Last week (March 16) a note from Richard Slate of Brooklyn in response to Alistair Macaulay's March 9 article about NYCB "Off to London, but Not Packing Their Best," suggested that Suzanne Farrell be hired as artistic consultant. This week (March 23) a note from Roger Wilkenfeld of Mansfield, Conn. goes that idea one better: "The solution to the disastrous decline of the New York City Ballet has been obvious since Suzanne Farrell was fired by Peter Martins in 1993: Retire Martins, rehire Farrell." These letters made my heart beat a little faster (and made me wish I had written them). But Farrell is doing good work at the Kennedy Center and Martins is a favorite of the NYCB board, so nothing along these lines is likely to happen. Alas.

Thank you, Farrell Fan, I missed that March 16 note. It's good to see that Farrell has support out there willing to speak up.

if only.

It would be wonderful if Farrell would return to NYCB.

Yes it WOULD. It would not only renovate NYCB but rejuvenate the whole TOWN!

I read this just after finding, in an old thread on BT4D, that one poster considered Farrell to be the best teacher she had ever had. I am confused, however, about precisely what she would be hired to do and what kind of authority people think she should be given.

"Artistic consultant" seems very vague. It's the kind of job title that often ends up with little real influence.

As for "retire Martins, rehire Farrell" -- Is this a suggestion that Farrell should take over Martins' job -- with its huge administrative, fund-raising, and public relations component? Or what?

What do others on this Board think?

I really don't have much faith in her ability to direct a company like NYCB continuously. Part of her success has been the cachet afforded a cult figure, a sort of "woman wronged" by the City Ballet, if not the Balanchine, Establishment. That would run out very fast once a long-term commitment were in place.

Some may think it, but I am glad somebody said it primarily to let it begin a discussion here. It doesn't have any realily (or does it?), so that I'm even surprised such a letter was published. 'Artistic consultant', as suggested by Slate, however vague, would at least be within the realm of the possible, although I don't know why she would or would not want to do it. What was her job called when she was fired? But the 'rehire Farrell' to include 'retiring Martins' is not really very interesting, if is mostly fan-letter stuff (okay, but not really mover-and-shaker material.)

It's a matter of the two principals themselves, isn't it? I don't know if they communicate at all. Do they? That might be insider stuff (unless they really don't at all.)

I agree that she has no proven ability to run a company like NYCB, but neither did Martins when he took over. I for one was very put off when Martins fired her from NYCB for financial reasons because she brought a lot of money into that house.

Never the less, even if she is unsuitable as a company director, I have seen the results of her coaching. She brought out amazing things in established dancers like Jaffe and Boal and coached lesser dancers to be credible in works far above them, so maybe she could be used in that way. I totally disagree that her success is based on "wronged woman" status. I think NYCB missed and misses an opportunity in not using her.

I just finished reading the Suzanne Farrell essay in Joan Acocella's "Twenty-Eight Artists and Two Saints." I'd really recommend that essay and others in that book (I read the dance related ones first).

Suzanne Farrell is not "a cult figure;" she is a great ballet teacher and Balanchine scholar. Just peruse the posts at BT4D from both students and parents who count the time spent under her aegis at either the Kennedy Center or Cedar Islands as the greatest experience of their lives. The fact is she should have been named as NYCB co-director with Peter Martins after Balanchine's death. Martins could have been in charge of fund-raising and glad-handing and Farrell could have seen to the company's artistic well-being. I fear it is too late for such an arrangement now. For one thing, she may no longer be interested.

Exactly. She has built a fine reputation and is very successful; my hope for her (and me) is a regular New York season.

Mel,
I have to say I was very disappointed by the tone of your post questioning Suzanne Farrell’s ability to lead the NYCB. I would have no problem if you questioned her ability and cited lack of qualifications or experience, but to attribute the degree of success she has had to being a “wronged woman” or being a “cult figure” is, in my mind, insulting with overtones of sexism. (Ironically, I believe you posted recently touting how much sexual harassment training you have received and how sensitive you are to the topic.)

As Ms. Farrell has clearly demonstrated in recent years, she certainly needs no alibis for her successes. After bringing so much to the world of ballet based on her dancing abilities, she has since proven herself as a teacher of the highest level, a dedicated student and leading repetiteur of Balanchine ballets (the core of the NYCB repertoire), and as a successful director of a national company, one that has grown in stature every year since she has taken over.

To the point about the challenges of directing the NYCB, I don’t disagree. While you may not have faith in Ms. Farrell’s abilities, obviously there are people who are losing faith in Peter Martins’ ability. While you didn’t address them, I assume you probably don’t ascribe his problems to anything similar to your opinions of Ms. Farrell, yet it is highly debatable if his preparation and qualifications for the job were substantially better.

Rather than the unfortunate digression on Ms. Farrell’s abilities on a very questionable basis, I wish you had developed a more salient point suggested by bart. That question is whether any one person can be expected to perform the tremendously complex duties that were once essentially filled by two very prodigious people, Balanchine and Lincoln Kirstens, for a company that operates on such a grand scale as NYCB. Peter Martins is extremely capable but he is currently trying to serve as the Director, the Ballet Master in Chief, the Chairman of the Faculty of the School, as well as the AD of the New York Choreographic Institute. In spite of the “fire Martins, rehire Farrell” follow-ups, it should be noted that the original suggestion at the beginning of the thread was in fact that perhaps Martins and Farrell, by coming to terms and working together, whatever the respective titles, could achieve a much better NYCB than where it is currently. To make significant contributions in a leadership role at NYCB, Farrell is eminently qualified.

As a respected moderator and resident fact-checker, it’s appropriate that your posts garner more respect and carry more weight than the average internet gadfly. Unfortunately in this case, I feel your comments regarding Ms. Farrell were more indicative of the later.

[MODERATOR BEANIE ON]

Just a reminder to all of us that it is possible to discuss just about any ballet issue in a way that

1) expresses and defends one's own thoughts and opinions ...

2) in a manner that ALSO allows others to do the same.

Personalizing tends to turn away potential posters who might have something insightful to say. Light, rather than heat, is always more productive on potentially emotive threads such as this one.

[MODERATOR BEANIE OFF]

People are free to entertain any opinion they like. My own observations were of the figures surrounding Farrell as supporters. They form a belief set ("cult") which attribute to her ablilities and ambitions she may or may not possess. Sexism might enter into their hermeneutic, or not.

As to Farrell herself, I met her some forty-six years ago as a student, and my opinions on her remain guarded "from the picklocks of biographers".

A position as ballet master at NYCB might indeed be beneficial to the company, but as Farrell Fan and atm711 have observed, she might not be interested in such a position now. She seems to be doing fine as a "free agent".

I'm afraid I do agree with this, as much of an admirer of Ms. Farrell's work I have long been and continue to be (except I am obviously not part of a cult myself, not being nearly as interested in her own company as I was, and continue through DVD's, to be interested in her dancing) It reminds me a bit of the original hypnosis around Barbra Streisand when she was young, in which there was a sense that 'nobody else was quite up to that level.' How these kinds of auras come about is hard to say, but they do have to do with the large talent of the worshipped one, but as well to make it more special than those of others (I have found since joining Ballet Talk that there are other great ballerinas). There have surely been these cults around other ballerinas, although I don't know if there has been another American ballerina quite so revered. But Alonso, Fonteyn, , Martha Graham, Nureyev (it is big with the men too), Baryshnikov and Balanchine himself, all have 'cults' in a certain sense. Saying Farrell doesn't have one is a little like saying that the 'non-star system' under Balanchine actually existed in a literal sense at all levels.

Also, this idea of a 'cult' around any kind of star is not even an insult. It has been used at least as long ago as Walter Benjamin, although he did refer to 'the bad cult of the film star' (if he were to see the bimboes now, he might well realize he lived in a semi-enlightened age.) And in 'Far from Denmark', Peter Martins, praising Farrell as 'a great ballerina' and making 3 categories of dancers (I thought this was pretty tacky), some 'born to dance', or some such thing like that, and 2nd category which I can't remember, and then Farrell by herself. He wrote something also about how she was the 'last of a breed' of Balanchine dancers in working toward a ballerina image, that the newer ones think more in terms of the working at being a dancer in a more business like way. It's hardly abnormal for an occasional star cult to happen, and certainly no worse than a 'Garbo cult', which indisputably exists (usually hates Dietrich), and a 'Mozart cult' (which usually makes a point of hating Beethoven, which is especially tedious), but the desire to keep certain talents pristinely separated off from all the rest does happen--it's just that it won't succeed with everyone, especially if they take a look at the Kirov at its best, etc. This does not take away from 'Mozartiana', 'La Valse', or 'Davidsbundlertanze' and what Farrell brought to them. To my mind, recognizing that there really are other dancers of that greatness (while recognizing her own rare qualities, which are definitely her own and nobody else's) actually enhances hers, is not detrimental. For example, when I started with BT in 2006, Farrell was definitely my favourite ballerina; she is now one of about 5, but that has not made me appreciate her art as a dancer any the less (although I can't say I've become interested in her own company as I have other companies.)

I have to concur with papeetepatrick's parenthetical comment. Like most principal dancers, Farrell's career was spent in intense self-development, making the transition to teacher and artistic director a struggle. She's done better than I might have imagined. Whatever her "successes," however, I'm not that interested in watching her struggle; in fact, at times it's heartbreaking (low point: seeing the promising yet inexperienced dancers of SF Ballet perform Divertimento No. 15 in clearly cut-rate costumes). I think Farrell needs to be supported as part of the NYCB organization, and I want to see NYCB dancers (and the company's ballets) blossom on stage under her coaching.

But that's just my wish list, and as others have noted, Farrell may have other desires!

BTW there's an informative article, by Jeff Edwards, in the latest issue (Mar. '08) of Dancing Times, in re a retreat for "aspiring artistic directors." One of the many insights Edwards makes: "By nature, dance is an insular art form, and dance companies have replicated that inward focus by clinging steadfastly to management practices that are rigidly hierarchical and afraid of change" (39). (The article is unavailable online.)

This may explain the frequent financial difficulties (caused by failures of board management/ donor encouragement/ choice of rep/ and/or marketing of performances) that strike ballet companies so frequently.

Even when a leader is fortunate enough to find a patron and a theater (as Farrell has in Washington) there is no guarantee that this will be sustained.

I don't know what her budget was, but the Divertimento costumes and most others SFB wears were designed by Holly Hynes.

Exactly. That's why I think we have to be careful when we call Farrell "successful." She has in many respects succeeded on an artistic level, but the financial fate of any small, new company is a house of cards.

Well, she must have been working within a tight budget.

Amusingly enough, I know Richard Slate personally and sent him this link. He dances the tango.

There was an article in either the New York Times or the New Yorker magazine that discussed Suzanne Farrell's pariah status under Peter Martins regime. The article cited an incident where "Tzigane" was being restaged for the Balanchine Celebration back in 1993, I think. Anyway, Darci Kistler was to take over the role that marked Balanchine's readmitting his errant muse back into his creative imagination as the first ballet he created for Suzanne on her return. The coaching sessions went very badly for both parties with Suzanne finding fault with such things as the color of Darci's tights (pink, standard rehearsal wear). The author opined that perhaps Suzanne, retired less than a decade was not "ready" to pass on this treasured role yet. (She has set the ballet on her own company). I don't think "Tzigane" has been performed at NYCB since Suzanne retired (did she have an alternate in the part back in the day?).

Anyway, Peter had "issues" with Suzanne and her coaching style and there was a rift. The Balanchine Trust has not had any rift and Suzanne's coaching activities with them have taken her as far as Russia and back.

Here is a New York Times article discussing her firing and the New Yorker article from May 17, 1993 that triggered her dismissal:

http://tinyurl.com/2funmj

The article in the New Yorker was by David Daniel and called "Between the Acts: In Mr. B's Steps"

BTW: there are dance writers and critics of NYCB including Mr. Daniel who feel that Peter Martins is threatened by senior dancers who have a longer history with Balanchine and might challenge his authority. Hence, Kay Mazzo and Sean Lavery who came in at the same time as Martins or later are major ballet masters but Villella, Farrell, D'Amboise, Von Aroldingen, Hayden, Tallchief, even the wheelchair bound LeClerq did very little staging and coaching at NYCB. I could be wrong about that list and would appreciate informed corrections.

The New Yorker article was by the late David Daniel and was called In Balanchine’s Footsteps or something to that effect. It didn’t characterize Farrell as a pariah, exactly, but it did suggest very strongly that she had been marginalized within NYCB. The New York Times piece I seem to remember was published around the time of the Balanchine festival and it was chiefly an interview with Kistler in which Kistler described the difficulties she had had with Farrell during coaching sessions for “Tzigane” and “Vienna Waltzes.” The suggestion that Farrell had readiness issues came direct from Kistler as I remember, not the writer.

I’m pretty sure there were never any alternates for Farrell at NYCB for “Tzigane,” although Ib Andersen did do the Martins role. I can't imagine that Kistler was very good in it anyway - most unsuitable for the part, I should think.

An interesting hypothesis. This is not unique to Martins nor to ballet. It's quite common when a new CEO takes charge of a corporation, a not-for-profit, etc. CEOs like to bring in their own team and to keep on only those who are not in a position to challenge the new guy's leadership.

I'm not justifying this. By keeping out the older generation, many of whom had worked with Balanchine to create major roles, Martins was inevitably shutting the door on a great deal of experience, insight, and potential richness. But he was also shutting the door on potential conflict and distraction. And that's not always a bad thing in an organization. (Is there a Devil's Advocate smilie on this Board?)

Why not at least give Farrell the position of ballet mistress? Then she could stage and coach works but wouldn't necessarily have to deal with all the schmoozing that comes with the position of AD. She could also teach company class, which is IMO the kind of teaching she is suited for.

First of all, I kind of doubt that any ONE person could be the fix-it for a company as large as the NYCB. Second of all, Suzanne's given no indication that she wants a job as large as AD. For one, she seems to enjoy focusing on smaller projects, and also free-lancing as a coach in Balanchine stagings in different companies around the world, as well as holding summer intensives. If she were to become an AD of the NYCB, the group of dancers who have been loyal to her -- what would happen to them? She seems to have moved on, and is very content in her current projects.

Peter Martins' underutilization of many of Balanchine's senior dancers, from Arthur Mitchell to Allegra Kent to Gelsey Kirkland, as well as his preference for choreographing his own, usually rather poorly received works is another issue entirely.

I find this whole situation sad. Boiling it all down to a "he said, she said" argument makes me realize that Balanchine's ballets are divine but the people in charge of them are just human with all our human weaknesses. It would be nice to think that both parties could overcome their differences for the sake of preserving the legacy correctly but it seems as if that wound is still too fresh. I find it somewhat ironic that Farrell and Martins were so simpatico as partners on stage but so totally unsuitable off it.

Farrell did a series of public interviews with David Daniels at the Kennedy Center sometime after the New Yorker article but before her 1995 Kennedy Center season. During one Q & A she was asked about Martins and said something to the effect that their relationship was cordial. I think she used the word "fine." She didn't deny there had been a rift, but she expressed no bitterness.

I forget when it was exactly, but there was a NYCB Guild event at which Farrell and Martins, after their dancing days were over, were interviewed jointly in the auditorium of the State Theater by Leslie Stahl, followed by a reception. I felt the interview was unsuccessful, largely because of Stahl's inept questions. Peter seemed to be good-naturedly prompting Suzanne in her answers, but she was having none of it. At the reception, as I remember, people congregated in three groups, one around Martins, another around Farrell, and a third around Stahl. I was in the middle group, where I discussed hearing aids with Suzanne's mom. As I've said in the past on Ballet Talk, Suzanne's firing was something I never got over, and I'm truly sorry that the subject has come up again so many years later. She has gone on to a whole new career, one which gives the lie to Martins's preposterous opinion that she couldn't teach.

You think this is sad? Much sadder is the situation with the Martha Graham Company and the whole Ron Protas drama and its aftermath. There was another putsch of Christine Dakin and Terese Cappuccilli after the new regime came in. I am sure the drama is continuing. Various people (with various motives) were trying to wrest the company from Graham while she was alive (especially during the period of her drinking). It has only gotten worse after her death.

I often look at what a fine company San Francisco Ballet is under Helgi Tomasson and wonder "what if...?" Helgi's choreography is rather pleasant too. Perhaps Mr. B picked the wrong Scandinavian?

On the other hand, geniuses like Balanchine and Robbins come along once in a century. Anyone inheriting their company and expected to assume all their creative and administrative duties is set up for a fall.

In a way, Suzanne operating as a free agent puts her in her own spotlight and takes her out of the shadow of Balanchine and his company. She gets to shine on her own rather than as a keeper of the flame cloistered away in the temple of dance.

True about the freedom of not having to be guardian of the temple. In watching SFB over a few years I feel I've seen them grow more interesting in various contemporary choreography and less interesting in Balanchine. There are always exceptions, but they're singular and dependent on casting - Gonzalo Garcia in Apollo, Sarah van Patten in Diamonds.

I've sadly never been impressed by Farrell's abilities as a company director (I don't think she's yet overcome her problems with casting and choosing repertory). I think it would be great for her to be coaching at NYCB, but I'd fight for Verdy to be there coaching first.

True, but it should be remembered that Martins had a lot of support at the outset. I can remember Croce gushing “The magic kingdom is in his keeping....A loyal prince, he has earned the prize,” or something to that effect. Or, as Robert Gottlieb put it some time later, everyone was rooting for him, not gunning for him.

I imagine if he had wanted to delegate some of those onerous duties, it could have been done.



I don't think she ever wanted to be out of that 'shadow.'

There's no business like show business, like no business I know....
♪ ♫

....everything about it is appealing??????

...Everything the traffic will allow!

Violette Verdy did geust teach recently at SAB for a few days.....

Leigh, I am in full agreement re: Verdy. She is excellent.

Yep, send the retired ballerinas to the school while the men get to run the joint. Excuse the sour note.

Y'know, pick a woman who's better at administration than Farrell and I'd take your point. But Hans wasn't talking about women, he was talking about Farrell.

I dunno, Monica Mason, Ninette di Valois, Maina Gielgud, Brigitte Lefevre (former ballerina?) and others have headed major companies.

... and Natalia, on another thread, has praised the "terrific job" being done by Natalia Akhmedova, artistic director of the Ballet of Perm, currently touring the US.

Lucia Chase.

You left out Celia Franca and Karen Kain.

In order to pre-empt the thread turning into list-making, I didn’t say that no woman has ever run a major ballet company anywhere. It’s just that I note that whenever a new AD vacancy opens up, in most cases the dancer candidates for the job are current or former male principals. (And yes, you have wives running companies in harness with their husbands.)



My remark wasn’t aimed at Hans, which I ought to have said in the first place, Leigh. I just plucked his quote because it was handy and apt. Sorry, Hans.

Thank you for explaining, dirac. No offense taken.