Reviews I've read of the New York City Ballet's London performances suggest that the company may be suffering from an age Imabalance among its principals and soloists. For example, Marc Haegeman's very interesting comments in DanceViewTimes suggest that there were noticeable inconsistencies in dancing -- or the abilitiy to carry a ballet -- based on age. Some obviously talented young dancers have not yet acquired the experience, depth, or stage savy associated with ballerinas. Others are clearly reaching the end of careers. Haegeman writes:

http://www.danceviewtimes.com/2008/03/new-york-city-b.html

I had a similar impression about American Ballet Theater when watching their Sleeping Beauty a few weeks ago. Although the Prince, David Halberg, was clearly on his way to becoming a major danseur noble, the Aurora -- a perfectly competent young principal, and more than competent in many areas of technique -- was far from being able to project the qualities that have made others incandescent in this role. Too often, especially at the dramatic and emotional high pionts, I had the sense that I was watching a superior student production on which a LOT of money had been spent. Some of ABT's biggest stars are nearing the ends of glorious careers. The list of principals -- those on tour, at least -- is starting to look alarmingly thin when it comes to dancers who can project the expressivity and glamour necessary for the big full-length ballets that are ABT's bread and butter.

Inconsistency from one cast to the next -- something that struck Haegeman especially -- seems to be one of the most harmful results of this kind of imbalance.

First of all, do you agree with this accessment of the current status of NYCB and ABT?

Second, are there or have there been other companies in the same boat?

Third, is it something that just happens? Or is do company leaders have a responsibility -- to their audiences, their repertoire, and the company's reputation -- to avoid it?

Yes, yes, unfortunately. We in NY have been fairly lucky to see the more expressive dancers in the full-lengths. But, that is about to change for us. Ananiashvilli is nearing the end of her career, (I was disappointed in her Nikiya last season) and Part is leaving--and who knows how long Vishneva will be around with her busy international schedule. I do not find the others all that inspiring in the full-lengths. I have long felt this way with NYCB's kiddie korps.

Haegeman suggests that there are serious inconsistencies from one cast to another and that age and experience play a significant role.

He describes of dancers leading two of the movements in Symphony in C as reminding him of

Some young dancers come in for praise, thank goodness. But others provoke phrases like:

I certainly have seen such dancers from time to time. If one attends many performances from season to season, and if ou have a great commitment to observing the company from many angles, there are pleasures in watching a young dancer grow into a role or a style. This takes time of course. Single performances can be disappointing and can give you a distorted view of the work itself. If I had only one chance to see a company during a season, I would hate it to be that particular performance of Symphony in C.

I keep wondering: can this be avoided? should it be avoided?

Some of this can also be that NYCB lost some of its most important dancers in the generation that should be in the middle - Miranda Weese, Carla Korbes and Alexandra Ansanelli.

Just out of curiosity concerning the age of dancers etc. I understand that this demanding physical work and age takes its toll. Obviously some can push away the inevitable retirement.

What would be considered the typical upper age limit for a principal dancer?

The age thing might also be considered in terms of the roles and or the characters being portrayed. When you think of Romeo and Juliet you are thinking about young teenagers! And I suppose most/many of the story ballets involve young romantic situations. The Nut is even about children!

Are we talking about the illusion of the age of the characters, or the ability of the dancers at their craft which presumably improves with age?

There's no set age limit. Some dancers can go on seemingly forever (Leann Benjamin at the Royal Ballet seems to be vying for that title) and others seem too old at 30. Makarova was convincing as Juliet in her forties. It depends upon the dancer, and how s/he ages.

Although we know for a fact that this is a consideration at NYCB as Peter Martins has gone on the record about wanting to have very young Romeos and Juliets, I personally don't think that a person's chronological age should necessarily influence casting. Part of being a performer is projecting something you haven't personally experienced - you don't have to be a murderer to act Othello. You don't even have to be dark-skinned to act Othello so why should you be 14 in order to perform as Juliet. Even in movies/TV which are much more 'realistic' than ballet, teenage roles are often played by actors in their twenties.

The history of ballerinas dancing Juliets into their 40s and even 50s is evidence enough that casting in dramataic roles does not have to be age specific.

What, however, about the great non-plot roles? Symphony in C and Serenade were two susch masterpieces that were singled out for criticism by a number of London reviewers for the failures of several dancers (almost all very young and recently promoted) to even come close to the required comportment, style, spirit, subtlety, etc. etc., of their rich repertory.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the March 28 edition of the Times Literary Supplement (not availabale online) has a review by Judith Flanders who, like Haegeman's, shows willingness (along with a deep desire) to praise, but ends up damning where damning is due. Here's just one example, regading Serenade:

I think there were mitigating circumstances in the London casting. No one could predict that Ringer and Somoygi would be on maternity leave and that Korowski would be out with an injury. That left some roles underfilled. Without these dancers, I am not sure that London got a completely accurate picture of NYCB.

Thanks for that clarification, liebs. It's important to be reminded that more experienced ballerinas might/would have been cast in the short London season if they had been available. And I could certainly understand if the dancers who actually performed were understudies or the like who had to step in to fill a gap.

Were these first-time performances for the young dancers? Or do they perform these roles reguularly in New York as well? If the second is true, the question of who is in control of who and what is allowed on the stage in Balanchine and Robbins is still relevant. As is the matter of fairness to audiences.

Well, yes and no. The absence of Kowroski certainly couldn't be foreseen, but there was plenty of lead time with Ringer's pregnancy and sadly Somogyi couldn't come back enough from her major injury several years ago to dance with the same frequency she once did, so Martins never could have relied on her appearance. You certainly use the dancers you have, but the dancers are Martins' pick and he has to take some responsibility for selecting technique over presence. Yet even this is cyclical. Within my viewing there have been bad periods before and also some very good periods and dancers such as Weese and Ansanelli went well beyond their original wunderkind appearances.

No question, it is cyclical and always has been at NYCB. If you read old reviews, there was a down period before Farrell returned in 1974 when people thought dancers like Mazzo and Leland among others were unsuitably cast. There was also a dry spell before Merrill Ashley, Calegari and Nichols came along.

I see some very promising dancers now, especially among the younger men. It is interesting though that Benjamin Millepied seems to be the only working principal man of his generation. Not many men came up with him and those who did (Liang and Marcovici) had truncated careers.