An interview with Allegra Kent can be found here. Enjoy!

I found this interview sad because I found myself questioning Kent's mental state. She seemed unable to articulate meaningful answers to Rose's questions, and showed a disturbing degree of self-involvement--as if she was telling stories to herself or, to use her words, "for no particular audience." I love the Symphony in C clip that Rose included, but wanted more.

Self indulgence and self centeredness seems to be a common trait among those who choose careers on the stage. No?

She does identify how dancers who start so young and stay so focused on their work are "out of touch" with the world... socially and work wise and how they are often unequipped for what comes after they "retire". This is obviously more applicable to the principals who receive so much attention that they barely have time to venture out beyond the world of dance.

In light of that it may be a good thing for dancers to be married to non artists and have a taste of the reality that the rest of us know.

I wouldn't class her among the merely self-indulgent, though--I felt that there was a real disconnect there b/t her inner monologue and the reality of the conversational context Rose was trying to establish (good thing he's such a flexible interlocutor). I guess I want more from her because, as you point out SanderO, she's very smart in many respects, more than many dancers.

I just watched the clip and have a very different reaction.

I found Allegra to be authentic and genuine. Perhaps a bit flighty, but that's part of her charm it seemed to me. I don't get "self indulgent" at all. Overall I thought the interview very effective from both parties. I enjoyed it.

Perhaps living in certain parts of the world breeds a degree of cynicism in people's conversation about life that has gentle, unhearsed honesty appear disassociated with the "real" world. From my perch I found it refresehing.....so much so that I now plan to read her book.

When I have guest taught at Steps in NY, she often took class. She is an extremely eccentric lady....

And a wonderful ballerina. Creative people are often eccentric, as we know.


Thanks for your comments, Sandy. I had the same reaction, and I hope you'll tell us what you think of Kent's autobiography. If you've never seen Anne Belle's "Six Ballerina's," soon to be released on DVD, you might enjoy Kent's segment. She speaks holding a white iris.

I thought it was marvelous, too. Thanks, canbelto! And yet I had thought her much less compelling and perhaps a bit flighty and even lightweight, in the '6 Balanchine Ballerinas' film from 8 years previous. Here she is sometimes eloquent, and handles Rose's questions with real skill, and she also does some of the difficult questions much better than some of the other ballerinas. On the other film, Melissa Hayden comes off more impressively to my mind. She also looked about 40, and that hardly ever happens at 60 (this was 1997), including with ballerinas. Not at all self-indulgent, rather self-possessed (which I hadn't thought nearly so strongly in the aforementioned film), confident, and--best of all--not at all in awe of any other ballerinas. This is a woman who knew who she was in more than one way, and she engaged totally with Balanchine when she did, but was not hypnotized by him. I was really impressed.



No, no, no. I can't see what's more cynicism-breeding about Park Avenue and its suburbs than all that Microsoft... I mean--doesn't it just pervade Puget Sound?

I once worked at Microsoft. In my experience, there certainly is a cynicism there -- not a "nothing measures up" kind of cynicism, but more a kind of "the vast majority will never understand" cynicism.

I wouldn't say Microsoft pervades the Puget Sound....altho the money they generate does. Seattle still holds onto its innocence (not necessarily a good thing), but the "savviness" of cynicism is steadily creeping in. Frankly, I'd say our limitiations here are from being too "nice-nice" rather than from being cynical, but in terms of responding to authenticity, the results of the 2 ways of being are pretty similar. Everything is just too PC around here.

Thanks for that, Sandy. Even though we're , that does remind me of being at an airport line in 2002 and talking to a nice and also nice-nice lady from Seattle who must have been one of THE Bill and Melinda Ambassadors--and she made a hilarious point of contrasting their 'homeliness despite wealth' to the British Royal Family, of whom she did not approve! I was very amused.

I may revisit the 6 Balanchine Ballerinas to see Kent in that again, because I don't know whether it was I who changed in 2 years or she who changed in 8--but I hadn't been interested enough to even turn it on till the discussion got going. What had seemed rather vague and not quite decisive about her in the earlier film now seems very specific, sharp and certain. Writing the book would surely be part of what made her ability to focus and articulate so striking and crystal-clear.

I used to live next door to her, and was in some dance classes with her (back in the day). She has always had a unique way of expressing herself verbally and as a dancer. She is an extremely intelligent person who never had the slightest interest in being conventional.

When you listen to her speak you have to let go of certain expectations and just go with it. She is special. I remember one time, many years ago, when she couldn't open her locker because the combination lock was stuck. After many people tried the numbers, she marched out (pointe shoes and all) to the local hardware and got a hammer and banged it off with great glee. Not conventional, but direct, strong and the people in the hardware store loved it!

I think of her with great affection and admiration, and enjoyed the interview very much because for me that is and always will be the unique Allegra.

On a separate note - I wonder what her kids are doing.

I liked her in the "6 Balanchine Ballerinas" interview and in this interview because she's different. Many ballerinas in my observation in older age are as hard as pointe shoes. You can see it in their chins, their steely voices, their tales of the pain and monastic life of dance, their coldness when they are asked about a rival. Not that I blame them -- it's probably the way they have to be. But Allegra seems soft, dreamy, a bit kooky, but I find it endearing. She's somewhat melancholy, but not bitter. Grateful that Mr. B remained loyal to her personally even when he lost interest in her artistically.
And I always love to see the clips of her dancing. Even the brief clip on Charlie Rose showed why Mr. B kept her in the company year after year, after three pregnancies, disastrous plastic surgery, and injuries. She danced like a star.

... and hasn't she always been? this way, I mean? She seems in wonderful shape to me!

I first learned of Allegra from the book, Dance Is A Contact Sport, and having seen the small clip at the end of the Charlie Rose interview, she must have been indeed just so enthralling and enchanting. Her physical grace though, does not carry to intellectual fluidity. I found the quality of her comments, and even her demeanor, in that interview, as vapid, rather unpolished. Sad really. I wonder if it was the lack of social interaction with people outside NYCB/ballet world, or perhaps not having engaged in other meaningful pursuits besides ballet that might have limited her capacity to actively engage a serious conversation?

Oh,you would be surprised how common this phenomenom is...dissapointing indeed. Two books that reflects your point of view are Kirkland's and Farrell's (both of them not even being able to get a high school diploma), so do the math...2 plus 2 is almost always 4.

I have had the great pleasure and honor of having Allegra Kent coach me when I was dancing and I can assure you she is anything but inarticulate or vapid. I think it is often hard for a dancer such as she, that is so used to expressing herself through movement and music, to find the right words when asked difficult questions. I have read her book and find it to be one of the most honest and compelling ballet biographies written. Amongst dancers, she is known to be quite eccentric, often fragile in spirit, but also amazingly clear about many things in life. She is very generous and encouraging with young dancers. For me, being coached by her was one of the most valuable and memorable moments in my career. It was obvious by the way she guided me that her own dancing was inspired by the music and imagination, not at all self-indulgent. After that experience I could see why she had that amazing "other-world" quality to her dancing. I agree in the Charlie Rose interview she seemed to have a bit of trouble with his questions but I attribute that to her being somewhat out of her element. In my experience she has quite a lot to say and perhaps it wasn't so easy to answer his questions without really being able to delve into the true heart of each one.

People, I think you are being very harsh in these comments. I, and most of the posters on this board, are highly intelligent and verbally articulate with multiple degrees and qualifications. What does that make me? It makes me an average person. Kent, Kirkland and Farrell, on the other hand, are artists of the highest degree who bring beauty and truth into this world. So what if they march to a different drummer? We are the ones who are rewarded.

GWTW, I don't disagree with you on a certain level. We make, perhaps, unreasonable demands in expecting these figures to perform as their own best witnesses. The problem is that I'm starting not to feel "rewarded" by what I identify, frankly, as borderline mental illness--or at the very least a profound lack of self-awareness (or awareness of the workings of one's own discipline) compounded by a very poor education. That may just be me being "harsh," sure (I was a bunhead, after all!), but I also see it as taking no pleasure in celebrating someone's "eccentricity" that manifests itself in self-debilitating ways. I felt rewarded when I saw Kent dance; now I just feel sad when I hear her trying to account for and articulate her amazing and rich life.

I don't care it people are harsh, I just don't think any of these judgments are accurate. She was fully in control and even knew how to shove Rose off when he got too pushy. As for not having a high school education, that's not a legitimate complaint when you've proved yourself elsewhere. I've got degrees and 'qualifications' just like GWTW (although nobody had better call ME average... ), but I simply cannot see that Allegra was not articulate, and if you think Allegra holding her own is displaying 'borderline mental illness', then I'd like to know where you get that, because, if anything, that seems to demonstrate a problem that is current: Identifying something that many of us see as quite normal as 'borderline mental illness', so that no wonder so many people run to get the medications. And what are the self-debilitating ways in which her eccentricity manifested itself? I've yet to see any evidence of it. If her 'amazing and rich life' is known, how is that known, if she is so abysmally inept at describing it?

People are referring to Allegra Kent as 'sad' or 'sad-making'? And how is she not 'aware of the workings of her discipline'? I even think Farrell and Kirkland are articulate in their own ways, they're not supposed to be intellectuals (and they're not.) But Kent, especially, seems to me very healthy on top of all of it--and that she is really the one who had the ideal relationship with Balanchine: He did not try to force her too hard, and let her make her own decisions. In different ways, neither Kirkland nor Farrell seem quite as obviously balanced (which is not a criticism, just an observation about Kent), and I'm not talking about the dancing of any of them, since they were all great dancers.

I don't know... I think writing is a very different discipline from talking extemporaneously... I remember seeing some footage of Allegra Kent at a lecture demo when she was much much younger and thinking she was so ditzy, and then being stunned when I read her book at what all was going on in that mind. Not everyone thinks linearly in words and grammatical sentences... in fact, perhaps the kind of brain hard-wired for that sort of linear verbal thinking isn't particularly well suited to dancing which requires a multi-focused sensory consciousness? Not that they are mutually exclusive or that it's a valid stereotype... but I'm sure I'm not the first to notice a tendency among many dancers to not be adept at verbal communication, as if that enables their non-verbal communication. I think her mind is flitting across so many ideas that she barely has time verbally to hint at them before she's taken up with the next idea. When she writes, she has time to go back get it all out.

That said, there are still as many different personality types and intelligence types among dancers as there are in the general population.

No one should be making an unqualified diagnosis of anyone's mental health, especially not based on a short tv interview.

Are we going to be back to the DSM-IV discussion ? (I'm in! )...Anyways, about being both articulated and a dancer is a dichotomy that has been discussed at large in this board before...and yes, there's a factual issue, like it or not...and no Amy Reusch, of course you're not the only one having that idea.

I'm not diagnosing and apologize for seeming to; I'm attempting to report my own impressions. I accept that there are different kinds of intelligences and multiple modes of expression, and perhaps Rose might have been more sensitive to Kent in this regard (he's not particularly well-versed on ballet specifics, either--but hey he tries more than most). But I stand by my opinion, completely subjective, that I'm more saddened--deeply, actually--than entertained by Kent's interview and, by extension, with many interviews with performers that reveal a lack of exposure, education, and reflection. Perhaps I idealize artists too much and expect too much.

Amy and cubanmiamiboy, I hope I'm not beating a dead horse here, but I do think you are stereotyping dancers by implying that their physical prowess is achieved at the expense of their verbal and oral skills. Obviously most dancers, especially the ones of the caliber we're discussing, are better at dancing than talking. Otherwise, Barbara Walters would be out of a job. On the other hand, there are many dancers who do speak well: Peter Martins, Darcey Bussell (on youtube) and Alexandra Ansanelli (there is a long NPR interview with her from a year or two ago) to name a few who immediately jump to mind.


Ray, the current celebrity 'culture' has oddly enough pushed me to try and ignore an artist's private life in appreciating their artistic endeavours. There is such an overload of information - true, false and anything in between - that I began to find it difficult to watch movies and television without having a nagging voice telling me who the actors were dating, what they were rehabbing from, etc.

Ok...the point gets close to your thinking, but not quite in a grand total. First, I'm not stereotyping dancers. I mentioned that Kirkland and Farrell decided to stop their studies before graduating from high school, and hence, their general education did have a dead end at some point-(I don't know, on the other side, if any of them decided to continue it afterward during the course of their life). Of course i did not mention several hundred dancers who decide to improve both their educational/intellectual and dancing skills at the same time, and even getting all kind of doctorates and the like. I think there is no way to justify a poverty of speech or communication skills on the lack of time because of ballet life. It would be a personal choice-(and an unfair one)- to blame the art for the quality and quantity of a dancer's education and/or informational level. On the other side, i'm still firm in my idea that this happens very frequently.

I believe that this was a close-set interview, not with studio audience; nor was the content impromptu. I don't know that this was a live broadcast, either. Working with these conditions, the eventual quality of the interview would've been significantly influenced by all involved: the interviewee, the interviewer, the director, the producer, the wardrobe department....everyone involved to produce the end product.

If indeed interviewees are out of their element, then there are at least two ways to handle it: Refuse an on-camera interview or get themselves into their element as much as they could, by every means that they could. The show's on- and off-stage staff could improve/assist the interviewee by coaching, going through questions that are likely to be asked and practicing with mock interviews, trying different wardrobes to see which complements the interviewee's body and personality the most, the list goes on. Just as in a live performance, the performers (interviewee and interviewer, alike) put their best foot forward, and in this case, there is even more opportunity to present a polished interview because the session could be reviewed and the weaker segments of the conversation re-taken.

I have seen other programs and documentaries where dancers were interviewed, and they were more comfortable and polished than Allegra Kent was. For one thing, Allegra's, (too secretary-like) attire, body language and facial expressions worked against her. In contrast, other dancers appeared comfortable in their skin, not to mention their clothes, and engaged the interviewer quite well. It didn't strike me that the questions asked of any of these dancers were hard questions in any sense; rather, the questions sought to elicit recollections of the dancers' experiences. So it would be very much unlike an interview with say, a political figure, who might be asked double-bladed or veiled questions.

To me, this interview was in a sense, also a performance; and better preparations could have been made to improve its quality. Education or lack of it, mental disorder or none, gift of conversation or natural reserve/reticence, these could be enhanced with practice and preparation. Perhaps what I saw was the result of lack of sufficient practice and preparation on the part of all involved. Unfortunately, the weight of that rock falls on the star of the show -- the interviewee.

I delayed watching this, because a number of the posts made me fear that Kent had come across badly (or wierdly) in the interview. She was one of the dancers at NYCB who helped change my life. It's odd to say this, but I tend to feel very protective of her artistry and her person in a way I haven't felt for other dancers.

I tend to delight most in Alina's post. The following sounds absolutely on target.
She had fifteen minutes and knew quite well, I would imagine, how important the Charlie Rose Show is among the section of the population concerned about the arts. She was nervous. You can see and feel it. As a dancer Kent was amazingly responsive to music, but she was unfamiliar with the rhythm and "line" of Rose's interview style and, I believe, the presence of the cameras. At times you can see a kind of brief panic in her eyes, as though she is asking herself: Where should I look? Whom am I talking to? The contrast to Kent's apperanace in the the Dancing for Mr. B interviews is striking.

Edited to Add: (After writing, I read Agnes's post, written from the perspective of someone familiar with the conventions and methods of this kind of interview. I'm grateful for the information. But it seems a little unrealistic to expect someone to refuse the assignment or ask for special coaching just because they are not familiar with the form. Perhaps Rose, as the professional, could have allowed her to free-associate a bit more. He's remarkably prepared about the career, and does seem to be trying to adjust to the vulnerabilities of the woman in front of him. But if there's awkwardness in the results, I would hold him more responsible than her. This includes issues of dress and hair-style. Perhaps styling advice from Miss Havisham would have made for more memorable t.v.)

Kent's a ballet dancer. Her natural form of expression is a form that is thoroughly, obsessively prepared and rehearsed, even if it has to appear to spontaneous on stage. Dancing for Balanchine was many things, but it was NOT improvisatory, as is "live," tightly timed, deadline-oriented question-and-answer television, even when edited. As for her book, she herself mentioned that she wrote it (or most of it) before she knew that it would be published. In context, it seems that this is what made her feel free to take the risk of commiting herself to the project.

The video clip from Symphony in C set me to thinking about Kent's personality on stage. She's slightly tense in the opening balances, but becomes remarkably free as the pdd develops. Those two swoons backward are lovely ... and supremely trusting. She has found her protector. The swoon itself reminded me of a very different risk-taking: the dramatic fall backwards plunge in Unanswered Question.

Generally, one of her unique qualities on stage was to reveal herself overcoming an initial impression of nervousness and vulnerability. It made her, for me, the most poignant of Balanchine's Odettes of her generation. And think of Anna II in Seven Deadly Sins, along side the hard-bitten, I've-Seen-It-All Anna I of Lotte Lenya. No matter what occurs, Kent experiences it as an innocent. She's fundamenteally trusting, looking for guidance of others. She remains unsoiled inside, even when the surroundings are garish (delivered to an orgy, half-naked on a platter!) and the actions shocking.

Important politicians nowadays go on retreats where professional tv people teach them how to perform persuasively in inteviews in front of the camera. Major writers and other performers hit the road for months at a time doing interview after interview. Kent isn't part of that company. Is that surprising? Is it to be regretted?

Allow me to go back to something I said early on in this thread.

Seems to me that only thing that counts when watching an interview is whether or not the person is authentic. I frankly don't care who they are being, or what their particular "human-ness" is, as long as I am getting the real deal. I love the near infinite variety that humans come packaged in -- even in their billions. I am interested in listening to any of them, even a serial killer, as long as they are saying what's authentically so for them.

The only time an interview would waste my time, or be sad, or be any other sort of unfortunate experience is if the person was not speaking their own personal truth (authenticity). For example take negative campaign ads as an analogy: they insult the intelligence and create nothing because they are made of images, words, and impressions that are just the opposite of authenticity. There is no communication there....no touching of the human spirit.....but rather nothing more than manipulation.

Allerga was authentic with Charlie Rose IMHO -- however that was, or whatever that looked like. I can ask for no more than that.

Well-put, Bart, as ever. I guess at base I don't want to see Kent exploited (anyone remember her "performance" on Saturday Night Live?) or misunderstood by those outside of the ballet world. And thanks Agnes for the insight into interviews.

Agree totally, and also think over-analyzing a mere interview on Charlie Rose, with someone who is only doing it because of their book, is for the hobbyist. And I thought he was fine too, only pushing a little too hard once, but he understood he was getting a little too much the reporter that wants the scoop and backed off. Don't agree with Agnes at all that this is any kind of serious performance, it's just a television interview--what matters is does she manage to get herself expressed, it's not even that important if Allegra and Charlie have some ideal rapport; it's a minor form, as it were, and what's important is does she get her material across. She dealt with the questions about Farrell much better than even Tallchief on the 6 Ballerinas tape and infinitely better than Merrill Ashley, who let a kind of pall come over the proceedings--I definitely didn't think Allegra seemed as her own life had been much interrupted by the Farrell phenomenon and she had gone on and lived her life as she saw fit, was less obsessed with this matter than any of the others. If dealing with something like this as a professional, I can understand wardrobe, etc., matters, but Allegra Kent dressed 'too much like a secretary' is more of making of a small little television moment--meant mainly to be an advertisement--than it needs to be. But obviously, we all perceive things differently. I see it almost precisely as canbelto and Sandy, but that's life. And Ray, if you don't want to see her 'exploited', she certainly was anything but by Charlie Rose. All this talk of her fragility is so alien to me. She seemed like a Big Girl--and it would have had to always have been a Big Girl since she was a favourite of Balanchine's and kept insisting upon having babies when she knew he didn't want her to. That in itself shows her strong will. I fail to see her as especially vulnerable, and am glad of it.

Unless I'm misremembering, Kent graduated from a selective private high school at 15. No matter how you gauge intelligence, I think that fact confirms that Kent has it.

Whenever I am presented with the opportunity to speak into a microphone, whether it is for an audience of 100 relatively familiar people or broadcast tv, I am at my unmistakable far-from-best. I am nervous, hesitant, almost paralytically self-conscious, editing as I speak. I've never been a guest on a tv talk show, and now you know why. Most people may not get as rattled as I do, but I'm guessing that most who are not regular broadcast subjects have trouble being natural.

As someone who has worked as a publicist for decades(and with major national media), I can tell you that Ms. Kent did just fine. Charlie Rose's show is taped, and does not have an audience.
Ms. Kent and/or her publicist, were given an idea of what the questions would be beforehand. In fact, Ms. Kent was probably asked if she wanted to cover anything in particular. It is also likely that a pre-interview (by phone) was conducted well in advance of the taping.
However, Mr. Rose, like all good interviewers, may veer off the written questions/outline as the conversations dictates.
That said, he and his producers are especially thorough, professional, and courteous.
Being interviewed on tv -- whether live or taped -- is very difficult. Even when you think you are prepared, you may not be.
I have seen the most articulate people crumble when the red light on the camera suddenly appears (most distressing when it's a live interview).

Many thanks for those insights, DeborahB. You helps put those brief 15 minutes in context.

To get back to what she talked about, I'm putting a rough paraphrasing down here... [is this more or less what you heard her communicating?] Totally paraphrased by me, nothing is a direct quote..THIS IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT!!! ... one of you others can give it an exact transcript if you like... [Secretary? I think she looks beautiful, she's not 23 after all]

This is what I "understood" her to answer to Charlie Rose's questions:

Was it hard to write with such candor?
I originally wrote it just to write it down, not for it to be published... so candor wasn't any more difficult than writing into a diary.. When it turned out it was going to be published, .. I became a little more nervous.

Tell me about your relationship with George Balanchine…
He was interested in my talent, and you know, he usually married the women whose talent he was interested in... but he was already married at the time, so things were complicated... He created for me... but it didn't always follow that he was romantically involved with his muses; with the dancers he was grooming... but of course, there was that work The Seven Deadly Sins, he that he did for me... I did the sinning in that.

Was there a type you were cast as? Passive, for instance?
I don't feel I was that passive, despite what people said. There was that role where I never touched the floor. I was inaccessible, a fifth man tried to reach for me. I was elusive.

Why was Balanchine such a Master?
Well, he was genius. He understood music as a composer does, but he understood dancers better than they did themselves. He could see what a dancer was capable of before they had even attempted it. He was intuitive about how your personality might lead your ability.

Here is what others said about the two of you: #1-You dared to take time off to have babies.
Balanchine didn't like that. He didn't want his ballerinas to get married, but I did. I was too young to marry; unfortunately I followed my mother's advice and did. I had a strange childhood. My father had lost all his money, so my mother improvised to get us by. She figured out that we could live cheaply if we lived in Miami Beach or Los Angeles.

#2-You would "disobey" Balanchine...
I had three children...

He wanted you to work harder than you worked
I worked very very hard!

But he wanted you to be devoted to dance.
Totally. I wanted that. Dancing takes you 24/7, and I wanted that… but at other times I wanted to be a traditional woman and have a baby, to be a mother, so I did. But he allowed me to do this.

Unlike others...
Well, everyone has their own story… but he was very generous to me.

Why?
He liked my dancing.

Was there anything more?
Well, he didn't understand why I wanted a third child, but he did let me come back.

What are your regrets about that time?
Well, at the time of the babies, I had no regrets... you see, early on I established a pattern of leaving and returning, ["being there and leaving, being there and leaving"] and I just followed that pattern... but later on, I said had too much on my plate to take on Liebslieder Waltzer and I'm sorry I ever said "no" to anything he asked me to do.

Anything he "asked you to do"?
Well, anything dance-wise.

Was he in love with you?
I think so, but he was married. My mother wanted me married and out of the playing field. Maybe she was afraid it wasn’t in my cards, but she might have waited a little longer to see what might happen.

Tell me about your first husband.
We were incompatible. [etc., not interesting to me the emotional pain her husband’s activities put her through] ... I took certain rules very literally, but somehow not Balanchine's rules!

Yes, you took your mother's & others rules seriously, but not Balanchines..
Yes, I know...

But Balanchine protected you, and you stayed at the company until just before he died even though you weren't dancing...
Yes, he did. He was very generous helping me through that very difficult transition out of dancing into the next career, while I found my way... keeping me in the company even though I only danced once a year.

How did Susanne Farrell's arrival affect your relationship with Balanchine?
His interested shifted to her, but not totally. At times I was upset, as the other ballerineas were… but at other times, I just danced and when I danced well, life was rewarding... but it still meant most when Balanchine came back and said something about how I danced and those times became few and far between when Farrell was on the scene. I missed the feedback.

Is it hard for a ballerina to realize she can't dance well any more, as it is for an athlete?
Yes! But those women runners, they keep surprising us by winning even in their forties! The body changes. My muscles are almost 60, but they feel younger than that; however I don’t have the flexibility I used to have.

What was the hardest thing to write about?
About the difficult times with my first husband and my children... when I was frightened at finding myself responsible for bringing up three kids on only a ballerina's income, and wishing I had handled myself differently... I was so upset, I was ill with mono, so starting up was difficult... but people called me up with offers of work... Jerry Robbins called and encouraged me to come to back to work... and so I did. Work really helped me through the rough times.

What is the happiest moment in this book?
Every time my life picked up again. I hit bottom and started up again again more than once. And I was happy to dance again at 50! Also, I managed to overcome stage fright…

Charlie Rose wraps up and leaves us off with a clip from Dancing for Mr. B, where Allegra Kent dances a seemingly precariously balanced/partnered bit from Symphony in C with Conrad Ludlow... not that Conrad Ludlow is not doing a good job, after all she trusts him deeply in those fall backs, but rather that after the interview it's a bit of a metaphor for her

I offered the above in case anyone wanted to discuss the gist of the content rather than the performance of the interview... AGAIN, THIS WAS NOT A TRANSCRIPT

Brava, Amy! And what I notice more than ever reading this is the way she was able to be fully involved with Balanchine and then completely non-involved with him when she was totally involved with her family life:

It's this one where I think she managed to verbalize it perfectly. It doesn't seem like fireworks, but it is! Because she really did somehow manage to do both, and he must surely have allowed her to do this not only because of his generosity, but also because she could do this. Not that it would have always been seamless and smooth, but in just a few words she describes the near-impossible thing she did. I guess I keep thinking it proves her extraordinary independence and gifts, and it gives her her own singular profile among the Balanchine muses. I do agree with the person (vipa) who said 'she is special' and also with you that she does look beautiful. Anyway, this part of the interview, simple as it is, is the part where you see this amazing revolving-door life that somehow works while sounding impossible:

But he wanted you to be devoted to dance.
Totally. I wanted that. Dancing takes you 24/7, and I wanted that… but at other times I wanted to be a normal woman and have a baby, to be a mother, so I did. But he allowed me to do this

which is immediatly followed by this:

Unlike others...
Well, everyone has their own story… but he was very generous to me.

And that was the response to his prodding that I thought showed such skill and verbal elan.

Thank you for taking the time to post this Amy! Allegra has mannerisms when she speaks that I suppose some people could call eccentric. I call them charming. She's the sort of dancer where her personality is as alluring and exciting as her dancing. In my opinion she has a tremendous inner core of strength while at times appearing almost fragile. What a interesting combination!

I've watched this interview, and mostly thought Charlie Rose showed, as he has in other interviews, that he doesn't know a great deal about dance or dancers; it would also help if he managed to resist his love of his own voice a little better. Still, I thought, for all that it was two people talking somewhat at cross-purposes, Allegra did pretty well.

But that's neither here nor there. In reading the discussion here, and over at the Suzanne Farrell Holding onto the Air thread, some strands in both reminded me irresistably of a long ago colleague - a man of great charm, and, in fact as well as in his own estimation, a person of high culture, and fine intellect. I remember once, when I was reading the jacobean playwrights and commented that I found John Fletcher's plays amusing and fun, my colleague was horrified at my appalling taste and spent days patiently and not-so-patiently explaining why Fletcher was a dreadful writer in whom no intellegent person should indulge. He believed in studying painting by looking at black and white photos of sections so he could study brush strokes without color getting in the way of analysis, and he chose his opera performances by conductor because, as he explained, singers were empty vessels of doubtful understanding who needed a master intellect to guide them. He had little use for dancing because one could not waste analytical effort on an art so lacking in intelligence.

In short, he took his own highly specific definition of intelligence and used it to elevate intellectual snobbery to an art. He saw nothing ridiculous or limited in this and would probably have dismissed Thurber's warning about leaning over so far backwards you fall on your face as frivolous.

I second the thanks Deborah.

I've always wondered how these things go. Just to what extent they are spontaneous vs scripted; just how much leeway each party has. You've given us real live insight. I'll watch/hear interviews from a different perspective now........and so many interviews: John Stewart, Colbert, even Sunday news shows, often seem driven by the interviewee's need (contractual obligations I presume) to market a book.

No one mentions that this interview is from 1997. As Allegra states, she wrote the book for herself and then it was published so at the time of this interview she had not done a lot of public speaking. I think you would find her much more polished today. But who cares?!

Allegra is Allegra; there is no one like her. I think she is a national treasure. Stunningly beautiful, gracious, and very, very intelligent.

And original. Since this thread began, I've been inundated with memories and visual images of Kent in the late fifties and through the 60s. She was such an original dancer, quite pure, beautiful and willing to risk, and always creating (in me at least) a little bit of tension as to how she would handle the role. Her independence in her career and her originality in her dancing are, for me, part of the same phenomenon.

No one at NYCB was anything like her. (I never got to see Le Clercq.) No one could fall into an arabesque penchee the way she did -- naturally, tension-free. She responded to music so directly, pliantly and spontaneously that she made you listen to familiar scores with new ears. (Her Swan Lake Act II struck me this way.) You could feel viscerally the qualities that Balanchine must have seen in her. This was more true on stage, I think, than on video.

Here's a Kent story from Edward Gorey's Ascending Peculiarity. I've broken it up into smaller paragraphs for easier reading on line.
Gorey attended the book party. He writes about the Kent water-exercise system:
The English treasure eccentricity and whimsy in their artists. If she'd been with Royal, she'd probably be a Dame by now.

Undoubtedly.

Thanks so much for that delicious passage from Gorey's book. I've been doing a bit of time traveling lately, and that gave me another brief trip back a few decades. A visit to NYCB wasn't complete without at least a glimpse of Gorey holding his intermission court near the southern staircase on the promenade.

Indeed. And Balanchine/Farrell having coffee and (what? a burger?) at that Greek coffee shop just a bit north of Lincoln Center. And Jacques d'Amboise at the West Side Y. And ... and ... and .. a lot else as well. Wonderful days. I wish that someone would put together a complilation of fan memories from this period.

And then figure out a way to upload them all to YouTube. What would D'Amboise be doing at the Y?

Working out, I assume. Lots of male dancers from NYCB and elsewhere worked out at the Y as well, as I recall. I always assumed that a certain amount of weight training would be useful when it came to hoisting ballerinas up into the air and carrying them abouny. This was in the 70s. Personal trainers and elite studios were not so common then, and I don't think that NYCB, ABT, or the Joffrey had facilities or programs of their own.

Generally, the West Side was like an extended village. (Possibly it still is.) Performer-sightings were so common that usually they didn't register as anything special. You always left these people alone. It was quite nice, actually.

Indeed, it is not a transcript. I would definitely recommend listening to the broadcast.

I thought Kent was just fine, and I suspect the occasional ditziness is more a kind of protective coloration than anything else. She's obviously a clever woman.

Rose isn't perfect, but we all owe him a vote of thanks for hosting dancers regularly on his program. Thanks for posting this, canbelto, I missed this interview the first time around.

I'm sure in Kent's case this is correct, but there are all kinds of ways and means for graduating early and skipping grades.

If you have the chance, catch the last 5 minutes or so of the Dancing for Mr. B video. You'll find Kent coaching Kistler in Sonnambula. She's attentive, intelligent, intense, elegant, and ... as they used to say as a kind of ultimate tribute to a performing artist ... "Well worth the price of admission."

It is an interesting scene. I understand it was staged for the movie and not an actual coaching session.

I remember Kirkland writing in her first book that she had wanted to bring in Kent to coach her for Sonnambula, but Baryshnikov said, "Oh, she's too crazy," or words to that effect.

Not to mention the fact that knowing about someone's studies in a private-(or not, for the matters)-school can give you probably an idea-(still incomplete and totally questionable)- of the person's "schooling", or to be more condescended, "educational level". I usually place "intelligence" in another dimension.
Note-Oh, and PLEASE... this comment has NOTHING to do with Kent. I know nothing about either her intelligence and/or her educational level.

Ditto for the scene w/Tallchief; some of the people she was coaching never danced the roles before or after that video.