California

ABT has a photo display of the backdrops and costumes for the Trilogy on their web site: http://www.abt.org/gallery/detail.asp?Gallery_ID=143

I'm not sure if the multiple casting of Cornejo, Vasiliev and Simkin would clearly prove that. Surely she does sell tickets, but maybe the fact that there was the opportunity to see these three on various dates (inlcuding the Wed matinee which had no Osipova according to the ABT performance calendar and still was well attended) also played a role in this. There was no urge to buy tickets for one special performance to see either of these dancers and it would seem natural that in such a case, people choose to buy tickets for performances with dancers they find exciting in the rest of the cast. Of course I don't really know how many people go to multiple performances or rather choose one performance per ballet, so it's all just guesses. I didn't mean to suggest that Osipova is the only factor in deciding when to go. As others discuss here, there are so many factors involved, we can't get scientific results. I didn't check to see what NYCB was performing, but that could have been a factor, too. Still, it was a striking contrast in the two nights. And, as noted, it was impressive that three principal men of significance danced two nights in a row, in quite demanding roles. (I suppose with a fair number of injuries at this point in the season, we'll see more of that.) Those Wednesday matinees are a puzzle. I have sometimes seen several busses and vans from senior centers lined up near the theater and wonder if that accounts for some of the good attendance. Ticket prices are a tad cheaper, but not that much. For at least some of us visiting New York from some distance, we try to cram as many performances as possible into a few days, even if it means seeing some casts we're not thrilled about. New Yorkers have the luxury of scattering their attendance more selectively.

Mikhail - I haven't noticed that much on this site (although perhaps it has slipped in now and then). I think the press is influenced by the "Brangelina" thing. We have another habit that some find annoying: referring to much-loved dancers by their first names only: Marcelo, Gillian, Gelsey, Misha...it suggests a cliquish "in-group" discussion that non-balletomanes don't grasp. Another practice annoying to many: referring to grown men and women (especially in the corps) as "boys" and "girls."

I saw both performances on Wednesday. Gillian and Marcelo were their usual elegant thrilling selves. Whiteside was a competent slave, but in contrast with Simkin on Tuesday night and Vasiliev on Wednesday night, he seemed a little boring. I was struck that Cornejo, Simkin, and Vasiliev were all cast both Tuesday and Wednesday nights, although in different roles, and all with plenty of fireworks, no matter the role. I wonder if Vasiliev is showing that he is a "team player" after being passed over by Royal Ballet. Audiences were a little surprising. It seemed almost sold out at the opening Tuesday night. The Wednesday matinee was pretty healthy, perhaps 80-85%. But Wednesday night was the least attended, maybe 70-75%. No crush to get in. Short lines at the ladies' rooms. The missing ingredient Wednesday night was Osipova, of course. (Reyes was Medora.) So if management was looking for confirmation that she's the one who sells tickets (not Vasiliev, Simkin, or Cornejo), they got it. Both Simkin and Vasiliev do that turn where one leg flips over the other in the air. Is there a name for that? Is that the new "thing" that others now feel obliged to try? Simkin actually did four in a row for one entry Tuesday night. Vasiliev did two in a row Wednesday night. It seems for the women that simply doing 32 fouettes is no longer good enough. They have to throw in doubles and triples with arm over the head for some. The super-athletic bar keeps moving for all of them, for better or worse!

I'm surprised no one has started a thread on this, so I will... I saw the Tuesday night season premiere with Osipova, Vasiliev, Simkin, Cornejo, et al. The house appeared almost full, even the top balcony. I put this ballet in the category of "guilty pleasures" -- plenty of virtuoso dancing, bizarre story. That cast was their usual over-the-top selves and the audience loved it all. I do find the ending of this ballet peculiar. Green puffy scenery (scrims?) are apparently waves engulfing the boat. They go on a long time - too long, actually - with the briefest appearance at the last moment of Medora and Conrad. We need a few more minutes to take them in and they could be doing something - anything. I couldn't help thinking of the bizarre twist in Game of Thrones in Act III -- At the Friends dress rehearsal Tuesday afternoon, Gillian was rehearsing with Marcelo, so she seems to be well enough to perform again. I gather Marcelo was doing to do the slave Wednesday, but now he's back as Conrad. I do love to see the two of them together and his partnering is such a joy to see, but it would have been fun to see him in the other role.

I wonder how much Kobborg had to do with the departure. When he was in New Zealand staging their new Giselle, he and Steifel gave some interviews. Apparently, Kobburg had applied for the director's job and asked Steifel for a reference. Steifel got the job in the end, of course, and they essentially said "no hard feelings." So I wonder if he couldn't get opportunities for staging or dancing with RB that he sought at this stage of his career. Any information along those lines?

I saw the Monday night performances. Shevchenko again subbed for the injured Murphy. Thanks to Ratmansky for picking these two corps members for such important roles. They got the loudest applause at the end and both seemed to thrive with this great opportunity in such difficult roles. I hope McKenzie gives them more opportunities in the future. The second cast in Symphony #9 was a big disappointment, as it had been last fall, and there were no calls in front of the curtain. Lots of detail disappears in their portrayals, especially Bolle and Part in the lead roles. I suppose they all looked worse after seeing the possibilities from the first cast. E.g., toward the end, Gomes holds Seminova high overhead in a one-armed lift, while she is in a backbend draped over his head, while he turns smoothly around in circles. Bolle used both hands to hold Part overhead and jerked in quarter turns to get around. I noticed the same difference last fall and wondered if I just remembered it wrong (which wouldn't be the first time), but it happened again. E.g., Jared Matthews is capable, but nothing can compete with the amazing Cornejo, especially in the entrechat sideways exit. E.g., In the first cast, Craig Salstein throws himself with abandon near the opening into a sideways catch by the men. Sascha Radetsky barely left the ground and seemed nervous about being caught. The set in Piano Concerto (all those red pieces on strings) seem to move up and down at random. I caught a hammer-and-sickle at one point, but that doesn't seem to be the intent. Overall, much less interesting (and less distracting) than the detailed backdrop in Symphony. Peter Martins was in the audience (orchestra, about the tenth row, on the aisle) for all three pieces.

Thanks - I was looking in the wrong place. BTW -- if you look at that pdf flyer, there's a picture of the previous Symphony #9 costumes with the cream-colored splotches.

Or the change to a new director, Kevin O'Hare? Didn't we see reports earlier that his predecessor resisted hiring Osipova as a regular principal?

I had understood that this was a co-production with San Francisco Ballet, but if you look at their 2014 schedule, it's not listed. They do list a different "world premiere" by Ratmansky March 1-9, 2014, "From foreign lands." But that's one of three ballets on that program, so clearly it's something different. Any word on when SFB will show the Trilogy? http://www.sfballet.org/

Thanks, RG, for these insights. I was sitting on opposite sides of the house, so that makes sense. One more try Monday night! It also occurs to me that the scenery is almost TOO interesting as visual art -- distracting from the movement itself!

Thanks, Ilya, for those very helpful insights from the Ratmansky seminar. I saw the first cast again Saturday night and am fascinated with the complexities of all these works. So much to see and try to understand. A few more oddities in the scenery: I'm almost positive that at the Friday performance of Symphony #9, the detailed backdrop was plainly visible from start to finish. On Saturday, the piece opened with a dark bluish-gray color in the back and the backdrop did not appear until after that cute lying-down sequence for Polina and Marcelo in the upper corner of the stage. After some ensemble work, it disappeared again and the back went to black for the Gomes solo and then slowly re-appeared. I noticed McKenzie sitting in one of the prime parterre boxes for Symphony #9, so I wondered if he was there to see how these changes worked. I didn't see him in the audience for the rest of the program (although I might have missed him). Another apparent change: for the third piece, Piano Concerto: the backdrop consists of lots of red symbols on strings which are raised and lowed throughout - an airplane, bolt, washer, half circles, lots of 5-pointed stars, etc. On Friday, there was very clearly a hammer and sickle in the upper left at the beginning. The pieces slowly moved apart during the performance and were never visible again. On Saturday, the pieces were far apart at the beginning, and never moved together to form the hammer and sickle. Was that a mistake? Did it mean something? I don't have the foggiest idea. The costumes in Concerto are also intriguing. The two lead women wear very red leotards and the two lead men wear gray unitards with silver belts. The rest of the cast wears unitards with dull gray in front and muted red in back, so interesting color patterns emerge as they move round. Unfortunately, the June playbill does not include any of the interesting articles about these pieces or the reproduction of the Symphony #9 backdrop, so audiences won't see any of that, except for the Friday night crowd. It would be nice if those were posted somewhere for people to read. I noticed several critics in the audience both Friday and Saturday and look forward to their reviews. So much to unravel in understanding all three pieces! I wonder if an enterprising dance historian (or perhaps a graduate student looking for a good thesis topic?) might take a serious look at Ratmansky, Shostakovich, and the cultural milieu. Ratmansky is old enough to have lived under the worst of the Soviet Union as well as its collapse. He seems to be communicating something about what it's been like for artists through all of that - things Americans only vaguely understand.

I agree with Jelly's praise. I saw the premieres Friday night and I'm glad I'll see a couple more performances. I had also seen the Symphony #9 last fall - three times, plus the Friends open rehearsal. There's just so much to absorb in all of these ballets, you really need to see them several times to appreciate the complexity, innovation (without gimmickry), and also the wry sense of humor. He is a genius at moving interesting groups around stage (among many other things). A few changes from fall: the costumes no longer have those awful cream colored splotches (you can see them in the publicity photos). Apparently they dyed them, so the principal's cream is now dark red, the soloists dark green, and the corps dark blue. They also added a backdrop which was absent at City Center (either the stage wasn't big enough or it wasn't finished). So much detail to absorb in that backdrop -- old-fashioned bi-planes, dirigibles (all reminiscent of World War I or the 30s between the wars?). A reproduction is included in the Playbill, but there's a lot in there and I wonder how much Ratmansky had to do with the symbolism. I recognized a great deal of the choreography from fall, but don't know if any changes were made. Chamber also had a painted backdrop that was stunning -- apparently Shostakovich, although the program didn't tell us. The changing backdrop in Piano Concerto was filled with changing symbolism, including a sickle and hammer at the opening that disappeared later. I wish we could get a good look at it and get a better sense of what it was about - and also what Ratmansky thought of all the symbolism and whether he had a role in the design. (e.g., I saw a "bolt" - one of the 30s ballets Ratmansky revived for the Bolshoi -- available on DVD and worth looking at for historic interest). No program notes, although there have been a lot of preview stories about Ratmansky and Shostakovich (including some in the Playbill). I just have the feeling that there is a great deal of dramatic content and symbolism in all three ballets that many of us don't grasp. Perhaps those from Russia see it, but some of us need some help reading all that's going on. (I hope Gottleib and Macaulay were there and will help us in that regard.) Ratmansky doesn't let us treat this as pure dance -- not with those backdrops and all he has said about his affinity with Shostakovich. (This reminds me of the dilemma of how to look at Balanchine's Symphony in 3 Movements - can we see it as pure dance once we know about Stravinsky's references to World War II in the score?) Ratmansky apparently "discovered" Osipova and Vasiliev in Russia, so it's no surprise he used them so well in the third ballet. He brought out their best, as he did with many others all evening.

I asked one of the ABT Friends staffers this week when they expect to announce the fall schedule. She checked with somebody who would know, I gather, and said it probably won't be announced until the Met season is completed. I believe the City Center schedule was announced in July and that was for a week in October, so it wouldn't surprise me if we get a July announcement for the first two weeks in November.

I saw Acts II and III of the Don Q with Boylston & Simkin. (I just had to see Glass Pieces first at NYCB - one of my favorites.) I agree with most of the praise of Boylston. I was pleasantly surprised at the way she holds balances longer than usual at the end of so many steps. Very nice touch. Simkin seemed more under control (less "flailing") than I've seen him in the past and he does have some very impressive tricks. His characterization was fine, although not as detailed as Matvienko's (but then, nobody else's was either). I thought his partnering had improved - he at least seemed to be trying to present and support her more than in the past. Special praise for Nicole Grenario as Amour. She was very light, impish, with great split jumps that really took off and then ended with cute flourishes. It reminded me a little of Cheryl Yeager in that role in the late 70s. Seo did pull off the Italian fouettes, although she seemed shaky. I hate to sound like I'm piling on, but throughout Act II her pointe shoes seemed to be making a lot of extra noise, like they were strengthened with concrete. It wasn't just the acoustics- I didn't hear that with anybody else in that Act. Perhaps she decided that super-strong shoes were the secret! I'm not the greatest judge of these things, but the Met seemed to be a good 80% full and NYCB maybe 60-70%.

Off-topic for this thread...but where are you finding these hints of programming for spring 2014? Manon seems a safe guess, as they are doing it in Japan in February (as posted by the Japanese theater). If Giselle, I wonder if they'll let Gillian do it, after her success in New Zealand in their new production (and as it appears they are not bringing it to the US next year).

I saw Gillian Murphy and Denis Matvienko (replacing Hallberg, from the initial cast list last fall) in Don Q Wednesdsay night. Both were spectacular. I'm a big fan of Gillian and he was a wonderful surprise. I don't know if they have danced together before or very often (does anyone know?), but it seemed a very comfortable partnership. He was attentive and gracious to her throughout.She is secure in all her technique, and threw in a few extras - e.g., in the fouettes in Act III, she brought out a fan and would hold it overhead and flutter it down to her waist while turning! I haven't seen that one before. But the real hit - and welcome surprise - was Matvienko. He seemed to be having great fun all night. His characterization of Basilio was impish and detailed and brought back a hint of Baryshnikov's boyish charm in the DVD. He interacted convincingly with everyone on stage. And what a wonderful technique! He threw in his share of tricks in his variations, but he also had a beautiful line and refined presence that had been totally absent with Vasiliev. If this was an "audition," please bring him back! The audience loved him for all the right reasons and he was beaming. Stella Abrera did double-duty as Mercedes and Queen of the Dryads and was also the best so far this week. She knocked off the Italian fouettes without problem.

I saw the Osipova/Vasiiev Tuesday night and agree with much that was said. They offer a string of tricks that are truly thrilling -- a guilty pleasure for some of us -- and the crowd went wild again and again. He often throws an airborne split into his jumps that gives people an extra thrill. Her turns are so fast and so precise - hard to match. She skips the hopping on pointe with the fan in the Act III variation and substitutes very fast turns - that might be the alternate version others have mentioned. But I thought both interacted very nicely with the rest of the cast in many scenes -- "chatting" with townspeople, reassuring Don Q, etc. Her fouettes are thrilling but not as much as Semionova's the night before. She does a lot of multiples, but the arm never goes over the head. Misty managed all the Italian fouettes. She started with a feirce look on her face and swung that first leg up so forcefully, as if to say: "I am going to do these tonight, come hell or high water." In fairness to Seo Monday night, she did double-duty as Mercedes in I and III and Queen of the Dryads in II, so perhaps she was tired. But given her technical limitations, it seemed odd to ask her to do all of that in one night. On Tuesday, the roles were split again between two people. Re: jumping the shark: The Fonz was water skiing when a shark appeared and he jumped over it. I forgot to mention: On Monday, I did not see anything resembling the famous Plisetskaya leap in Act I. I was reminded of that seeing Osipova do several on Tuesday. Semionova does a big jete (much as Cynthia Harvey does in the Baryshnikov version on DVD), but that's all.

I bought this ticket when Hallberg was cast (as I assume many others did) and found Stearns a disappointment. There is something odd about his partnering. In supporting her pirouettes, he manhandles her like he was working one of those old-fashioned butter churners. At the end of an Act I sequence, she did a series of complicated turns into a fishdive and they almost lost it. The flying fishdives in Act II where she throws herself into him seemed ultra-cautious, like they didn't trust each other. But he did two one-armed lifts in Act I which seemed very secure and were held for a long time. His preparations for a multiple pirouette are so long and slowly drawn out they seem like he worries about it. The barrel turns in Act III were sloppy and close to the floor. Seo's Italian fouettes in Act II were the disaster others reported. She came down off pointe after two and just seemed to give up. Semionova saved the day. She held several long unsupported balances throughout the evening that were stunning. Her technique in the stabbing turns and hop sequences was flawless. When she came out in the Act III fouettes carrying a fan, she had a knowing look: "Wait until you see what I'm going to do with this." She held the arm with the fan over her head for the first several fouettes, threw in lots of multiples. Perhaps I was reading too much into things, but I didn't sense any chemistry between Semionova and Stearns - pasted-on smiles and looks. The house seemed about 80% full, but I wonder how many had bought tickets for Hallberg.

Important subject about which we understand far too little. I'm curious how much interaction the visiting dancers had with non-governmental people while abroad and how many KGB agents were "embedded" with the Soviet troupes. Now that the archives of the secret police have been (at least partially) opened up to scholars, there might be some really interesting tidbits there! And I hope you look at the export of ballet films by the Soviets in the 50s to smaller American cities. I don't know if the U.S. government had anything comparable to send in exchange. For Ballet Alert-ers interested in the issues, Naima Prevots has a book, Dance for Export, on a related topic that might be of interest (be sure to order it through the Amazon box on this site): http://www.amazon.com/Dance-Export-Studies-History-ebook/dp/B006VFCV50/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369578887&sr=1-1&keywords=naima+prevots

So is mine! Let's hope they get enough orders that they release the rest of the series ASAP - and perhaps a few other things from their wonderful collection.

He had been scheduled to do two Don Quixotes - May 27 (now replaced by Stearns) and May 29-eve (replaced by Matvienko). When those changes appeared on the ABT site, there was some discussion here about his very heavy performing schedule and recent injuries perhaps explaining his dialing back somewhat on commitments.

Actually, question should be - what are the Balanchine Essays? Thanks The Balanchine Foundation has a little more information: http://balanchine.org/balanchine/03/balanchineessays.html

As someone who complains endlessly about the limited availability of Balanchine videos for the general public, I am delighted to see that the Balanchine Foundation is now selling the "Balanchine Essays" on Amazon, or at least, the Arabesque tape. http://www.amazon.com/Balanchine-Essays-Arabesque/dp/B00CWKW66C/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&qid=1369348425&sr=8-21&keywords=balanchine+dvd I hope this is the start of a trend of selling to the public from their wonderful collection. The blurb under "editorial reviews" says they plan to release the entire 10-part series. And it looks like they have solved the physical media/storage problem: they will make these "on demand." PS: If you order it, be sure to start with the Amazon box on this site so Ballet Alert gets some $$ to support the site.

It would take hours to list all of them, but a few more lost causes: may vs. might, it's vs. its The principal-principle mistake is galling in this context, because we see so many principal dancers listed as "principles" nowadays. Apologies to copy-editors everywhere! It's just that Robert Gottlieb is such a brilliant writer and editor (Knopf, New Yorker) that it's hard to imagine him making that mistake! (And I recommend reading that review in full. The section on Hubbard is hysterically funny. How many other critics could get away with some of the things he says?)