Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

nmdancer

Member
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Registration Profile Information

  • Connection to/interest in ballet** (Please describe. Examples: fan, teacher, dancer, writer, avid balletgoer)
    dancer
  • City**
    NY/CA
  • State (US only)**, Country (Outside US only)**
    NY/CA
  1. Very emphatically -- YES. There is definitely a level of too thin, most certainly at a physiological level if not an aesthetic one. And it varies individually by dancer -- some dancers might be "too thin" for their own body type and injuring themselves and compromising their health while still appearing to be of "average" size (for a dancer); others can be quite thin and bony and not be unhealthy. As one who knows, it is incredibly hard to sustain the level of activity and energy needed to dance well while attempting to reduce one's weight below a point that the body can healthily manage; I suspect that this is a problem for many dancers today despite the increased attention to nutrition etc. The thin ballet aesthetic is still firmly in place. We, too, had weekly weigh-ins when I was growing up (imagine placing 11 year olds on a scale and telling them to lose five pounds!). I, too, was rewarded with better roles when I was a thinner adult. It just happens. I find it very distracting now to watch dancers who appear to be excessively thin for their frames. Wendy Whelan doesn't bother me, although she is quite thin (obviously), but there are others who are clearly not as healthy as they could be, in all companies.
  2. 6/8/07: Dvorovenko, Beloserkovsky, Kirkland, Wiles etc. I made what ended up being a 5 hour (!!) drive to the city -- normally 3 -- to see friday evening's performance with a friend of mine. I really wanted to see Gelsey Kirkland -- really really really -- and she was fantastic!! Her miming sequence in the prologue was the best I've ever seen, and her committment to each of the movements she was performing made for a really strong characterization, as expected. Since everyone has commented a lot about the "production" itself -- and what a production it is... -- I'll comment a bit on the dancing. Michele Wiles was better than I expected, still not one of my favorites, but definitely watchable. The rest of the fairies bothered me immensely during their variations, but not when dancing as an ensemble. The reason for this is that it seemed as though they were coached to remove any trace of gracefulness from their movement at all; this is fine as a way to create dynamics within a variation by singling out a few steps to be accented, but for the whole thing to be a spastic, jerky exercise completely lacking any artistry or softness is a different issue. I thought Riccetto must have been either injured or not completely warmed up (she was the first out and seemed kind of stiff) but then Schulte followed with a truly bizarre-looking turning sequence and similarly stiff movement, Reyes looked like she was going to give herself whiplash during her hops on pointe because there was no softening of her knee at all, Fang almost overdid the whole bird-fluttering thing and everyone seemed to love it but I thought it looked goofy, and Copeland looked like she was mad at the audience and everyone on stage (maybe she was...) and stomped through her variation. The movement quality was SO distracting. But, when these solo fairies gathered with everyone to dance, they were graceful, lush, beautiful dancers like we've come to expect and enjoy...so I don't know what was going on. I've performed these variations before and have never been given direction as they must have had, nor have i seen them performed similarly anywhere else. Any ideas on what was happening?? Dvorovenko had the same expression on her face throughout the entire ballet, which is a loooong time to be smiling so brightly. But she's beautiful anyway, even though she's not one of my favorites. She almost fell backward out of her first rose balance but then seemed to pull it together even though she never really balanced...but that's ok. It's so evil to make this sequence the first big thing aurora does on stage (PS -- those prince costumes -- haha!!) I felt there was very little character development from Dvorovenko throughout the ballet -- it was always the same movement quality, expression, energy...I enjoyed Max's performance a lot more, though he looked distinctly uncomfortable lying onstage during the vision scene...twice (and being immersed in stage fog is never fun...it can make one rather loopy.) Grand pas was good, the fish-dives went fine, but I think the opening develope/bend-backward-until-your-head-touches-the-back-of-your-knee for Aurora is probably the hardest part of that whole bit. Speaking of, I could do without the entire vision scene -- as someone else mentioned, the story makes no sense the way they staged it here. Hee Seo in the corps though -- what a beautiful dancer! By the time the third act rolled around, I was almost glad the divertissements were cut -- the production was seriously dragging. That was until I saw Kristi Boone as white cat -- HOLY COW! That girl is gorgeous. I hope they give her lots of solo stage time. Abrera was ok as bluebird, her upper body just seemed so stiff...and -- surprising -- I was really impressed by Saveliev as her partner! I've posted about him before -- maybe I just kept catching him on bad days -- but his coda brise voles (however on earth you spell that, I don't speak french so I'm going with the phonetic spelling!) were floating, fluid, and sparkling. Very impressed with him (finally!) Yay! So...nothing too insightful there, just some observations mostly about performance quality (are these consistent with what you notice about these dancers, or limited to their coaching in this ballet?) There were a lot of goofy elements in this production and even though it was "streamlined" I still felt it was dragging quite a bit...but the little girl sitting next to me LOVED it, and that's what's really important...these are the experiences that make us want to learn how to dance and inspire us to commit years of our lives to this art form so that we can perform and share our passion for dance and beauty with our audience.
  3. Looks like Rodney Gustafson in pic 3 (profile, facing left) behind the woman in pink. who's in bright orange with the giant slit? wow!
  4. Ah. There was a chance I might have been able to see tonight's performance -- I thought a compare/contrast review might be more insightful, but alas -- no such luck. I did, however, have GREAT LUCK on Tuesday!! My sister and I bought standing room tickets (no student discounts offered for Ferri/Carreno) and we happily watched the first act from the first standing row on the orchestra level (I brought my binoculars!)...but during the first intermission were offered front row seats from a sweet elderly couple who were leaving -- so we ended up in the very first row (center) for the second and third acts!! (a first for me -- who could resist being so close to two such amazing dancers...) So my first insight is that Alessandra's feet are REAL -- wow. Haha -- it's kind of silly, but she's just so beautiful that it's almost unbelievable until you really see her up close. The first row was great for seeing any kind of facial expression -- something I really miss sitting in the back, even more so during story ballets. Ferri and Carreno looked as though they were missing a bit of the chemistry of Ferri and Bocca -- perhaps an unfair standard, but once you've seen them do this ballet I guess it's fair game. One of the people near me was commenting that he believed in Alessandra's portrayal of a smitten young woman, but that Carreno just didn't quite convince him. That's a fair interpretation -- the strength of Carreno's performance really was in the quality of his dancing (amazing) and not in his characterization. His acting didn't quite make it, even with the close-up view that the first row affords (you can see everything except the tips of the feet toward the back of the stage.) Alessandra almost seemed over-acted in the first row, but she (unlike my experience with Diana Vishneva a few weeks ago) projects all the way to the back of the cavernous Met so that even those sitting half a mile away can feel her performance and not just see it. Overall they were a pleasing partnership, but not an overwhelming one. Their sheer physical beauty alone is worth watching, even if they're still working out a few kinks (I don't know how many times they've done this ballet together, if any.) The second act surprisingly was a lot of fun (for the first time) -- Radetsky and Salstein were incredible, Benvolio also (can't remember who he was) and all the townspeople on stage looked like they were having a great time (we could even hear a few of them whispering -- funny because we both do the same on stage!) Stella Abrera as LC was a bit overdone during Tybalt's death scene -- it was almost uncomfortable. The production looks great -- especially the sets. I'd seen this performance in DC a few years ago and it looked like they were doing R&J Lite there (no huge set pieces -- much of the ambience was missing.) The orchestra hit a few bad notes, but Prokofiev's music is so beautiful that if you don't like the dancing you can just close your eyes and listen and still feel satisfied. This really is a beautiful score; I think my earlier comment about the choreography in Manon being shortchanged by the choice of score still stands. I think this ballet is better put together, but that many of the sequences would seem similarly clunky without the musical accompaniment. A last note -- Alessandra didn't present her partner with a pull flower during their calls! There's a wonderful article in the playbill about all the flowers that are presented on stage and how they're crafted and delivered, with a special mention of the "pull flower" and how it's usually presented to the male lead by the ballerina...but then she didn't do that! Is this her normal custom? Did she forget? Was she upset with him? Nothing seemed to be technically amiss during their performance; there were a few things that may have been errors (I don't know the choreography well enough to know if something was supposed to be a releve or a pique to pointe), but nothing glaring. So overall -- a great performance. Beautiful, enchanting at times, always pleasing to watch. After Manon I thought I may have lost my faith in story ballets, but it has been restored. Phew.
  5. Yes!! I did!! Very excited to have been able to see it. I will post more in a bit, hopefully tomorrow.
  6. I've never been carded at the Met! :rolleyes: Yes, the NYCB deal is great.
  7. I'm sorry it's taken me awhile to post! I saw Friday's Vishneva/Malakhov performance, courtesy of a last-minute decision to drive to NYC, cross my fingers the whole way, and hope that student rush tickets were still available. Caveat: I suppose part of my reaction to the performance is colored by being so far away from the stage (second to last row!) without opera glasses, though the view wasn't bad except for the inability to see facial expressions. I'd last seen Manon in Paris (danced by the Paris Opera Ballet -- sigh) and I remember liking it a lot (though that was 10 years ago or so.) I did not particularly enjoy Friday's performance, which surprised me. I found that the ballet as a whole was relatively stagnant, and that while the dancers were proficient (obviously) I never had the sense (except for a few occasions) that there was any real "dancing" going on...just a lot of very well-done steps, or very well-done phrases...but no real overwhelming sense of movement. The choreography seemed to finally start moving during the last pas de deux -- and perhaps during the bedroom pas to a greater extent than elsewhere -- but then the ballet was over. There were bits of the choreography that I did not like at all (the seemingly random sections where Manon is lying on the floor with a seemingly disinterested Des Grieux dancing over her, the over-used grasping of the shorn hair in the 3rd act [was striking at first but then they didn't stop!], Lescaut's repetitive swigs from his bottle during the 2nd act -- it got old fast and that section would have been much more interesting if those gestures appeared as more of an afterthought than a choreographic inclusion, the reoccurring motif of small rond de jambs at 45degrees for Manon -- why? It's such a uninteresting step compared to others that could have been used, etc etc.) Overall I didn't find the choreography interesting enough to keep my attention, and the story would have been absolutely indecipherable without the accompanying program notes. One possibility for why the choreography seems so uninspired is that the music is equally uninspiring. MacMillan's R&J is beautiful -- so the shortcomings here do not seem to be the fault of an untalented choreographer, but rather reflect a lack of good source material (a somewhat confusing story with too many smaller characters to develop and keep track of, and music that doesn't lend itself to sweeping movement.) Onto the dancers: Vishneva and Malakhov performed their roles well, though as I mentioned, much of the facial expressions were lost...it seemed that Malakhov wasn't quite warmed up for the first act (he had a few stumbles and awkward moments, but that went away by the second act.) Vishneva's shoes were so loud that they were distracting at first (I'm used to hearing clomping from the corps, but not from the principal!) but they got softer as the performance progressed and I didn't notice them by the 3rd act. Stella was beautiful, and one of the three men in the first act (?) with the sherbet-colored costumes had the most beautiful lines (I have no idea who these characters were -- but they were dressed in shiny pink, orange, and orangey-red; I think the guy in the pink -- the tall one -- was the one I noticed.) Beggar Chief was great too. The sequence in the second act with Manon and the 4 (?) men was perhaps the most interesting sequence in the whole ballet...but what did it have to do with anything else? Saveliev...I'd seen him a year and a half ago fall out of a double saute de basque (how on earth do you spell that!) and I saw him do almost the same thing...twice...during this performance!! (not quite the same step, but a traveling double tour/assemble ending with a small develope front.) hmm. He too seemed as though he hadn't quite warmed up enough for the first act, and he did get better. The drunken solo needs some work to make it less obvious and more nuanced. I do have to say, though, that the most striking image in the whole ballet is that very first moment the curtain opens and Lescaut is sitting center stage and is the only illuminated part of the scene -- it reminded me a bit of Salieri in Amadeus for some reason. (!) Right. So...I'm glad I went to see the ballet, also glad I didn't pay more for my seat than I did. The overall production was visually beautiful, but clearly has its shortcomings. [Oh!! One more thing I wanted to add: I don't know WHAT was going on in the audience, but people kept dropping keys or cell phones or items that clattered around and were incredibly distracting throughout the entire performance. oy. And then a coughing fit seemed to sweep up through the orchestra section -- I'm guessing that someone near the front was wearing really strong perfume that about 50 people happened to be allergic to as it diffused on by...]
  8. Thanks, Helene! I wish I could post more frequently, but I live so far away from most performance venues Yes!! I think that's him!! I did some google image (re)searching (haha) and the images that appear agree with my memory. Doesn't it look like so much fun?? (I wish I could dance as well as the Kirov dancers!) Thom Willems' score for that piece is so compelling. Forsythe's choreography is based in ballet technique but expands on basic vocabulary and extends the range of movements that can be generated using conventional ballet steps (and that well-known prosthetic device -- the pointe shoe!) If you listen to Forsythe explain how he creates movement (there are a few CD-ROMs out there with him demonstrating various principles of this philosophy; it seems to be more of an explanation of the more contemporary work he's created) it's based on creating a line or a shape, and then seeing how many permutations of that line or shape can be made -- either literally by the dancer's body or more figuratively by the movement itself -- and then combining those elements with movement generated by other shapes or lines...I think it's a lot of fun to do, though his work certainly fits some bodies better than others. I would argue that it works quite nicely with Kirov bodies. However, one thing I noticed that the Kirov dancers really didn't do well (almost uniformly) was running on and off stage appropriately. It looked a bit odd to have a dancer run onstage as though she were wearing a tutu and tiara, stop, and then start a movement sequence with no seeming similarity to classical ballet steps. I think what was missing was the sense of "groundedness" (if you will) that you usually find in modern dance and very rarely in classical ballet -- perhaps this element was overlooked in the rehearsal process. Bart, your point about how dancers may empathize with those on stage is very interesting (this is off-topic but I promise to keep it short!) I did a research project once about how dancers and "non-dancers" (though I think of everyone as a "dancer", the difference is in training!) watch performances differently, and there are definite differences in what is being looked at...though I would bet that even untrained dancers can empathize to a degree with those on stage, especially if someone looks particularly nervous or joyful. I was always told during my training that the audience can sense if you're not dancing with the music or are unsure of what you're doing, but that they probably won't know if you don't complete a triple pirouette perfectly...as long as you keep smiling, haha. I hope I'll be able to post more in the future!
  9. (this ended up being long -- I'm sorry!) I agree -- I think the blonde in question is Elena Sheshina, and the tall redhead is Kondaurova. I went to the Thursday night performance and it looked as though the house was close to full, at least at the orhcestra level...and there were multiple calls for each piece, so it appeared as though others in the audience were enjoying the performance as much as I was. I love Forsythe's work, so my opinions of the performance may be a bit biased, but overall, it was very pleasing to see such strong and talented dancers performing his choreography. Steptext starts with the house lights still up, which is great for several reasons -- it forces latecomers to hustle to their seats -- and is so different. Of course, throughout the piece the house lights are coming up and down, which serves to blur the distinction between the stage and audience (which is something that Forsythe also does in a different way, by having conventionally silent dancers -- in a historically silent art form -- speak or vocalize.) My boyfriend came with me, and while he thought that the choreography for Steptext was interesting, he thought that the visual elements (the lights and music mostly) were distracting. I didn't particularly enjoy Nadejda Gonchar -- thought she was too stiff and not right for Forsythe movement -- but one of the three men was incredible! I have no idea who he is -- he has sort of shaggy dark hair and performed a solo about 2/3 of the way through -- but his landings were so quiet and his connection of each individual movement was amazing. I could watch him for hours. Approximate Sonata -- loved the beginning and the end -- Forsythe likes to play with some of the ritual and formality of a "dance performance" in a way that I (as a dancer) enjoy...seeing the work that goes into a performance, seeing someone doing something so "un-dancerlike" suddenly morph into performing virtuosic movement...but what's struck me throughout all of Forsythe's pieces is his respect for the dancers he works with and the ways in which he includes them in creating movement, so it seems a bit odd that he would consciously label one couple as "too" anything; however, I can say that I did enjoy each successive couple more than the previous one, so maybe there is something going on there. Vertiginous Thrill -- hadn't ever seen it before and was very excited to see it -- I also loved it, and especially Obraztsova. She looked like she was having so much fun performing (and it does look like a very fun piece to dance in), as opposed to the other two who didn't express any of the joy that Obraztsova did. I'm surprised the small brunette wasn't the announced replacement dancer -- her timing was consistently off and she had some pretty bad turning sequences throughout the piece (it looked like she needed more rehearsal.) The men of course were incredible. And -- In the Middle -- one of my favorite ballets! -- made me want to get up and start dancing in the theatre. The Kirov dancers really attacked this one; you could feel the emphasis and the power they put into the stops and starts of the movement, the accents, the energy, the presence...Kondaurova was enchanting, as was the small dark-haired lead (Pavlenko?), but no one on stage had the presence of Kondaurova. Even when she was in the back and simply shifting positions during the more "sculptural" section where there's a male solo in the front, your eye was drawn to her. I think the difference between Kondaurova in this piece and Gonchar in the first is the committment to movement; it's easy to see when a dancer feels unsure (for whatever reason) about the movement they're performing -- it's also equally easy to appreciate when a dancer is completely committed to the movement and is fully invested in the performance. (PS -- my boyfriend [not a dancer, or even a dance-goer before he met me!] really liked the last two pieces...wasn't so sure about the first two. The last two are a bit more audience-friendly, IMO.) I think it's great that the Kirov is performing Forsythe; we drove 6 hours to see the performance and it was worth it. It didn't seem "dated" or "wrong" on them -- it just looked like good dancers expanding their rep and taking a risk (which I thank them for) by not performing the classical ballets that they're known for...and not all were perfect, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be performing this type of work.
  10. Who are the two incredibly bored-looking girls in the back of the Darci pic? It's hard to imagine being that underwhelmed on the stage of the state theatre...
  11. A few comments on ABT's Swan Lake, nothing too insightful: For what it's worth, I thought the maypole looked fairly ridiculous...and found most of act I (except Franklin and the pdt -- Cornejo is such a great jumper) to be somewhat less than enthralling. I didn't understand why in Act II, the corps is bourreeing in parallel, en face to the audience -- a very unattractive and unflattering position in a tutu -- instead of in fifth position, and prefer the choreography in the Makhalina/Zelensky version (Makhalina is a beautiful Odette, and unlike Murphy does not overpower the role.) I thought Murphy's swan arms at the end of Act II were incredibly spastic and very un-swanlike, though the diagonal series of turns in her solo variation -- minus running back to the corner -- was lovely.) And she is too tall for Corella. Strange pairing. Act III -- loved Marcelo, holy purple tights! -- thought the costumes for the Spanish dance in particular were pretty heinous. Murphy's fouettes -- though numerous -- looked a bit sloppy, her arms in particular (no first position there, but Makhalina's looked worse...) and her retire position wasn't great either. I find her to be a very strong dancer, but not always a beautiful dancer. True, she does many amazing things, but I miss the artistry of someone like Julie Kent (whom I saw in white swan pdd a few weeks ago) who may not do as many tricks but who is always enchanting. Oh -- and the bit of choreography with the arabesque balance for VR -- silly. I'd rather see him move around a bit more than attempt a balance in flat shoes which brings the momentum in the production to a grinding halt. I don't have much to say about Act IV that hasn't been said, though I found the image in the sunrise to be somewhat chuckle-worthy as well and had been wondering how the principals were going to be brought back into the end of the ballet subsequent to their premature exit. I do like the tragic ending -- I always found the Kirov/Bolshoi versions (where Rothbart loses a wing -- pretty funny) to be disappointing, though I suppose there was enough doom and gloom over there to warrant a new happy ending. Overall though, I was pleased. I'd still show the Kirov version to anyone who hasn't seen the ballet before, though this version had many beautiful changes (I love the part in Act II where all the swans are on stage for the first time and Odette asks Siegfried not to shoot them -- great formation.) And Stella Abrera and Michele Wiles as the big swans were fantastic. That's about it for now :-)
×
×
  • Create New...