miliosr

Senior Member
  • Content count

    2,173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About miliosr

  • Rank
    Sapphire Circle
  • Birthday 06/16/1967

Registration Profile Information

  • Connection to/interest in ballet** (Please describe. Examples: fan, teacher, dancer, writer, avid balletgoer)
    fan/balletgoer
  • City**
    Madison
  • State (US only)**, Country (Outside US only)**
    Wisconsin
  1. I chuckled when I heard that, too. Emeralds is my favorite part of Jewels and, by and large, I thought the Royal did it justice. Beatrix Stix-Brunell and Laura Morera were lovely in their roles although the "afterimage" (as Arlene Croce described it) I was left with was that of the superb trio: Emma Maguire, Helen Crawford and James Hay. The two cavaliers, Valeri Hristov and Ryoichi Hirano, were nondescript but, in Balanchine, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Rubies was a split decision for me. Steven McRae lit up the stage in his part but, alas, Sarah Lamb was a theatrical blank in hers. On a happier note, I did make -- for the first time -- certain connections between Rubies and other forms of theatrical dance. I still don't think of it as a "jazz" dance but parts of it reminded me of a Busby Berkeley musical from the 30s. Balanchine almost certainly would have seen those musicals and stored away the best parts from them for future use. I was also intrigued by Balanchine's use of everyday movement. People forget that, in 1967, postmodernist dance (that is, presenting everyday movement as dance) was the rising tide in New York. Balanchine's use of this was almost like him saying to Yvonne Rainier and the other postmodernists: "Anything you can do, I can do better." He also prefigured postmodernist dance in the 70s when the postmodernists started presenting stylized versions of everyday movement instead of the raw, real thing. My reaction to Diamonds is a lot like my reaction to the Martha Graham repertory without Graham in it: No matter how well the lead ballerina dances it, there's a negative space there without Suzanne Farrell. That being said, Marianela Nunez was beautiful in it. Her cavalier, Thiago Soares, labored hard and there was a moment where he made a face where he knew he was laboring hard. Hideous set designs and I prefer the Christian Lacroix costumes for the Paris Opera Ballet's production to the Karinska costumes. The camera work was mostly good although there were certain moments in Rubies when I wished the director had gone to close-up of Steven Mcrae when he was sprinting around the stage with the other four guys. He was clearly doing some fun head tilts with them that would have registered better in close-up. All in all, a pleasant way to spend a few hours in a movie theater. I don't know that Jewels is Balanchine's masterpiece. But it is a way for a ballet company to project how "mega" it is in the world ballet marketplace and the Royal certainly achieved that.
  2. Ballet Review has an interview w/ Mathias Heymann: http://www.balletreview.com/images/Ballet_Review_45-1_Heymann.pdf Heymann talks some about Millepied's tenure as director. But the most interesting part of the interview (for me) is when Joel Lobenthal mentions Mimi Paul's admiration for Francois Alu and his "weightier" physique. Has the typical male City Ballet dancer's physique changed that much since Mimi Paul's time?
  3. I would love to see Birmingham Royal Ballet in The Moor's Pavane especially since they can cast from strength and field three different casts. Maybe for the 70th anniversary of The Moor's Pavane in 2019 the Limon company can invite them as guests for any New York season! (Fingers crossed, anyway.)
  4. How long is Marguerite and Armand? (I know it's a one act.) The Tudor Trust lists The Leaves Are Fading at 32 minutes.
  5. It can happen and it can happen quite suddenly. Something similar happened at the beginning of this decade at ABT. They had had that fabulous roster of male principals since the late-90s and then, suddenly, they all transitioned out one right after another, What hurts SFB right now is that they've lost youngish male dancers to other companies. Vito Mazzeo is one example. Moises Martin Cintas (Ruben's brother) is another. Guys like that could have been expected to pick up the slack caused by so many of the longtime dancers leaving.
  6. 2017-18 season has been announced: https://www.sarasotaballet.org/events/2017-2018-season
  7. diegocruzcoosss
  8. You might want to take a look at Diego Cruz's Instagram feed . . .
  9. Limon's Spring season at the Joyce begins tonight (4th item on list): https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/arts/dance/dance-in-nyc-this-week.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fdance&action=click&contentCollection=dance&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0 Intrigued by two different versions of The Exiles -- one with the original Schoenberg score and the other with a new score.
  10. I thought the series peaked at the Oscar episode, faded a bit during the Hush, Hush . . . Sweet Charlotte period and then picked up again at the end. "Sometimes a great actress" is definitely untrue. Even if you confine yourself to her MGM years, she developed into a fine actress by the time she made her late 30s/early 40s movies. And this was from someone who had been a Charleston dancer with no formal acting training when she landed at MGM in early 1925 as a bit player. "She was a great star, arguably the greatest" -- Yes. How many other stars of her era would have an upscale publishing house like Rizzoli put out a lavish book like Joan Crawford - Enduring Star in the 21st century as Rizzoli did?
  11. I watched it although I've been posting elsewhere because it didn't seem like there was much interest on this board. Overall, I liked it. The series did a marvelous job of capturing a time and a place in terms of its costume/scenic design (i.e. Hedda Hopper's dresses, the interiors of Crawford's home). The storyline was reasonably accurate although I would caution people that the series took many liberties with characters and events. (For instance, Crawford had already sold her Brentwood mansion by the time Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? came to be made.) As for the performances, I thought that Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon were smart to evoke the idea of Joan Crawford and Bette Davis rather than trying to slavishly imitate them. Anything of that sort would have drifted perilously into camp and drag performance. (I do wish Lange's face was a little more expressive these days as Crawford's face was crazily expressive right up to the end.) The supporting cast was outstanding, including Judy Davis as Hedda Hopper, Jackie Hoffman as Mamacita, Alfred Molina as Robert Aldrich, Stanley Tucci as Jack Warner and Dominic Burgess as Victor Buono. I thought the general theme of the series -- that Hollywood was a tough place for women (and especially aging women) -- was slightly overbaked. I don't doubt that it was true to some extent and that aging male stars found it easier to find work in genres like war films and westerns while aging female stars struggled to find work. But I also believe that Crawford and Davis gave as good as they got, which is partly why Crawford's career in feature films lasted 45 years and Davis' career in films lasted 58 (!) years. Crawford is much more fascinating to me than Davis so I was curious how the series would depict her. As I wrote on another discussion board, I felt that the series overcompensated for the depiction of Crawford found in Mommie Dearest (the book and, especially, the movie) by depicting her as this sad sack with no friends. That wasn't true. She remained great friends up until her death with such contemporaries as Myrna Loy, Roz Russell (who predeceased her) and Barbara Stanwyck. I also don't think, if you had asked her at the end whether she had lived a worthwhile life, that she would have said 'no'. I think she would have said that she got some things wrong (including her first three marriages and her relationships with her two eldest children [obviously!]) but that, on balance, she had done alright for a girl with no education who spent part of her youth living in the back of a laundry.
  12. Both things can be true. Farrell remained steadfast in her personal loyalty to Bejart (who hired her when no one else would) and was able to find and isolate those parts of Bejart's repertory that would sit comfortably beside her larger concern, which was and is Balanchine's repertory. I don't think Farrell would have programmed bad work by Bejart just for the sake of pleasing him. I think she presented what she liked and what she thought American audiences might like. Regarding Bolero, I saw it in Chicago in 2012 with Nicolas Le Riche and Aurelie Dupont atop the table. (I missed Marie-Agnes Gillot performing it which, knowing what I know now, I could kick myself for.) All I can say is that the audience response to both performances was tremendous -- to the positive. And the POB dancers appeared to be enjoying performing it. Beyond that, I'm reminded of something Arlene Croce said back in the 90s: "Personal taste always operates. But you can't argue about this with people. Either they like it, or they don't."
  13. As I wrote in my review of Releve elsewhere on this site, it's worthwhile for giving such an in-depth look at 'Generation Millepied', which should more appropriately be named 'Generation Platel/Lefevre/Millepied'. But it only portrays a sliver of what was going on in the great house during the Millepied era (and perhaps not even the most interesting part.) Another factor that comes into play is whether or not works that were designed for much smaller spaces -- like those by Cunningham -- "read well" when transferred to opera houses and opera house stages. I would argue that much of Antony Tudor's repertory falls into this category. The Moor's Pavane falls into this category. And certainly the Graham repertory ran into problems when the company started playing the State Theater in New York during the late 70s. Suzanne Farrell would probably disagree with you as she has two Bejart works in her company's repertory. Personally, I like Bejart's Bolero. It's not art by any means. But it is fun ballet entertainment, which I find a whole lot more tolerable than the badly costumed, dimly lit, contortionist "art" that roams ballet stages these days.
  14. One day, I hope someone writes a book about the Millepied era at the POB because I would love to know what was said by management to him during the hiring process and afterword regarding repertory. Was management so out-of-touch that they thought Millepied could import a completely different repertory and no one would notice?
  15. Yes but what I'm getting at is whether female ballet choreographers receive less leeway than their male counterparts after a flop or even mediocre work. Let me put it another way: Name me one Benjamin Millepied ballet that has found a secure place in the international repertory. And yet he keeps receiving commissions.