Galina Ulanova in “Romeo and Juliet”
Take a look. No one could run like Ulanova, and no one even comes close now. Same for her bourrées, which are those quick and tiny steps all on pointe that make it seem as though the dancer is skimming the ground (they occur many times in this brief clip, such as at 0:56 and 1:35):
Ulanova evinces the utter concentration that reminds me a bit of New York City Ballet’s Suzanne Farrell, who danced as though she was absorbed in an inner world and as though no one else was looking. Their body types and faces are very different, but they share that extremely rare quality.
Ulanova is one of the greatest ballet actresses ever – as was Plisetskaya, about whom I’ve written many times. But Plisetkaya was fiery and sexy, flamboyant and supercharged, and Ulanova was light and magical. They were both among the greatest, perhaps even the greatest, female ballet dancers the world has ever known. And if they convey so much on old videos, just imagine what seeing them in person and three dimensions was like.
There’s usually someone in the YouTube comments who criticizes their technique – by which the commenter means that they don’t get their legs so high, don’t have excessively and perfectly arched feet, and that sort of thing. I could not care less and in fact I see the lines made by their less extreme and less elastic bodies as far far more beautiful than those of the modern-day ballet contortionists.
Because of the acting skills and musicality of both Plisetskaya and Ulanova, we care about their dancing in a deeper sense than we get from watching gymnastics. Ulanova in particular had an unusual body that was nothing like that of most ballet dancers and not as conventionally beautiful, but she willed it to do her bidding. Her face was not especially beautiful either; in fact, she was rather plain. It didn’t matter, and perhaps she even used that to her advantage, because nothing distracted from her dancing, as great beauty sometimes does. Her face was protean, everywoman, which meant that she blended into her roles and became her roles. Her art was more naturalistic in a way that concealed the artifice and revealed the essential human within.
And by the way, Ulanova is about forty years old in that video. At 43, she was featured in this movie of the complete ballet. Watch the scene where the fourteen-year-old Juliet is romping like a child with her nurse, then becomes more solemn when her mother enters, and has a dawning realization that she is becoming a woman and leaving childhood behind. Because it’s a movie, there are closeups, and of course her face isn’t that of a girl thirty years younger. But her movements convey youth perfectly, and on a stage the illusion was astounding:
Impossible, trick photography.
Artistry of so high a degree it’s difficult to fathom.
Perfection, and then they go backstage and think, “I could have done better”
It’s interesting that Ulanova was given the official title of Hero of Socialist Labour (twice) as well as prima ballerina assoluta.
Hi neo,
Your comment, “…don’t have excessively and perfectly arched feet, and that sort of thing. I could not care less and in fact I see the lines made by their less extreme and less elastic bodies as far far more beautiful than those of the modern-day ballet contortionists…” reminded me of a TV documentary about the 1960s-era singer, Janis Joplin.
In the documentary, [an expert on professional singing I think], said:
“Janis Joplin was not beautiful. But when she sang, she BECAME beautiful.”
I have owned the suite of music for the ballet for almost 30 years now, but I don’t think I have once seen a video of the ballet itself.
“Janis Joplin was not beautiful. But when she sang, she BECAME beautiful.”
TR:
Leonard Cohen wrote a (notorious) song about his one-night stand with Janis Joplin. He said, she said:
_______________________________
And clenching your fist for the ones like us
Who are oppressed by the figures of beauty
You fixed yourself, you said “Well never mind
We are ugly but we have the music”
–Leonard Cohen, “Chelsea Hotel No. 2”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhaPHtVUaX4
neo:
Another lovely, educational experience!
How did the Soviets come to dominate dance for some decades? Or did they?
Neo: I am still a moron about dance but I have learned so much from your posts. Your knowledge and love of this essential human art are generous, limpid and infectious. Thanks.
Hi huxley,
Thanks for the info on the Janis Joplin song. 🙂
Neo
Did Ulanova have a particular physical ability not given to other prima dancers for the moves you mention? Or was it determination, practice and talent?
Richard Aubrey:
If anything, Ulanova probably had fewer physical pluses than many other dancers. It was her musicality, her acting ability, and her spirit that enabled her to do what she did.
For me, Ulanova’s hands are the center of her dance poetry. I have trouble moving my eyes beyond them. They are long and delicate and achingly expressive.
That said, I never had the privilege to see her in live performance.
Neo remarks often on the difference in technique of past and present dancers, and I wonder if this might have something to do with it.
Nine minutes of demonstration, with entertaining and informative commentary: barre exercises in 1820, 1880, and “today” (2016).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EjfGgvsldM
Ballet Evolved: How ballet class has changed over the centuries
Neo remarks often on the difference in technique of past and present dancers…
–AesopFan
Fran Lebowitz, an arty, social commentary NYC writer, sometimes funny, once observed that AIDS had not only wiped out much of the top tier of American male dancers, but also its large, knowledgeable gay audience.
Which meant, by Lebowitz’s reasoning, that the still living dance audience couldn’t hold the current dancers to a high standard, because that standard for dancers and audience had been lost to the AIDS pandemic.
I don’t know that’s true. But it strikes me as plausible and it has long seemed to me that a great audience is an important ingredient for great art.
@ huxley > AIDS “wiped out much of the top tier of American male dancers”
However, that doesn’t explain the change in the female dancers, unless the choreographers and teachers were also disproportionately AIDS fatalities. And just how large would the “knowledgeable gay audience” have to be in order to have that pronounced an effect?
But, accepting the premise, I wonder if there was a similar effect on films, given the number of top tier male movie actors who were also affected. The audience would not have been as depopulated, but there may still have been some ramifications in technical areas other than the box-office stars.
“a great audience is an important ingredient for great art”
Which may explain most of the decline in the movie offerings lately.
@ huxley – saved this for you from Powerline’s TWIP:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2023/03/IMG_0334.jpeg
hixley:
Liebowitz is incorrect. I think I’ll write a post on the subject rather than deal with it here.
neo:
FWIW, I believe I heard that in the HBO Lebowitz/Scorcese documentary “Public Speaking” (2010).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Speaking_(film)
I can’t find the quote after light googling.