Amour Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 I just saw the production for the first time tonight and, given all the different reviews, was surprised that I basically liked it. I mourn the loss of the traditional Lilac Fairy role (and didn't care much for her choreography in Act 1, especially losing those slow développes to the side). Also Prince Deiree without any jumps, just batterie, I did not like. Also, like canbelto, I really miss the overhead lift between Bluebird and Princess Florine, as well as her upwards gestures. But Diana Vishneva was spectacular, just phenomenal. She did an attitude balance in the Vision Scene that lasted at least 15 seconds. I see some wrote about the unsupported deep cambree in Act 3 already. Well, that took me by surprise. Diana held hers for about 10 seconds. She also whipped off some triple pirouettes in the Wedding Scene. And such beautiful epaulement, use of arms and hands!! Gorgeous:)) The low attitudes and arabesques didn't bother me so much but the low extensions to the side and front did. Also the manège on releve instead of pointe is not for me. The coup de pied instead of passé (or retire) didn't bother me so much because of the long tutus. I thought Sarah Lane was just gorgeous as the 3rd Fairy (Breadcrumb?). Poor Stella was stuck in the new version of the Fairy Violente. I really don't like how Ratmansky has changed what we've been used to seeing (I call it the traditional version) of this variation. The way the fingers now point to the same side, elbows crossed is just one piece of it. Stella looked uncomfortable and it was unflattering to her lyrical style. Although some of the costumes are great, some are insane. Those hats on the fairy cavaliers? How do those guys manage to do any tours at all? And Joey Gorak was the cavaliere in those mushroom pantaloons. You could see all that draping fabric was hindering him from doing his entrechats. Also, the foot high beehive wig on the Queen. IMO, also insane. But Tatiana Ratmansky ( the Queen tonight) is a gorgeous woman. I would have loved to have seen her back when she was a dancer. Also the fabric for the jewel Fairies (Diamond, Gold, Silver, Sapphire) looked a little tacky close up, or like you went wild with a bedazzling gun. But the queen's outfit as well as Aurora's looked quite beautiful. The house was packed tonight. I was in row K orchestra but when I looked all around, it looked sold out, even standing room. A very dressy crowd, too. A lot of people were there including Misha (whom I have never seen at an ABT performance since he left as AD), Diana's parents, Allegra Kent (or course she's there all the time). Maybe their first sold out show. Too late now for more detailed thoughts. Maybe more tomorrow. Link to comment
sandik Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 How about putting a more sympathetic Bathilde back in the final scene of Giselle and adding some now lost depth into her character...? Now, THAT would be major! Ahem -- that's part of PNB's Giselle, with assistance from Doug Fullington and Marian Smith. Link to comment
Natalia Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Thanks for the detailed report on last night's SB, Amour. I'm glad that I'm not alone in disliking "Swastika Violente's" new steps but that's, for me, the only truly negative piece of this mostly-lovely setting/interpretation of the Sergeyev notes. I love this production so much that I'm diverting my return from Brazil...flying through JFK (not Miami) tonight on my way back home...to see the Seo and Boylston performances on Wed + Lane in Thursday. So I'm bringing the beautiful spirit and late-fall weather of Rio to NYC!!! ABT SLEEPING BEAUTY overload coming for me!!! At least one Marcelo Carabosse among these, please! Link to comment
onxmyxtoes Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Does anyone remember dancers posting photos on their instagrams of green pointe shoes for garland waltz? I've seen the production in NY a few times now and don't remember seeing green pointe shoes. Link to comment
abatt Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Re Amour's comments above, in the Vision Scene, it appears that the ballerina's foot is resting on an inclined pedestal (don't know the formal name of that contraption they place on the floor for her to step on- it's a half shell with an inclined support in the center of the shell where the ballerina rests her foot on pointe). Not to take any credit away from Vishneva and her balances, but that support enables the ballerina to hold the unsupported pose on pointe, not her own strength. Also, in the Wedding Act, in the section with the deep backbend, Marcelo placed his arm around her back to enable Vishneva to bend that deep. The other Aurora's I've seen perform less deep backbends, but it's done without any supporting arm around their back. Their sole support is leaning into their partner's torso. The fish dives were flawless and brilliant. Maybe it's my imagination, but Marcelo always looks like the happiest guy alive when he's on stage with Vishneva. They have great chemistry together. Vishenva's unsupported balances in the Rose Adagio were held long and beautifully. My complaint about Vishneva is that her jumps barely left the ground in comparison to what I've seen from the other casts, especially in Act I. I did not care for the dumbed-down version of Lilac's variation given to Part because she apparently has difficulty with the pirouettes that all the other Lilacs are performing. Trenary and Simkin were terrific as Bluebird and Florine, except for a minor slip of the foot when Trenary started. Boylston was terrific as Diamond, but I don't recall so much fussiness and distraction in the hand positions as what I saw from her last night. The house was well sold. Link to comment
California Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 An interesting tidbit: A video crew from Brazilian television was in the company box on the grand tier (adjacent to the stage). They are making a documentary/special about Marcelo and spent the day with him. There is so little available footage of him dancing, I hope they will eventually make that show available to US audiences, perhaps by donating a copy to the NYPL dance collection. (Source: me - I talked with them at intermission) Link to comment
aurora Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 I don't have a lot to add beyond what has been said. It was wonderful! I loved the new production, and the costumes, though the ones that stood out badly to me were the Mazurka group in the wedding, who all look like they are wearing meringues around their waists and then the women seem to have on white fringed mortar board hats... Vishneva and Gomes were wonderful. I often find her a bit mannered and contrived but she was really charming in this and radiated joy throughout. I wanted to second the praise for Cassandra Trenary as Florine. She did have a real slip at the very start of her variation, but she recovered instantaneously and didn't let it get to her at all. To me that's a sign of being a great performer. Not only was it a lovely performance overall, but the ability to keep going and sell what she was doing was truly impressive. I also enjoyed all the last act fairies very much. This is the second time I've been very impressed by Fang this season (the other was in Giselle). Link to comment
fondoffouettes Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Re Amour's comments above, in the Vision Scene, the ballerina's foot is resting on an inclined pedestal (don't know the formal name of that contraption they place on the floor for her to step on). Not to take any credit away from Vishneva and her balances, but that support enables the ballerina to hold the unsupported pose on pointe, not her own strength. Also, in the Wedding Act, in the section with the deep backbend, Marcelo placed his arm around her back to enable Vishneva to bend that deep. The other Aurora's I've seen perform less deep backbends, but it's done without any supporting arm around their back. Thank you for explaining how these balances were accomplished. From where I was sitting, it was really difficult to tell what was going on in the Vision Scene when they brought out that pedestal and I wasn't sure exactly how it was used. Is it the same support system that Simkin photographed here? https://www.facebook.com/daniilsimkin/photos/a.661219130581995.1073741829.658722760831632/816297861740787/?type=1 Or is this device used for practicing the Rose Adagio balances? I thought the deep backbend was one of the most beautiful moments in the ballet (I saw Lane/Cornejo do it), though I wasn't sure how exactly she was balancing. She must have been leaning on Cornejo's chest as you suggest. Link to comment
abatt Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 The pedestal in the ballet is much more attractive and ornate than what's shown in the photo, but the basic concept and construction is the same. In the ballet it is a decorative half shell with that inclined, vertical pedestal in the center, and the ballerina rests her foot in the center on the pedestal. You might notice that each of the Aurora's has been very careful in the intial placement of her foot into that contraption. If you didn't realize that there was an inclined foot support in there, it looks like a great effect of strength and balance. Not trying to dimish the accomplishment, but to elucidate what's going on in that segment of the ballet. Anyone have a different take on that contraption? Link to comment
alexL Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 wow- Met Opera has launched a new website today! They have updated many things- overall, it's more visual than the old website. One of the positives is that now they list more detailed run time information about each performances (when act 1 starts, when and how long intermission is, etc). The biggest problem with this website is that each page takes forever to load due to the heavy scripting and backdrop images. Link to comment
nanushka Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 wow- Met Opera has launched a new website today! They have updated many things- overall, it's more visual than the old website. One of the positives is that now they list more detailed run time information about each performances (when act 1 starts, when and how long intermission is, etc). The biggest problem with this website is that each page takes forever to load due to the heavy scripting and backdrop images. They're listing no intermission between Acts II & III of SB, although there were two intermissions during the May run. Wish they'd do it with just the one, using the Act III opening march music (which was cut, and which I love) for the scene change between Acts II & III. But the total time listed seems to suggest they'll still do two intermissions. Link to comment
abatt Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 There were two intermissions at SB last night. Link to comment
alexL Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Yes- I just noticed that the website doesn't show the second intermission in the timeline... I too wish that they'll do just one but I think they need that second intermission due to the corps' costume, hair, makeup change and set change. (I think the corp presented in the second act show up again in the third) The orchestra will have to play for at least 10 minutes. Link to comment
fondoffouettes Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 The ABT season was so buried in the old website. It's great that the performances are now highlighted on the home page, along with visuals of ABT's productions and dancers. Maybe one of these days ABT's own website will say farewell to the 90s. Link to comment
Natalia Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 The seashell pedestal on which Aurora balances in A2 was also in the 'earlier' Mariinsky-1890 'new-old' staging, as many will recall. I'm wondering if there really was a 'seashell' in Diaghilev-Bakst's 1921 London production or if the shell was added because Ratmansky used the old Mariinsky notes? If the shell was indeed seen in London-1921, then I'm wondering when & why it was dropped in later stagings, as it is such a lovely moment. That balance goes so well with the music! Link to comment
MRR Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 They're listing no intermission between Acts II & III of SB, although there were two intermissions during the May run. Wish they'd do it with just the one, using the Act III opening march music (which was cut, and which I love) for the scene change between Acts II & III. But the total time listed seems to suggest they'll still do two intermissions. Was the information regarding the one intermission for SB taken from the old production? Because that had only one intermission and the third act was listed at 20 minutes, which would make sense with the old version considering the diverts outside of Bluebird and Jewels were cut. Interestingly the total length of the production is listed at 2 hours 53 minutes but the total running time when you add together the acts and the one intermission is two hours ten minutes, which, I assume again was the length of the old production. Link to comment
nanushka Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Was the information regarding the one intermission for SB taken from the old production? Because that had only one intermission and the third act was listed at 20 minutes, which would make sense with the old version considering the diverts outside of Bluebird and Jewels were cut. Interestingly the total length of the production is listed at 2 hours 53 minutes but the total running time when you add together the acts and the one intermission is two hours ten minutes, which, I assume again was the length of the old production. It's been adjusted now. Prologue & Act I: 65 min. Intermission: 20 min. Act II: 25 min. Intermission: 20 min. Act III: 39 min. Total: 2 hr. 49 min. Link to comment
volcanohunter Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Ratmansky's production is glorious. On Tuesday it wasn't always danced as well as it could be, but each act was progressively stronger in that regard. The second act is particularly beautiful, and the wedding adage is the ballet's crowning glory. Fantastic. Link to comment
Drew Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I have seen the Ratmansky production twice now with two entirely different casts -- one led by Vishneva, Part, and Gomez and the other by Murphy, Abrera, and Whiteside. I was disappointed in some of the scenery and scenic effects, and am not crazy about one or two other aspects -- but basically I enjoyed it hugely and some things I was not sure about the first time I saw it, won me over by the second. If the dancers are getting used to Ratmansky's staging, then I think some of us in the audience probably are too, but the pay off is real. I would call the production an obvious labor of love by everyone involved, but -- though some of the dancers may still be internalizing the style -- it doesn't look laborious. Lots to say about the dancing, but will restrict myself for now to remarking that in different ways both Vishneva and Murphy were wonderful as Aurora... Link to comment
Amour Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Re Amour's comments above, in the Vision Scene, it appears that the ballerina's foot is resting on an inclined pedestal (don't know the formal name of that contraption they place on the floor for her to step on- it's a half shell with an inclined support in the center of the shell where the ballerina rests her foot on pointe). Not to take any credit away from Vishneva and her balances, but that support enables the ballerina to hold the unsupported pose on pointe, not her own strength. Also, in the Wedding Act, in the section with the deep backbend, Marcelo placed his arm around her back to enable Vishneva to bend that deep. The other Aurora's I've seen perform less deep backbends, but it's done without any supporting arm around their back. Their sole support is leaning into their partner's torso. I have to say when I heard about this stuff, abatt, especially the foot contraption I felt crushed. Actually, crushed and deceived. Ashley Bouder wouldn't need any such contraption to hold her super long balances; we see them all the time. And the unsupported cambree seemed too good to be true. I guess it was. Still there's much to like in this production. Link to comment
stuben Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 As the new comer I might be a bit late in adding in my thoughts, but totally agree with Amour's post: "...I mourn the loss of the traditional Lilac Fairy role (and didn't care much for her choreography in Act 1, especially losing those slow développes to the side). Also Prince Deiree without any jumps, just batterie, I did not like. Also, like canbelto, I really miss the overhead lift between Bluebird and Princess Florine, as well as her upwards gestures. …....Although some of the costumes are great, some are insane. Those hats on the fairy cavaliers? How do those guys manage to do any tours at all? And Joey Gorak was the cavaliere in those mushroom pantaloons. You could see all that draping fabric was hindering him from doing his entrechats. Also, the foot high beehive wig on the Queen. IMO, also insane." This may be a subjective opionion but I feel some of the elaborate sets and costumes have overpowered the ballet, it is more theatre than ballet. To Amour's point, I do miss several of the "traditional" parts and felt perhaps they were "dumbed down" to accommodate for the costumes or dancers? I may be totally off with this comment but I also feel there are several questionable characters in Act III, even though this may be part of the choroegraphy. It just feel a bit too Disney or as someone mentioned, perhaps a Broadway appeal. I feel there are just way too many people on stage for Garland Waltz, I know many may not agree with me, it just looks so congested for me, my eyes were everywhere and nowhere, but again, it may be a subjective issue. Link to comment
volcanohunter Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I have to say when I heard about this stuff, abatt, especially the foot contraption I felt crushed. Actually, crushed and deceived. I prefer to think of it as old-fashioned stagecraft, like sylphs attached to wires and appearing to fly. I mean, I know the dancers can't actually fly, but I'm charmed by the effect. Link to comment
abatt Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I have to say when I heard about this stuff, abatt, especially the foot contraption I felt crushed. Actually, crushed and deceived. Ashley Bouder wouldn't need any such contraption to hold her super long balances; we see them all the time. And the unsupported cambree seemed too good to be true. I guess it was. Still there's much to like in this production. Sorry to destroy the illusion. I feel like Toto in the Wizard of Oz when he pulls back the curtain to expose the Wizard as a fraud. I didn't get the role of the foot contraption the first time I saw SB, but it occurred to me later after focusing on what exactly that half shell was. Link to comment
Natalia Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 The seashell contraption is like the hidden hole at NYCB's NUTCRACKER, into which Sugarplum steps as the cavalier "glides" her across the stage! Link to comment
Drew Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I believe the pile on of additional characters such as Scheherezade in final act is an allusion to the Diaghilev production inspiring the physical look of much of this production. Those characters made more sense in the context of a Diaghilev season, but I appreciate this production's love of its multiple pasts even if it ditches some elements of the ballet's twentieth-century performance tradition that I love. Tuesday night's fairy cavaliers danced in their costumes rather more crisply than Monday's which won me over. Sleeping Beauty should be something of an excessive spectacle and it is the dancers who need to and CAN come alive in that context. Just watch Skylar Brandt as one of the Lilac Fairy attendants. Some of the dancers are still finding their way, but they have been given a way to find--which is something for ABT. That is, this production gives the company a Sleeping Beauty that really marks them as a company--with its own vision of a major classic that is not just being tinkered with or idly modernized. I don't love every detail, and I wish they had considered how important scenic transformations were for this ballet in particular, especially conceived of as nineteenth-century spectacle. But on the whole, I am very pleased. And I anticipated disliking the knee length tutus--instead I thought they were lovely. The Mariinsky, NYCB, and the Royal (to restrict myself to major productions I have seen relatively recently) aren't going to ditch their versions--I am happy to have this as ABT's... (I will say that so far I have only seen it from the parterre and with experienced ballerinas...today I will see it from downstairs with less experienced ballerinas. We will see if that changes my perspective...) Link to comment
Recommended Posts