Capelle on the Mariinsky Sleeping Beauty Reconstruction

[NAOTMAA]

https://www.ft.com/content/7ff78d18-25e2-11e8-9274-2b13fccdc744

a very short piece from the Financial Times. 

5 stars for Beauty although he notes the deterioration of the management, corps and soloists in comparison to a decade ago. 2 stars for the gala

I suppose EVERYTHING about the Mariinsky can be summed up here:

Quote

At its best, the House of Petipa can still dazzle. Right now, it keeps standing in its own way.

Too bad the "house of Petipa" has its been giving its own reflection the middle finger for quite some time now 

[Buddy]

6 hours ago, NAOTMAA said:

https://www.ft.com/content/7ff78d18-25e2-11e8-9274-2b13fccdc744

a very short piece from the Financial Times. 

 

Thanks, NAOTMAA, for finding this. Your link didn't work for me but googling "financial times mariinsky sleeping beauty" did.

I'd like to post one quote here because it's probably more fact than opinion and might help us better understand what The Sleeping Beauty reconstruction really is. Moderators, please remove if not appropriate. I would suggest that any discussion based on opinions be done at the "Writings On Ballet" topic. 

"This 1999 production, the first attempt to restore Petipa’s original vision from period choreographic notation, started ballet’s reconstruction movement.

"The steps accuracy can be endlessly debated: the Mariinsky occasionally deviated from the notation, and for comparison's sake, we now have another reconstructed Beauty, by Alexei Ratmansky for American Ballet Theatre in 2015. Ratmansky went further, by asking dancers to replicate the physical restraint and speed of their 19th-century predecessors. While this idiosyncratic style and ABT's smaller cast emphasised the characters' humanity and warmth, Vikharev's tableaux paint the fairy tale on a grander, more symbolic scale."

[mnacenani]

20 minutes ago, Buddy said:

Your link didn't work for me but googling "financial times mariinsky sleeping beauty" did.

For the benefit of any members who may not be aware :  a very simple trick to bypass login for reading articles on subscribers-only websites such as the FT or NYT etc is to copy and google the "subject" ie the headline. For this Laura Cappelle review it is :  Petipa Celebration, Mariinsky Theatre, St Petersburg — a rich tapestry brought to life

PS :  I may incur the wrath of Buddy for saying this, but I think the two stars Cappelle awarded to the gala is very generous, over the top 

Edited March 13, 2018 by mnacenani

[sandik]

2 hours ago, Gnossie said:

I do know about ballet reconstructions, I dedicate my life to it, therefore I'm not pleased when uniformed people are allowed to write "reviews", the normal thing one could expect from a dance critic is to know what they're talking about. I wouldn't discuss about Balanchine since I know nothing on the matter, I expect the same sincerity from "dance critics". 

I'm not sure I understand what you object to in Capelle's review -- while I don't know that the current interest in revival/reconstructions can all be ascribed to the Vikharev SB production, I think it's very true that we're seeing a number of productions that are (finally!) using the textual materials we have in archives to peel away some of the changes in these legacy works.  I haven't seen either production first-hand, but from what I hear from friends and colleagues, her capsule description of the two (Vikharev and Ratmansky) seem pretty clear.

Capelle is writing for a generalist audience -- this is a review, not a critical essay.  While I am hoping that this anniversary and these performances will jumpstart more in-depth material, this review, coming right on the heels of the event, seems like a good "report from the field."  If she's got her basic facts wrong, or is hanging her opinions on faulty reasoning, please tell us more.

[canbelto]

13 minutes ago, Gnossie said:

Well Sandik, if she had a clue about how the production is supposed to look like Ms Capelle would have said " There were several changes made to Vikharev's reconstruction" "The prologue was modified so much it was more like the Sergeyev version" "The vision scene was also modified" "The apotheosis was ALSO modified"  "So, the Mariinsky didn't actually perform their reconstruction" 

But of course, Ms Capelle doesn't know how the production is supposed to look like and therefore she reviewed it as a success, when actually I cannot stop complaining about the disrespect the Mariinsky management has done to its audience by saying they were going to perform the reconstruction when they barely did. Therefore if a dance critic doesn't know about reconstructions then DON'T write a about it, if she had known better then she could have given 1 star to the whole thing.

This is not something personal against Capelle, same goes to Macaulay, actually the only dance critic that can review reconstructions properly is Sergio Trombetta. 

I think Laura Cappelle (and many other writers) no doubt wanted to celebrate the fact that the reconstructions were being done at all after being banished to the dustbins so many years ago? And that the FT usually has very short arts reviews where a litany of complaints would run out of print space? 

And also, in general, for performance reviews as well as life most readers don't like to read a review that "cannot stop complaining." 

[tabitha]

thank you gnosssie, if it werent for you   no one would know that it is  NOT the real reconstruction .so disappointing ! i was lucky enough to have seen  the original . magnificent !

[NAOTMAA]

Considering the fact that the Vikharev production only premiered 19 years ago, plus having a filmed video (rotting away in the vaults ) and dancers and advisors with first hand knowledge the fact they couldn't get it right is unacceptable. Many of the things they got wrong were rather simple and easy to correct. Flat out lazy and an insult to Vikharev. 

Is there a reason why no other ballet company will attempt this production? I've seen many other reconstructions performed by multiple companies but not this one. Do the Mariinsky own the rights or something? Somebody has to rescue it! 

Edited March 13, 2018 by NAOTMAA

[NAOTMAA]

In the end it was only revived as a gimmick to put people in the seats for the becentennial. It's probably why they added Act III to the gala when the original program failed to sell out. It was all about money 

[Jayne]

I wonder how much it would cost in reality?  I mean the Russians are not in a wonderful financial position.  Maybe they would be interested in trading sets for a desired Ashton production (who is very fashionsble in Russia at the moment)? 

Perhaps a 3 year trade of the RB Ondine, Month in the Country, and Two Pidgeon productions for the SB, Flora and Carnival productions?  

I know I am dreaming, and the current political environment does not support such artistic friendliness.  

Edited March 15, 2018 by Jayne
Formatting

[sandik]

On 3/13/2018 at 11:09 PM, Jayne said:

I know I am dreaming, and the current political environment does not support such artistic friendliness.  

Considering the most recent developments, I'm wondering if we'll be seeing anything of the main Russian companies in the west at all for the next period.

[sandik]

On 3/13/2018 at 11:33 AM, Gnossie said:

For the 274774837th time, no members of the Vikharev Team were brought to the Mariinsky to re-stage this reconstruction. The Soviet Guard was in charge to "put it together".

Is there anyone still in the company who participated in that earlier project? 

[Jayne]

Sandik -It’s difficult to say how the next year will go for politicians of all stripes — but I feel for Russians in the arts who feel their professions have become so politically entangled.  

Edited March 19, 2018 by Jayne

[sandik]

Indeed, alongside others who have been working to improve international relations in many ways -- it seems that everyone is returning to a more nationalist and isolationist position.