. And -- suprise! -- she began "haunting" the public library and taking home ballet books She got records and listened to classical music.

My point is that Farrell's life was not as culture-poor as we may think. This kind of experience, even if there's no one to explain it to you on a university level, provides a loose jigsaw of things you love and value. Into that format, you can make room for other experiences as they come along. You accumulate, you fit in the pieces where you think they belong. You spent time between these experiences remembering them. It's an amazingly creative and rewarding way to learn. For instance, Farrell mentions her early fascination with the Virgin Mary, a role she never got to play in the May pageant in Catholic school, and how this paved the way for Dulcinea's appearance as Mary in the ballet much later on.

My own high school was an hour away on the Long Island Railroad from Manhattan. We did read Don Q in Spanish class -- or chunks of it. We performed the obligatory Shakespeare or Shaw play each year. Some of us snuck into town to see a Broadway show and -- in my case, at least -- the New York City Ballet. We even had Classic Comic Books -- a remarkable and extremely effective window into the world of great and not-so-great literature (with pictures!!!).

Llfe for young people in the 50s, even in small towns and cities, was not as culture poor and conventional as people today might think. In fact, they may have been significantly culture-richer than what is available to young people today, even in Cincinnatti. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Farrell's life was not as culture-poor as we may think.

No one thinks it, nor even considered it as a possibility.

Not at all...and as i said before, i do think it was great that she knew who Dulcinea was when she danced her...and believe me, i know just few people who've been able to get trough the whole Cervantes y Saavedra's work...me not one of them.

Link to comment

[

m sure any dancer knows who Dulcinea is and where La Mancha is if they are in the lead roles. What this was about was 'What does reading have to do with dancing?' which was quoted as if it meant something because someone who is authoritative elsewhere--as a dancer, as a Dulcinea, as a number of things--is also authoritative about reading. The statement is frankly without any meaning at all outside the immediate context, because in most cases, the more knowledge relating to any subject, the better. But in Farrell's case, where the directive, 'just dance, don't think' may have been more easily followed than by other people, it is all right, because she was fine with that way of working with Balanchine in the purest sense. The statement refers mostly to her. It is like saying that you cannot understand nor appreciate, nay, even sing 'The Marriage of Figaro' better if you know about Mozart's life and Ponte's life and something of Austrian history and/or musical history. What has reading history or biography got to do with singing? You may remember something I wrote, Cristian, about this kind of statement that is made meaningful because the one saying it is acclaimed for some unrelated domain. This is where fame can make statements that are meaningful and meaningless alike take on a lustre that is based purely on fandom. It's quite possible that she didn't read the book because Balanchine told her it was not necessary, and it may not have been. If he had told her to read it, she would have. It is not that she should have necessarily read the book, since the results were what Balanchine wanted and have become legendary, it is that usually 'the more knowledge the better'. But it's probably that there just wasn't time to read it, and I'm sure Balanchine and Petipa had either read the book or large swathes of it themselves. They knew that whatever they did with it, that this was not one of their pieces that they came up with on their own, and that however little it may resemble the novel, it came from that novel, in precisely the same way that Midsummer Night's Dream came from Shakespeare.

But there are all sorts of sophistries of this sort, and they can be played ad infinitum.

[/i]

I think Farrell was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with this remark, and I think you may be making too much of it. The reason I brought it up was to suggest that one might not look to her book for some profound explanation or enhancement of her dancing, because that's not a connection she might make herself. Yes, in a way the more "knowledge" a dancer has the more she might bring to a role, but Farrell's point, in this comment and in other remarks in her book and elsewhere, is that this sort of "extra-curricular" work wasn't needed with Balanchine. She trusted him to convey all the meaning necessary through his choreography, and he trusted her to make that meaning blazingly clear and beautiful through her dancing. There are different approaches, of course - think of Gelsey Kirkland struggling desperately to find some dramatic, literary or emotional "motivation" for Raymonda's variation with her gauzy scarf, as described in Dancing on My Grave.

Link to comment
Farrell's point, in this comment and in other remarks in her book and elsewhere, is that this sort of "extra-curricular" work wasn't needed with Balanchine.

...and of course i know that his method is followed in America as a syllabus and his words as a whole philosophical dancing system, but i still find it hard do follow and/or understand...Then, I'm not the great Farrell, BTW. But hey...again, i'm still happy that she knew who Dulcinea was...right Patrick?

I'm sure any dancer knows who Dulcinea is and where La Mancha is if they are in the lead roles.

Hum...i would hope so, but Patrick...don't put your head in the guillotine on it...I've heard too many conversations in groups of very young dancers, and wow...better not tell some of their analysis and/or their knowledge on certain ballets and roles...

Link to comment
cbmb, I think if you find "Holding Onto the Air" stiff reading (and I'll be honest: I do too), you might want to get its companion piece of sorts, Elusive Muse.

Elusive Muse is essential but it suffers from the same structural flaw as “Holding on to the Air” (which it follows fairly closely, diary entries and all), in that it loses direction and momentum after Farrell returns to NYCB in the seventies. The avoidance of any discussion of what happened between Farrell and Martins is a huge hole in the movie, as is the missing Martins. It’s not that I don’t understand the reasons for this, but the omissions are glaring and they hurt the last half of the film.

I don't think reading the novel would necessarily have helped her (or anyone) interpret the ballet; the "author" whose work she performed was not Cervantes but Balanchine.

Balanchine thought the same way, it seems. Farrell says in her book she did try reading the novel, but admitted to Balanchine that she found it heavy going, which is quite understandable, and he told her not to worry, it wasn’t crucial. I’m sure he thought he could give her what she needed to know about the story and her role in it.

Link to comment

When "Holding on to the Air" was published, the falling out between Farrell and Martins had yet to happen. In fact, NYCB arranged a publication book-signing for her on the Promenade of the New York State Theater -- a huge crowd showed up. As dirac says, the rift was totally ignored in the "Elusive Muse" film, but the latter part of that film made extensive use of "Dance in America" footage of Farrell and Martins, so that I, for one, did not miss Martins at all. For me, the revelation in that part of the film was when Suzanne, in her oblique, yet perfectly clear way, revealed that her marriage to Paul Mejia had ended.

Link to comment
For me, the revelation in that part of the film was when Suzanne, in her oblique, yet perfectly clear way, revealed that her marriage to Paul Mejia had ended.

Didn't she handle that well? She's awesome.

The Dance in America segments were welcome - they just seemed a tad familiar because they've been available on video for so long. I remember reading that Farrell was upset at not getting legal clearance for the Lincoln Center broadcast of Mozartiana, which I can understand. A lost opportunity.

Link to comment
For me, the revelation in that part of the film was when Suzanne, in her oblique, yet perfectly clear way, revealed that her marriage to Paul Mejia had ended.

Where did she mention that? I thought that when the film was made the two were still married.

Link to comment
For me, the revelation in that part of the film was when Suzanne, in her oblique, yet perfectly clear way, revealed that her marriage to Paul Mejia had ended.

Where did she mention that? I thought that when the film was made the two were still married.

Me too. If it had ended and she mentioned it, allusion to it was so subtle I totally missed it, but I only watched it once. And I think it is two years before the divorce, isn't it? I thought she just referred to Mejia as 'somebody I loved' ,referring to early 70s, etc., the whole conflict time.

Link to comment

My copy of "Elusive Muse" has eluded me, not for the first time, so my answer to canbelto and papeete patrick is necessarily fuzzy, given the state of my memory. There is a scene where Suzanne, back to the camera, is speculating on her marriage and says something to the effect that if that had happened (whatever that was), "the marriage wouldn't have worked either." Unlike Patrick, I've watched the film many times and the first times I heard Suzanne say this, I didn't hear the note of finality I eventually did. My impression is that she and Paul were still married when the film started being made, but by the end of it, they weren't.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...