Deconstructing the Pas de Deux

Most choreographers aren’t big on talking about their work, preferring to let the movement speak for itself. Still, getting inside a choreographer’s head is fascinating, whether it’s through his or her own words or through someone with intimate knowledge of that person. And that’s what made “The Balanchine Couple” especially riveting. I saw this program by Suzanne Farrell Ballet at UC–Berkeley’s Zellerbach Hall last October, presented by Cal Performances. If you’re wondering why an all-duet program, Farrell would have answered your question when she called the pas de deux “the reason for a ballet.”

This program of nine pas de deux (from Apollo, La Sonnambula, Ivesiana, La Valse, Agon, Meditation, Don Quixote, Chaconne, and Stars and Stripes) represented a journey of sorts through 48 years of George Balanchine’s career from 1928 to 1976. Farrell introduced each dance with personal insights into the workings of this master’s creative genius. She is uniquely suited to the task, having been his muse for roughly 16 years at New York City Ballet (and one of the great loves of his life).

Farrell began by describing the three visual components in Balanchine’s works: structure, musicality, and symbolism. Pointing out his fondness for moving his couples on diagonal lines, she explained that he did so because the longer trajectory across the stage gave them more time to be together. Conversely, she explained how maintaining distance between two dancers (La Sonnambula offers a sustained example of this) creates tension and heightens the sense of drama.

Seen together, these nine dance pairings showed an astounding range of style and tone. But the lineup yielded similarities too—in five of them the women wore white, an indicator of Balanchine’s reverence for the female. (He regarded them as the dominant force in his ballets.)

It’s hard to watch any of Balanchine’s dances without becoming caught up in their beauty and artistry. But the choreographer regarded himself as more craftsman than artist, and a study of the structure, musicality, and symbolism of his ballets offers much that’s valuable to anyone, dancemaker or dance lover. With Farrell as guide, we learned just how much there is to discover. —Cheryl Ossola, Editor in Chief

Help—and Recognition?—for the Arts

Don’t break out the party hats just yet, but lawmakers in Washington show signs of grasping the financial predicament of the performing arts. The National Endowment for the Arts got $167.5 million for fiscal 2010 in legislation that President Obama signed on October 30. Not only was that the highest amount in 16 years; it was also $6.5 million more than Obama had requested. In addition, the NEA received $50 million under the federal economic stimulus package enacted earlier last year.

But before we get giddy, a few points to remember: First, that 2010 appropriation still falls short of the NEA’s high-water $176 million budget for 1992. Not much has gotten cheaper—even for arts organizations used to scraping by—in the intervening 18 years.

Second, sizable—and sometimes commanding—portions of the House and Senate still don’t seem to get it. During debate over the stimulus package last year, the Senate voted, 73 to 24, for an amendment by Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma that would have prevented museums, theaters, and art centers from receiving any stimulus money by grouping them with other projects deemed “wasteful and non-stimulative,” such as casinos.

That prohibition was deleted from the final bill. Representative David Obey of Wisconsin made the case for NEA funding: “There are five million people who work in the arts industry. And right now they have 12.5 percent unemployment—or are you suggesting that somehow if you work in that field, it isn’t real when you lose your job, your mortgage, or your health insurance? We’re trying to treat people who work in the arts the same way as anybody else.”

Finally, we should bear in mind that the NEA got its expanded budget only after an aggressive campaign by advocates for the performing arts to point out the recession’s grim impact on box-office revenues and charitable giving. “This important budget increase recognizes the essential role the arts play in our lives, schools, and communities,” said Robert Lynch, president of one such advocacy group, Americans for the Arts. —David Favrot, Associate Editor