14 May 2009 @ 2:14 PM 
 

“Everything was beautiful at the ballet”

 

Marvin Hamlisch’s song from A Chorus Line came to mind as I read Sarah Kaufman’s very lengthy piece published in The Washington Post. I totally applaud the Post for devoting this much space to this article and to Sarah for writing it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/07/AR2009050704620.html?wprss=rss_print/style

Sarah and I studied ballet together at Metropolitan Ballet in Bethesda Maryland years ago. One of our classmates went on to become a prima ballerina with ABT. I turned down my ballet scholarship to L’Ecole de danse classique in Monaco at the same time Amanda McKerrow, who I was fortunate enough to score the same as in a Royal Ballet Exam went off to New York. Amanda had the perfect dancer body-petite, lithe, gorgeous turn out and feet, beautiful face, disposition, talent and height. She was 5′3″ and I already at 14 was 5′9.” Although only a teen I was realistic about my future in dance. This is not a surprise in an industry where ones career usually (without injuries) ends around 35 at the latest.

Here is a clip of Amanda performing from You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwvRp-PccE

No dieting and practice would alter the fact that on pointe I was too tall!
This was pre MTV so the thought of becoming a choreographer hadn’t crossed my mind and I wanted to go to college anyway.

Reading Sarah’s article about the specter of George Balanchine and his hold on American dance I wondered if Sarah might have read Gelsey Kirkland’s autobiography, Dancing on my Grave. At the time of its publication I did not read it. Gelsey Kirkland was a dancer with ABT when it was based at the Kennedy Center. It was truly a golden age of ballet - Russian defectors played into the politics of Washington, the Cold War resulted in ballet and political intrigue as well as spectacular dance.
There was a cult of celebrity to the Russian dancers - Rudolf Nureyev, Natalia Makarova (a haunting Odette/Odille), and then Mikhail Baryshnikov arrived in Washington DC and we were transfixed. The Bolshoi, The Kirov, ABT, The Joffrey, and New York City Ballet seemed to be competing for dollars and prominence on the world stage from the Opera House of the Kennedy Center.

Gelsey Kirkland, a young American dancer, partnered with Mikhail Baryshnikov as Clara in his adaptation of The Nutcracker in 1977. I was there opening night and met them backstage after the performance. It was a thrilling evening. When her drugs and love affairs resulted in her leaving ABT I recall being very sad. I viewed it not as a fault of her character but of a system which used artists, making demands on them, and then tossing them aside. It seemed the physical toll on ones body coupled with the emotional challenges to ones ego would be hard for anyone but the most disciplined of personalities.
Her firing scared me enough that I had no desire to try drugs, alcohol or even cigarettes as a young dancer.

Ms. Kirkland’s book published in 1986 tells of her personal struggles with Balanchine when she was a young dancer. Her stories illuminate his arrogance and the spell under which many dancers including Baryshnikov were held and haunted by him. Kirkland’s brave rejection of him, her reasons, and her separation from NYCB to ABT is captivating reading.

In addition to the book being about her, the ballet, her romances, her personal challenges, it is very much a record of an exceptional moment in the ballet world and certainly in Washington DC.
I was at many of the performances which she refers to in the book. In 1986 her love affairs would have been “gross” to me since I had no reference for love and affairs of the heart, now almost 25 years later the book intrigued me and made me recall many names such as Peter Martins, Fernando Bujones, and Patrick Bissell, the dancer who introduced her to drugs, dancers I had not forgotten but whom I had only applauded from a distance.

I would welcome the opportunity to hear Ms. Kirkland speak. I hope that she reads Sarah’s article. I certainly hope anyone interested in that seminal moment in American ballet will read her book and watch the DVD of her performance with Baryshnikov in The Nutcracker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rQSuuHIm8I

The comments in response to the Post article are all worth reading.  Ballet critics don’t get as personal as political comments but the variety of these remarks are worth reading:

Your Comments On…

Ballet Must Make Room Onstage for More Than One Genius

Magic spells, poisons, potions and enchantments may be frequent plot devices at the ballet, but the art form itself is under a bewitchment of its own making. It’s the Curse of Balanchine.
-

By Sarah Kaufman

Comments

optimist52 wrote:
Great music underlies balancine’s ballets and motivates the choreography. I love tudor, ashton and dance acting but the pure dance wedded to music is what makes it so enjoyable to keep seeing his ballets all your life. Classic, abstract choreography is necessary to fully express the the panoply of shades of expression and tone and style of the music. ranging from traditional to modern. The wonderful combo of music and dance can have sophistication, intellectual content, variety, delight, humor, drama, excitement….you name it. All this flavor can be missed if you watch dance looking for a plot, characters, who is who, and what are they doing and why.

Audience understanding of music increased a lot with balanchine. After the complicated story/spectacles for aristocratic audiences in 19th century Russia, dance responded to the burst of modern creativity in music and art in the early part of the century. Using great music advanced the dance as art form tremendously and helped increase the aesthetic appreciation of audiences.

5/13/2009 12:27:12 AM
lshrpspear wrote:
Eugene Loring, in the shadow of Balanchine, was a tremendously talented choreographer. I had the privilege of casting a life mask of him. Diana Green is the keeper of his choreographic notation. I would love to see more of his work performed.
5/12/2009 7:48:31 PM
cnb5 wrote:
To refer to Balanchine’s contributions as a “curse” is absurd and to blame him 26 years after his death for the choreographic output that followed is simplistic. Balanchine had the courage of his convictions to deal with decades of lousy reviews from the New York Times. Perhaps the economics of the arts in this country are more responsible for continued absract ballets than anyone trying to emmulate or maintain Balanchine’s point of view.
5/12/2009 2:32:01 PM
adh75 wrote:
etseng921 (and rusty9). As for the staging of Balanchine, I personally haven’t been particularly impressed at all by what I’ve seen, except perhaps for “Jewels”. As to why companies pay the big royalties to put on Balanchine, my initial comment began, you will note, with that very point: my not being able to understand what dancers I respect (and companies I respect) find so interesting in Balanchine. My respect for these dancers and companies is intact despite that. And don’t retort that I am closed minded: I said I periodically try to see whether I will finally see the light with Balanchine. Rusty9 made a very legitimate point. If the choreography is of quality, an abstract ballet can contain huge amounts of emotion. I have many examples to support that (Kylian, Forsythe among many others). Moreover,a badly choreographed ballet with a plot will always be a badly choreographed ballet… with a plot. Plots, however, even nonsensical ones in which there is frankly little pure emotion, can provide a “backbone” for the choreography and ease the viewer into what the choreographer is trying to say.
5/12/2009 2:57:11 AM
etseng921 wrote:
adh75:

If you find Balanchine bland and predictable in the first place then how do you judge the quality of the staging? Since companies are willing to pay a heavy royalty for a Balanchine ballet, then it must be justified, or else they wouldn’t bother.

5/11/2009 8:33:18 PM
adh75 wrote:
etseng921 The phrasing of my final paragraph could in fact, I see that now, make you think I am against the payment of royalties. This is not the case at all. I called into question more the justification for Balanchine sized royalties. Trusts? Of course they exist and should exist: the Tudor Trust is even referred to in the article. We differ clearly though as to the quality of the performance that the Balanchine Trust is trying to protect.
5/11/2009 5:14:39 PM
etseng921 wrote:
adh75:

You find it galling that companies need to pay to perform the works of another choreographer? These works are not in the public domain; it’s called intellectual property. You don’t have to like Balanchine’s work to understand this. BTW, other choreographers also have trusts, like Robbins, Tudor, Ashton…anyone left with the estate must be paid to allow the work to be performed and must insure the integrity and quality of performance.

5/11/2009 3:49:12 PM
etseng921 wrote:
matthewk:
You really think NYCB productions are always better because it’s the home company and Suzanne Farrell only does “warmed-over” Balanchine? I think many critics and fans (of both companies) would disagree with you.
5/11/2009 2:57:53 PM
rusty9 wrote:
Why does no one find abstract music emotionless? Do some ballet audience members today need a plot to tell them when to feel emotions? There is as much mediocre new choreography today as in the past. The problem is the choreography not the lack of a story. Serenade has as much emotion as any full length ballet I’ve ever seen.
5/10/2009 11:24:02 PM
adh75 wrote:
I have long been unable to understand the semi-religious awe shown even by dancers I respect for Balanchine, whose choreography I have always found cold, dreadfully predictable and frankly boring. After a conference Agnes Letestu of the Paris Opera gave on Balanchine, I asked her where she found the emotion in Balanchine. She replied that it wasn’t so much a question of emotion as a “state of being”. The remark gave me a handle for trying to appreciate Balanchine–I had been looking for emotion where there was none–but I have never been able to go farther than that.
As the author of your article points out, the plotnessness Balanchine favored so often simply makes it more difficult to “connect” with what he produced.
Despite that, I will occasionally impose some Balanchine on my otherwise well balanced ballet diet, a bit like a spoon of cod liver oil. Will it take off finally? (It still hasn’t.)
I find it particularly galling that ballet companies staging something by Balanchine have not only to pay standard royalties but also the expenses of the officially approved Balanchine Trust repetiteurs, who go round the world assuring that productions of Balanchine will, I suppose, produce the precise quantity of boredom that the master built into them.
5/10/2009 3:12:52 PM
Maura3 wrote:
Ballet enthusiasts take heed. We have needed this article for decades. To her credit, the author has not made her point by knocking Balanchine’s great accomplishment but rather by showing how our elevation of his rather abstract, universal (and sometimes a bit sterile) choreographic take on modernism has made audience expectations rigid, which in turn has stultified the opportunity of a more imaginative, organic/home-grown choreography.
5/10/2009 11:55:18 AM
matthewk wrote:
I agree absolutely that ballet is suffering from Balanchine overdose, and has for 30 years. Most all new work is abstract, angular and speed driven, and his repertoire is way over-played.
Here in DC we have Suzanne Farrell Ballet, which is basically a Balanchine cover group and vanity project for Farrell, and now the Washington Ballet is getting into the act doing warmed-over Balanchine. If we want to see Balanchine, we can see the New York City Ballet do it much much better right here at the Kennedy Center every year. We don’t need the Suzanne Farrell Ballet to do warmed-over Balanchine 24-seven to satisfy Farrell’s failed ambition of directing NYCB when world-class companies all do the same thing here much better. The Washington Ballet’s Septime Weber is an excellent modern choreographer in his own right, and does a good job commissioning new original works (even if they often are Balanchine influenced as well) and Washington’s own native ballet company should be the ballet company in residence at the Kennedy Center and give us original, innovative choreography, both abstract and narrative, instead of dedicating the Kennedy Center’s resources to performing inferior Balanchine productions ad nauseam by Farrell adorned by her self-congratulatory commentary as a former Balanchine muse, in addition to the same Balanchine productions by every other company that comes through town.
5/10/2009 11:32:56 AM
bdamj wrote:
Holding Mr. B responsible for a conformity in ballet today is like stating that true innovation resides in the Bolshoi or the American Ballet Theatre or other Romantic school ballet companies. Balanchine’s way of thinking was just the opposite of that aesthetic. He championed classicism, with balance and grace and symmetry and line that played out in the splendid ballet works of his we all enjoy.

Romanticism still exists in ballet. Most of the repertoire is anything but classic and most of it tells stories of one kind or another.

If that’s the viewer’s preference, then they can seek out those works.

But it’s unfair to hold Balanchine responsible for ballet fan’s shifting tastes away from the story ballet to the classic aesthetic.

If choreographers want to tell stories in their work in the future, it will reemerge in their future ballets.

But the audience will have to decide when it needs the story to accompany the dance to give them more than the plotless ballets.

5/10/2009 12:46:01 AM
 

Responses to this post » (None)

 


Comments are open. Feel free to leave a comment below.


 

Leave A Comment ...

 

 XHTML:
You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
\/ More Options ...
Change Theme...
  • Users » 137
  • Posts/Pages » 68
  • Comments » 9
Change Theme...
  • VoidVoid
  • LifeLife « Default
  • EarthEarth
  • WindWind
  • WaterWater
  • FireFire
  • LiteLight
  • No Child Pages.
  • No Child Pages.