You Can Either Be a Fairy, Or a Queen
Watched a live screening this morning of Bolshoi Ballet's "Sleeping Beauty" in Moscow. Here are some thoughts that it inspired or elaborated.
*
Old-timey (certainly before World War 1) sartorial fashion (at least for women) was conceptually weird. These days attention is paid to whether styles suit one's phenotypic variables. Looking at historical fashion photography started me thinking that that was not a concern back in the day, one simply wore the prevailing styles regardless of how flattering it was. And, frankly, that made some women ugly—or, to be precise, no prevailing style was flattering to all the women who sported it.
That's from the photos. Other styles of high goofiness long predated photos, such as 18th century pannier hips and powdered wigs. Some of the ballerinas this morning wore powdered wigs, and they didn't wear equally well. Skin tone, for example, makes a difference. So my hypothesis about style overriding appearance in the fashionable past is anecdotally strengthened.
Of course standards of beauty were likely different. But, honestly, I suspect it was more about marking status via conformity than æsthetics.
*
Ballet began to interest me when I considered it as ethnic classical dance (the ethnos being, in this case, European).
In the program for this morning, some of the human characters were named and the king was even given a number. That struck me as silly because unnecessary and even irrelevant: even in the fairy tale Sleeping Beauty's parent's didn't have names, let alone their retainers. Sleeping Beauty herself has a name with a so-so pedigree (Aurora), and Prince Charming sort of gets a name (to wit, "Charming"). The fairies all had names but they weren't personal.
So that drew my attention to the fact that this ballet's story, and those of ballets in general, is pretty much just a framework on which to the hang movement and its quality that are what one looks for in ballet anyway. Only one character today had an individual presence marked by manner of performance more than just costume—the evil fairy, and she didn't really dance, just sort of stalked around. Every other character was just a generic role within a generic story, an excuse to showcase various choreographies. (This also explains why ballets are 'inspired by' their sources rather than interpretations thereof. I saw a ballet of "Dracula" some years ago. It did have a vampire, but otherwise....)
I suspect this is somehow related to the showcasing of many more women dancers than men, and to the two leads only appearing in 2 of the 4 acts (with the male lead not in the first half at all), but I haven't given it much thought.
Anyway, the point is, ballet story and characterization is pretense and dance form is nearly all that matters. It's not irrelevant, either, that a given ballet's choreographies are, as I understand it, more or less fixed (with reason, but still). Thus, classical dance.
*
I had, essentially, virtually, a front-row seat thanks to magnification and big-screen projection. So I could tell the ballerinas were working really hard to maintain poise and poses: their trembling muscles as they fought to keep balance and heaving ribcages at the ends of solos. During intermission they showed the corps doing some last-minute rehearsing behind the curtain, and it was incongruous to see many of the ballerinas wearing sweat pants below their tutus. It is assuredly not the little-girly, underpantsy, pink-doily tea-party activity of conventional wisdom.
UPDATE 21 Nov.: today's 9 Chickweed Lane
*
Also during intermission two male dancers were interviewed: a Russian and an American. The Russian gave substantive answers, to the camera (and us). The American gave platitudinous answers, to the interviewer. They were asked different questions, which may have been a factor.
*
Old-timey (certainly before World War 1) sartorial fashion (at least for women) was conceptually weird. These days attention is paid to whether styles suit one's phenotypic variables. Looking at historical fashion photography started me thinking that that was not a concern back in the day, one simply wore the prevailing styles regardless of how flattering it was. And, frankly, that made some women ugly—or, to be precise, no prevailing style was flattering to all the women who sported it.
That's from the photos. Other styles of high goofiness long predated photos, such as 18th century pannier hips and powdered wigs. Some of the ballerinas this morning wore powdered wigs, and they didn't wear equally well. Skin tone, for example, makes a difference. So my hypothesis about style overriding appearance in the fashionable past is anecdotally strengthened.
Of course standards of beauty were likely different. But, honestly, I suspect it was more about marking status via conformity than æsthetics.
*
Ballet began to interest me when I considered it as ethnic classical dance (the ethnos being, in this case, European).
In the program for this morning, some of the human characters were named and the king was even given a number. That struck me as silly because unnecessary and even irrelevant: even in the fairy tale Sleeping Beauty's parent's didn't have names, let alone their retainers. Sleeping Beauty herself has a name with a so-so pedigree (Aurora), and Prince Charming sort of gets a name (to wit, "Charming"). The fairies all had names but they weren't personal.
So that drew my attention to the fact that this ballet's story, and those of ballets in general, is pretty much just a framework on which to the hang movement and its quality that are what one looks for in ballet anyway. Only one character today had an individual presence marked by manner of performance more than just costume—the evil fairy, and she didn't really dance, just sort of stalked around. Every other character was just a generic role within a generic story, an excuse to showcase various choreographies. (This also explains why ballets are 'inspired by' their sources rather than interpretations thereof. I saw a ballet of "Dracula" some years ago. It did have a vampire, but otherwise....)
I suspect this is somehow related to the showcasing of many more women dancers than men, and to the two leads only appearing in 2 of the 4 acts (with the male lead not in the first half at all), but I haven't given it much thought.
Anyway, the point is, ballet story and characterization is pretense and dance form is nearly all that matters. It's not irrelevant, either, that a given ballet's choreographies are, as I understand it, more or less fixed (with reason, but still). Thus, classical dance.
*
I had, essentially, virtually, a front-row seat thanks to magnification and big-screen projection. So I could tell the ballerinas were working really hard to maintain poise and poses: their trembling muscles as they fought to keep balance and heaving ribcages at the ends of solos. During intermission they showed the corps doing some last-minute rehearsing behind the curtain, and it was incongruous to see many of the ballerinas wearing sweat pants below their tutus. It is assuredly not the little-girly, underpantsy, pink-doily tea-party activity of conventional wisdom.
UPDATE 21 Nov.: today's 9 Chickweed Lane
*
Also during intermission two male dancers were interviewed: a Russian and an American. The Russian gave substantive answers, to the camera (and us). The American gave platitudinous answers, to the interviewer. They were asked different questions, which may have been a factor.
posted by Dr. Bubbles at 22:48
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home