puppytreats

I'm sure some of it has to do with PR but people can't convince people uninterested in ballet that they are interested in it. Misty clearly is reaching an audience that has been untapped here previously. There were a lot more African American patrons in the seats on sat (when she had been scheduled to dance) than normally are seen at the MET. To their credit, they showed up anyway (and from the lobby talk they already knew). But I think to chalk that up to PR alone, or even primarily, is overly cynical (I'm not saying *you* were doing so). An audience that has not seen themselves represented is doing so in Misty, and they are clearly very excited about it. I think that is all for the good. This is not an argument for promotion, nor against it. Just an observation. I admit to cynicism. Opening up and then appealing to a new audience (a good thing) creates economic opportunity, as well. When Nina, Irina, Natasha, Ivan, etc. perform in NY, a large group of audience members speak Russian. I hear a lot of Italian when Roberto performs. I am sure ads are placed in local community newspapers for various performances. Isn't this why some people characterize McKenzie's business model as "conservative"?

Maybe the issue will boil down to economics. She seems to have a strong p.r. team and other support.

Good news: the ballet "Ivan the Terrible" was on television today. (I will wait while the shock wears off.) Bad news: I fell asleep with 1/2 hour left. Frustrated.

NY Times states: "Mr. Hallberg is a completely rounded Romeo: he’s both patrician and rebellious, brave and overwhelmed, conscientious and defiant." Is this Romeo? I think I saw another ballet.

I was so thoroughly moved by Saturday night's performance that I have not been able to gather my thoughts or find words sufficient to describe adequately what transpired that evening. In the meantime, I will quote from Batsuchan, describing a moment of "epiphany" (although, she was describing Vishneva's and Gomez's performance), and from Leigh, in the Post, describing achieving "communion" (although, he was discussing Osipova's and Hallberg's performance.) Leigh wrote: "The real magic happened . . . . [T]heir dumbstruck glances and passionate kisses went beyond chemistry to communion." Bat wrote: In Roberto Bolle's performance, every subtle gesture conveyed complex details about character, plot, theme, and emotion. The moment of recognition of true love in Roberto Bolle's face was overpowering, stunning, honest, and real. It served as compelling testimony to the expressive power of dance and art, where words fail.

Kent was flying during the lifts. I do not have familiarity with the mechanics, but from what I have read, the ballerina must perform a great deal of the work in a successful lift. If this is true, then she was in excellent form. Indeed, I thought she performed better than she did last year. Perhaps Kent and Vishneval interpreted the role differently, If Kent did not display intense emotions initially, perhaps she was suggesting that they awoke or arose suddenly upon introduction to the stranger. Perhaps they remained buried in her subconscious mind, or were misunderstood until she faced Onegin. I have read articles separating the characteristics of shyness and intensity, but I agree with Vishneva that these qualities can co-exist. Nevertheless, Kent may have read her character as inexperienced and shy, with other, internalized feelings unrecognized and/or unexpressed. Many writers discuss Onegin as a "bad guy" and complain they cannot view Gomes as "mean." This characterization seems too facile. Bolle interpreted Onegin in a nuanced, subtle, and complex manner. I do not know if this translated to the back of the theatre. He offered more information about the character than derived from the simplistic explanation contained in the program notes or by many critics and bloggers. Tatiana's letter clearly troubled Onegin, as interpreted by Bolle. He did not know how to react to it. Faux Pas writes that Onegin was not in a position to consider courting or marrying Tatiana, based on his economic situation, and that the writing of a letter from a woman to a man posed a social problem at that time. Bolle showed that Onegin felt that her feelings and actions imposed a burden upon him, with which he did not want to have to deal. Onegin did not handle receipt of the letter or rejection of Tatiana well, with sufficient consideration or tenderness, but he may have lacked the intelligence, development of character, or experience to address it properly. Nevertheless, he did not act out of a motivation to engage in sadistic cruelty. Indeed, he did not display the indifference or carelessness that he showed to other women whose company he later breezed through and with whom he shared casual encounters later in the ballet. From his actions in the duel and with the letter, he seemed to be pained and frustrated at his inability to reach an easy resolution of difficult situations, and at even being faced with conflicts, problems, and challenges. That someone hurts another, through rejection or otherwise, does not demonstrate evil intentions. Onegin's failures demonstrate his flaws, but do not indicate he is evil. (Of course, this analysis assumes the character is a human being and not a metaphor.) Indeed, FauxPas offers an explanation that Onegin acted in a brotherly manner. This demonstrates concern, not an character that is beyond redemption. I do not know if I agree with this interpretation, but it is one of several that are more generous than many seem willing to consider. The first act pdd was breathtaking, moving, and astonishing. The dream quality and passionate love emanated from the stage. The dream sequence offered both dancers the positive emotions to display, which Faux Pas states well suit them. Indeed, this scene presented Bolle as the princely, handsome, romantic, dream hero and love interest. The dance with Olga showed a selfish, playful, flirtatious character. In this case, Onegin demonstrated a carelessness toward Lensky, as he showed with the women with whom he had casual encounters, and lack of understanding of the depth of emotions or the impact of his actions upon Lensky, a poet with passionate feelings, as he demonstrated with Tatiana. The third act pdd involved great vulnerability, openly and wildly expressed. As Faux Pas writes, the dancers express these emotions with great sincerity and passion, as well as technical strength. Contrary to many writers,Tatiana's rejection of Onegin during this pdd did not involve revenge. She did not want to impose pain upon Onegin, or take any pleasure in Onegin's pain, Indeed, she plainly suffered her own, intense pain. Her success in life, at least from social and presumably economic standpoints, did not constitute "sweet revenge", as suggested elsewhere. The performance on Wednesday night was much more intense and focused than at the gala. I think dancing the full ballet offered the opportunity to concentrate on the entire plot and character, which served the dancing. Also, the fouettes and fireworks of all the stars at the gala may have presented a bit of a distraction and created anxieties. Lensky's solo required greater clarity. The dancing or choreography did not convey Lensky's struggle at that point clearly enough.

Reading my mind again...

You overstate the impact of seeing them order a meal in a cafe. They were not shown eating the meal, and it may have been all they ate all day, or it may have been removed. On balance, I liked watching the show, even though I only saw the last half, and even if portions were objectionable or maybe unnecessary. I watched this for the ballet, but mostly, I saw this as a show about young people learning and growing in handling their emotions, careers, aspirations, physical capacities, and relationships. And from miliosr, we expect commentary on the fashion....

"The Apprentice"...suspense.... "You're fired."

- an interesting topic itself

Upon reading, I realize this came across in an unintended way. I offer my apologies to you, Mel. I just was not sure of what you were saying and did not want to misunderstand you.

Many on this board have thanked McKenzie for bringing to NY performers they have wanted to see perform, and for the wonderful performances. This does not mean he should not promote or develop, but apparently a lot of people seem happy to have the opportunity to see certain stars. I am grateful for this in certain aspects, even though I appreciate many in the company.

I thought Natasha was being cheeky, not that I had passed along a false rumor. Sarcasm and other emotions do not translate very well on the internet!

I do not know much about Christian theology, but does going to heaven require self-sacrifice? What would have kept her out of heaven - original sin? her love of dance? her defiance of her mother's warning? a lack of baptism? I thought she was an innocent. Therefore, what would bar her from heaven? She was already sacrificed, by the way. Therefore, why would additional self-sacrifice be required? I also thought, under Christian theology, that the sacrifice of Jesus washed away sin. Sorry for my ignorance.

She would suffer eternally from knowing she contributed to Albrecht's suffering and death under Myrtha for the rest of time if she did nothing to save him. She would be damned either way. Another curse is converting from her true nature, or being consumed by growing, enduring hatred and anger. Violating a curse? Maybe saved from a curse. Violating a "code." I don't think love can compel anything else. Maybe another code or emotion can cause other actions or reactions, but love leads to fighting to protect Albrecht.

Even in the Old Testament, perpetrators of manslaughter were afforded asylum. No doubt he caused grievous pain, but Albrecht is not a murderer. He may have been guilty of criminally negligent homicide, but even this is open to debate.

This is not in any way analogous, with due respect, Helene. The crime perpetrated was against Giselle. Giselle maybe saw that Albrecht had incurred a punishment, or maybe she did not think he should be punished. More on point, Giselle did not think that death was a just or proper punishment. Further hurting Giselle, the victim whose injury is being addressed, by making her suffer or effectively cause Albrecht's death, does not constitute justice.

Is it just to Giselle to cause additional suffering but executing someone she does not wish to die?

As far as Myrta is concerned, it hasn't. Giselle has shown forgiveness and mercy, and in that Christian light, Myrta's power is broken in this one, extraordinary instance. On the other hand, in the traditional ending, Bathilde forgives him, and presumably they marry, and he goes back to his day job. Maybe he's held on a tight leash for the rest of his life. Myrta is not serving justice if she kills Albrecht against Giselle's wishes. Instead, she is punishing Giselle, who ends up suffering two losses/hurts/wrongs.

1. I imagine if the nobles had found Albrecht's body near Giselle's grave, the peasants would have suffered punishment. I don't think the willis' invisibility (to most) would not have prevented a continuing chain reaction. 2. If Giselle did not want Albrecht punished with a sentence of death, then justice still would not have been served. I keep thinking about Mr. Puppytreats saying last year after seeing "Giselle": "Why does Myrta get to be the Decider?"

Under this definition of justice, would the injured relatives of Albrecht, Hilarion or other enticed men have claim to similar revenge, in an unending cycle? Does the punishment fit the crime? Does this impact the execution of so-called justice? How can justice result without a trial? Whose evidence was presented, or examined for reliability? Even without the application of mercy, the punishment may not be appropriate. Universal condemnation of men does not seem to constitute an application of justice, but rather, an expression of anger and revenge for painful injuries. I doubt executing judgment alleviates the pain or satisfies the hunger for revenge.

http://www.timeout.com/newyork/dance/devon-teuscher

What an odd question... I'd rather like to know if she did anything of good, especially artistically. :-) I Asking if someone who is ill has recovered demonstrates concern, not necessarily malicious intentions. I don't think it is an odd question at all.

Did she change back into harem pants for the curtain call after the Kingdom of Shades tutu scene?

From interview in "Time Out New York": "Myrta is a ballbuster. ... I started to build my character—to build my own ideas of Myrta, and what she is. It’s an interesting part, because she’s still dead technically. She’s still a spirit. So there is an essence of some softness to her that I think is often forgotten. There is a bit of eerie softness, yet she’s so strong. It was hard finding that balance, and I still am struggling. I think of when you can see spiritual parts of her, and when she is very strong, and keeping that throughout the strong parts. I agree. It’s not that she’s vulnerable, but there is something else to her. Yeah. If you think about her, she’s not evil. What she’s doing to Giselle is not evil. It’s simply revenge, yes, but it’s justice. She’s justice, that’s what she is. And I think that’s often forgotten, that she’s pure strength and… Resolve? Right. But I think there’s a sense that what she’s doing isn’t wrong. She’s not trying to kill someone just to try to kill him. This is what she thinks is right and this is what needs to happen." (emphasis added.) Is this justice?