Movmnt Magazine Has Lots of Promise

When I was in the bookstore earlier I finally had the chance to check out this newish magazine, co-founded by Danny Tidwell and journalist David Benaym, devoted to pop culture, fashion and of course dance. I remember they had a stack of an earlier issue in the lobby at Bad Boys of Dance at Jacob’s Pillow, and I remember flipping through and seeing some ads featuring Mia Michaels, but at that point I wasn’t really sure what it was.

It’s slim (as is to be expected with any new publication), but has some good articles. There are, amongst other things, an interview with choreographer Lar Lubovitch (one of my favorites) by dancer Rasta Thomas (also one of my favorites!), an article on up-and-coming choreographer Aszure Barton, an interview with Grey’s Anatomy song writer Ingrid Michaelson, a photo essay on Cuba that’s part glossy travel essay and part photo-journalism, and a write-up of The Winger featuring interviews with five of its contributors: founder Kristin Sloan, ballet and modern dance stars David Hallberg and Miki Orihara respectively, and, happily, South African grad student and dance artist Maia Jordaan, and dance and technology expert and B-boy Tony Schultz. Being theory-based, the Winger posts of the latter two are a bit more esoteric than the others’, and thus harder to understand (though definitely worth trying!), and I’m really happy the magazine decided to include interviews with them instead of only the most “popular” contributors. In particular, I just love Maia — she’s so smartly charming: “My work is inspired by the sense of a body in motion emoting a connection with the audience. Even stillness contains movement … In a society where the head is often cut off from the body, it is essential to bring head, heart and body together … My work is open-ended, asking the audience to fill the empty spaces with their own appreciation and understanding…” There’s also a little description of one of her own dance pieces, entitled “Still Waters” a site-specific work in which Jordaan, wearing pink underwear, half submerges herself in the dangerously murky waters of the Kaolin Quarry not knowing what may be found underneath. I don’t remember ever seeing this posted on the actual website and I wish she’d post more often her own work and South African performances she attends. She and Tony have thus far concentrated on leading the book discussion group, which so far has focused on the very theory-oriented work of dance philosopher Andre Lepecki, which is, I think very difficult for non-grad students of dance to comprehend.

In his “letter from the editor” at the front of the magazine, Benaym says he’s recently travelled around the country speaking with today’s teens, asking them that age-old question, what do you want to be when you grow up? Benaym laments the responses of the Facebook / MySpace generation (which Thomas Friedman calls Gen. Q.) as centering more around being “famous” than real achievement. “What happened to wanting to be an actor, or an astronaut, or a fireman?” he asks. “Yesterday’s kids dreamed of becoming heroes. Today they just want to be famous.” The magazine, by bringing pop culture together with artistry, “yearn[s] for a movement where talent and dedication take precedence over a thirst for stardom.” Hopefully they’ll continue to showcase and bring public attention to those who, like Jordaan and Schultz, have a hunger for art and knowledge and can pass it on to their audiences, and not just go after the celebrities. Anyway, I think it’s off to a great start!

Kavanagh on Nureyev: Part I A (i) (a)…

This book (the latest biography of the greatest dancer EVER imho), which officially went on sale yesterday in bookstores everywhere, is so huge it’s almost overwhelming just to look at. I think it makes more sense for me to give my thoughts on the book in segments, so that I don’t end up with a 100,000- word-long review!

In the first couple chapters Kavanagh paints a fairly well-rounded portrait of Rudik’s parents and upbringing. (I hope I don’t sound pretentious, by the way, calling him that — I just think Rudik is so much cuter than Rudolf and more original and “Russian-sounding” than Rudi 🙂 ) He grew up in abject poverty in a provincial state in northern Russia called Ufa, far removed from any city with its attendant vibrant cultural life. His family is Tatar, which is an oppressed ethnic minority in Russia, and he was raised Muslim and Tatar-speaking; didn’t learn Russian until later in school. (I actually hadn’t known Tatar was a language). He had three siblings — all sisters — and his mother, Farida, who had wanted to become a school-teacher but whose hopes for an education were dashed by pregnancy after pregnancy after pregnancy, took care of the children while his father, Hamet, served in the Red Army, his status forever in frightening limbo by Stalin’s erratic demotion / murder sprees.

Rudik was actually born on a train, when Farida went to visit Hamet at his bunk, which is how Kavanagh sweetly starts off her book. Much of his childhood was filled with such train rides, and the family at one point lived near train tracks. Rudik thus retained a life-long fascination with the locomotives, and when he was older and a professional dancer, part of his performance preparation consisted of leaving the studio and sitting outside near train tracks, listening for the sounds of the engines to get their rhythm into his body.

Hamet didn’t return home permanently until Rudik was well into boyhood, and by then, Rudik had been surrounded by so many women, he didn’t know how to react to the presence of a male; he seems to have been a bit afraid of his father. Hamet, well-liked by his comrades, was a real “mensch” type, and freaking out a bit over his son’s effeminacy, tried to make the proverbial man out of him by taking him on hunting trips, etc. Sensitive and quiet by nature, Rudik didn’t fare so well, needless to say, beginning a lifelong struggle with his father, exacerbated of course by his desire to become a dancer. Rudik had the best relationship with his older sister Rosa, the most intellectual and artistic one in the family who took dance and piano lessons and would teach her younger brother what she had learned in her ballet history lectures and bring him home costumes which he would (in his words) “gaze at so intensely that I could feel myself actually inside them. I would fondle them for hours, smooth them and smell them. There is no other word to describe it — I was like a dope addict.”

Rudik was introduced to ballet when he was seven years old and Farida bought a single ticket to a performance in Ufa, and managed to sneak all of her children into the theater with her. He knew then and there what he wanted to do with his life, and he never looked back. But even before that he had shown he was a natural dancer. Starting in kindergarden, as with all Russian children, he took national folk-dancing in school, exhibiting such talent and charisma, he was often chosen as a soloist in his school’s performances which they took on the road, performing in hospitals housing men recovering from war wounds. Kavanagh quotes from the (very well-written and gorgeously descriptive) novel, Dancer, by Colum McCann, which is based on the life of Nureyev. “In the spaces between the beds the children performed . . . Just when we thought they were finished, a small blond boy stepped out of the line. He was about five or six. He extended his leg, placed his hands firmly on his hips and hitched his thumbs at his back . .. the soldiers in their beds propped themselves up. . . Those by the windows shaded their eyes to watch. The boy went to the floor for a squatting dance. When he finished the ward was full of applause…” That’s one of my favorite passages from McCann too and I really love that Kavanagh quotes from a novel.

Because of his family’s poverty, Rudik got a late start on ballet, preventing him from ever acquiring full hip turnout (which must be attained before puberty, when hip ligaments and tendons are still flexible) thus making it all but impossible for him ever to develop wholly proper ballet technique. Poor and poorly clothed (in too-short pants, lacking shoes, etc.), Rudik was often made fun of by his classmates, and he struggled not to let their taunting get to him. When he later began ballet school in Leningrad, he was older than most of the students by several years. In response to their condescending stares, he, rather (in)famously, announced he would outdo them all. Talk about haughty, Shane Sparks (who told Danny Tidwell he was “arrogant”) 🙂 And of course, through eating, breathing, and sleeping ballet basically for the rest of his life, he did outdo them all.

Kavanagh has done an amazing job of gleaning so much information (the book took 10 years to complete), but she includes so much detail that it kind of weighs the narrative down. She also doesn’t footnote, which, I don’t know if it’s the lawyer in me or the former History grad student or what, but it’s driving me nuts. For example, she asserts that Nureyev had a “lifelong willingness to let women martyr themselves for him” (pg. 21) that he derived from his father, then quotes — I guess either Nureyev or Hamet (?) saying, “‘At home she must work harder than her husband and when he is relaxing she must still carry on.'” Where is this from? What’s the context? Who is speaking? I need sources!!!

She also assigns motives to and makes judgments about her subject that to me are a bit ill founded. For example, she argues that Nureyev fabricated that his father had beaten his mother and him, and her basis for claiming that this is a lie is that the other family members denied it — as if a family’s denying allegations of abuse in order to protect one of its own has never been known to happen before. She claims that Nureyev lied because he was angry at his father for his refusal to tolerate his dancing: “There was only one real reason for his contempt: Hamet refused to tolerate his dancing.” (pg. 22). It just doesn’t strike me as all that mind-boggling that someone who’d spent a large part of his life in the military and looked down on his son for his supposed lack of masculinity could be physically rough. Plus, if dancing is your identity, your being, your life, and a parent refuses to acknowledge you, then that’s a pretty profound reason to harbor some hostility.

Okay, that’s all for now; more to come as I read further. Here is Joan Acocella’s review. Here is Gia Kourlas’s interview with Kavanagh. And here is a quoted excerpt of a review from John Carey that I found on James Wolcott’s blog. Reading the excerpt prompted me to Google Carey. And look at this book I found! I wonder what he’d have to say about the Ballet versus “So You Think You Can Dance” debate?! Hmmm, this may have to be next on my reading list…

Petipa is the New Black

“‘What color would you say this is?’ Lana asked, handing her the pump. ‘Not quite turquoise.’

‘Oh I’d say Bluebird. Very franco-russe, very Petipa.'”

Hehehehe, I’m really enjoying this novel, Women About Town, by dance critic, Vanity Fair contributing editor and novelist Laura Jacobs. One of the main characters, Lana obviously, is a dance critic, and it’s so fun reading about her world. At times kind of frighteningly competitive and at times sweet. Dance critics so live, breathe, sleep (and shop!) dance, sometimes more so I think even than the dancers… Anyway, can you imagine going shopping with your girlfriend and speaking about the clothing and colors in ballet terms? I love it — can totally see me and Ariel doing such a thing, when she moves to NY 🙂 Probably with us, it’d be more like, ‘whoa, that’s Tybalt yellow!’

My First Suzanne Farrell Experience!

Last night, I met up with fellow dance blogger, Art, at the NY Library of the Performing Arts to watch a newly restored film of George Balanchine’s 1965 ballet Don Quixote, performed by the choreographer and his then muse (and one of the greatest and most famous ballerinas of the 20th Century) Suzanne Farrell. The film, which is now available for private viewing in the library’s research carrels, was shown last night to an audience.

I’m currently reading Ms. Farrell’s autobio (one of MANY books overspilling my night table…) but this was my first time actually seeing her dance, and, oh my gosh, I was beyond blown away. She was just the epitome of grace and serenity and beatific, angelic, ethereal purity. Her arms were like water and her body at times looked like a candle’s brightly flickering flame. I can see why she was his muse! And she was only 19 in the film; all of those qualities that make a sublime dancer thusly so are present from the get-go, several of us agreed after the showing in the lobby.

The film is a bit wobbly in places. The filmming wasn’t sanctioned (making the movie a piece of bootleg!) So, at times the light is so dim you can’t really make out what is happening; sometimes the camera is focused on a dancer who isn’t dancing, cutting off someone else who is, there’s lots of blurriness, and the sound is often distorted. Somehow you can always see radiant Suzanne, though, which is what is most important of course!

Also, this version of the ballet is rather dark, based closely on the original Cervantes, not on (19th Century ballet-maker) Petipa’s more fun-loving, celebratory classical ballet filled with flirty characters and thrilling, virtuostic dancing. I rather liked Balanchine’s more melancholy interpretation. I wish New York City Ballet was still performing it today. Sadly, the ballet got mixed reviews, so they nixed it.

It was really fun seeing this with an actual audience. I think if I’d viewed it at a private carrel or checked it out and watched it at home on video I might have got bored. But seeing it with other ballet fans (some very long-time), hearing their gasps when Balanchine’s Don Quixote has his feet washed by Farrell’s Dulcinea, then dried by her long, flowing hair (Balanchine, many many years Farrell’s elder, suffered an unrequited romantic love for her), their heavy applauding at the end of one of Farrell’s solos, their enthusiastic whispering when someone who was obviously a famous dancer back then came on the screen, all made it so much more intriguing, made it all come alive. Some of the faces I’m seeing at all of these dance events are beginning to become familiar now, and it’s really nice sensing that you’re part of a community, especially in the hugeness of New York City.

Speaking of familiar faces, Art and I ran into Monica in the lobby and we chatted for a bit, which was fun. Her daughter is an aspiring ballerina and currently studies at the School of American Ballet, founded by Balanchine and connected to New York City Ballet.

Art is just amazing, and, after reading his blog for several months now, it was so great finally to meet him! So knowledgeable about ballet, though so young 🙂 He lives in L.A. but was here checking out grad schools in art admin. After the showing, I dragged him to Cafe Mozart because I’m a pig and a half 🙂 to chat more. As an undergrad at USC he took a dance history class with the (in)famous critic Lewis Segal! He said I should be reading Edwin Denby (which Terry Teachout and my friend the great dance writer Apollinaire Scherr 🙂 have told me as well), so when my next Borders coupon arrives via email, I will have to break down and buy it. We discussed dancers, dance companies, dance journalism, dance presenters, theater, London verses New York for all of the above … he recommended for my next Blackpool trip (in May / June next year), I fly into London instead of Manchester so I can bookend my ballroom dancing extravaganza with some dance at Sadler’s Wells. He even knew what was on their agenda at that time of year! See, smart!! It was so nice meeting you, Art, and I hope you do relocate here for grad school 🙂 In the meantime, keep blogging!

A Little Overwhelmed!

Each day yet more of the splendid Fall Season’s offerings flood my mailbox. So exciting! But a little nervewracking, given all the things I have to order tickets for! This is why I so love NY though — that unique combination of intoxicating stimulation and potentially migraine-inducing excess… (or in my case, TAC-headache-inducing excess … am trying to tell myself I do NOT feel one coming on, but am armed with meds just in case…)

Well, I guess this is what the holiday is for, to breathe deeply, lounge around, rest up for the happy hubbub to come 🙂 Happy Labor Day, everyone, have a long and relaxing weekend!

Brief Snapshots From Downtown Dance Festival

I’m exhausted from spending the weekend down at the lower tip of the island watching other people dance (how does that happen?), so this is going to be short (word-wise at least). The Downtown Dance Festival took place during lunch hour each day last week at Chase Manhattan Plaza in the Financial District, then moved for the weekend to a nice little outdoor amphitheater in Battery Park. I wasn’t able to see all of the dance companies (nearly 20 in all), but here are some highlights from what I did see.

First, sorry, but I simply must bombard people with just a couple more photos of Quorum Ballet, who performed again Saturday in Battery Park. They were really so lovely… so, just, HOT for lack of a better word 🙂

 

I wrote in my last post on them that their lifts looked a bit “trick-happy” and on watching again I think that might be in part because the lead female dancer, Theresa da Silva, would often look out into the audience and choose someone to flirt with, which seemed to happen most often while she was airborne. Very interesting, and something I haven’t really seen in concert dance before, only in ballroom comps and some club acts. Anyway, their next performance in NY will be February 13th at the Tribeca Performing Arts Center. I urge everyone in the city to check them out!

 

I also liked the Ashley Browne / Kinetic Project. Some very sweet duets with fun, pop music from Jill Scott, Mos Def, and Fiona Apple.

 

Ms. Bne is a choreographer I could really see working on SYTYCD. I really wish they would open the show up to other choreographers besides the same ole Mia Michaels and Wade Robeson. I mean, keep them, but instead of having them choreograph something practically every week, let the country see some of this other awesome talent!

 

Another favorite, Vissi Dance Theater. I loved them! Their mission statement reads, “Vissi is committed to art that explores moral and social issues… Vissi seeks to speak to the human condition, lift the spirit, ask questions, celebrate the joy of life and reflect the truths of human nature.” I felt they did that splendidly. This piece above, danced by four women, reminded me a bit of Alvin Ailey’s Cry with its upbeat celebration of womanhood, and was kind of a combo of modern dance with disco / hustle, to music by Macy Gray and Jocelyn Brown.

 

 

Their second piece, named “Melbabcd,” was a combo of all kinds of stuff — modern, hustle, hip hop, Latin, African, you name it. Great fun, as dance that makes you think and has social relevance can often be 🙂 This one kind of reminded me of Bill T. Jones with its very colorful cast of characters. I’d love to see more full-length work by this company.

The choreographer, Courtney Ffrench, by the way, is another whom I can really see peppering up SYTYCD with some romping group numbers. C’mon Nigel, expand those horizons!

Another highlight:

 

Gallim Dance Group. This piece is from “Snow” based on the novel by Orhan Pamuk and choreographed by Andrea Miller (yet another who could inject that aforesaid pop-fest with a blast of brain power). This was a haunting piece, like I imagine the book to be (okay, admitting I haven’t read it here!). The women bent their bodies every which way, inched forward, ran backward — the movement was beautiful but juxtaposed with musical lyrics like “question democracy…” became chilling. A Juilliard grad formerly with Ohad Naharin’s Batseva, which I’ve enthusiastically blogged about before, Miller’s mission is to “explore issues such as feminity, power, community and solitude.” Gallim will be performing at Dance Theater Workshop in Chelsea in September. See them there if you can.

On Sunday, we were treated to Darshana Jhaveri Manipuri Dance who came all the way from India, and who specialize in bringing the classical Indian dance, Manipuri, to contemporary audiences. So sweet, so lovely, and so educational.

This guy BLEW ME AWAY. He had this amazingly intense look of concentration the whole time. Sometimes when a performer has that look in his or her eyes, you’re almost mesmerized just by the face. He beat the hell out of this double sided drum, as well as another that required a stick, later on. Not only did he play those drums, he danced while playing. And not only did he dance, he did these continuous barrel turns at whiplash speed. The entire audience sat there open-mouthed.

 

And here he is barrelling all over stage with the other, larger drum. Between turns, he made beautifully intricate gestures with that drumstick. At one point, he put the drum down on the center of the stage and did repeated turns around it, beating it with the stick after each rotation, and managing somehow to hit the stick on the drum right in time with the lightening-fast music. Talk about the necessity of great speed and precision on those turns — if a turn was off, you wouldn’t just see it, you’d hear it. It was breathtaking, and I can’t tell you how much respect I now have for this classical Indian dance form.

Okay, I can’t write anymore. I do have a few more pictures of the whole festival, along with the Sitelines performance series, in my photoalbum, here.

Speaking of Sitelines, Apollinaire and Eva Yaa Asantewaa are having a very interesting discussion of the Macaulay NYTimes review of the Reggie Wilson / Andreya Ouamba work I wrote of earlier. Eva’s review of the piece puts me to shame — she saw all kinds of things I hadn’t thought of — do read it! I do have thoughts on the subject of socio-cultural meaning in dance and whether the choreographic duo’s mission statement should have been confined to grant application writing, as Macaulay argues, but am far too exhausted to formulate them now…

A Beautiful (and Emotional) Farewell to One of the Last of the Balanchine Ballerinas at NYCB

Last night marked the final performance of Kyra Nichols, the second-to-last still-performing ballerina to have worked directly with George Balanchine, and thus widely considered to be of the last of “the Balanchine ballerinas.” (The other Balanchine ballerina is Darci Kistler, also of NYCB). I’m relatively new to ballet and especially New York City Ballet, so I haven’t had many chances to see her dance, and I’m really feeling sad now, as I felt when I recently saw the legend Gelsey Kirkland perform (in a non-dance role) in American Ballet Theater‘s Sleeping Beauty, that I’ve missed out on an era. Ms. Nichols danced brilliantly last night; I was so overwhelmed and I wish so much I would have seen more of her over the years. Since I don’t know a huge amount about her, here’s an interview she gave recently to Gia Kourlas of Time Out NY, and here is Joel Lobenthal’s article in The Sun (I remember NYTimes’s Alastair Macaulay also wrote an article on the several retiring ballerinas but it’s impossible to link to because they only allow paying subscribers to access articles). Also, here is long-time NYCB fan Oberon’s review of last night.

Last night was breathtaking. Peter Martins (NYCB Director) put together a gorgeous program for her. First on was Serenade, what to me seems to be classic Balanchine — involving oodles of beautiful ballerinas in gorgeous flowing baby blue chiffon, and one or two men overwhelmed by them all! (which is largely, it seems, Balanchine’s take on ballet 🙂 ) It was mostly abstract but with a slight narrative in which Nichols poignantly danced the main character. (I will definitely be reading more on this splendid ballet in Terry Teachout’s book on Balanchine, but more about that in a minute…) Second was Balanchine’s “ballroomy” piece for four couples set to Robert Schumann’s “Davidsbundlertanze” (try saying that several times in a row!), which I’ve seen before and loved, and set to lovely onstage piano music. And, my favorite of the night (can’t help it, I’m a ballroom dancer!), “Der Rosenkavalier” from Balanchine’s Vienna Waltzes, a shortish piece in which the stage is overtaken with waltzing couples — the men in elegant black long-tailed tuxes and the women in long lavish white gowns — one of the most exquisite sights I think I’ve ever seen on a stage, and one that rekindled the passion I felt for Standard Ballroom upon attending my first competition. Not that several couples waltzing their own routine on a ballroom floor could look anything like this (even if those couples are at the level of Mirko Gozzoli and Alessia Betti or Jonathan Wilkins and Katusha Demidova…) — it takes a genius choreographer, not just a few great dancers, to create such a sublime spectacle. And one thing I love about ballroom is how it seems to convert little boys into mature gentlemen — Robert Fairchild and Tyler Angle looked so dapper whisking their ladies all around the floor — so charming! It just takes you to another time and place, to a fairytale land…

Anyway, although it was the end of an era in the ballet world, for me it was a time of new beginnings, of meeting new people and making new friendships. I met up with critic and writer extraordinare Apollinaire Scherr, who introduced me to the illustrious critic and writer and author of several books, Terry Teachout, who gave me a copy of his biography of Balanchine!!

The three of us met up during intermissions, then all went out afterward and chatted all about the ballet world, and the dance critic world — so very interesting for newcomer me! Mr. Teachout is so brilliant. He’s a former jazz musician and has been writing for so long about the worlds of classical music, ballet, and now theater, he’s just like a walking encyclopedia of the New York arts scene. It’s so amazing. I can’t wait to start reading his book — which I’m going to begin this afternoon (in between trying to finish two briefs for work by the end of the month — I’m going to get it all done I swear…) Meeting him was so fun, and so educational, and I’m sure his book is going to open up a new world to me (and, he even said he liked my blog 🙂 :)) — thanks so much, Apollinaire!

There was so much going on last night, every ballet fan in the universe (or at least those lucky enough to have got tickets) must have been there — but somehow I was also able finally to meet Sarah, who frequently comments on The Winger as well as Philip‘s and my blogs, and Bob, who comments a lot on our blogs as well! That was fun, and I’m completely amazed that in that massive crowd people were actually able to recognize each other. I sat next to Susan, who also is a big blog and Ballet-Talk-commenter (and met her nice husband), and Philip and Wei (who I also met beforehand at the stage door and hung out with. Philip is great fun to lurk around the stage door with because he knows everyone and everything at NYCB … he should be a tour guide, if there was such a thing!) We all looked for Carbro at Ballet Talk, but couldn’t find her.

Anyway, it was a really amazing night, amazing experience. Oh, we also spotted Kristin Sloan onstage filming — so her video’s going to be a lot of fun to watch when she finishes it. I think it’s so magnificent that we now have this technology that enables us to preserve these monumental events in this way. First those excellent “Tragic Love” videos documenting Martins’s new Romeo + Juliet and now this — NYCB is just going to HAVE to expand it’s website’s broadband to make room for all these awesome videos Kristin’s making!

Okay, time for rest and relaxation (and brief-writing) until tonight … when a ballerina whose career I HAVE followed and whom I love, retires as well — there were many teary eyes in last night’s audience; tonight is going to be my night for being a hysterial wreck…

I am a Crazy Czarist Russian, Who Knew?: Balanchine’s "Jewels" at NYCB

Whew, am so busy with work (law work, that is), writing stuff, and ballet-going, I’m badly behind on blogging… I’ve seen so many things over the past few days at New York City Ballet — after suddenly realizing that, between ABT‘s Met season and the Blackpool Dance Festival, NYCB’s spring season is practically over and I’ve seen hardly anything but Martins’s ROMEO AND JULIET, so am trying to make up for lost time… I plan to blog on everything I’ve seen as soon as I can catch up, but for now, I’ll start with JEWELS, the most breathtaking ballet I’ve seen in a while, and one that really drove home to me like nothing else George Balanchine’s magic. This was my first time seeing it and as a result I now want to devour everything written about that man, and plan, as soon as I get time, to run to the store for the biographies by Terry Teachout and Robert Gottlieb.

JEWELS is divided into three “acts,” or parts, each one representing a specific period and style of classical ballet. Of course the ballet’s not literally about precious stones; the jewels are a metaphor for each period, each of which, near and dear to Balanchine’s heart, is its own unique kind of gem. Premiering in 1967, the ballet was considered a radical departure from the long-dominant big story ballets and is recognized as the first full-length abstract (ie: narrative-less) ballet.

Part I, Emeralds, is Balanchine’s celebration of French classical dance, and is choreographed to Gabriel Faure’s concert suites from 1889, used in that year to accompany French adaptations of Shakespeare plays. This first piece is, to me, characterized by quietness (at least in contrast to the latter two!), fluidity, elegance, the beauty and charm of simplicity, and by subtle expressiveness. Rachel Rutherford captured my attention with her gorgeously expressive wrists. (She also captivated me yesterday in CONCERTO BAROCCO, but more on that in a later post…) With those beautiful wrists — ahhh, I wanna see HER do BAYADERE now! Also entrancing me was a certain R. Fairchild … Robert Fairchild aka “Romeo” Fairchild 🙂 Seriously, where did this kid come from? Was he seen onstage before Martins cast him earlier this season for the world premiere of his R&J? He’s spectacular — everything he does — turns, jumps, everything is marked with amazing precision. And he has that extra something that is undefinable that makes him stand far out in a crowd. (I saw him yesterday in BRANDENBERG and TRIBUTE looking very charmingly James Dean-esque … but more on that later… methinks he may be the Angel Corella of NYCB?…) Well, Peter Martins surely has a knack for uncovering talent, of that I am sure!

As Philip rightly noted, (and part of the charm and the fun of this ballet is, I think) everyone has their favorite part. Philip’s is this first part, and I can why with its soft, elegant beauty and quiet, subtle charm.

Going into the ballet and knowing as little as I did about it, I was sure the second part, Rubies, would be my favorite. This is Balanchine’s panegyric to America, his adopted country. Choreographed to lively, late 1920s piano music by Igor Stravinsky and using spicy red short-skirted costumes, this is Balanchine’s vision of what American dance, of what America, the New World, is — high-spirited, fast and energetic, jazzy with jutting hips, showy, full of zest and flavor, fun, cheery, endlessly upbeat, overflowing with youthful optimism. This part is the one most often performed when companies use it in mixed repertories, and you can see why — it is the most “Balanchine-esque” — this vision of America, this combination of classical ballet with what we already had here, with what was uniquely American, was the stylistic hallmark of his oeuvre, and, since he is the father of American ballet, it is in turn our national style…

Yvonne Borree, looking, to me, physically not like herself (has she perhaps dyed her hair darker?), was super fun to watch– she was cute, sassy, charming — she was PERFECT for the American part! As was Theresa Reichlen, who looked very Firebird-y. And is there any NYCB male dancer more perfectly suited for the all-American guy-role than Mr. AMERICAN IN PARIS, Damian Woetzel?!

I was so excited by Rubies, I thought the third section, Diamonds, would bore me in contrast. Boy was I wrong. It completely blew me away to such an extent I almost cried at the end, which I haven’t done since nearly a year ago when Jose Manuel Carreno‘s Romeo woke up thinking Alessandra Ferri‘s Juliet dead at the Met… Diamonds is Balanchine’s homage to his homeland, to the grand, sweeping, large-scaled classical tradition of the Russian Ballet. Returning to 1875 and using Tschiakovsky’s Symphony No. 3 in D Major — anyone who has ever been to the ballet more than once instantly recognizes Tschiakovsky music, even if they’ve never heard the exact score before, as THE quintessential classical ballet music. The choreography here, a tribute to the great Russian story ballets of the 19th Century, with its dramatic lifts accompanying the orchestra as the music builds to a climax, the many men dashingly courting their ballerinas around the stage at once narrowly missing sideswiping each other as their paths criss-cross, the large ensemble dancing in perfect unison, the gorgeous pas de deux and the solos for that most pristine and celebrated of creatures — the Russian ballerina, is equally instantly recognizable.

This is actually what confuses me about my own reaction to the ballet: I’m really not a Petipa-head — I don’t really go for those huge-scale, five-hour-long ballets like SWAN LAKE and SLEEPING BEAUTY just drenched with pomp and circumstance so overwrought you can’t enjoy the basic beauty of the actual dancing. But then, I had to remind myself that this is Balanchine’s version of Petipa, of the grand tradition of Russian ballet — scaled down and with all of the elements he didn’t care for so much taken out, with only what he truly loved left in. Oftentimes the tribute shines far brighter than the original. And this is a most endearing encomium, a diamond obviously being the most valuable of all stones and that enjoying never-ending life…

Ballerina Maria Kowroski (who danced the principal female role in Diamonds the night I went) wrote a little blurb in the Playbill about the ballet:

Jewels is undoubtedly one of Balanchine’s greatest masterpieces, and, during my career, I’ve been lucky enough to dance in each of the ballet’s parts…

“The first of the ballets I danced was Emeralds. This ballet has a very specific quality, a real perfume, and it has a fluid and effortless style…

“When I saw Rubies for the first time, I knew right away I wanted to do the soloist part. It’s so daring and fast — its flashiness appealed to me…

“But Diamonds is my favorite. I don’t even know how to describe it, except to say that it’s heavenly. First of all, that costume, with the beautiful headpiece, makes you feel like a million bucks. Then the ballet starts off very slowly, with a beautiful pas de deux, and the music takes you to a different place, as if you’re just floating along. When I dance Diamonds, I feel like royalty, like I’m in a beautiful palace of music and movement. Near the end, there’s a thrilling moment when the music slows down almost to a stop, and then it starts up again for the big finish, with the stage filled with dancers all moving in unison — I always get chills, and sometimes, I come close to crying. It’s just so gorgeous.”

I can assure you, it feels the same exact way watching it! The season is, horribly, nearly over, but hopefully, hopefully please please NYCB will perform this gem again, many times — and not just the Rubies section, but the ballet in its entirety. I feel that each section informs the others and that each part reveals its true beauty and magic only in contrast to the others, so I strongly feel the ballet should be put on in whole and not split up. You have only a few more opportunitities to see this masterpiece next week — on Thursday, Saturday night and next Sunday’s matinee, when NYCB will end its season with it. Visit their website for tickets. Do not miss it!!!

"Writing (Or Scribbling Messily) in the Dark," "The Nightingale and the Rose," and My Sleeping Beauties

On Friday night I went to New York City Ballet to see the premiere of a new ballet, “The Nightingale and the Rose,” by current resident choreographer (though soon to leave NYCB and focus on his own new company) Christopher Wheeldon.

Above picture is of my crazy notes, hehe. After attending a marathon post-modern dance panel discussion, about which I previously blogged, and hearing a small consensus of choreographers name Arlene Croce a good (former) critic, I’ve been flipping through her book, “Writing in the Dark, Dancing in The New Yorker” (which is a lot of fun by the way — reads almost like a novel or memoir of going to the ballet practically nightly in New York for two and a half decades and makes the NYC dance scene look like THE place to be from the seventies through early nineties — which, with the likes of Barsyhnikov and Suzanne Farrell and Merce Cunningham and all, it WAS … but, hey, it still is, just with different people!) Anyway, she talks up front about her method of note-taking, by which she carries a pad and pen to the performance, then jots things down, or sometimes — more often actually — gets so carried away by the performance that she forgets to write anything down at all, then is forced to rely on memory, which didn’t always work for small details like colors of costumes, etc., which is not a good thing when on deadline. Still, she concludes minimal notetaking is best: “it is the afterimage of the dance rather than the dance itself which is the true subject of the review,” she says, and in order “[t]o let an afterimage form, one has to give the stage one’s full attention, without the distraction of notes” (pg. 6). When Apollinaire Scherr invited me to NYCB to see one of the “Romeo”‘s, I noticed she did the same thing — had a small notepad and pen. I don’t think she wrote anything down though — it’s hard – you don’t want to take your eyes off of that stage! Anyway, I often forget small details like costume colors and minor props and sometimes even the exact sequence of events, so, I figured I’d try to be like a ‘real writer’ and actually jot down deets. Well, suffice it to say, it didn’t go too well — I was writing while looking at the stage, my scribbling is so sloppy I can barely read a word, some sentences are completely atop others, and some run off the page and into the open Playbill, where they’re now superimposed over pictures of dancers rehearsing, etc. Oh well, I tried… Anyway, here are my “afterimages”:

I thought Wheeldon’s ballet was beautiful in the images he created and emotions produced by the sad story, a great idea that may not have been completely perfectly executed (but are they ever on very first try?) The ballet’s narrative derives from the Oscar Wilde short story of the same name, and the storyline is as follows: a nightingale is onstage singing of love when a professor’s daughter enters followed by an ardent student infatuated with her. The daughter, aloof and undesirous of his attention, refuses to entertain his affections unless he can bring her a red rose. He runs about the school gardens, searching for one, but can find only yellow and white. The nightingale, touched by his plight (and perhaps in love with the student herself?), agrees to help him. After searching long and hard, she finally finds a rosebush that produces red roses, but the winter has chilled its veins to the point that it cannot provide a vibrant red flower. In order to produce the desired object, the tree tells her, she must sing to it with her breast against its thorn giving the bush her life-blood, which she agrees to do. After the tree has produced the rose, the student hastily plucks it and presents it to the professor’s daughter, who, finding its aroma unappealing, refuses it and runs off. In his haste to continue pursuing her, futilely, the student steps on the discarded rose, crushing it and in the process nearly tripping over the now lifeless body of the nightingale.

It’s a sad but gripping story. Wendy Whelan danced the nightingale, Tyler Angle the student, Sara Mearns the professor’s daughter, and Seth Orza and Craig Hall led the ensemble who performed the part of the rosebush. I thought the tragic beauty of the piece really came alive in the scenes where the men forming the red rosebush surrounded the nightingale, raising her into a series of poetic lifts, enveloping her as she sings, then stabbing and ripping at her, a slicing arm here, a kicking leg there, eventually draining her of her life, before blossoming to produce the red rose. The costumes worked magnificently. The rosebush men wore brownish outer-clothing and must have been wearing red tights and tight undershirts underneath the brown, because, in order to show the nightingale’s blood-letting, reddening the bush’s stems, the dancers somehow discreetly rolled up their sleeves and outer tights to reveal the red under-clothes.

The parts that didn’t impress so well were the dancers who comprised the members of the white and yellow rosebush trees. They just kind of danced on their own, each seeming to do her own thing, and after Whelan passed them by holding up a hand to them, presumably to show that they had told her they had no red roses to give her, they continued dancing as before. I thought this could have been more powerful. The nightingale could have tried hard to wrest a red rose, climbing on them, reaching out to them, pawing at them, trying desperately to penetrate their core, while they could have pushed her away or huddled together, moving as a unit away from her, in rejection.

I also thought Sara Mearns, whose part was small, was too nice. She should have been more bitchy and spoiled in her rejection of Angle, who was perfect as the lovelorn male student, and her demand of the red rose. Another thing I don’t always understand and probably often lay the blame in the wrong place when something doesn’t work perfectly, is the music composition and the speed at which the conductor leads the orchestra, which in turn dictates the speed at which the dancers dance. Mearns took the rose from Angle, and in a split second, practically rammed it into her nose, tossed it down and fled, leaving no time for her character to take in the smell, determine it wasn’t good enough, and perhaps act at first as if she may accept it, playing meanly with Angle’s emotions. Her haste made the scene look very fake. But I don’t know whether it was Mearns’s acting or the orchestra playing way too quickly that was at fault.

Also, I love Wendy Whelan and think she is a wholly unique, very interesting dancer with a wiry, hyper-flexible body that well-suits the more contemporary pieces that NYCB does. I thought her angular body with its sharp lines made her nightingale very distinct and tragic in its own way — and that image at the end of her lifeless nightingale lying in a tangle on the floor is one only she is capable of making — but I would like to see another ballerina, known for her beautiful, swan-like evocations dance that part as well and see how it comes out. I know this nightingale is not a swan or a firebird, etc., but I’d still like to see someone else’s interpretation; I think it would make a very interesting contrast.

One final thing, that I can’t help but find endlessly amusing, but don’t know if anyone else will: at the beginning of the sound accompaniment, composed by resident composer Bright Sheng (this ballet marks the very first time he and Wheeldon have collaborated, which I didn’t know), the only sound is that of a lovely but very faintly chirping bird. Of course it’s beautiful and perfectly fitting. But, funny thing is, you can hear human voices speaking throughout the chirping, interrupting the bird. I thought this was intentional: I thought, oh that’s interesting, he’s trying to evoke the world of the humans — the professor’s daughter and the student who are offstage but presumably about to enter — encroaching as they do in ultimately tragic ways upon the sublimity of the natural world. And, I noticed this chatter resume whenever the orchestra stopped playing and the sound consisted only of the bird. I mentioned this to Philip, of Oberon’s Grove, at intermission, and he said it was the stage manager! He said he can often hear the talking whenever it gets very very quiet onstage! Haha, I had no idea — I honestly thought it was part of the composition! Anyway, the stage manager, as it turns out, added to my interpretation of the piece.

Yesterday, I went to my second, and my last, of two “Sleeping Beauties” at American Ballet Theater. This Beauty is a new creation by artistic director Kevin McKenzie, but ‘after Petipa,’ which, to be honest, I’m not completely sure what that means in terms of exactly how novel it is. This ballet in general is not my favorite, so I didn’t have many expectations nor much to compare it to, and I wasn’t that upset when I had to miss the original premiere, which happened while I was still in England. But I did see the original cast, performing a few days later. To be fair, one of the reasons the ballet is not my favorite is that I don’t really relate to the themes of the fairytale it is based on. Unlike others, such as Cinderella (who CAN’T relate to the hard-working slave who never gets any recognition from elites until, through friendship and compassion for those less fortunate, she gets her day in the sun?), the morals from Sleeping Beauty (don’t fail to invite someone to your party or they might wreak havoc??, etc.) don’t really speak to me. Anyway, those feelings aside, after viewing it twice, I actually ended up really liking it. I saw it on Monday night and again yesterday (Saturday, matinee), and I’m so glad I waited to blog about it until I’d seen it again because I was just way too tired to enjoy it fully on Monday night, just after I’d returned from my long trip.

So my first (Monday night) cast was Veronika Part and Marcelo Gomes in the leads (Beauty and her Prince, of course), with legend Gelsey Kirkland as the evil fairy Carabosse, Stella Abrera as the ethereal day-saving / kingdom-saving Lilac Fairy, and Herman Cornejo and Xiomara Reyes as Bluebird and Ms. Bird (the latter of whom Playbill refers to as Princess Florine, but here she enters as a caged bird, released by Beauty in order to dance with Mr. Blue) who ham it up for the crowd-cheering bravura parts during the wedding dance scene. Veronika was a dreamily serene Beauty who danced with splendid perfection, Marcelo a very cute prince who jumped sky high during his solos, and, together they completely overtook the stage with their glorious Grand Pas De Deux, complete with those gorgeous fish dives I live for 🙂 Note: Veronika’s feet are like no other ballerina’s — her point is so pronounced and her arch so high, they nearly pop right out of those toe shoes! Herman and Xiomara were astounding as the high-flying ‘birds’ and I got all of my breathtaking overhead lifts I missed out on in their opening night “Romeo and Juliet” excerpt (thank you, Herman 🙂 🙂 🙂 )!

But, oh, the one who really took my breath away that night was Gelsey! The way she hunched her back, scrunched up her face, and hobbled around, she was pure perfect fairytale wickedness on that stage, and with her tiny little body, she commanded your attention like no one’s business! The way she captivated your gaze, it actually made me sad to think of what I must have missed out on by never having had the opportunity to see her dance in her heyday — so sad I missed that era in ballet… she must have been amazing with Baryshnikov.

As perfect as all the dancing was on Monday night, though, I don’t know what it was — perhaps I was just still tired from my trip or missing my Latin men and their beyond sexy hip-swaying, pelvic contractions or what have you, but I just couldn’t get that into the ballet at that point and was really rolling my eyes over the silly story. BUT all that changed with yesterday afternoon’s performance, which really brought home to me “Beauty’s” magic. Cast was Gillian Murphy and David Hallberg in the leads, with Carmen Corella as Carabosse, Craig Salstein as the King’s Chief Minister (who tries futilely to warn of the coming danger) and Sascha Radetsky and Hee Seo as the birds. Part of the magic for me of yesterday’s performance could have been the children who filled audience. No one dances to kids like Gillian. I know she runs the children’s program at Stiefel and Stars over the summer in Martha’s Vineyard and she must be so good at that; little ones just eat her fairy-princesses up. And, there’s no more ideal ballerina than she to both show little girls the splendor of ballet with her beatific, glowing face, and to prove what women dancers are capable of with her bedazzlingly athletic jumps and turns. If others like Veronika and Diana Vishneva perhaps excel at conveying more mature subject matter through their subtle acting and artistry, Gillian is the consummate fairytale heroine.

And there’s no more perfect a prince than David. He doesn’t come on until the second half, and when he did, this row of little girls behind me, sighed almost in unison. They were so young and it was so real and so completely adorable, the grown woman next to me (who I didn’t know) and I took one glance at each other started cracking up. Who cares if there’s no relatable moral when Prince David, running all over stage with furrowed brow searching and searching for his princess, ends up saving you and the whole kingdom with just one heavenly kiss!!! One thing I noticed about David though, sitting so close: he looked overly sweaty and a bit out of breath quite early on — a little too early on. I’m sure no one noticed sitting further back, and it didn’t show in his dancing AT ALL — which was nothing short of spectacular, but I did worry. I heard he didn’t dance last night, as he was billed for, so I hope he’s okay and is just taking a breather. He’s both an amazing dancer and a dependable, almost preternaturally responsible man, so I know he is counted upon to fill in for anyone and everyone who gets ill or injured (Vladimir Malakhov, unfortunately, is out this season with injury, so David’s been cast to replace him), and I’m sure it gets to be a bit too much, especially to be dancing two principal roles in one day — as much as I long to see him onstage, the last thing I want is him getting sick!

Sascha and Hee were brilliant as the birds — Herman is known for his sky-high jumps, so it’s a little expected that he is going to go soaring across stage, but I thought Sascha performed his with just as much knock-out height and speed.

Philip, whose review is here, didn’t like the casting of Craig Salstein, a young dancer after all, in the non-dancing role of the king’s advisor, face painted to make him appear older. True, as Philip says, there are many older, retired dancers in the company perfectly capable of such a part (and I had Wes Chapman on Monday in that role), but I rather liked Craig. He was hilarious in his defeat, especially when getting his hair plucked out by Carabosse. I actually think he looks pretty good with longish hair (albeit without the male-pattern baldness up top) and think he should consider growing his real hair out a bit… 🙂 Seriously, his acting was really pretty extraordinary and he put so much umph into that goofy little part that at points I couldn’t take my eyes off his reactions to Beauty’s dancing to look at Gillian!

Carmen Corella: ooh la la, big time! Okay, I have always had a bit of a thing for her, and her Carabosse, though completely different from Gelsey’s, just sent chills up and down my spine! Her devious fairy, instead of being pure evil, was more sexy sultry vixen, albeit totally hilarious, kind of in the manner of her would-be seductress “Cinderella” stepsister (which I CAN’T WAIT to see her perform again later this season — I so wish they’d bring Erica Cornejo back just for the role of her little dorky sidekick — they were miraculous together; they MADE that ballet, IMO). After she makes her first crackling entrance, complete with pyrotechnic display, the whole kingdom aghast, Carmen turns toward the King and Queen and, raising a pinky to the air, gives a little wave, all sweet smiles drenched with wicked sarcasm crossing her face. It was so funny, I wanted to burst out laughing. Anyway, Philip hated Carabosse’s costume … well, after seeing Carmen wear that thing, ooh how much do I want it! She made that thing so gorgeous — I’d so cut it short, clip off those fairy wings and make it into a mad hot Art Deco-ey ballroom outfit — totally serious! Carmen really excels in these kind of roles — she does so much with them — the deliciously mischievious fairy, the goofy sexpot evil stepsister, Lescault’s frighteningly charming mistress (who she dances with Marcelo 🙂 ) in Manon… I wish they’d give her a principal role to try; I just love her!

Sarah Lane was so sweet as the Fairy of Joy, in both of my casts. Everytime I see her onstage, I can’t help but remember her ever-sweet performance and curtain call with Angel in Sinatra Suites last season. So cute she was dancing, then receiving, all wide-eyed, her numerous bouquets and curtain calls, with him! Oh and, hehe, the Fairy of Joy is dressed in bright yellow (a detail I wouldn’t have remembered but for this: Philip said he didn’t like the costumes — I thought nothing of them, but now am remembering overhearing a little girl behind me say, “yellow, really mother! I mean really!” just like an adult and as if her mother was somehow responsible … hmmm, maybe she was?? Anyway, I guess Philip is not the only one who didn’t like the costume colors…) Misty Copeland is a powerhouse, as always, and I’m so sorry I missed her in Sinatra Suite. Vitali Krauchenka stood out to me as well in the various smallish roles he had — don’t know why exactly — he didn’t have any huge dancing parts, but he seemed very tall and upright the way he just stood about and took up space, and he was always in character… and, he kind of looks like a little Max… don’t know, could just have Russia on the mind, having come from a ballroom festival (which I can’t stop mentioning for some reason…)

Balanchine Versus Muhammad Ali’s Daughter, Ballet’s Continuing Relevance, Alastair Macaulay, and Great Dance Writing From the Past

Yesterday, in the New York Times, our new chief dance critic there Alastair Macaulay wrote an article about New York City Ballet’s new season, which officially kicked off on Tuesday. Because this Monday marks the 24th Anniversary of George Balanchine’s death, it is only fitting, he noted, that NYCB open with a week’s worth of Balanchine ballets, created between 1928 and 1975. The first night’s rep included a ballet that is obviously a favorite of Macaulay’s, “The Four Temperaments,” created in 1946. He says of this ballet, “Balanchine’s pared-down conception of ballet became a brave-new-world breakthrough.” He goes on to talk specifically about the movement employed, wherein the transfer of body weight — from the standing leg to the lifted leg but before the lifted leg has reached the ground — was somewhat revolutionary, combining as it did a fundamentally jazzy American style with classical ballet, and thereby “offending the European sense of propriety.” He continues, suggesting that Balanchine’s power is lost on the company’s younger dancers, who can’t for some reason adequately convey the beauty and meaning of “the master.” He opens this thought with:

“When people who have come to Balanchine choreography in the last 20 years ask me what makes me miss New York City Ballet in his lifetime (though I caught only the tail end of that golden age), I find myself saying that the company’s dancing in those days blazed with a kind of energy that was positively disturbing: it shook you by the shoulders as if to say, “This matters.” “The Four Temperaments” is one of many Balanchine ballets so extraordinary in their architecture and its conception that many new dance-goers must surely feel that they still matter now; I can only say it mattered more.”

Though it’s not tremendously profound or long, the article has turned heads, especially in the ballet world, and for good reason: it takes a solid point of view and makes a serious statement about the art’s current “state” (Matt’s term!) that is not off the cuff but based in knowledge and passion, and perhaps unwittingly, opens debate.

I have to say, of all the times I’ve gone to NYCB, I’ve never been able to understand Balanchine’s genius. I go to NYCB to see the Jermone Robbins pieces, the Peter Martins, those by new choreographer Christopher Wheeldon, and the company’s Diamond Project series, in which they showcase new ballets by contemporary choreographers. I, as I think most of the public, know Balanchine as the man who starved his ballerinas into his ideal of feminine perfection, most notably Maria Tallchief, while insisting that he was exalting womanhood. “Ballet is woman,” he proclaimed. I’m sorry, but for a socially concious woman today, that behavior, and the resultant image as well, border on the repulsive: indeed, his ballets are filled mostly with emaciated-looking, very frail, very thin young women fluttering about the stage almost angelically, as if they’re not of this world, and very few men.

If you examine what today’s audiences watch, and want to see in dance, this image of woman doesn’t resonate. As I blogged about in my last post, all of the female contestants on Dancing With the Stars — and if you care about ballet’s future you must care about that show because like it or not that is the pulse of dance in this country right now — have been booted — all of the uber thin supermodels, beauty queens and TV celebrities, that is. Leaving as the sole woman Laila Ali, the boxer, and former heavyweight champ Muhammad Ali’s daughter. I believe a large part of the reason many go to see a dance performance is for the sensual experience, and I believe the concept of what is sexy and sensual in both men and women has changed drastically over the years, and this change is partly responsible for many young people today not “getting” ballet. Sexy today is — well, first of all, to at least half of dance-goers sexy is man, not woman 🙂 And regarding women, sexy is strong, unexpected (Ali lifts men after all!), grounded and earthly, and muscular, not frail, not ethereal, not succumbing to men’s standards and expectations.

When I attended The Nothing Festival last weekend and this week at Dance Theater Workshop (which I will definitely blog about later this weekend), post-modern choreographer Walter Dundervill bemoaned that there are no contemporary dance writers like Arlene Croce, the former critic for The New Yorker, sending me straight to the bookstore to check out her work. So far, I’ve just skimmed through, but I am overwhelmed at her uncanny ability to pinpoint a thought so clearly and thoroughly yet succinctly. Here is what she had to say about American Ballet Theater in a January 1975 review of their opening night gala:

“Back to the Forties

If the number of fine ballets that American Ballet Theater had to show for its thirty-five years of existence equaled the number of fine dancers it currently has under contract, its anniversary gala, on January 11, would have been a night to remember. But numerically and stylistically the equation is unbalanced. The handful of illustrious ballets that made the company’s name can’t support dancers like Baryshnikov and Kirkland and Makarova and Nagy and Gregory and Bujones, and even if it could, it’s patently impossible to build a gala retrospective around “Fancy Free” and “Pillar of Fire” and “Romeo and Juliet” and “Three Virgins and a Devil,” all but the last created between 1941 and 1944. The creativity of that first decade had no sequel in the fifties, the sixties, the seventies. When you are seeing Ballet Theater choreography at its best, you are almost always seeing a picture of the forties. The dancers of the seventies don’t fit into that picture. The ballets are still interesting and they’re a challenge to perform, but their aesthetic is dead. Often the sentiment is dead, too. Audiences can’t get excited about them in the old way because the life of the period that produced them has receded and they’re insulated from the way we think and move today. When they are presented as they were at the gala … it’s hard not to see their position in a contemporary repertory as an extended irrelevance…” (WRITING IN THE DARK, DANCING IN THE NEW YORKER, pgs 86-87).

First, I find it rather funny that these are exactly the same ballets that ABT is putting on today, thirty-two years after she wrote this. And it’s true that “Fancy Free,” while a cute and fun ballet for its time, is largely lost on contemporary audiences. I recently took friends to see ABT and this was on the rep. They mostly thought it was mildly cute and engaging, but mainly silly and somewhat sexist. I said, well yeah, it was created in the 40s, but I mean, what about Marcelo — isn’t he so great with his hip-swaying “Rhumba”, didn’t you love Craig‘s splitting jumps off of the bar!?” They laughed — they didn’t know the dancers like I did but thought it was cute that I attached to them so. I think Robbins, Balanchine and all of that great choreography of yore is lost on today’s audience, and not because today’s audiences are stupid philistines, but because, to use Croce’s words, these ballets’ “aesthetic is dead. Often the sentiment is dead too. Audiences can’t get excited about them in the old way because the life of the period that produced them has receded and they’re insulated from the way we think and move today.”

I think Macaulay’s pointing out the revolutionary quality of Balanchine’s work is tremendously important if younger audiences are going to understand and value his work. But that still doesn’t mean they’re going to be moved by him. American Jazz is a hundred years old now; seeing it combined with ballet doesn’t do much to the average dance goer; it certainly doesn’t, as Macaulay hopes, “make many new dance-goers … surely feel that [his ballets] still matter now.”

Hip hop, ballroom, and other social and ethnic forms of dance are the most living, breathing dance styles right now because they mean something to viewers. Hip hop emanates from ghetto life and much of the moves are a kind of recognizable street vocabulary of movement, ballroom is about two people working together and connecting with one another — which everyone can relate to (I don’t think Dancing With the Stars would be popular if it showcased solitary dancing), and a lot of social dance today in the U.S. comes out of Latin American and African countries — they’re fun and rhythmic and contain cultural lessons of strong interest in today’s global world. I feel that contemporary ballet choreographers need to merge these forms of dance with ballet to create something new, original, and beautiful whose meaning and movement resonates with contemporary audiences, the way that Balanchine and Robbins did nearly a century ago. I also think there need to be more writers like Macaulay to point out the historical import of the former greats, and he seems, at least thus far, like a positive return to the Croce style of writing. But, while everyone needs to read a classic once in a while as an historical lesson and an example of true literary genius, if there weren’t contemporary novelists pushing the art form further, the novel would have died long ago. Obviously, Balanchine and Robbins should be kept in the rep of the big companies, but they can’t be the main focus if this art form is to be kept alive as well.

GAGA and Joan Acocella

 

Last night, my friends, Alyssa and Angie, and I went to the Cedar Lake Contemporary Ballet studios in west Chelsea to take a GAGA dance / movement class from an assistant of Ohad Naharin, the artistic director of the Israeli dance company, Batsheva. From now through April 27th, the company is in town performing their most recent piece, Decadance, at Cedar Lake’s studios, and during that time, they are teaching daily weekday classes in Naharin’s unique dance methodology, in which his dancers train daily. The cool thing is that they have classes for both professional dancers (during the day), and for non-pros like me in the evenings!

Okay, I have to say, this is one of the best dance classes I’ve ever taken. There was no technique taught at all; rather it was all about utilizing your senses, letting all movement be ultimately about pleasure, and really letting yourself go. First, we began simply by feeling our weight shift, one leg to the other. Then we felt our hands kneeding dough, then the sensation of making circles with our hands, then our feet, then our legs, then our whole body, including internal organs. We melted into the ground, turned our bodies into water, rubbed imaginary oil over ourselves soothingly, used our bodies as drums and our palms as drumsticks, fell to the floor, jumped up quickly, fell again, jumped up again, again and again till we should have been out of breath but somehow weren’t, lay down, pulled ourselves up again and again till our abdominals (or at least mine) should have ached but somehow didn’t, bounced around the floor, bouncing and bouncing as much and as quickly as possible, feeling like complete idiots and laughing madly at ourselves and each other. “Yes, laugh at yourself, feel silly,” the instructor said.

At one point — my favorite — she had us balance on one leg and kick out, back, and all around with the other. Of course, I have some balance problems from an earlier inner ear problem, so had to concentrate on holding my center properly while balanced solidly over the middle of my standing leg, feeling my full foot spread out to grab the the floor, then concentrated on doing the perfect developee with my other leg. Well, she could read my mind, I swear. “No!” she yelled at me, lose your balance, don’t be afraid, lose it, LOSE IT!” So, I stopped concentrating, and let my standing leg wobble all about, kicked the other out randomly, haphazardly in every direction paying no mind to control or line. And, amazingly, AMAZINGLY, I didn’t lose balance at all! My balance was even BETTER than in ballet class where I’m often holding onto the barre for dear life! I don’t know if it was a fluke, but something, something worked! She smiled at me at the end because I think I really made progress in letting myself go and not giving a crap about what I looked like.

Oh, and the other thing — NO MIRRORS!!! It made ALL the difference, I swear! For the first time ever in a dance class I was not hystericizing about how awful I looked — about how I was the skinny spaghetti girl who could not move her hips or whose … everything … looked too big and oversized in the leotard (does ANYONE over the age of 12 actually look good in one?). Matt once blogged about some choreographer issuing the directive, “Banish All Mirrors,” and I don’t know if it was Naharin (Matt has no search function set up on his blog, grrrrr…), but all I can say is the no mirrors thing here really helped me to feel the movement coming from within my body, to sense the space around me, and really help me to keep my balance and to move without over-analyzing and obsessing how I looked doing something. Anyway, if it’s not clear, I highly recommend this class to anyone in NYC! Classes are $12 and are ongoing through April 27th. Look them up here.

Then tonight, I went to hear one of my favorite dance writers, New Yorker dance critic Joan Acocella read from her new book, Twenty-Eight Artists and Two Saints, a wonderful-looking collection of essays on artists of all kinds from Baryshnikov and choreographer Jerome Robbins, to food writer M.F.K. Fisher, to authors Dorothy Parker (a favorite of mine), Susan Sontag (another fave), and Philip Roth, to visual artist Louise Bourgeois (whom I LOVE). I feel like I have all the same favorites as she. I’d never met her before or heard her read in person, and I didn’t know what to expect since she can be a pretty severe critic in her writing. But like most writers, she was a completely different person in real life from her writing voice. She was immensely personable and down to earth, funny, downright encyclopedic in her range of knowledge, very grateful for her fans, and very humble and embarrassed when one praised her, calling her Mark Morris book “Blakeian” and comparing her to film critic Pauline Kael. She read from her Baryshnikov essay because that one, she said, was the most popular. Of course this made me happy, since he is the one dancer profiled in the book. I wanted to ask her two questions: 1) if she felt there was anyone who was a contemporary Baryshnikov and if not, why; and 2) if she had any advice for an aspiring critic. But there was such a plethora of questions, and she was so generous in answering them all, we ran clear out of time before getting to me.

When I approached her to have her sign my book, I did ask her the second one though. Unfortunately her answer was one I didn’t really want to hear. “Oooh,” she moaned. “Oooh, dear, there are just no jobs, it’s just bad…” “Dance?” she asked. “Yeah,” I said. “Ooooh,” she moaned louder shaking her head. Apparently all arts criticism is bad off, but dance is particularly a no go. “I had to take non-writing jobs to support myself all the way up until eight years ago when I got the New Yorker job,” she confessed. “It’s just so hard to make a living.” Ugh. If there are no jobs for writers, who is there to promote dance?…

Death in Venice — the Ballet

 

Thursday night I went to see Death in Venice, performed by the Hamburg Ballet and choreographed by John Neumeier, at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. I loved it so much; it was really one of the most beautiful contemporary ballets I’ve seen. It was really just my thing: a ballet based on a modern, relatable, familiar story, told beautifully through movement. Based on the novella by Thomas Mann, its theme is the opposition between the intellectual and the sensual and the inner conflict that produces for the artist who must inhabit both worlds in order to create meaning from lived life. And of course underlying that theme is the implicit motif of societal repression and oppression of homosexual desire.

Funny, Sloan went to see it opening night, the night before me, and posted her thoughts in the Winger, which of course I read enthusiastically upon returning from BAM (because, badly, I often surf the net at midnight on a work night…). Was so excited I had to comment like a nutter on her post, leaving me with little to say now! What’s interesting to me though, is how dancers notice so many of the small details that make up the overall production and dance-going experience — subtleties I never would have seen– such as the sets, the lighting, the choreographer’s use of the stage, the music, the theater itself. I mostly notice only the dancers and how well I think they convey their roles. So, visit the Winger for all of those aforementioned interesting details, as well as some more lovely photos, and even a little tidbit on audience celebrities!

Anyway, I’d never seen this ballet before and when I received the flyer advertising it, I thought how in the world are they going to convey through dance a writer stifled by over-intellectualizing his work? Well, Neumeier does that by making his Aschenbach, Mann’s protagonist, into a choreographer. Lloyd Riggins compellingly depicts the tormented choreographer, while Tadzio is portrayed by this stunning Russian dancer named Edvin Revazov. I attended a pre-performance discussion between Neumeier and dance critic Anna Kisselgoff, and Neumeier related that he’d found the dancer at the Prix de Lausanne, a huge ballet competition in Switzerland. Apparently, Revazov did not do very well in the classical part of the competition, but then totally blew everyone away during the more modern improvisational portion. You could definitely tell in Revazov’s dancing that he excelled at modern. And one thing I loved about this ballet was that it incorporated both classical and modern, sometimes danced side by side, very dramatically, very beautifully. The beach scenes when Aschenbach first sees and becomes enamored with Tadzio were choreographed just beautifully, as were the pas de deux between those two men and the pas de trois between Aschenbach and other males — so gorgeously sensual. Revazov completely captivated me whenever he took the stage, and, gorgeous Russian man though he was, he captured the essense of the frivolous, playful, carefree 14-year-old to a tee. There’s also a scene where cholera grips the city, and the dancers’ jerky smasmodic movements were strikingly disconcerting. There were a few moments of corniness (the dancers wear these animal-skin prints during an orgiastic dream scene; I thought nude-colored clothing would have been more sensual, not to mention subtle, and later in the cholera scene, two agents of death are made up as Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley from the 70s rock band, KISS), but overall it was just so sublimely realized.

Funny, though — there are so many beautiful, beautiful men used the ballet, that I (and another blogger) kept imagining how ABT dancers would interpret it. I imagined Jose Carreno as Aschenbach and either David Hallberg (as if I really need to link to him 🙂 ) or Jared Matthews as Tadzio. Ahhhh, wishful thinking, as I’m sure ABT would probably find it too risky to touch, unfortunately. Come on, Kevin, take a chance, pleeeasse!!!

I also kept thinking I was seeing Evan McKie (of Stuttgart Ballet, and the Winger :)), as one of the dancers on whom Aschenbach was trying to choreograph at the beginning. But, alas, it was just the German connection … and my fanstasizing about someday being able to see him dance… 🙂 Reading his Winger posts (and eyeing his gorgeous pics), he sounds so fun, so goofily charming, and Stuttgart fascinating (I do think the Winger is not just bringing audiences closer to ballet, but sometimes creating stars itself!) Evan, btw, also happens to have the most brillant MySpace page I’ve ever seen 🙂

Anyway, I posted this too late and now Hamburg has left NY, so if you missed it, you’ll have to wait till they come around with it again … hopefully, hopefully in the not too distant future!