I a newbie to ballet..thanks to Youtube.
I have read many comments saying that "so and so" does'nt have "good feet".

Who DOES have "good feet"?
What do I look for?
Why does so and so..have good feet?

Hi Iczerman,

"Good feet" is basically saying that they have the aesthetically pleasing shape and form which comes from having a high arch and instep - and so when pointed they form a kind of tumescent banana shape and beautiful curve.

When a woman with a high arch and instep wears pointe shoes where she's literally standing on her toes on the block in the shoe the effect of the arch is even more exagerrated and the line and curve of the arch extends into the shape of the toe shoe:

Famous examples of ballerinas with good feet are:

Sylvie Guillem

http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/guill01.jpg


Lynn Seymour:

http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/seymou05.jpg

Alessandra Ferri:

http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/ferri02.jpg

Paloma Herrera

http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/herrer01.jpg

The irony is that a very over arched foot whilst looking beautiful can actually adversely affect pointe work as the arch throws the body's weight over the foot throwing the dancer off balance.

Plus the fact that an over-exaggerated arched does look as if the whole feet is bending and collapsing, hence loosing the clean, upward straight line that I most admire on ballerinas...
From here we can go to that other thread about the arch enhancers.

Welcome to BalletTalk, iczerman!

I would define "good feet" as feet that point fully when they leave the floor, feet strong and supple enough to roll smoothly through when rising to a high 3/4 pointe (or full pointe for women) and lowering from same. I like a high arch, but it's not as important as the actual working of the foot.

Among the best feet I've seen are Gelsey Kirkland's. I was able to watch her in class, in soft slippers, and when she did her warmup jumps in first position, the feet would seem to scoop along the floor in a caress as she left the floor, then point into crescent shapes in the air. It was such a simple step, but one of the most thrilling bits of dancing I've ever seen.

I've noticed that the girls in one of our major academies seem to keep their toes slightly clenched, even when flat on the floor. As they progress to the company, they lose this habit, but I can't help but wonder how safe the clenching is.

When I started viewing ballet, there were still men who had what might be called "no feet." Their grands jetes often featured a floppy appendage at the end of their trailing leg. And there's not much that can surpass small, beating steps performed with less than fully pointed feet for incongruousness. Not pretty. We are, for better (pointed foot-wise) or worse (other issues for other threads), in a new age.

Tamara Rojo has those gorgeous bendy feet - but she's extremely strong as well, and her feet are some of the most articulate I've ever seen. I could probably just watch her all day, rolling down from pointe, bringing her foot from fifth to sur le coup de pied (an astonishing moment in her Giselle...)....

Thus, for me, it's not just the line that I care about -- I want an *articulate* foot... I want it to *speak* to me -- to facilitate technique but also further the dance....

Hi Carbro & Cuban

Do you mind if I just step in as I think we're getting a bit technical for a total newbie to ballet:

Iczerman, as CubanMiamiBoy said his aesthetic ideal is slightly different from the examples of ballerinas I linked above. This is Alicia Alonso:

http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/alonso03.jpg

As you can see her leg and foot form a straight line it's a very straight look and was the aesthetic ideal for quite a long time in the mid to latter half of the 20th century. Another famous ballerina who had that very vertical look, no arch in pointe was Margot Fonteyn:

http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/fonte05.jpg

As Carbro mentioned the aesthetic ideal of what a ballerina should look like has changed radically in the last 40 or so years - thanks in great part to a famous choreographer called George Balanchine who with his company the New York City Ballet developed an aethetic ideal for the ballerina in the last 40 years of the 20th century which continues today.

(Please don't roast me for my very potted, potted history board regulars)

That ideal of a ballerina was long legged, flexible with the added bonus of an arched foot.

The dancer Carbro referred to Gelsey Kirkland:

http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/kirk07.jpg

She was a famous virtuoso and great ballerina who was known for her technique and strength particularly her balances and jump. If you go to Youtube and type in Gelsey Kirkland there's a very famous film of her in Coppelia where you can see just how phenomenal her balances were.

Feet is a funny issue, the dancer I linked to Sylvie Guillem who came to prominence in the mid 80s basically raised the bar as to what a ballerina should look like - she has an extreme physique and incredible technique, including hyper arched feet.

Good feet or rather beautiful looking arched feet are notoriously weak a great deal of the time and it takes a great deal of training to strengthen them. Because in ballet the use of the foot to bend (plie) jump is vital. A dancer goes through every bone in their foot to rise on to pointe, or demi pointe (3/4) to jump and foot strength is a big part of having a good jump, a strong foot is like a coiled spring.

Also when Carbro mentioned no feet or poor feet in men in a jump it's a common problem where the foot isn't pointed in one of the big ballet jumps and so the dagger like shape made by a leg stretching into a pointed foot is spoiled by a foot that isn't pointing and looks floppy.

The dancer Ami refered to above Tamara Rojo:

http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/rojo03.jpg

You can check her out on youtube too.

Gelsey Kirkland's feet may have been good, strong and well-arched, but, with their large, prominent heels they also looked quite idiosyncratic - one long-time observer likened them to "baked potatoes wrapped in foil." Disagree mightily about Sylvie Guillem "raising the bar" for any aspect of ballet - she did raise her legs up a lot, for sure.

As per a male "Who", get a glimpse of the second clip of post # 1 from this other thread, featuring Cuban Alejandro Virelles.
http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=29683

I also love feet that are very straight, like Suzanne Farrell's and one of the PNB soloists, Lesley Rausch. Another soloist, Maria Chapman, has very high arches, what I'd call "Patricia McBride feet".

http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/mcbrid05.jpg
http://www.ballerinagallery.com/pic/mcbrid03.jpg

For me, it's not just the way the feet look, but how they work through the floor. I saw Ballet Arizona perform "La Valse" in May's all-Balanchine program, and I didn't check the cast list during second intermission. In one of the middle waltzes, this short, dark-haired dancer, in her long tulle skirt, knocked me cold by the strength of her foot as she rose on point in arabesque. It was Jillian Barrell, and I had never seen her (or at least recognized her) with her hair down before.

( Am I slightly stuck in the past...? )

Rojo's feet can be seen more clearly here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRaKB7n7XmM

Again, I think the use of the feet is more important than the 'genetic aesthetics' - but I think Rojo has both.

Funny, I never thought of "good feet" as being particularly related to aesthetics. I always thought of certain dancers being able to achieve a level of technical mastery, particularly in jumps, because they had good feet, that is, feet that work efficiently, inevitably in combination with a well-aligned skeleton. Sometimes these feet also happen to be beautiful, but not necessarily. If a dancer has aesthetically pleasing feet, but he or she is not able to land jumps quietly, I wouldn't describe those feet as "good."

Did I imply that? It wasn't my intention. And I think the change in the "preferred" foot was due to a softening of pointe shoes' shanks. By the early '70s when I started attending regularly, the arch was definitely in.

A perfect illustration of why it's dangerous to summarize a career on the basis of scant video evidence. As a New York-based Kirkland follower, she most definitely was not famous for her balances, and my friends and I would often question her judgment in attempting them they weren't "required."

If a foot is deeply arched, wouldn't that necessarily make the heel more prominent? I'll have to check out some of the archies next time I catch a performance.

I agree with those who say the answer to the "good feet" question is two-pronged. A dancer may be born with beautiful arches and insteps but not use them well at all. From what I have seen of her, Eva Evdokimova may well have my favourite pair of ballet feet, in terms of both natural beauty and her exquisite use of them. Manuel Legris is an example of a dancer who does not have extremely high arches (though they are more than adequate) but he uses them beautifully, and his dancing is more of a pleasure to me than that of others blessed with lovely feet but no idea how to use them.

Edit: I realise this is blowing my own horn, but in case you are interested, iczerman, I have written a blog post on this subject: http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/blog/de...hp?showentry=45

Yes, when Gelsey was ill/at her weakest (the Baryshnikov at the Wolf Trap dvd), she seamed barely able to stand up.........

As for feet, a bit of dancer terminology. The curve underneath your foot is your arch --- the top curve is an instep... And it's the high insteps that are notable in folks like Ferri, Herrera, Rojo, etc. Yes, they often have higher arches as well, but it's the high instep that makes the s-curve on the outside of the leg (especially if one is hyperextended).

I think of good feet as those that work well -- like Baryshnikov's, or Peter Martins's -- they're also well-shaped, but the thing is that they start to point when they should and work with alacrity. It's how they take shape.

Monica Mason had great feet, they were so witty, they licked the floor. It's that ACTION that makes feet good.

Nicolas Blanc in "Emeralds" had that same quality doing the walks. It was gorgeous to behold.

Farrell's feet were beautiful to me because there was no difference between her foot and her shoe: it was all of one piece.

Another of Paloma Herrera, this time in action, from the ABT "Sylvia" mini-site:

http://www.abt.org/sylvia/photo_gallery.html

Monica Mason:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-P08VxyIXY

Do you think perhaps we're getting somewhat over-involved in the politics of feet and the use of such within the dance technique of classical ballet from what the OP intended? This thread is evolving in a ballet connoisseur's dissection of the use of feet for ballet technique.

Yes, there are many ways to deconstruct the meaning of "good feet", however when I read or hear someone talk about a certain dancer having "good feet" I immediately think of feet like Rojo, Guillem or Hallberg.

Beautiful arched feet whether or not they actually work well are a criteria for entrance into schools and companies, though thankfully behind more important considerations such as artistry, technique, dance quality.

When I was a whippersnapper I gained entrance to White Lodge and at my audition even as a child I was asked to point my foot to see my arch, I have a very high arch and that was duly noted. Of course at 10 I was unable to use that arch and the foot in a fully realised way, but arch and instep are what's looked for at this basic level.

I wanted the OP to look at Kirkland in that Coppelia video because regardless of her physical and mental state at that time there are several beautiful beautiful balances and she uses her feet in a lyrical, evocative manner which I think for a ballet novice is a good example of a petit allegro/unsupported balance solo for a ballerina. Also it's one of the very very few films which exist of her which are accessible to the general public. Balanchine said of Kirkland she had the best balance of any ballerina he ever worked with.

I feel that the ensuing debate became something of an information overload for the OP who is just discovering ballet and is kind of alienating.

Actually -- no! The OP was remarking on comments on youtube, etc -- and you get comments re: bad feet on several ballet greats -- truth being, these feet aren't bad, and many of us consider them to be 'good feet' ------ it's all subjective!

And this is probably getting a bit board on boards........

But Ami this is exactly my point. All the subsequent debate completely confused the issue. It's why I decided to illustrate the answer on the most basic level with pictures of feet which are considered "good" on pointe.

The minutiae of technique is incredibly alienating to ballet novices. If and when he wants to delve into the wider implications of feet and how they're used/trained in ballet that's further down the line.

This thread actually for me sums up why I have such a hard time of convincing my non ballet loving friends of why this is a wonderful, legitimate art form for everyone. It quickly can seem horrendously exclusory and exclusive. I purposely wanted to answer a total ballet novices question in a simple, clean and graphic manner.

How a top flight technician such as Rojo uses her feet is wonderful, yes, I agree, but it's a connoisseur's appreciation. It's meaningless to read when written in detail for a novice ballet goer. He didn't want debate or to open a can of ballet worms - he wanted a good accessible starting point to explore the art form at his own pace.

I noticed that the OP hasn't been back since, I just hope we haven't scared him off.

...sorry about my ignorance, but what does the acronym "OP" stands for...?
just curious..

OP--Original Poster

I'm trying to keep up ... but enjoying this immensely .

I'm embarassed to admit that I never knew which part of the foot the "instep" is, until I learned it here from ami1436 and Hans's bog

It's fascinating to watch Tamara Rojo (in Five Brahms Waltzes in the Manner of Isadora Duncan) in the context of this topic. Her bare left foot at the beginning of the first waltz is exquisite in profile, especially the relationship between the high instep and the relatively small, extended toes. As Rojo skips across the floor, it's the curve of her instep (leading the foot forward, with toes point down toward the floor) that captures my attention. I would not have focused on this if I had not been reading this thread.

Thanks to all for sharing your expertise.

bart -- your post made me smile! If you haven't figured it out, I'm a Rojo lover, and have watched her closely in class, rehearsals, performances.... Often people say that those with high-instepped, 'bendy' feet also have weak feet, and indeed this is often the case -- it takes time to develop the strength to stabilize oneself vertically and horizontally -- and boy, has Rojo got it. She's far from weak. Her moment in Giselle, Act II -- going from 5th through sur la coup de pied into a developpe in seconde -- is seriously mesmerizing. As her foot leaves the floor, it's so articulate, almost sexy, and then pauses at the ankle -- the developpe becomes a process of relinquishing womanhood........ and I'm digressing..... but there you go -- her foot spoke.

Simon G -- sorry for being quick earlier. To put it simply, the debates on youtube, etc, often include the type of discussion we are having here: aesthetics vs. use -- and thus I think the details are actually helpful. As to why the OP has yet to return... not everyone is as obsessed as I!

Watching Stephanie Saland go from fifth to sur la coup de pied in the "Divertimento No. 15" Dance in America performance is my favorite moment of that DVD. Her placement was so precise -- so classical -- and so different from most NYCB ballerinas.

Wow I thought I was the only one who loved that moment so much!

Re - good feet. I really don't like noticing feet as a separate thing. Good feet complete/enhance a line whether it is an arabesque line or a line in the air (during a jump), and there are essential elements of strength and flexibility. If I walk away from a performance thinking about the arch or beauty of a dancer's foot, I think there is a problem.

But if you walk away thinking about the absence of beauty in a dancer's foot, then the problem gets worse, don't you think...?

And yet, and yet ...

Someone (I forget who, sorry) wrote about Ananiashvili's Les Sylphides last week that she had the ability to make you look at what she wanted you to see. I wasn't there, but I do remember seeing Makarova in '76 in Covent Garden. Her planned partner was replaced at the last minute, and she herself was in less than top form, but her feet! Her feet were magnificent! She made me watch them as the rest of her technique was somewhat hit-or-miss (for her). Something was wrong for sure, but the lusciousness of her foot as she rose and descended from pointe, all the work of those feet against the floor, was unforgettable (as I'm writing this over 30 years after the fact).

Just because iczerman hasn't replied doesn't mean s/he hasn't checked in. I hope that if some of this is too insidery, s/he will not hesitate to request clarification.

Not for me. If I walk away thinking "what beautiful feet" or "what a lack of instep" the performance is a failure.

I'm sorry Carbro, Ami everyone if I seemed tetchy, I wasn't meaning to come off as attack or pre empting you. I just got worried when I saw that this thread was evolving into a rather informed discussion about aesthetics vs functionality, the kind that leaves new comers to ballet baffled and underwhelmed.

Yes, I do agree with all the different tangents this topic took as to feet. There is no one answer. Two of the great ballerinas of the past reknowned for the strength of their feet and what that strength allowed them to do technically, Nerina & Dudinskaya had really no arch to speak of - then feet were something you danced on. Both ballerinas careers were over long before I was born actually, but I've seen films of them.

The thing regarding feet is that the aesthetics have become increasingly prevalant to the point of being a fetish over the past 20 odd years; CubanMiamiBoy mentioned arch enhancers, this ideal for fetishistic perfection leading dancers to surgery, does it enhance the art? Not at all, as you mentioned if a performance rests or falls on the lovliness of an instep then either the performance or the criteria by which one judges it has failed.

But it's why I included Guillem in my "potted" history of ballet/ballerinas and feet. Love her or loathe her she is without doubt the most controversial figure in the history of ballerinas in the last 25 years - not least because the aesthetic ideal her natural physique inspired has arguably become the prototype to which ballerinas aspire to and now try to surpass.

I think the thing to bear in mind when answering questions about feet is that a novice has no idea how important feet are to a dancer (rather banal wording, as if one could dance footless); and to ballerinas especially whose feet through the pointe shoe are daily put through a ritual of pain and rigour unlike any other group of women on earth.

Books, papers, theses, articles, conferences have all been constructed/written about the ballerina and the pointe shoe - from every perspective. Training/gender studies/aesthetics. I remember once reading in a French newspaper an article about Guillem, but it wasn't about her per se, it was an appreciation of her legs and feet; not an appreciation really more of an elegy. Foot strength and technique aside the image of the ballerina's foot in a pointe shoe is an incredibly erotic one -and the greater the arch, the curve, the instep the greater the visceral buzz of pleasure on viewing it as an object of beauty alone. (Sorry have I gone a bit pervy here?)

The thing is if you've ever had a friend who's an ardent feminist who you've tried to convince of the wonderfulness of ballet, the thing she brings up is the "perceived" barbarity of the pointe shoe - this has happened to me twice with friends and in both cases the old chestnut of foot binding in the Orient came up. Of course they are the antithesis of one another - foot binding designed to render a woman immobile, subservient to her husband, a possession; whereas the strength required for pointe work is super human. But in these cases I find it's not helpful when I splutter indignantly about the rubbishness of drawing such a parallel; ignoring the question of feet what my friends are talking about is the perceived generic image of a ballerina being sexless, subservient, a man toy.

Whatever the criteria it can't be denied that beautiful, articulate, high arched feet really are something which can add another level to a ballerina's performance. As superficial as this sounds, the fact remains that debate aside ballet is most definitely an art of aesthetics - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, at all.

It's precisely in the matter of that non-specialists (like me and many others reading, I'll bet) benefit from such discussions.

Will re-watch the video today. Thanks, Helene, for the tip.

Both are true, as the posters suggest. I think that those of us who have a long history as watchers, but are not knowledgeable about the physiology or training aspects, tend to notice "bad" feet but not really appreciate "good" feet. As I mentioned before, people like me -- and there are many of us -- really benefit from this kind of education. I can't wait for the live-performance season to return this fall so that I can pay closer attention.

I hope we have many more such topics. I thank you, icezerman .... wherever you are this morning.

This is the thing Bart, I think that every dancer developes a peculiar and singular relationship with their feet, throughout the course of their training and into professional life.

I had a full training but in my second to last year it hit me that I didn't want to be a dancer, so I left when my training was over, made up for the education I missed and then went to university.

At the start when you're assessed as a child it is on the arch, as purely an aesthetic construct. It also seems that a good arch comes with some degree of hyperextension in the leg and while these qualities are most definitely prized they begin to throw up problems which you have to find ways to counter that straight-legged un-arched feet don't.

Pulling up on the leg is harder, the construction of the leg and and foot constantly want to throw you off balance, likewise it's harder to turn a great deal of the time, feet are uneven surfaces at the best of times and most damagingly the 3/4 pointe which is essential for ballet starts to put a great deal of pressure on the achilles tendon - leading to that bane of dancers spurs.

When I was 16 I started to get pain in my achilles an x-ray confirmed that I had spurs in my ankle (bone growths at the back of the ankle shaped into sharp points) an over arched foot just going through the motions of a tendu places far greater stress on the back of the leg and ankle, just because of the extremity of movement in an arched foot. Also rising to pointe, 3/4 or full also takes the stress on the lower leg to a greater extreme than the straight pull up.

With spurs there are three options, suffer in silence till it's chronic; find a new way to work the foot - hard as ballet is a technique of extremes or surgery which requires nine months of total post op rest. I stopped altogether eventually, not because of the spurs but it was a factor knowing that it was a chronic condition which would only get worse.

For a layman the beautiful arch of a foot is lovely, it's something beautiful to look at to be sure. The mechanics of technique and how it effects the foot and the stress that places on the whole frame is something dancers live with constantly.

Thanks, Simon. That kind of information helps bridge the gap between those who have serious ballet training and those who have not. I have read about the physical assessments of children at the start of their ballet training, but I did not realize how much attention was paid to the arch per se.

Here we have the elements of "aesthetics" but also of "use." it's interesting and rather sad that the same physiological characteristics that make for a truly classical look may also make the dancer more prone to pain, weakness, and/or injury. Most people in the audience, I would think, haven't the slightest idea about such matters.

As for arches, I love them when the dancers are bare-foot or in ballet slippers. I am more ambivalent about recent trends in extreme arches in pointe shows. "Banana foot" has always seemed to me a perejorative term and one I associate with clunky ballet shoes and arch-enhancers.

I wonder: Are we seeing more and more of this as a result of audience demand (eg: "I LOVE those arches! More! More!") or is this a matter of changing fashions within the dancer community itself (eg: "If I can just push my toes a LITTLE bit further down, I'll be beautiful")?

P.S. Simon, I'm delighted you recognized when enough was enough and that you were able to go on to university and find that there's life beyond ballet school. The time you spent training, and what you learned, is a valuable resource. Thank you for sharing it here.

When I started watching ballet, I didn't quite understand all the buzz about the "banana feet". I also recall that the first time I realized about this was when looking at some younger ballerinas of the Cuban company, for which the usual trend among the older members was the straight instep/leg, and not the S shaped one that now seems to be the norm. If noticed, all the ballerinas that I excerpted in the "Cuban Stars of the 60's, 70's and 80's" threads don't have what it is now considered a "good feet", starting with Mme. Alonso. When I discovered the old Taglioni lithographs, I even came to understood and like more the beauty of the vertical line vs. the curved one, as it resumed the idea of the weightless/suprahuman body who could stand effortlessly on top of a flower
http://www.vandaprints.com/lowres/39/main/6/313317.jpg
http://fr.wikivisual.com/images/1/1b/Marie_Taglioni.jpg
Anyway, one of the things that I enjoy the most in ballerinas-(and I know this can be highly controversial)-is their ability to sustain strong balances with that effortless up straight line, especially if in romantic poses-(Giselle act II, Grand Pas de Quatre, etc...). When a ballerina has mastered this-(and Alonso and her older girls did it to great extent), that's when I enjoy the most the beauty of the whole feet/leg/body. There's nothing that annoys me more than uncontrolled hyper-extended/banana WEAK feet, a la Somova.

In any case, I certainly prefer this...

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?img...sa%3DN%26um%3D1

over this...

http://www.ballet.co.uk/images/kirov/jr_ba...rafanov_491.jpg

Pmeja. Unfortunately, MacMillan, the costumer, and the cameraman seem to be more interested in "witty derriere" in this particular video. Perhaps the topic for another thread?

Cristian, I am with you re: your last two links. I find Fonteyn's line impeccable.

There is one misconception that I'd like to clear up: a highly arched foot is not always naturally weak. Some are, some are not. An example of a well-arched, strong foot is Alla Sizova.

It is always important for the dancer to perpetually lengthen the leg and foot, a detail that I fear is too often ignored in the modern quest for extremely curved lines.

And finally, when an academy such as RBS or POBS, &c., evaluates a child for admission, the arch is one of many factors considered. Also important are proportions, face, how tall the child is likely to grow, the depth of the plié, musicality, and coordination.

Thanks Hans -- this is what I was trying to say with regard to Rojo, but you are much more articulate here!

alas, though, not many videos of her dancing to be had.

how about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNHFuTWm-6k...FA&index=92

Thank you for that, pmeja--I had forgotten Mason was Myrtha in that production. Quite a jump! She is one of the ones who almost makes me forget she is wearing pointe shoes.

Evdokimova's unbelievable footwork (as well as her many other extraordinary qualities) can be seen to advantage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBLvAguVXFg...feature=related

and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN7ZTbfmoZE...feature=related

as well as in several other videos on youtube. She is another one, like Sizova and Rojo, with a very strong, beautiful arch.

Helene, is Saland part of the 3rd couple, with Robert Weiss?

I was trying to focus only on the feet, which turns out to be difficult, especially when you are also trying to identify dancers with identical hairsyles and costumes, whom you haven't seen in a long, long time

There's a point in the third section where the ballerina -- who has the fine features I associate with Saland -- is on pointe in fifth and slowly raises her right foot to coup de pied before extending outward leg into developpe a la seconde. I never would have noticed this if you had not called our attention to it. The foot caresses her ankle as it slides -- senusually! truly! -- along on the way to developpe. You and vipa must have extraordinary eyes to have caught this and paid so much attention to it. But, once you see it, it is indeed wonderful.

Note this dancer's feet at the end, too, when the five women are in a line facing the 3 men, one foot extended beautifully, before she pivots and leaves the stage. The way she presents the foot is subtly different from the others on the stage.

By the way, can anyone help with the identification of the women in this piece. I'm guessing (1) Calegari, (2) Pillarre, (3) Saland, (4) Spohn, and (5) Ashley (no guess on that one). But I'm usually wrong in these things. So I would be grateful for correction or confirmation from those who knew these dancers best.

That's it! I should have described it as sur la coup de pied from soussus, not fifth


She was the most finished dancer I remember in the Company when she danced.


Unfortunately my DVD is in storage. Perhaps someone with it on hand can confirm, but I think you are right:

Calegari: Kent role. She's a redhead, and I believe the only light-haired dancer among the women.
Pilarre: Hayden role. She was also in the "Emeralds" pas de trois (with Heather Watts and Daniel Duell) in the "Dance in America" series.
Saland: Adams role.
Spohn: Leclerq role. She also dances the First Theme in "4 T's" on the same DVD.
Ashley: Wilde role.

It's also one of the few videos of the late Victor Castelli, one of my favorite NYCB men, who is one of the two male demis.

Thanks, Helene. Calegari hair does show some auburn when the lights hit, but most of the time -- on my video, at least -- it seems as dark as the others'. I like Castellli very much in this. There's a third male in the piece: Tracy Bennett.

Sorry for taking this thread off-track. Any other examples of -- or stories about, or tributes too -- memorably "good feet"?

Is the aforementioned Dance in America video still available? I want to see this famous sur le cou de pied.

It's here:

http://www.amazon.com/Choreography-Balanch...1469&sr=1-4

It's one of 2 compilations from studio tapings for Dance in Ameica (1977). It's just the Andante, squeezed in between Tzigane (Farrell-Martins) and The Four T's.

Hans, you write:As an outsider, I'm not sure I understand this.

Are you talking about actually trying to increase the length -- or creating the illusion of doing so? (Carbro on another thread today spoke of the quality of "extending beyond the ends of his extremities and off into space.")

Regarding the "modern quest for extremely curved lines." Can you give some examples of this? Cristian's last post includes a grotesque photo of a woman from (I believe) the Kirov, hyperextended leg way up in a la seconde, foot clenched into a half circle, her calves creating huge piano-leg curves. Is this the sort of thing you mean?

That would be Zakharova, who bravely held the "Most Controversial Ballerina" title until Somova destituted her...
Here she is again...
http://www.ballet4ever.blogger.com.br/Svet...on%20Studio.jpg
and again...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t..._-Zakharova.jpg
and again...
http://www.buccafusca.com/lastgall/Svetlana%20Zakharova.jpg
and finally, her famous feet in full glory for us to dissect...
http://neverboring.files.wordpress.com/200.../svetlana_1.jpg

Well, at least she can be cleared off from being an enhancer-user suspect, I guess...

It is a bit difficult to explain, but when, for example, the leg is extended at any height (even pointe tendue, or in fact even when simply standing), the dancer must feel a core of energy moving through the center of the leg and through the tips of the toes, as if one is reaching with one's toes for a point just beyond them. Of course, the foot must be fully pointed, with the toes curved (but not clenched) to finish the line, but the feeling is one of length rather than merely the foot curving around.

The ideal these days seems to be a very hyperextended leg (knees that bend a little bit backward) and a very pronounced arch and instep, much like the photos posted of Svetlana Zakharova, and I fear that in attempting to achieve these extreme lines and exaggerate them, students do not focus enough on the feeling of lengthening the leg and reaching out through the ankle and foot.

The other issue with that photo of Zakharova is that the ideal of line is completely lost -- she's displaced her torso, taking it off the vertical axis in order to achieve the line of her leg.

I don't mean to harp on about Rojo at all -- but I can recall pictures of her quickly. Here, you still get a nice curved line (albeit less pronounced), but also a lovely placement:
http://www.danceeurope.net/site/issues/050.jpg