Just a question about the Kirov and Bayadere

[Solor]

Why was the Kirov performing the 1940s production of Bayadere instead of the 1900 recosntruction on thier recent tour?

Doesnt this version of the ballet use the same set as the 1900 version?

[Hans]

This article, which dirac posted in Links, makes a reference to the sets being the same, or at least similar. I don't know about their decision to perform the 1940's version, though.

[art076]

It could be the same reason that they toured the US with the 1940 Bayadere: the recent reconstruction is an enormous production, physically and personnel wise, making it very uneconomical to tour widely. The producers of the US tour said as much to the press about their reasoning for using the old production, but while using the new sets & costumes.

The reconstruction has a bunch of supernumeraries, including children, and goes on for nearly four hours. It isn't the wisest to bring this production on the road except for very special engagements - which meant one time in London (mixed reviews) and once in New York at the Met.

[drb]

.... in New York at the Met.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And it was deadly dull. Imagine working all day and then have to sit three hours before seeing any substantial "ballet!" Sure, it would make a very worthy "scholar's matinee," no kids allowed, of course.

[Alexandra]

Well, that depends on how one defines "ballet." We had a discussion about this when the new/old "Bayadere" was in New York. The ballets of that time were classical, demicaractere and character dancing, with substantial sections of pantomime, much of which has been pruned away. As art said, it's not an ideal production for touring, not just because of the production aspects, but because audiences here aren't used to it.

[chiapuris]

And it was deadly dull. Imagine working all day and then have to sit three hours before seeing any substantial "ballet!" .

I guess it comes down to individual perceptions.

I saw two performances of the new/old Bayadere at the Mariinsky in 2003 and found it

anything but dull. It was long, close to 4 hours, but I relished every minute in the theater.

It was different in terms of lighting, (there seemed to be no sidelights), it was paced leisurely with passages of mime or processional pageantry that made the dances all the more pleasurable

when they did appear, partly because of the anticipation and partly because of the 'framing' the dances received.

Nikia's solo choreography for the royal guests made much more sense when done with the long-necked lute as a prop during deep bends- chcoreography that makes little sense without the lute.

Very different from contemporary choreography, but dull? I don't think so.

[Marc Haegeman]

Funnily enough, the Kirov showed the Soviet-era Bayadere in London recently, but used to sets from the new/old production. So we were back in that rocky sci-fi landscape for the Shades Act, although the lighting used was much colder than it was in the new/old version. A curious mix which didn't really work. The costumes were the ones always used in the Soviet version.