I think the chemistry was a bit better with Obraztsova (but with Tereshkina Shklyrov was not tired and did extra tricks)
Shame that the program didn't report that the Humpback horse was the same GREAT Tkachenko... bravo... and off to Lopatkina
Not all of the programs had substitution slips. I did get one each for Monday night (Yuri Smekalov for Konstantin Zverev as Vronsky) and for the Wednesday matinee (Tkachenko for Grigory Popov as the Humpbacked Horse, Maxim Zyuzin for Zverev as Gavrilo, and Andri Soloviev for Andrei Yermakov as one of the Sea Horses), but not for Tuesday night. I didn't realize that Zyuzin replaced Zverev as Gavrilo on Tuesday night as well, until a conversation at intermission, and then I hunted down a slip.
Its not all about state funding. This discussion may turn into an off-topic, children/arts/sports/ballet upbringing and training in Russia vs US. Having grown up in Russia and going through rythmic gymnastics (sorry not ballet) childhood, and seeing how training happens here, the US kids would not allow for "Russian" style of coaching and drilling (with not hours but long days of drilling, stretching, working, and hearing what may be considered not politically correct by the US standards (with all the US positive reinforcement and affirmative action, where noone left behind)..... Don't misinterprete me, don't take it as Russian coaching being harsh or bad, it's just russian kids take adults teaching much differently than the typical kids in America (with all these US freedoms ;-))
But we do have music conservatories and fine art institutes, which are not state subsidized. I suppose that we just don't value classical ballet the way the Russians and the French do. We are, sadly, a very small niche.
well, for starters, we don't subsidize a state ballet, all tuition for Russian nationals to attend ballet school full time, as borders, is subsidized by the state.
I would disagree with this. From all reports Marta Karolyi runs a very tight ship, and gymnastics training with her is as stringent as training at the Vaganova Academy or Paris Opera Ballet School. (Of course, her program is based on the one she and her husband used in Romania.) There is an endless line of parents and kids in the US willing to move to where she is and to put themselves and their children in her hands even though it's her way or the highway, the opposite of politically correct. In a result-oriented society, even when the Cold War mentality had not yet ebbed, Karoly after Nadia Comaneci meant results. The same is the case for figure skating.
I think there has been a cultural difference, and that is that ballet was not considered a reputable profession in the US until well into the 20th century. That is why the Ford Foundation grant for ballet schools in the 1960's, over which Balanchine was given great control, was considered so important: it legitimized ballet, at least for girls, as more than an after-school hobby to help posture. (Sadly, for boys, it is still not generally considered a "real" profession.) Merrill Ashley notes in her memoir how important it was for her parents, who had sacrificed a lot to let her go to School of American Ballet before the grant, to be reassured that ballet had legitimacy. At no time was ballet in the US imperial, state-supported, or centrally subsidized. It did not provide an opportunity for a prestigious position and a living for the children in training/way to feed and support a child, to get a comparably decent living situation, or to be able to help support the family, through money or connections, if the child became employed by the Tsar or the state. There were incentives and rewards in Imperial and Soviet times that did not apply to US, and Balanchine famously was not supposed to go to the Imperial Ballet school at all: his mother sent him to try out for the school with his sister only after the maritime academy wasn't a possibility. His parents didn't care what he did, as long as he had the opportunity for an Imperial living.
Even after Balanchine had a school that almost exclusively fed his company, he said to his dancers right out of his own school, trained by teachers he chose, "Now I will teach you to dance." And as Melissa Hayden said, "You become a Balanchine dancer by dancing Balanchine ballets." That is a different approach than in Russia and France, which produce different kinds of dancers and companies.
I didn't like Ratmansky choreography and Shedrin score, I'd prefer Eiffman's version.
I haven't seen the Eifman version, but from the Eifman I've seen, his choreography would fit the Shchedrin score very well. Ratmansky's, not so much for too much of the ballet.
Thank you -- now I understand those two scenes. I'm not sure the first is good theater, but at least I have an idea what the scenario was getting at.
As for the second part--I believe she was intercepted by a bunch of servants in the house, and they appeared to be torn between their affection for their former mistress and desire to see her reunited with her son, and their orders to keep her away. They seemed to try to keep her away at first before relenting. At least that's how I interpreted it!
I should clarify: at first I did "get" the general idea that the servants were torn, but what I didn't understand what they were "saying" specifically as the scene went on. That's a problem I have with the execution many mime scenes: there an overall feeling, but too few specifics for the music and duration.