nanushka

This one is gorgeous! Very different, because he doesn't raise her up and down, but he has such strength.

It's hard to tell which is cause and which is effect. Presumably they decided beforehand which of the two versions they would do, so both Juliet and Romeo are doing it differently. The form of support -- the mechanics of it -- looks quite different in Eagling vs. Corella. A very different form of support is needed when she's hands-free. It's likely easier for both dancers if Juliet is partly supporting herself with her arm, so it's hard to say whether it's due to her limitations, his limitations, both, or some other concern altogether.

Ah. I see now we're not. I thought the term "press lift" was referring to the one where he lifts her up and down repeatedly while he's kneeling.

I agree, nysusan! This scene was on my very first ballet video, a VHS called Ballet Favorites purchased in the lobby at a Cleveland Ballet performance of Swan Lake. It also had Makarova and Dowell in Act II of Swan Lake, Galina Mezentseva's Giselle mad scene, and Baryshnikov and Harvey's Don Q wedding PDD, among others. What an introduction! All four of those scenes have remained real touchstones for me.

Just for further comparison: Fonteyn does a modified "hands-free" version (holding on at first then -- tentatively, and with much less abandon than Ferri w/Eagling -- letting go. The cued video is here. Gelsey Kirkland does a hands-free version here with Dowell.

The hands-free version looks far superior to me. Much more expressive of the passion of both characters. These two (the Center Stage one especially) pale by comparison to that moment in the Eagling/Ferri video. Much stiffer and less fully engaged in the moment.

In the press lift here, Ferri's arms are both extended and expressive. In many of the performances this week, Juliets have used their downstage arm for support, holding onto Romeo's downstage shoulder or upper arm.

Not necessarily -- they just don't like R&J the ballet enough to see it 4 times just on its own merit! For the 3rd or 4th, if the star's not there, it doesn't cut it. That's not necessarily a lack of reverence for the ballet itself.

That may be one explanation. There may be others. But it's true that R&J can get mighty tiresome at times, on a 2nd or 3rd performance, when one doesn't have the big scenes to look forward to.

But you were also questioning those of us who choose to stay home or leave early and apparently don't have the proper levels of respect for the art or for the value of money to stick it out. I think your original post was painted with a very broad brush when now you're making a much finer point. I for one did not demand my money back, but I still felt implicated in what you were criticizing there.

My point was not to demean Cats or "people outside Manhattan." My point was more that tourists coming to town for a Broadway show are often coming to a single performance and for the show as a whole. People going to their third performance of a ballet in a single week are often coming to see one or two specific dancers in one or two specific roles, because they've already seen the rest. And the rest often consists of third-rate music performed by a third-rate orchestra with painted-backdrop sets and lots of boring bits. That's a quite different experience than what you get on Broadway for the most part. When the stars you've come to see (and paid *extra* money to see -- because the prices are jacked up) aren't there, I don't think it's unreasonable to cut your losses and call it a night.

The comparison to "an expensive Broadway show" is not very apt. Many of us save up money all year and carefully choose tickets to performances during this 8-week season based on the dancers we're hoping to see. We've seen these same productions many times before -- we're not tourists coming into town for a single performance of Cats. ABT uses differential pricing because they know people are buying tickets to see specific dancers; that's their business model; they've said it themselves. So yes, when we've already seen two or three performances of the exact same production in the same week, sometimes it does make sense just to stay home and eat the $125 or leave early rather than sit through a performance that's billed as a star vehicle when the star's not actually there.

Setting aside the question of whether Sarah Lane could have danced Juliet to Marcelo's Romeo (which I'll admit is an open question), how different things would be now if Osipova's Juliet had been given to Lane a week and a half ago instead of to Hee Seo. Lane has studied the role with Ferri; she'd have had a full week to rehearse with Marcelo; Seo would have still had two Juliets this week (since she was then scheduled for Monday and Tuesday); and Lane would have been ready to step in again last night with a partner she'd already been rehearsing with. And then we'd have had another home-grown dancer with onstage experience in an important role, and less audience fatigue with an overworked principal. Again, I acknowledge there may have been a partnering issue there. But these are the sorts of changes (even if this specific one wouldn't quite have worked) that could allow a company like ABT to weather its inevitable problems of injuries and cancellations, while balancing the costs, benefits, and needs of both guest artists and home-team dancers in an ultimately more sustainable way. It's quite amusing to hear ABT now say that they sell performances, not performers -- when we learned from that quickly yanked YouTube video of a prominent company spokesperson that that's not at all the way they work.

Especially when, as I assume was the case last night, that junior principal is assigned as the cover for that particular performance. (It would make sense that Seo would have been the scheduled cover, since she'd already danced it with Gomes so it'd be relatively easy to swap her in.)

The inevitable response: "But NYCB's rep is different, they don't do as many full-lengths, so it's easier to feel good about a replacement when you're not stuck with that person for the full evening, plus their corps and soloists get more opportunities since they don't do full-lengths." And yes, that's all true. But I think you're right about all this, mimsyb, and I think people would generally be more accepting of the replacements if there weren't SO MANY of them (especially this season) and if they weren't ALMOST ALWAYS the same person. This season looked so interesting and exciting on paper back when tickets went on sale, and now, near the end, it just sort of feels like it's been a bit of a slog.

Interesting -- I wasn't aware that there was a tradition of encores in ballet, as in opera.

That about sums it up!

I know it's not quite the same, but if a male principal pulled out sick on the day of a performance, would they yank the female principal from the part as well and bring in a whole new couple? Would that be considered acceptable? I doubt it. This is Gomes we're talking about -- a major ABT dancer and a big draw for many fans. And this isn't Sleeping Beauty, where the male principal hardly dances -- this is Romeo, who has far more stage time than Juliet. I'm almost certain that Gillian and Whiteside were not asked and did not say "no." Gomes was ready to dance, he had a partner ready with whom he'd rehearsed, and who was undoubtedly the cover scheduled for this evening. So they danced. That said, I left after the balcony scene, which was perfectly fine, but just didn't have what I was looking for from Vishneva and Gomes together. When one doesn't have the two of them to look forward to in the big highlight scenes, the other long, dull stretches (Victor Barbee and Pascal Knopp going at it with big swords in a ridiculous, overwrought manner?), Romeo and Juliet becomes quite a drag.

I'm not sure we can assume that she was sick enough at mid-day yesterday (which is about the latest possible time she could have canceled early enough for the convenience of subscribers wishing to exchange) to know that she would not be able to dance tonight. It's certainly a disappointment, but do we really want to blame her for this?

Sorry you're having to see Hee Seo again, here's a ticket to see Hee Seo again. I love it!

I wholly agree with the second part of this, and I understand that this latest change is particularly frustrating given that broader context. But taking this latest change on its own, I think it makes the most sense. There have been many other situations this year in which ABT management has stuck us with Seo instead of finding more ideal or even obvious solutions. I don't think this is one of those cases. There may not be many who bought tickets only for Gomes, but given that Vishneva's out, many would still like the chance to see him dance. I simply don't think this is a case in which ABT is acting irresponsible or inconsiderate to its patrons -- however often it may do so.

That's hardly an obvious solution. Many people would still be upset, as many will be there to see Marcelo as well. (This was, after all, his originally scheduled performance.) There are very few people who are seeing 3 or 4 casts this week and will have already seen these two dance together already. Even among subscribers, that's the case.

I'm sure it's Seo instead of Murphy because Murphy and Gomes wouldn't have rehearsed this together. In this particular case, it actually makes perfect sense for Seo to step in. I don't think ABT can be faulted for that particular decision.

Not on the ABT website calendar. It's Seo. I am kicking myself for choosing to go tonight over last night. I am so upset!

She doesn't take the last *two* suitor's hands! There are only two promenades! And that first balance, while long, ends up almost crashing.