miliosr

It's been a year of losses for the Opera - first with the deaths of the etoiles Michael Denard and Attilio Labis and now with the death of Pierre Lacotte.

After the big news about Dores Andre and Max Cauthorn dropped earlier in the week, the San Francisco Ballet School just posted this news on Instagram: "After 12 years with the organization, Patrick Armand will conclude his tenure as Director of the SF Ballet School and Trainee Program at the end of the 2023 summer program." This is a big development because it was Armand who got the school to the point that the company wasn't quite so dependent on imported talent. (He developed Cauthorn and Benjamin Freemantle.)

Based on her programming for the upcoming season, I would say that Cathy Marston is possessed of an independent dance mind - she's willing to break with the herd-like mentality so prevalent elsewhere. That may be a draw for some dancers. I'm actually neutral about any large-scale changes in the roster (beyond mild disappointment that two products of the San Francisco Ballet school - Benjamin Freemantle and Max Cauthorn - have decamped/will decamp elsewhere.) I consider this to be a natural occurrence once there's a change in artistic directors. My preference is for any attrition to take place naturally rather than to have a new director initiate a bloodletting at the first opportunity. (People forget that this was exactly what took place after Helgi Tomasson's first season - he didn't renew a lot of contracts. That part has been airbrushed out of his 37-year story at San Francisco Ballet.)

Big news out of San Francisco this afternoon . . . San Francisco Ballet announced on Instagram that, "principal dancers Dores Andre and Max Cauthorn are heading to Ballet Zurich under the direction of Cathy Marston following SF Ballet's 2023 Season." I certainly didn't expect this news! Cauthorn leaving creates yet another vacancy in the male principals roster following the departures of Ulrik Birkkjaer and Benjamin Freemantle, the contract non-renewal of Julian Mackay, and the retirement of Tiit Helimets. San Francisco Ballet has picked up Isaac Hernandez but they're still down four male principal dancers.

It's a measure of Lynn Seymour's versatility that she could guest with the Alvin Ailey company in March 1971 playing the Janis Joplin character in Ailey's Flowers (a part which Ailey created specifically for Seymour) and then play the title character in Kenneth MacMillan's Anastasia in July of that same year.

I think the trouble with how the Paris Opera Ballet performs Balanchine is that the relationship, while one of longstanding, is an intermittent one. His works come and go in the repertory - there are periods of prominence and then there are periods of marginalization. I don't know that those periods of prominence are ever long enough for the troupe to truly master the Balanchine style. (I'm not talking about the actual steps, which I'm sure stagers like Patricia Neary can impart.)

Regarding Marc Moreau's appointment as etoile, I wrote this elsewhere: "[S]ometimes events can work in your favor just enough so you can prove what you can do. The ranks of the male etoiles have been depleted recently as the latest defile amply demonstrated - only Mathieu Ganio, German Louvet, Hugo Marchand and Paul Marque walked in the defile. Under a different set of circumstances there would have been three more marchers (and three more etoiles to fill out the star roles): Josua Hoffalt (who is Ganio's age but departed early), Mathias Heymann (has been out indefinitely) and Francois Alu (won the coveted title of etoile and then promptly decamped for the more lucrative provinces of French show business). When you factor in that Ganio and Marchand did not dance in the most recent Swan Lake run (coming as it did hard on the heels of Mayerling) and Louvet was busy with the Pina Bausch evening, that left the Opera having to lean heavily on the premiere danseurs to fill the Siegfried spots. Marc Moreau wasn't cast originally as Siegfried (he was cast as Rothbart instead). He also wasn't cast originally as the title character in Vaslaw for the Patrick Dupond evening - Heymann was. So, Moreau ended up with two opportunities to show his potential in the true star roles, which might not have happened under a different set of circumstances. (He was also a lead in Lander's Etudes for the Dupond tribute and he's currently dancing in both Ballet Imperial and Who Cares? for the Balanchine evening.) Talent matters. Marc Moreau has it and the promotion to etoile is a deserved one. But sometimes events can lend you a little helping hand." To the extent Moreau was shocked by his appointment, it might be because he sees himself in much the same way as the audience does - as the loyal, hardworking "company man" who can be relied on through thick-and-thin. Not the typical definition of a star but absolutely the kind of bedrock performer a company needs at all times.

It's all good. The reality is that there's nothing much to discuss 'on-topic' until Tamara Rojo announces her first programmed season in April.

Could it be any of these? Bejart set all three to Bach: Actus Tragicus (Dec 1969) Sonate (Dec 1970) (Bejart made this for Suzanne Farrell and Jorge Donn.) Offrande Choregraphique (Jan 1971) (Maina Gielgud was in the premiere cast w/ Paolo Bortoluzzi, Micha van Hoecke and Woytek Lowski.) [Source: Marie-Francoise Christout's Bejart]

L'Oiseau de feu is part of an all-Bejart program (also including Song of a Wayfarer and Bolero) scheduled for April-May 2023 at the Bastille and designed to commemorate the 15th anniversary of Maurice Bejart's death in November 2007. I imagine the performances of L'Oiseau de feu will become a kind of tribute to Michael Denard (as he was Bejart's original Firebird in the 1970 production) but the revival was already in the works long before Denard died on February 17th. Song of a Wayfarer will also be part of the Patrick Dupond tribute evenings beginning tomorrow at the Garnier. Maina Gielgud danced with the Ballet of the 20th Century in the late-60s/early-70s. I have an old issue of Dance Magazine from spring 1971 with Rudolf Nureyev and Paolo Bortoluzzi (the original cast of Song of a Wayfarer) on the cover. Inside the magazine, there is a feature on Gielgud discussing her life with the Bejart company. So, she was still with the company as late as spring 1971. But by the time Bejart launched his full-company, full-evening extravaganza, Nijinsky Clown de dieu, in fall 1971, she was no longer part of the company. Nevertheless, Gielgud - like Suzanne Farrell - has remained extraordinarily loyal to Bejart.

Alas, I think it is at least in terms of the Lew Christensen-Michael Smuin directorship (early-70s to mid-80s). I was leafing through my copy of the San Francisco Ballet's (SFB) 50th anniversary retrospective book tonight. It contains a very thorough review of the repertory up to that point, which was 1983. Five people created the vast majority of the repertory during that joint directorship - Christensen, Smuin, Robert Gladstein, John McFall and Tomm Ruud. With the exception of Michael Smuin's works (which are kept in performable shape by his namesake company, the Smuin Ballet), so much of the rest seems unrecoverable to me - not least because of the fact that Helgi Tomasson didn't keep any of it in repertory when he took over in 1985. What remains from that period are mostly the George Balanchine works that Christensen and Smuin brought to SFB. But the book also lists such intriguing oddities as Maurice Bejart's L'Oiseau de feu, which entered the SFB's repertory in the late-70s and is still very revivable. (The Paris Opera Ballet is performing it this spring.) Wouldn't it be wonderful to unite Bejart's L'Oiseau de feu (from the Christensen-Smuin era), Balanchine's Rubies (brought to San Francisco by Tomasson) and Pina Bausch's Le Sacre du printemps (from Tamara Rojo's time at the English National Ballet) in all-Stravinsky repertory bill?

My admittedly foolish and forlorn hope is for Tamara Rojo to take a deep look at the repertories from the prior two directorships (Christensen/Smuin and Tomasson) and then unite the best pieces from each with her own tastes and interests; thereby forging a comprehensive repertory for the 21st century. But, as I wrote, foolish and forlorn for a whole host of reasons!

Since Helgi Tomasson programmed the 2023 season in its entirety and the programming hasn't changed, we don't know yet what Tamara Rojo will do or not do in terms of adhering to Tomasson's repertory choices. There is a precedent at San Francisco Ballet for making a huge course correction in repertory and that precedent involved no less that Tomasson himself in 1985. Basically, he ditched everything that had come before him except for the Balanchine repertory that Lew Christensen and Michael Smuin had accumulated. I would hope that someone on the interviewing committee posed that scenario to each candidate. That way, the board won't be caught by surprise if the winning candidate (in this case, Rojo) makes across-the-board changes after an endless reign.

Possokhov has made quite a lot for San Francisco Ballet - dating all the way back to 1997. Maybe . . . although programming Pina Bausch at English National Ballet suggests an interesting dance mind willing to cut against the grain of entrenched expectations - financial or historical. Ultimately, I think Tamara Rojo's programming will depend on what her remit was from the San Francisco Ballet board upon her hiring: Is the board's expectation that she will continue to adhere to the programming choices of her predecessors Helgi Tomasson and Lew Christensen, which would mean a continuance of George Balanchine and Balanchine-derived dance as the central inspiration? Or does she have leave, after 90 years, to look further afield - west across the Pacific to Asia (as she's already indicated) and south to Central and South America?

Oregon Ballet Theatre has named choreographer Danielle Rowe as artistic director: Dani Rowe - Oregon Ballet Theatre (obt.org) What does this have to do with San Francisco Ballet (SFB)? Well, Rowe's husband is Luke Ingham, who is a principal dancer at SFB. Hard to know if he will head north with his wife or not. While he's in his late 30s, he may have a few good years left in him at San Francisco. IF he should leave, that means SFB would have lost five principal men by the start of the 2024 winter-spring season, including Ulrik Birkkjaer (left in 2022), Benjamin Freemantle (left in 2022), Julian Mackay (contract not renewed) and Tiit Helimets (retired in February 2023). (Tamara Rojo's husband, Isaac Hernandez, joined, which, if Ingham were to leave, would leave SFB with a net deficit of four principal men.) Meanwhile, in her review of SFB's Next@90 festival in the pages of Fjord Review, Rachel Howard begins her review with this vaguely anxious appraisal of the leadership changeover: "San Francisco Ballet, the U.S.’s oldest professional ballet company and second largest, is entering its 90th season at a moment of profound transition. Helgi Tomasson, artistic director for 37 years, has just handed the reins to Tamara Rojo, who arrives triumphantly after a decade of success raising the profile of the English National Ballet. Aside from both prizing the work of William Forsythe, the two are markedly different in their repertory interests, but Rojo’s programming direction—will the company still dance Balanchine and Robbins?—won’t be known until she announces the 2024 season this April." And it's not just George Balanchine and Jerome Robbins who may be facing a reduced future at the SFB. What of Tomasson favorites like Mark Morris? And what of Tomasson himself? He didn't hesitate to ditch the works of his predecessor, Lew Christensen, so there's precedent for Rojo to downplay, or discard outright, the Tomasson repertory. We'll know in April!

The answer is: She was the victim of a violent assault which included having dog excrement thrown in her face. Croce, again, when asked if the critic is different from the audience: "The critic is in the position of the audience. The critic is taking the place of the audience - not of the artist. The critic is definitely on the audience's side of the footlights. That's what that means; it doesn't mean that the critic is representative of the tastes of the audience." If in the end all that matters is audience opinion, then why make a critical distinction between a Vadim Muntagirov and, say, a Kim Kardashian? They're both creative in their ways, they're both popular with audiences and they're both hard workers. If the response is that one is an artist and one is a popular entertainer (of a sort), then I would reply: "Congratulations, you've just exercised the critical function in defiance of audience tastes and opinions."

Exactly I quote the dance critic Arlene Croce (who was speaking of the relationship between the critic and the dancer but could have just as well been speaking about the relationship between the critic and the choreographer): "The critic doesn't exist to write for the dancer, but for the public. This is the point that (dance critic) Edwin (Denby) made better than I can: 'Criticism is a conversation that the audience has with itself, and if the performer wants to eavesdrop on the conversation, he does so at his own risk.' " And: "You (the critic) owe your audience some evaluation. I cling to that. They don't want a lot of impressionistic buzz. They want to know: Is it good? And I think you have a right, in your own dignity, to say, 'Yes it was, no it wasn't.' " *Quotes taken from an interview Croce gave to Dance Ink magazine in the 1990s.

I read the interview with Tamara Rojo in Fjord Review. The interview covers much the same ground as the Chronicle interview although I thought she was somewhat more forthcoming with Fjord. Two things were of note: She tackles head on the outsized influence George Balanchine played in the development of the classical dance in the United States by noting that, "there are a lot of choreographers that have been so deeply shaped by his legacy, that what we see is a lot of Balanchine-derivative work." Whether she thinks that's a good thing or a bad thing isn't entirely clear from the interview. (I lean toward the latter based on her use of the word "derivative" but who knows?) She also addresses the issue of what it means to be a California-based company in the 21st century. Should the San Francisco Ballet be looking east across the Pacific for new stimuli rather than always looking toward Europe and New York (the New York City Ballet, specifically) for ideas?

My prior post should have read - "there were 11 in spring 2022."

I wouldn't say that there are hard targets in terms of the number of male and female principals. What I would note is that there has been a certain erosion in the male principals ranks since last spring (when the news broke about Rojo's hiring). Ulrik Birkkjaer and Benjamin Freemantle chose to depart, and Julian Mackay's contract was not renewed - not by choice according to him. Tiit Helimets is now transitioning from the principal dancer ranks to the principal character actor ranks. However, Isaac Hernadez joined in that time. So, that leaves 8 principal men after February 2023 when there were 11 in spring 2023. Rojo may bide her time in order to take the company's measure for the next four months. My guess would be that she would want 1-2 more principals as a cushion against the inevitable disruptions caused by injuries. There are some promising male soloists but whether they're ready to make the jump to principal status I cannot say. We also don't know who - if anyone - has put out feelers to Rojo to join the company after the winter-spring 2023 season ends.

Based on her own career trajectory, I don't think Tamara Rojo has any great loyalty to the George Balanchine/Jerome Robbins/Christopher Wheeldon/Alexei Ratmansky/Justin Peck cohort that so dominates the American ballet world. Where her interests do intersect with those of Helgi Tomasson would be with the William Forsythe repertory and the great 19th century classics. (Whether she keeps Tomasson's versions of the great classics remains to be seen.) What's unknowable in all this is what Rojo's remit from the San Francisco Ballet Board was when she was hired. Did they hire Rojo to shake up a repertory that, perhaps, had grown predictable after 37 years of the Tomasson reign? It would be a welcome jolt if she brought in Pina Bausch's version of The Rite of Spring as she did at English National Ballet! In the other news of the day, San Francisco Ballet announced on its Instagram feed that Tiit Helimets will give his last performance as a principal dancer during the upcoming next@90 festival. He will remain as a principal character artist. Helimets joined the company in 2005 as a principal but he actually began his career in 1996 with the Estonian National Ballet. So, that's a great run - close to 27 years! Helimets moving from principal to principal character presents an opportunity to Rojo. Does she promote someone from within to fill that spot or does she go out into the free market and hire someone?

Longish interview with Tamara Rojo: S.F. Ballet’s new director seeks a balance — innovation with stability | Datebook (sfchronicle.com) This quote leapt out at me: At the same time, Rojo is busy making calls to line up the company’s 2024 season, the first that she’ll program. “Of course, I want to bring my own view, and some of that will be European,” she says, noting she also sees an opportunity to look east, to talents in countries such as Taiwan. [Bolded: My emphasis] “But also, I want to understand San Francisco Ballet at its core, and this company is an American company.” Moderators: Please add story to Dance Links if possible.

SFB has nine new works premiering in January 2023 as part of the Next@90 Festival. This in addition to the 12 new works that premiered as part of the Unbound Festival in 2018. Helgi Tomasson is leaving with a final statement of intent, whether Tamara Rojo chooses to heed it or not. Arguably, ABT has been looking for great choreographers since the 1940s to replicate the triumphs of that first decade! 😊 That was the decade of Fall River Legend (de Mille) and Fancy Free (Robbins) and Pillar of Fire (Tudor) and Romeo and Juliet (Tudor) and Theme and Variations (Balanchine). The Ratmansky Sleeping Beauty from 2015 got a mixed reception. There was a sizeable faction who loved it as a window into the bygone performing style of the 1890s-era Mariinsky, the Ballets Russes and Anna Pavlova & her touring company. But (as you note) a loud minority thought it was too bygone - it had nothing to do with the dancers of today. While Ratmansky's Sleeping Beauty got a better reception than the Gelsey Kirkland/Kevin McKenzie Sleeping Beauty from 2007 (which was universally loathed), it never established itself in the regular repertory alongside Giselle, Swan Lake, Romeo and Juliet (the MacMillan version) and Don Q. Once again, ABT paid out a lot of money without necessarily getting something long lasting in return.

Shostakovitch Trilogy was a co-production between ABT and San Francisco Ballet (SFB) and, of the two companies, SFB got the better of the deal because the trilogy sat more comfortably within SFB's neo-classical style than it did with ABT's classical style. We'll see if it makes a comeback under Tamara Rojo's directorship. I read the Gia Kourlas piece in the New York Times about Ratmansky's switch from ABT to New York City Ballet (NYCB). I agree with her overall point that NYCB would have been - and still is - a perfect fit for Ratmansky. But Peter Martins demanded too much as part of any deal and so everyone ended up with a detour. Where I part ways with Kourlas, though, is her statement in the article that ABT comes out the loser in the deal. Ratmansky had a dozen years to give a ABT a new, streamlined repertory for the 21st century. In those dozen years, he churned out nearly two dozen works, the better part of which (as I noted upthread) seem unlikely to remain in repertory. Ratmansky did his best revivals of the great classics everywhere else BUT at ABT and he didn't give them the kind of modern classics that would fit within their multi-act story ballet aesthetic. (The genre I'm thinking of contains ballet like John Cranko's Onegin, Kenneth MacMillan's Manon and John Neumeier's La Dame aux camelias.) So, how long does Gia Kourlas think ABT should have kept throwing money at Ratmansky (and he and his productions didn't come cheap) when the experiment wasn't proving all that successful relative to ABT's actual needs? Those needs would include (a) revamped productions of the great classics, (b) more and better coaching in those great classics, and (perhaps most importantly) (c) a new generation of stars to supplant the non-star turns currently bedeviling ABT. (I cast no blame toward Ratmansky for (c) because I believe stars are born and not made.) If Susan Jaffe made the decision to cut the cord with Ratmansky, I think she made the right decision.

It was past time for ABT and Alexei Ratmansky to bring their ongoing relationship to a close. After a decade+ and nearly two dozen created dances, it's long been evident that the two parties had reached the limit of what they could achieve together. This way, Ratmansky can seek new inspiration across the plaza at Lincoln Center, and Susan Jaffe can turn her attentions toward the multi-act story ballets that are ABT's bread-and-butter. As for the Ratmansky works themselves, ABT needs his Nutcracker for the annual stand at the Segerstrom Center in Los Angeles and they may want to keep Whipped Cream in rotation. Seven Sonatas is probably the best of the shorter works (and will stay in repertory), and some (or all) of the Shostakovich Trilogy may have any afterlife at ABT. But as for the rest . . .