I just watched her in Nuryevs Swan Lake for the Vienna Ballet. Her Odette and Odille was so splendid....she was like a real swan. I have noticed, that dancers today seem more occupied with the technique of thier bodies, which are more evolved, than say the acting or the "heart" of the roll. Fonteyn was an "Old School" ballerina - she didnt have high extensions or that linky-ness that dancers today have, but she had more than that - the emotions! Why do dancers of today differ so much more then the dancers of the time she came from? Is it becasue they are more occupied with technique?

I have the video, and I think Fonteyn's Swan Lake was one of her worst video outings, EVER. She's saddled with Nureyev's rather unorthodox production, but she also seems shaky on balances, and sorry, her arms are rather floppy and inexpressive *in this video* I think. Compare the way Natalia Makarova or Maya Plisetskaya use their arms in Swan Lake -- now THOSE are wings. Or to compare to Fonteyn, she uses her arms to much greater effect in the Firebird film or the Giselle excerpts. I was SO disappointed in this video. I thought I'd see an incandescent performance, but the whole thing was so earthbound. The corps? Unacceptably sloppy, and cramped on a too-small soundstage. Nureyev looks hideous with his bright-blue eyeshadow.
Also, I've seen quite a few modern-day Swan Lakes and they are anything but "soulless." (Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine to think that ballet's soul died with Margot Fonteyn.)

I agree, Solor. Thanks for posting this. This "Swan Lake" was actually the one where I "got" Fonteyn. After this one, I could go back and see all the others and see what she was doing. The performance is particularly astounding, considering her age. I saw Fonteyn only at the end of her career, and she had the same effect on stage. The first time I saw her she was 57. I knew nothing about her, and thought she was older than I was (I was 25), like, oh, maybe 35! I had to read that she was 57 in three sources to believe her. I've never seen a ballerina with the same authoriity. It really is impossible to make a judgment about a dancer from only having seen them on video, however frustrating that may be, but I think this one gives a sense of her.

Canbelto, I'll trade you a pet peeve Mine is people who never saw a dancer insisting that comments that this dancer of today isn't up to that dancer from the past, etcetera, is bunk. Everyone goes through this. When I started watching ballet I was constantly told by people who had been going for 20 or 30 years that "Well, she's not bad, but you didn't see X in the role," or (and this was in the 1970s) "Yes, technique has improved in some ways, but we've lost some things too," or "There was a quality that X or Y had that Z or B does not." etc. I remember feeling confused, and sometimes as though I'd been slapped, but I always learned from it. I have to say that when I had a wider range of viewing experience, I understood what they were talking about and rarely, in hindsight, have disagreed with them. When I was 25, my life's ambition was to be 55 and able to say, "Ah, but you never saw Gelsey Kirkland in the role!" There has to be some reward for a long life spent watching ballet

But Fonteyn wasn't trying and failing to use her arms like Plisetskaya or whoever - she believed strongly that Odette was not a swan, she was a woman, and would have no reason to have arms looking like wings! I don't think I've ever seen this video, and maybe her arms weren't at their most expresssive - but it's not for this reason.

I agree, alas. Of course, any record of the past is valuable, but it would be no great disservice to Fonteyn or Nureyev if this one went missing. (Nothing personal, Solor, different people see different things, it's what makes life interesting. )

For a better representation (IMO) of Fonteyn's Swan Lake, I'd say the 1960 film is better. It's really cut, and you only see the second act pdd really, but I have to say she's less obviously "over her head" there. The Nureyev filming experience was evidently not happy -- they fought over the ending, Fonteyn was unhappy and insisted on no closeups. I really dont think it's a very good souvenir of Fonteyn AT ALL.
Good souvenirs of Fonteyn: the recently issued Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty from VAI. The R&J with Nureyev. The Les Sylphides, Aurora's Wedding. Various films of Marguerite and Armand. The film of Firebird and Ondine. all of those are much, much better than this Swlan Lake, which I really like to think of as a blemish on two masterpieces -- Fonteyn and Nureyev.

Alexandra, I hate this too and this dinosaur approach is also very prevalent in the opera. Yes, I go back a fair amount of time, but what's the point of living in the past? It's gone. Memories are fine, and actually a good point of reference, but often they get "enhanced" a bit over the years.

So I keep my memories and enjoy today's performers too. It's an apples to oranges thing. Style and technique change and blend over the years.


Now I have to say, though, I don't like the Vienna Swan Lake film. I don't really think Fonteyn looks comfortable here. I didn't see her in the role until a few years after this, but she was much more like the 1960 film, stylish, elegant, expressive, and musical.

But do I think she was the last Odette/Odile? No!

Richard (looking forward to Vishneva's Odette/Odile with ABT )

Richard, I think you misread me. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but what I said was that I'm sick of people insisting that if you say that a dancer of the past was better in this or that role you're accused of wallowing in nostalgia or having an "enhanced" memory.

To Solor, I had neglected to address the question you posed in your post (about what is the difference, is it the current emphasis on technique?) First, I have seen ballerinas in the past decade who, to me, danced emotionally satisfying "Swan Lakes," so I don't think that whatever Fonteyn, and others of her generation, had is gone. I do think that some dancers are now cast in leading roles solely because of technical proficiency -- management knows she'll be able to get through the fouettes, for example -- rather than emotional depth, and there's the problem of not enough coaching (or good coaching) and especially not enough rehearsal, not enough working with the same partner, not enough performances. In Fonteyn's day, everyboody didn't dance Odette, and she had the luxury of dozens and dozens of performances. Today's dancers may only get to do 2 in a season, and then 2 more after a few months, etcetera. I don't think Terpsichore could develop in a role under those circumstances.

Well one thing I pride myself is the fact that I call a spade a spade. I enjoy many historical performances, as well as contemporary ones. For instance I dont think Alicia Alonso's fouettes in the black swan pdd can be improved. Tanny LeClercq's finale to Western Symphony is something I cant imagine being bettered either. And Natalia Makarova's Giselle is probably always going to be a standard for me. But Margot Fonteyn's performance in this particular video of Swan Lake? There's no kind way I can put it: she's not good.

Interesting point, which suggests an ironical possibility. In Fonteyn's day, fewer dancers were considered qualified for parts llike Odette/Odile. Perhaps the large number of technically skilled dancers today means that these great classical parts have to be divvied up among a large pool of dancers -- for reasons of company morale, fan loyalty, etc. More dancers means fewer performances. These dancers will never have the luxury of enough time, enough performances, to develop the role to its fullest.

And an interesting observation, Bart. I think, too, it's a difference in emphasis. The last time I saw a performance of "Les Patineurs," watching the two female soloists, and remembering what I'd read about the dancers who created the roles, I thought, if the sensibilities in operation today were the norm in the 1930s, Mary Horner (Honer? I may be mispelling that name) would have been the company's prima ballerina. We (or at least some company directors) look for different things now. What, during the Ballet Russe period, would have been a spice -- a bravura solo or pas de deux -- is now the main meal. And what would have been the centerpiece of an older ballet -- a mime role, a character solo -- is now "not dancing" and some people can watch the ballet and not notice those roles. Is that becuase our viewpoint has changed, or because the people doing the "nondancing" roles aren't schooled in them, or they have fewer models or a different frame of reference? Or all of this? I know that coaching can make a difference. I've seen several school performances by traveling Russians that are astounding -- they'll do a piece that is very, very old-fashioned -- the perfume is of the 1920s or 1940s -- and the kids are doing it in a very convincing style. (I wasn't around in the '20s or '40s, so all I can say is that it matches the style of the few videos I've seen of that period. Remembering always that you cannot judge a dancer or a ballet by a video alone.)

So.... is it that there are more technically skilled dancers today? Or that the champion turners get the roles and the dancers with beautiful upper bodies, eyes that speak and act, and the ability to bring poetry and all those other ineffable, unquantifiable qualities, to a role are passed over in favor of "Look! She can do triple fouettes!!!"

I wanted to say something about Fonetyn's arms. I agree with Jane about the difference between Odette the woman and Odette the swan, but I think here, too, is a difference in taste. Fonteyn was subtle; the English style was subtle. The Bolshoi style was not. Croce wrote, "If it's swans you want, go to the zoo!" of Plisetskaya's arms.. For some, the obvoius swan imitation is too much; for others it's just what the role needs. I think this, like many things we talk about here, is a matter of taste, not that one is wrong and the other right.

But dancers like Natalia Makarova aren't Bolshoi-trained at all and yet they also effortlessly melded the bird and the human together. Odette/Odile, IMO, shouldnt just be a ballerina with a white tutu and furry white headband. The "soul" of the bird should be there. When I saw Nina Ananiashvilli dance this, I forgot honestly where the bird ended and the human began. I'll never forget it.

I realizee that Makarova is Kirov and not Bolshoi trained. I did not mention her. I wrote about Plisetskaya, choosing her because it's a more extreme example and because that was who Croce was referring to in the quote I used. I saw Makarova more than any other ballerina in "Swan Lake" and I never cared for her. I never believed her, not in "Swan Lake" nor in "Giselle." (I thought she was terrific in the Don Q pas de deux and in "Other Dances," though). I am not saying that she was bads, nor not good, just that I didn't care for her performance in that role. There
are things that aren't a matter of right and wrong, but of taste and preference.

We've gotten away from Solor's original post, which raised some interesting questions. Perhaps there could be a thread on "Why Fonteyn was overrated" or "why X was great?? But here's what Solor posed for discussion.



I have a question for you, Solor. I wasn't sure what you meant by "linky-ness". Do you mean the body type? Or were you getting at something else.

I have to agree with Canbelto and Richard53dog on this. The Nureyev film simply isn't a good representaion of either of them in Swan Lake & it does their memories a disservice. The Royal's Fonteyn/Nureyev Swan Lake was the first ballet I can remember. My grandmother had been taking me to the ballet since I was 2-3 years old. I guess I enjoyed it but I don't really remember any of it till my first Fonteyn/Nureyev Swan Lake circa 1964-66. Loved it. Fell in love with the ballet and with her. I remember her Odette so fondly, so I ordered the DVD, popped it in...and was thoroughly disgusted. Seriously, after the 2nd act pas de deux I stopped the DVD and didn't go back to it for a week. It was NOTHING like what I remembered of her interpretation. It had nothing to do with the arms and it's not just the lack of technique, that I could live with. It's just that it had none of the warmth, none of the "essense" of her Odette. In watching it I thought that her sense of loyalty to Nureyev overcame her better judgement in agreeing to appear in this one (my thoughts on this -not based on any knowledge of the situation) - so it's interesting to hear about the disagreements during the filming. The old Paul Czinner Royal Ballet film is a much better representation of what she was like in performance, at least when I saw her. It's so old fashioned, it's almost quaint but it's absolutely gorgeous. Even though it dates from 5-10 years before I saw her (as opposed to the Nureyev film which is from the mid - late 60s) it is much more representative of what I remember of her.

At the retrospective the NYCPL did on her this past summer they showed a tape of her & Nureyev performing the 2nd act pas de deux on the Ed Sullivan show. Even without scenery & corps this was still much truer to the spirit of her Odette than that Vienna State opera production. Avoid it!


Regarding Solar's question of emotions vs. technique- I don't think it has to be an either/or situation, but it often is these days. The only dancer I've seen in recent years that I felt combined technique and artistry in a fully integrated SL was Pavlenko. I think Nina A might have too, if she weren't hampered by McKenzee's soulless staging. So, of course, I too am looking forward to seeing what Vishneva & Part can do with it this summer!

I'm not familiar with this video, but I did see Fonteyn perform at the old Met (not Odette/Odile, but Aurora). And I have seen a few ballerinas of her generation, performing at or near their prime: notably Tallchief, Alonso, and Hayden. So I recognize this feeling: what the old films or videos show is NOT what I remember. Nysusan mentions the loss of "warmth" and "essence". That's just what I feel.

When Fonteyn made her entrance as Aurora at the birthday party, the entire house seemed to be suffused with the joy that she herself appeared to feel -- joy at being alive, at being young and beautiful. To be honest, the aura, the "star quality" was so great that it may have been impossible to focus critically on the technique. The unsupported balances and the promenades of the Rose Adagio, for me, will always be Fonteyn's, despite a degree of wobble and despite having seen them done perfectly (on video) by others (eg. Viviana Durante, early 90s?). Similarly, I have never seen a video that even came close to the effect that Tallchief, Alonso and others had alive on stage.

What made that effect so powerful then and memorable now? Undoubtably nostalgia plays a role. For many of us of a certain age, these were our first experiences of great female dancing. Like a first love, we continue to see them as unique and special. It may also have to do, as Alexandra says, with the chance these dancers had to hone and re-create these roles in numerous performances.

Do we have to think of this as the opposition of technique v. the "heart of the role" (to use Solor's phrase)? Maybe the job requirement to be a prima ballerina was simply different in those days. Maybe the ability to convince audiences of your "heart" was considered a prerequisite BEFORE you were given the role, not something you might try to learn from a coach after you had mastered the steps. It could be largely a matter of different standards of success.

nysusan,

I saw the retrospective too last summer, and agree the tv clip they showed was terrific. I wonder how much other dance is in those vaults. They have released on DVD a lot of the opera stuff from the Sullivan show.

I'm looking forward too to the ABT Swan Lakes this Summer.

Richard

Maybe its my own observation of how dancers today think about technique more than emotions (on stage anyway) because in todays dancing world, technique has become, well, like, THE FUTURE....if you get my meaning. Right now, my fave ballerina is Svetlana Zhakarova of the Mariinsky. Talk about night and day compared with Fonteyn! But both give emotional performances........I guess one will pay more attention to technique instead of emotion when the dancer they are watching is performing 8 pirrouttes or has sky high extensions. I came to this conclusion after careful thought of this topic I started here. I guess I noticed Fonteyn's emotions more than her technique because her technique, however great, does not make a performance of itself, than say, (for example) a ballerina like Zhakarova.

Zhakarova, and some of the Ballerinas today (Most of them Russian it seems to me) - are, like, SUPER BALLERINAS. They are so technically awesome and so evolved, that I suppose one can get lost in the 'extreme-ness' of these highly evolved dancers and not notice the 'heart' of the role being danced. I am guilty of this! (especially in a ballet I have seen 100,000 times).

Anyway, in conclusion, I think this is why I have noticed todays dancers being more technical than emotional. IM just NOTICING the technique more, because, well, theres more to see TECHNICALLY than the OLD SCHOOL dancers!

But hey - theres no school like the old school......

I do think that part of the difference is more logistics. Part of this is lack of rehearsal time, and part of it is that 20 or 30 years ago (and before) dancers grew up in a company and were not only trained for a specific repertory but grew up watching the company. So they learned lessons of stagecraft by osmosis. Today, that's only true, really, for the Kirov, Bolshoi and Paris Opera Ballets. There are criticisms of those companies, too, that today's dancers are more technical than emotional (I'd say there are exceptions to that). Why? Because dancers see what's going on in the rest of the world and imitate it? Because the people coaching these days aren't always up to the level of previous generations? Because the artistic directors are selecting dancers for technique rather than emotional resonance? I think it's all of the above.

I was comparing videos of an original cast with a recent televised version of a ballet, and there were some things the contemporary dancer could do that were way beyond what the dancer from 40 years ago could do. BUT there were several things that the first dancer did far better than the younger one. I'm sure that if the contemporary dancer had been shown the proper way to do the steps, and had the time to master them -- they were outside the dancer's training -- s/he'd have done them perfectly. So there are a lot of variables in there.

And then there is the Fairy's Kiss to contend with

Well, sorry if I disagree with most of you, BUT
you seem all to be influenced and not objective, as I think.

"Good Old Days..." seem to be your motto.

Everything in our world is improving and so is ballet! When I watch Fonteyn, Vladimirov, or even Nureyev I think "Oh my god...". [Edit] To clarify things: technically they can not be compared to the new generations of dancers. But for their time they were pioneers and made things onstange no one else could do.

Also I find some of their acting too much. I personally think that the acting in the ballet and interpretation has to be in the middle. Too much is bad and too less is also bad. To find the middle is the most different thing a dancer can achieve.

About the technique. I can not understand why everybody laments upon good technique and bad acting. Of course there are cases where this is a fact.
Good technique does not mean subsequentaly bad acting and interpretation!!!

I think the Interpretation in the old Videos is just so visible, because there is nothing else to see! (Ok I exaggerate )

And now, you can tore me in pieces

Well, Danill, you have a bit of growing up to do When I saw my first ballet I didn't know an arabesque from a glissade. The dancers who have always thrilled me on the stage are those who can make me forget about technique, and sadly, today, they are few and far between.

About overacting, I think it may be part of the video problem--the dancers were not performing for the camera and its closeups, but for an audience several hundred feet away, so they often do look stagey and artificial--but believe me Fonteyn and Nureyev in person could make you cry, which is much more memorable in the long run that any amount of gasps.

For some reason this brings to mind a day some time ago when I was at the Ballet Shop. Two ballet students were looking at a poster of Maya Plisetskaya and seemed to find it very funny. I couldn't resist, and told them "Just think; in 25 years, if you're lucky, someone will be laughing at you!"

Cargill I think you have hit on something there also. Most often these videos are capturing stage acting for a television-type audience. I think that sometimes the acting comes across as too broad for that reason. But the same would happen when capturing a current performance unless those involved "tone it down", I'd think.

I saw Margot Fonteyn only once, in a performance she did with Ruth Page's Chicago Ballet in 1975 or so. She did a pas de deux with Ivan Nagy and also the Raymonda Pas de Dix with him and the Chicago Ballet. All around her were younger, more technically accomplished dancers, but even then she didn't fade into the background.

Bravo for Daniil's post, "'Good Old Days...' seem to be your motto."

I couldn't agree more except that I think Nureyev was and is great.

A year ago I had this Swan Lake movie being discussed here in a DIVX .avi file and I hated Fonteyn in it, all I remember is that she seemed to be flat on her feet a lot. I thought Nureyev was wonderful in this movie. He has a way of moving that is incredibly beautiful and so much better than anyone else.

atm711:

"Well, Danill, you have a bit of growing up to do When I saw my first ballet I didn't know an arabesque from a glissade"

Obviously you haven't been to Daniil's web site and watched the videos of him dancing. He's definitely all grown up!

Well, I think Nureyev was an unique person and character! Personally for me it is obvious, that Nureyev was the most important male dancer in the 20th century! I have read his biography and watched everything I could get. Maybe I didn't point out right what I wanted to say. Of course Nureyev was on stage "Like an animal" I didn't see him live, but I can imagine. He will be all my life in my mind as an idol. Technically he was also very far for his time (especially his landings and balance). But nowadays these things are mostly requirements for being a porfessional dancer. These things Nureyev was the first to master them and that made him a pioneer.

"Well, Danill, you have a bit of growing up to do When I saw my first ballet I didn't know an arabesque from a glissade"

Sorry atm, but I didn't understand your post. Why do I have to grow up? I come from ballet family, so I lifed my whole life with ballet. And you can be sure, that I know what an arabesque is

About the overacting problem: I think it was just normal to act to such a degree in old times.
I find overacting not so good, since then all your role becomes not believable for the audience (I've seen dancer cry onstange and that was too much for me). As a viewer you become suspicious, when something is overdone.
Maybe it's just me :rolleyes: ...

Well, Daniil, I think it is not so much a question of improvement or progress but rather of taste. I think you can rest assured that at some point in the not so distant future there will be those who find Zakharova or Guillem or Carreno or even you old fashioned or even weak. I am not saying anything about you, but I do feel that it is somewhat inevitable. You are the product of your time as others were the product of theirs. If you see that they didn't do 5 to 10 pirouettes in a variation certainly doesn't mean that there was no one who could, just that there was no one who was asked to do them. I also don't think that Nureyev was the first to do what you're thinking of, just that he is the first one that a lot of us saw do them. Add to that his incredible personality and you have something special even when tastes change. In my opinion of course.

Daniil, it would help the discussion if you could tell us why you think that technique has improved so much from "the old days." Do you mean that dancers are doing more of everything -- more pirouettes, higher jumps and extensions? Is it that you think execution of steps is cleaner? Are you talking about both men and women, or more of men?

Daniil, you are in a no-win situation here: the only way to tell whether you've changed your aesthetic over time is for it to be many years in the future, with you looking back and making the comparison.

Having watched your videos, your clear style and technique and understated (i.e., not overly emotional) presentation match your aesthetic. Not many young dancers have the ability to do this.

[Danill wrote: Of course Nureyev was on stage "Like an animal"

I saw a great many of Nureyev's performances over a great many years and I really don't recognise this often quoted description. When he was young he certainly had a big, soft, pantherine jump which showed to particular advantage in Corsaire. But there was nothing animal-like in his performances of the classics or indeed in any of his other roles that I can recall off the top of my head.
I would certainly agree that the Vienna Swan Lake is not a particularly flattering or even accurate record of either Fonteyn or Nureyev - in particular his "Jaqueline Onassis-style" make-up and bouffant hair makes me wince.l And I think that the point about close up filming of acting designed for a big stage is very valid. And the production did look a great deal better - even more logical - on the big stage in Vienna.
Going back to the original point, I wonder if nowadays ballets are generally cast on the basis of the dancer being technically competent rather than being best suited in character, personality or physique to a role. I'm reminded of two anecdotes. The first, which Monica Mason tells against herself was when she went to Ashton and asked to be given the role of Odette Odile. "I'm sure I could do it", she said. "I'm sure you could", replied Ashton, "but who would want to see it".
The other was a dancer who has now left the Royal Ballet to make a career in his native country who ventured his opinion to an interviewer that the only difference between his roles as the Jester in Cinderella and Puck in The Dream was that the latter required a "cheeky grin". He could do the steps certainly, but nothing more.

I've seen the Vienna Opera Ballet Fonteyn/Nureyev SL tape several times. I wouldn't compare Fonteyn, Plisetskaya or Makarova's interpretations of Odette/Odile because 2/3 of this trio were Soviet products. Both Makarova and Plisetskaya were exemplars of their respective company's different styles and temperament. For example, when I saw Margot and Rudy's Romeo tape, her acting and lyricism was, IMO very subdued. Whereas Makarova's Juliet was the Mt. Everest of passion and lyricism. Margot was the last in the line of what I would call the Imperial ballerinas. For me, she was the missing link between two eras.

Natasha's approach to SL was always "think out of the box." Whenever she did SL you couldn't tell what she was going to do from one performance to the next. You couldn't pin down her interpretation. The evolution never ended. Margot's Odette wasn't more feminine than theirs' but it was, at that stage of her life, old school simplicity. Does anyone know of any tapes made in the early-mid '50s of Margot in SL before Nurevev? If there's one that exists, it would be a good gauge of her Odette in her true salad years. Perhaps then I could make a better comparison with the Vienna tape, and Maya and Natasha. Maya and Natasha were over the top dramatic, Maya's being the most physical interpretation of the three. For me, Maya's wings beat the wind the strongest! Re Odile: I cut my teeth on live performances of ABT, Bolshoi and Kirov SLs as a kid. Compared to Maya and Natasha, and the 80s & 90s generation of O/Os, Margot's was bland, IMO.

there is that film of part of act 2 circa 1959, released with firebird and ondine:

Swan lake. Act II excerpts (Valse, pas de deux, pas de quatre, rondo, and coda) / choreography, Frederick Ashton and Nikolai Sergeev after Ivanov and Petipa ; sets and costumes, Leslie Hurry ; cast, Margot Fonteyn (Odette) ; Michael Somes (Prince Siegfried) ; Bryan Ashbridge (Benno) ; Leslie Edwards (Von Rothbart) ; Ann Howard, Mavis Osborn, Clover Roope, and Antoinette Sibley (Cygnets) ; and corps de ballet.

Is there any film of Fonteyn available which would give a reasonable person an idea of WHY this woman was the greatest female dancer of the 20th century?

The late Washington Post critic Paul Hume (the original Glenn Gould fan) said of her performances as Aurora in 'The Sleeping Beauty,' in the title role in 'Giselle,' and in 'Swan Lake' in the dual roles of Odette-Odile, "a force of indescribable power, beauty and effect. To watch her was to see the music live on stage in the person of a single dancer."1

I understand Fonteyn was 5 foot 4 inches tall and weighed 115 pounds! I wonder if any dancer so little would be able to capture the imagination of the public today?

1) "Legend of Modern Ballet Margot Fonteyn Dies at 71," Bart Barnes, The Washington Post, Washington, D.C.: Feb 22, 1991. pg. d.05

This is fascinating. All these informed opinions, nudging and assisting the rest of us to fashion and rethink our own opinions.

I have a question based the way cygnet and a few others have expessed their thoughts on the various ballerina styles. Cygnet's language suggests a high degree of intentionallity in Makarova's style -- and a slightly more passive role, representing a school or even an era, for Fonteyn.

Here's the question. Based on what you know and/or have observed, what are the most important factors that influence a dancer's interpetation of the great classical roles over time: the dancer's own ideas/intent? sustained coaching? exposure to a company style over a long period of time (Alexandra's point)? a shrewd judgment of what "works" with the audience? something else? Maybe it is factors like these that have changed in the past generation.

I would be interested in Daniil's thoughts about this, since he is now beginning a lifelong process of defining his own sense of style in particular roles.

An aside re old videos: nowadays most of us are more or less comfortable in front of a camera (at least the TV reality shows suggest this). We've been filmed, snapped, and (many of us) interviewed, and we've seen people we know in the same position.

In the past, however, it's possible that the presence of huge, cumbersome cameras and the special lighting needed to make the process work may have been perceived as much more intrusive by the dancers, with the effect of disorienting and even distorting their work. Tallchief on Bell Telephone Hour always looked like someone stunned and caught in the headlights of an onrushing car: she always appears nervous and ill at ease. Bruhn and Eglevsky, far from coming across as the greata danseurs nobles that the were, sometimes give the impression of not quite knowing where to move next. There's hesitation before major steps, lifts, jumps, etc., that I doubt very much occurred on stage without the cameras.

I've never seen Fonteyn live, and from the films I've seen, I've never "gotten" her. I've been told my several Fonteyn lovers that there is no film that captures even a quarter of the qualities that made her appealing. (Although, there may be archival films that hadn't been available that may give a better sense of her dancing.)

As a fan of figure skating, this is especially believable, as there are skaters who are so different -- both better and worse -- on videotape than live, and others who are similar live and on video. There is something about the quality of movement, speed, and acceleration of some dancers and skaters that isn't capturable on video or film and must be seen live and in three dimensions.

I'm afraid Fonteyn may have been a case of "you just had to be there."

actually if they seem uncomfortable, i think it's more because they were probably dancing in restricted spaces and had to restrain themselves; those studios were more often than not rather small.

Hockeyfan, your expertise in ice skating competition seems relevant to this question of the increase in technical ability and difficulty.

How far, technically, have figure skaters advanced since the days of (say) Peggy Fleming. And what has happened to artistry as a result?

hockeyfan228:

"I'm afraid Fonteyn may have been a case of "you just had to be there"

I'm happy you wrote this because I've been thinking the same thing!

Fonteyn must have had an enormous spirit.

(By the way, as a small child I did see her do Sleeping Beauty (?) with Nureyev at City Center in Manhattan I don't remember a thing except being very bored.)

Paul, good point which I hadn't thought of. I still suspect, however, that the presence of those huge, cumbersome and immobile or clumsily moving machines must have had an effect on the marking difficulties the dancers seem to be having. These were artists who lived "on the stage" in a way that might seem inconceivable to younger dancers. Whatever you think of the dancing in videos of the last 10 years, it seems to me that younger dancers take to the camera with great east. Improved camera work and direction help a lot, of course.

One thing on videos. I remember when videos or a TV show first came out -- when the dancers will still dancing and one could compare what one had seen on stage with what one saw on the small screen -- I was continually stunned by the differences. Dancers who were technically pure but had little else to offer looked like gods. Dancers who couldn't act--i.e., on stage they looked like blocks of wood -- often in close up, on film, looked interesting. Dancers with some sort of tic -- Farrell's bouncing wrists, Nureyev's horrible breathing -- became the Tic; that's all you could see, while often, in the theater, you wouldn't notice unless you were in the front row or watched a dance performance looking only at the performer's face, or wrists, through opera glasses. There was also the phenomenon of ballets that looed sloppy or underrehearsed in live performance suddenly transformed for the video. AND there's the opposite effect (especially with the Royal, I think) of dancers who, in bootleg films, are beautifully unself-conscious turn into We Must Do Our Duty dancers for the movie. So there are lots of things going on.

On the early TV films I know one one example (Kronstam and Simone on the "Firestone" tape) that the floor had been waxed and, Simone told me in an interview for my book (and before the video had been released) that "We were afraid to do anything because the floor was so slippery."

Re Fonteyn, my own video journey with her was that I'd seen her at the end of her career, when she was overacting a bit to compensate for the loss of technique, but she still had an authority -- command of the stage -- that no one dancing at that time in the West had, and I saw all the ballerinas dancing in the mid and late '70s. She wasn't a bravura dancer, but that doesn't mean she wasn't a virtuosa. She represented a school that cared about epaulement and fast footwork, not high extensions; Ashton wanted a 90-degree arabesque.

When I first saw her on video I was very disapponted. I'd looked forward to seeing her younger, and found her very bland. It wasn't until I developed Danish eyes (i.e., I'd been watching performances and classes in Copenhagen off and on for a number of years) that I could watch what she was doing instead of matching her to what I was used to seeing, if that makes sense, and when I did that, I got her. Now when I go back and look at the same videos that I thought "dull" I don't know what I was thinking. (The Danes at the time I was watching them were still children of Volkova, too, and it was Volkova who coached Fonteyn in the classics, so I knew, rather than guessed, that the style was not what they would call overstretched or overextended.) Now, that's a lot of work to go through to appreciate a dancer and I'm not recommending it, and everyone's going to compare what they see on video to different images from what they see onstage, but that's one journey.

When I asked people about Fonteyn, here are two comments I remember, both from older critics who'd seen most of her career. "She's the only dancer I've ever seen for whom I'm never worried when she dances." (Meaning the person was never worried that Fonteyn would make a mistake, or fall.) "Her dancing was as pure as cool, clear water." Most people cite her warmth; some were bothered, in theory, by her near constant smile, while others thought that it was perfect for her.

How wise Pavlova was, to stay away from movie cameras almost entirely - otherwise we could be having this discussion about her, too.

(By the way, if Fonteyn was 5'4" she was more than 2 inches taller than Alina Cojocaru, who seems to be doing all right in attracting the public!)

Pavlova? She couldn't dance! She didn't have any TURNOUT!!! Why, she wouldn't be taken into any corps de ballet in the world today. (I remember reading that over and over and over in the mid-1970s and '80s until I could have screamed.)

One more itty-bitty, teeny-tiny detail:
Bell Telephone Hour and Ed Sullivan were done live -- no chance for retakes. Today almost all commercially available videos are recorded in more than one take. The dancers generally have the security of knowing that any mishaps can be edited out. And because of the blessings (for us) of better technology, improved cinematography (at least potentially) and the sizable commercial market through home video, dancers can be assured that they have more than just a small number chances to have their dancing images preserved for posterity.

nycdog,

I'm just so uncomfortable with sweeping statements like this. The "greatest whatever of the 20th century" or as I've heard on some opera boads, "the greatest tenor of ALL time".

And this is in spite of Fonteyn being my first ballerina and one that is very special to me to this day.

Just for my OWN comfort level, let me offer a suggestion of why "Fonteyn was such a wonderful dancer" (see, I'm fudging).

This is maybe an odd choice, but it's the opening of Ondine from the Czinner film which also includes Swan Lake Act 2 (or some of it anyway) and Firebird.

I think that the scene of Fonteyn as Ondine dancing and playing with her shadow is just beautiful

A fellow "dog",

richard53dog

I don't know where your info on Fonteyn's weight comes from, but one thing I remember clearly from my youth is how tiny-waisted and slim-hipped she was. There were pictures of her then where she appeared astonishingly slim, so I would venture her weight to be closer to 100 pounds when she was in her prime.

As for anyone "so little" (I am 5'4" and weighed 115 when I danced, and I always thought of myself as being of medium height and weight, never in a million years as "little" in any gradation) being able to capture the imagination, I can't even comprehend the question. To generalize that all dancers under 5'4" cannot capture the imagination of today's public dismisses an awful lot of stunning ballerinas, including Natalia Makarova, Gelsey Kirkland, Lucia Lacarra, Alina Cojacaru, Tamara Rojo, Daniela Severian, Rut Miro, Jennifer Gelfand, Tina LeBlanc, Pollyanna Ribeiro, Paloma Herrerra, etc. etc. etc.

I saw Fonteyn dance, too, and in my early years of ballet watching she was my favorite dancer. To me, she was a supremely beautiful example of what every ballerina should be. Her dancing was mesmerizing, her form exquisite to see on stage. Her interpretations of her roles, her acting, compellingly vivid, even now in retrospect, and after having seen hundreds of ballerinas since my childhood years.

One thing disturbs me in this discussion and that is the lack of respect shown by some posters for this ballet legend. I understand that in today's culture, where reality shows let us all judge the attributes of those who put themselves on display as contestants for large monetary prizes, there is a tendency to think that everyone is up for grabs, even long dead presidents and world leaders, as candidates for criticism and speculation.

Civil discussion is fine, but disrespect is not. If you weren't there to see for yourself, then I don't think you have the right to be snooty.

"At 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighing 114 pounds, Miss Fonteyn had a light and supple physique, ideally proportioned for a ballet dancer."1

Marga,

This quote is from Fonteyn's Washington Post obituary. I must confess to having rounded the weight up to 115 in the message I posted!

I was surprised to learn that Fonteyn was 5’4”. I just assumed she was taller it goes to show that height doesn’t matter, Fonteyn was a giant.



1. Legend of Modern Ballet Margot Fonteyn Dies at 71; [FINAL Edition], Bart Barnes. The Washington Post, Washington, D.C.: Feb 22, 1991. pg. d.05

I dont think anyone is being snotty. I only think it's snotty to assume that by chance, because I was born after Fonteyn stopped dancing, that I must know next-to-nothing about ballet and that I should thus shut up. Standards are standards. In some ways Fonteyn was excellent (her sense of line, her steadiness, her personality.) In other VIDEOS (such as the Vienna Swan Lake video) her talents are not very well-displayed. They pale in comparison to her other videos.

Let's be civil, please.

We seem to be having yet another one of these discussions where people who (as Canbelto put it) weren't alive when Fonteyn was dancing feel like they are being kept out of some exclusive club and the people who have longer histories feel as if they have been told they are old "living in the past" dinosaurs.

I hope we can learn from each other.

Oh dear, I didn't say "snotty"! I would never say that! And I wasn't even thinking of you, canbelto, nor do I feel that anyone here knows "next to nothing" about ballet -- quite to the contrary! And I would never think anyone should "shut up", nor would I use those words.

Dale,

Although I'm almost old enough to be one, I HATE the dinosaur mentality.
Let me share something that makes me never lose sight of perspective.

When I was in my late teens, and just starting with theater, ballet , and opera performances (it was great as a teenager to jump on a bus and ride into NYC) me and my friends used to hang out with much older people. There was this lady who was then 60 (I thought this was ancient, although at this point it's not so terribly far off for me now). She could say that she had seen Caruso, although her real memories went back only as far as 1925 when she was 15.

So we would take about this performer and that performer and one of my circle would say "Oh, you've seen everything that was worth seeing"

And she said "Sure I've seen lots and lots and have plenty of memories, but think of all the things you'll see when I'm gone. Performance isn't static, it changes and evolves all the time"

I've never forgotten it, 35 years later it still puts a great perspective on things

Richard

Fleming skated when double axel was the hardest jump for women, and IIRC, Dorothy Hamill didn't perform triples. (Or if she did, the easier triples.) Denise Biellman was the first woman to perform a triple Lutz, a little less than a decade after Hamill won her Olympic gold.

If you compare competitive programs from the 70's and prior to the "Triple Era" that began generally in the 80's and the "Quad Era" from the 90's, they were full of a lot more of the elements that make figure skating expressive or "artistic": footwork, small jumps (singles and halfs), turns and twizzles in both directions, and changes of edges linking the jumps. The triples and quads, as well as the big triple throws and to a lesser extent, the twist lifts, require a lot more preparation and speed than the doubles and singles. As a result, much of the transitional work was lost in cross-overs and jumps preparations were simplified. Code of Points, the new scoring system, is trying to reward and incent skaters to add these back in. Among the Men, this is really starting to take.

Another issue through the 90's is that the best "artistic" skaters were not competitive at the Worlds level because of school figures. It was the rare skater like Fleming who combined both and excelled at the World level. The ballet equivalent would be that if a dancer couldn't pass "barre," s/he wouldn't be allowed to dance "center."

In classical dance with a traditional structure, the technical preparation needed to do a 180 degree extension vs. a 90 degree extension, or six vs. three pirouettes, doesn't have the same relative visual impact on a program. The dancer still has to do the small steps up to big jumps or extension; I've rarely seen, for example, a dancer run across the stage to get enough speed to hurl herself into a partnerless penchee, which is the type of preparation required to do a quad jump. (Once or twice this was part of the choreography.) The place were this is most evident is when, like in Balanchine's Nutcracker pas de deux, the woman runs and jumps up and on the man's shoulder. On the other hand, in more contemporary choreography, where there aren't very many steps, there's more a run and jump and thrust and hurl into lifts and jumps.

One similarity, is the balance between the big "tricks" and the small, intricate work. As jumps get higher and more complex, they can overwhelm the smaller work that can be so effective artistically, both in ballet and skating.

That said, I think that Yuka Sato and Shizuka Arakawa have, at their best, artistry equivalent to Peggy Fleming and Janet Lynn. I don't know if anyone will ever match John Curry, because I can't morph Jeffrey Buttle and Johnny Weir

I LOVE STARTING GREAT DISCUSSIONS

I SHALL START MORE!