avesraggiana

I finally, finally managed to watch the entire thirty minute clip. The tone of the whole coaching session was set wirhin the first two minutes. Lopatkina has just finished the series of supported developees devant followed by a deep, falling backbend into Siegfried's arms and Makarova interrupts them and says to Lopatkina, "you're very business-like". With that withering observation, the battle of diva-wills was on.

The truth is, Makarova was absolutely spot on. For all its formal beauty and avian mannerisms, Lopatkina's Odette has always struck me as a study in over-coaching and a

series of carefully studied effects. Her Odette doesn't breathe.

All anyone has to do is watch any video recording of Makarova's Odette/Odile to see right away that SHE lived and breathed those roles from start to finish.

It's also interesting to note that Lopatkina was a protégée of Natalia Dudinskaya, a ballerina that Natalia Makarova did not hold in such high esteem, according to her autobiography. .

One Makarova touch I do miss, that I've never since another ballerina do, is Odette's very first entrance in Act II. Captured on video, the music builds, Siegfried points his crossbow upstage and aims, the audience holds its collective breath and then really, waterfowl-like, Makarova alights on the stage with a run-run-run-grand jete, landing in fourth croise, her head down in a forward bend. It's really an arresting moment and it's easy to visualize a swan breaking her descent and alighting on a lake. Nobody else seems to do this, with the Russian ballerinas favouring instead a bent-knee, stork-like walk-walk-walk, followed by a split-jete en place and then a body flop over the front leg, like Siegfried really had shot her down...it's all very anticlimactic and kind of kills it for me.

Another Makarova touch that I love is when she first encounters Prince Siegfried. She throws her hands up to her face in fright, and snaps her legs closed in sous-sus, her whole body trembling literally from the tips of her stuttering pointes to the top of her tiara. The moment last milli-seconds but the meaning it conveys tells a thousand words.

Years ago, I saw a video of Makarova coaching a Royal Festival Ballet ballerina preparing for Odette and in coaching the scene I just described above, I distinctly remember Makarova telling the ballerina, "show me, show me with your WHOLE body...". It was Makarova teaching what she herself practised. I'm not at all advocating that all prima ballerinas imitate Makarova but rather, suggest that they would do well to emulate her example and find their own way to communicate their story using THEIR whole body.

I clicked on the video link but it was not available. I watched a two minute clip on youtube and even that short video, I could sense Lopatkina's resistance. She would have been wiser to make use of Makarova's suggestions. I think it would have softened her interpretation of Odette considerably, making her Odette more "organic", more full-bodied.

Odette/Odile makes or breaks a Swan Lake, and I find it far more renewing and interesting when an O/O tells me something colossal and terrible about being imprisoned, rather than if she makes a more or less aesthetic swan. As long as her 'birdiness' is drawing me away from any 'reality' into the super-hyper-unreality where this bird-woman thing makes metaphorical sense, that's fine. But she doesn't have to 'be' a swanny maiden for the prison metaphor to work. I'm thinking of why above all the perhaps 80 O/Os I've seen (live) in 20 years, Uliana Lopatkina and Tamara Rojo affected me on an entirely separate scale than any others, 'great' though many of them are at swanlike beauty or classical delicacy or aerialness etc. Lopatkina & Rojo are wholly unalike, though they have both taken their technique to that rare level where they merely use the steps to express the ideas the ballet gives to them.

Rojo is all music, a vibrantly feminine, tender, and very 'present' vision that comes and goes in different guises as her Siegfried dreams her to be - she is about as 'human' an Odette as I have ever seen. She is sexually charged in both disguises, and there is real horror in seeing such a beautiful woman enslaved, and a real urgency in one's desire for her to be released. I suppose it's a modern kind of horror.

Lopatkina is elemental, she doesn't come across as a sensate woman you might meet, but something more like the mythical soul of a nation. Her Odette seems to be resigned, her feelings muted, after centuries of enchainment. Sexual attraction, trust, faith, all these things went long, long ago. She is like one of Michelangelo's stone slaves, a ravishing form struggling in vain out of cold stone.

It matters with Rojo who her Sigfried is, because that is how she fashions her performance. It really does not matter with Lopatkina, because she would represent the permanent suffering of the damned whoever the current villain was. They both fashion their Odiles with equal care, Rojo flamboyantly to dazzle, Lopatkina, on at least one occasion, to repel. Either way, the message about evil is irresistible and neckprickling. Rojo's finale is heartbreaking because she is lucky enough to have the Royal Ballet version to dance, and one's tears just pour; Lopatkina, who is made for tragedy, is saddled with the implausible Soviet 'happy' resolution which she never appears to believe in. I wonder if Lopatkina will ever get the right ending for the story she tells in her Swan Lake, or whether she will remain trapped in artificial optimism for all time.

I've never been a fan of Lopatkina's, and I've seen her live and on the 2006 DVD. I do agree wholeheartedly with you, however. For a ballerina as prodigiously talented as Lopatkina and for whom Swan Lake has become a signature role, I hope, I really, really, hope that before her career ends, she will free herself from that truly vexing and totally unnecessary Soviet-era "happy ending". I agree with your observation that Lopatkina doesn't believe in it herself and isn't very successful in hiding it.

It's been over twenty years since Glasnost and the break up of the Soviet Union. You would think that the directorial powers that be at the Maryinsky and Bolshoi, would open up their thinking about the staging of Act IV, and fashion something more closely attuned to to what Tchaikovsky and his librettists intended.

I realize this may be a tough question to answer since few ballerinas have the technical and dramatic abilities to dance both roles successfully.

My favorite Odette is Natalia Makarova. No other ballerina I've seen has captured the pathos of the character or brought out the poetry of Ivanov's choreography more eloquently than her. Some may not like her swan mannerisms, but to me they're exquisite.

I've yet to see the perfect Odile. Plisetskaya acted and danced the role to the hilt, so she's probably my first choice. Makarova would be a close second, even though she didn't project Odile's wickedness as effectively as Plisetskaya.

I've never seen Plisetskaya's Odile, sadly for me. The best Odile I've seen from a dramatic point of view is oddly enough, Makarova, which might sound like I'm contradicting you. I saw Makarova live, in Swan Lake only once but I've watched her video performance with Anthony Dowell many, many times. And I have to tell you, I haven't seen an Odile surpassing her from the point of view of dramatic power, ever. I'm speaking now of the younger crop of ballerinas. They all have the looks, the turns, the balances, the high extensions but none I've seen seem to be able to inhabit the role completely the way Makarova did.

Makarova was not a powerhouse technician by any stretch of the imagination and her turns were never a testament to unshakeable bravura. But, and I think the blocking of the action in Act Three helps with this, her entrance with Von Rothbart could stop an entire city block. One of the oddities of the Russian productions of Swan Lake I've seen is the early introduction of Von Rothbart and Odile in Act Three. The curtain rises, the march starts, the music changes, then Odile and Von Rothbart make their entrance, bow to the Queen, scarcely acknowledge Siegfried, and then run off for twenty minutes! To where? and for what? The productions of SL that I got to see Makarova perform, and captured beautifully on tape in her performance with Anthony Dowell, has the diabolical duo make an arresting uninvited entrance right in the middle of the festivities. They make their introductions to the Queen Mother, Siegfried is astounded and overjoyed that "Odette" has shown up, and with one half-turn of her body to face him and a baleful and penetrating stare, Odile lets Siegfried take her hand, and with that one gut-wrenching key change in the music, the pas de deux begins.

I'll refrain from raving on and on about the pas de deux itself, other than to mention the sharpness of Odile's attack, Odile's ravishing but brittle backbends and her brazen flirtation with Siegfried. Finally, Makarova's and Von Rothbart's exit from the ballroom is every bit as gripping as their entrance. All of this is captured on film in that 1982 Royal Ballet production. I've watched other performances on tape and now, on DVD but none have risen to the same level, as far as dramatic impact is concerned, in the Ballroom Scene. I find myself going back to the Makarova-Dowell performance over and over again. The more time passes and the more performances I watch, either live or recorded, the more I realize what a singular Odette/Odile Makarova was, and how even more effective her dramatic powers were enhanced, when she was paired with Anthony Dowell.

At Classicaltv.com you can watch the Zurich 2009 production of Swan Lake for free.

I like ABT's act 4 because I'm VERY partial to Gillian Murphy and I like the ending overall..but the whole act itself is a little short.

I must say that Heinz Spoerli's act 4 was for me very enjoyable to watch. Maybe it has to do with how it was shot and also the Choreography...but I really have to give this act4 a plug.

What other act 4's does everyone else like?

I'm still partial to any production with the tragic ending, which I believe, is what the music calls for. The least problematic Act IV double-suicide I've seen is captured in the Makarova-Dowell Royal Ballet Swan Lake video from 1982. They both just run in a diagonal and exit upstage with one final grand jete. Very simple, no possibility of getting tripped up while climbing steps to the top of a rocky cliff and then jumping off. This is how many tragic-ending Swan Lakes manage the double suicide and I don't think it works very well. First, it stops the momentum of the action, and it looks a little hokey. I saw Cynthia Gregory and Martine Van Hamel throw themselves off a cliff, and in a later Royal Ballet production, Darcey Bussell and Viviana Durante. None of the four ballerinas, as great as their dramatic powers were, could quite pull it off.

Hands down, the most beautiful corps de ballet dancing in Act IV is the Maryinsky/Kirov. Those women really breathe as one; how on Earth do they develop those uniformly beautiful Russian backs? This corps de ballet, especially in Swan Lake, has that quality, much to be envied and admired by other companies - presence. This corps de ballet has presence, that "It" factor that makes you unable to take your eyes off them. I believe, every time I've witnessed a live performance of the Kirov/Maryinsky Swan Lake, the audience bursts into spontaneous applause when the curtain rises on Act IV. With their beautifully placed backs, shoulders, arms, heads and hands, the corps earns applause just by posing there. It's really a magical moment, as if time itself has stopped.

Now if they could only get rid of that detestable jester, and the rip-the-wing-off-silly-Happy Ending...

The essential thing is though, that you can't get angry with someone just because they don't share one's knowledge or appreciation of an art form, or rather you can but it's at that point that an allegation of snobism holds weight.

The technique of ballet has evolved over the past twenty years to the point where gymnastic ability has overtaken artistry in many cases precisely because to attract new audiences spectacle is demanded. It's a hotly debated topic on these boards about the loss of artistry in ballet for gymnastic pay off.

The problem with preaching to the unconverted is the central question of why do you want to convert them? Yes, they're wrong the head balance to Tchaikovsky isn't ballet, but you'll never convince them of this if they don't wish to be convinced, or have no inclination to discover what the art form is all about. If you want to try and make them aware of what ballet means to you, and this is the issue really, then it's mandatory that you take a softly, softly approach and come from it from there point of view. You really don't break a butterfly with a wheel.

I love ballet and the art of ballet, but I know that if I want to talk about it with like minded people who come to it from a similar point of view I'll come and chat here. But if you want to talk about it from a standpoint which is the antithesis of yours then it's vital that one sympathises with the opposing view point, to acknowledge what the acrobatic act means to those posters on other boards. Launching into an argument about the nature of art never works well, I've learnt that to my detriment and above all not to lose one's rag with people who don't have your appreciation or knowledge.

My own feeling is to pick one's battles wisely, I know from experience it's often not worth the brain damage incurred in enterting the internet message boards fray, people fundamentally don't like changing or revising their views on any topic, never mind ballet, just take a softly softly approach. It really does pay dividends.

Simon,

Thanks for your reply, all your points are very well taken. I’ve decided that trying to explain the difference in what I see in that video clip, to people who do not know the difference, and who don’t care, is trying to convert them and I’m simply not about to expend any energy doing that. It’s probably why I’ve not responded to that question. I don’t think I could articulate my thoughts in such a way that would not seem confrontational, intellectually arrogant or snobby. Until I do, I’ll stay out of the fray.

Arnel

I also feel the way you do, I think.

No one has asked me to "define ballet", though.

It will be interesting to read what others have to say! Thank you for mentioning this.

I would reply that ballet (as I know it) has more to do with the conveyance of emotion - however abstract that can be - and less with acrobatic and sensationalism than does circus.

For me, ballet does not try primarily to "wow" and cause audiences to "gasp", but to move them in other ways.

That said, there are many other "types" of ballet - and how it has changed over the years - which I would define as having really become something else.

-d-

Thanks, Diane. I was coming around to the same conclusion as yourself. Ballet is more about the emphasis, than the technique. If the point of the performance is to tell a story or evoke a mood or emotion, and the body is being used to convey it in the most beautiful and expressive way possible, then it’s ballet. If the point of the performance is astound us with physical daring and hold us breathless with acrobatic stunts as you put it, then it’s not. Of course the elements of suspense and thrill are present in both, and this is where it gets tricky. How many of us have held our breath, white knuckling it in our seats, wondering if the evening’s Aurora will make it through all four attitude balances? or been left bug eyed and slack-jawed when Odile/Kitri/Gamzattii/etc caps off a string of double and triple fouettes with a sextuple fouette ending in sous-sus?! However when the bravura performance becomes more about, “Look Ma, No Hands!” instead of “I’m trying to physically express something in the most beautiful way possible”, then it becomes circus acrobatics, or gymnastics.

How many gymnasts have we seen break form on the balance beam and still earn near perfect 10s, or ignore pages and pages of music before barreling through her final tumbling pass?

Okay, I’ve ranted enough. Thanks for your input, Diane.

A.N.

I couldn't agree more with Eileen about the value of traveling to see the Suzanne Farrell Ballet perform, and I would like to see Jewels prepared by her, but it's not yet. She says

I'm especially looking forward to the 10th anniversary celebration of The Suzanne Farrell Ballet in October, which will feature my company's premiere of Balanchine's Diamonds, originally made on me in 1967 as part of his full-evening Jewels.

I'm looking forward to it, too.

Suzanne Farrell's company must be bigger than I had originally imagined. Diamonds is a big-cast ballet. Not to take anything away from Ms. Farrell, who I know originated the ballerina role, the most impressive performances of "Jewels" that I've witnessed in the last five years have been by the Kirov/Maryinsky and the Paris Opera Ballet. The least impressive and most sloppy and disappointing, by the New York City Ballet. Wendy Whelan fought mightily to save the ballerina role and mostly succeeded. Her overweight and out of condition partner, Nilas Martins, was an added embarrassment to the whole evening. The corps de ballet? Typical NYCB messy, careless and seemingly not that interested in doing a good job. A real pity.

I've come in for quite a beating from the other posters on this video clip. The video shows a truly impressive acrobatic, circus, contortionist performance, set to Act Four music from Swan Lake. It's astounding, actually, what these acrobats can do, particularly the lead female, performing in a white unitard and pointe shoes, and turning and balancing on her partner's head! The point I made and for which I've been getting criticism is that, for all its impressiveness, this was still not ballet. I was accused of being elitist, snobby, and arrogant for determining what was art and what was not, and what was ballet and what was not.

Finally, someone directly challenged me and asked me to "define" ballet, and to explain why this particular circus performance, as mightily impressive as it was, did not qualify.

I have yet to reply to this challenge. Does anyone have any ideas on how to answer the question, "define ballet"? All I can say is that I know it, when I see it. If you take the trouble to view this video clip, just search for it the way I've typed it in the Topic Description, you might come to the same or different conclusion. Inspite of the misshapen tutus worn by the "corps de ballet", inspite of the use of ballet technique and pointe shoes, the whole performance was STILL not ballet to me.

Can anyone tell me why, or why not?

Thanks.

Did Yulia Makhalina retire in the end, or is she left just to languish too?