nanushka

I agree, and I think Joan Acocella made a very good point about this in her recent piece for The New Yorker. It's so nice to see all the music really filled with action and meaning, even when that comes in the form of mime. The characters really use every bar in expressive, meaningful ways.

I think Lane did an interview with Glamour before the Oscars in which she apparently revealed more than the film's producers were comfortable with. After the Oscars, she did further interviews, claiming that she had been contacted by the producers after the Glamour interview and asked not to say any more until after the Oscars. So, she didn't reveal the "gag order" until after the Oscars, but she had apparently "spoken out" at least once before, and it sounds like they weren't happy about that. More info here. I don't think it was ever a secret that a dance double was used; I think the issue was more about how much was Portman dancing vs. how much was Lane dancing.

It would be just as much in Aronofsky's and Millepied's (financial) interests for Portman to win an Oscar as for they themselves or the film to win one. Just because the controversy didn't ultimately prevent her from winning one doesn't mean there weren't fears in the lead-up to the Oscars that it might. Indeed, it was reported at the time that, according to Lane, she'd been asked to keep her mouth shut at least until after the Oscars. When it comes to votes from the Academy, perception matters -- and if the perception is that the makers of the film had done something extraordinary, that could only help their chances. I'm not suggesting this has anything to do with why Lane didn't get the R&J. Just responding narrowly to the above point.

I doubt the Met is worried too much about messing with the ABT season. In fact, it's probably the perfect time, from their point of view. They get traffic to test it out and some feedback about how it's working, and they don't have to pay the price.

I haven't looked, but can't one just count and figure out the seat number?

It's been adjusted now. Prologue & Act I: 65 min. Intermission: 20 min. Act II: 25 min. Intermission: 20 min. Act III: 39 min. Total: 2 hr. 49 min.

They're listing no intermission between Acts II & III of SB, although there were two intermissions during the May run. Wish they'd do it with just the one, using the Act III opening march music (which was cut, and which I love) for the scene change between Acts II & III. But the total time listed seems to suggest they'll still do two intermissions.

Tonight was a very good performance, though I think having seen Thursday's makes it impossible for me to be at all passionately excited, as I was then. Sarafanov was superb, though. He's no longer quite as bravura as in years past, perhaps, but still quite striking and with seeming effortlessness. It was interesting to see him almost fall off balance in a complete nothing moment while on demi-pointe, both feet planted at the back of the stage -- because the rest of it was just excellent, to my eye. Kochetkova was lovely. Her turns and spins are exceptional -- particularly the long sequence at the end of the shades scene, from upstage left to downstage right. But I just can't get as excited about a tiny little dancer as I can about a tall, voluptuous one (like Veronika). Sarah Lane in Sleeping Beauty was hard enough for me -- I loved her dancing, and it was reasonably okay that she looked like a young girl in comparison to virtually everyone else onstage. But for Nikiya? I need LEGS! Kochetkova's back is extremely flexible, though. (I'm talking almost a 90-degree angle right in the middle of her back!) But again, in comparison to everyone else onstage, she looked like a young girl. This was especially the case in the betrothal scene, where her costume didn't do her any favors. Isabella Boylston was quite competent, but I figured this would really be a role in which I'd like her a lot, and it wasn't. Her acting in the confrontation scene seemed overly broad, and not at all as convincing as Gillian's. In the betrothal PDD she was solid, particularly in the Italian fouettés -- but I was really expecting some multiple fouettés and she gave only one double to start. Those wrists, though! I used to think it was just sloppiness, but tonight I began to think maybe she views her flappy wrists as a feature, not a bug. Seriously, I felt like she was really "doing" the flappy wrist thing (the way Nina A. used to "do" her swan arms), not just that it was happening unintentionally. Every extension of the arm had to end in an extra little flap (or, more often, flop). Quite distracting. By the way, whoever was the guy downstage right in the waltz that opened the betrothal scene, he was a real mess. Why put him in front? Anyone know who that was?

Many might not, but I certainly would. Gillian is on video for this production (though she has grown as an artist since then, I believe). And Veronika probably has fewer fine O/O's in her left. They're very different dancers. I love Veronika's endlessly long legs and gorgeous arms in a classic adagio-centered ballet like SL -- and her black swan is voluptuous. Gillian has less passion but more solid technique (at least, in the more obvious ways). In SL, given the choice between passion and triple fouettés, I'll take passion first. If you can possibly swing it, see both! But it's really a matter of taste, I'd say.

I doubt he was sight-reading; he's there every night, playing excerpts from whatever performance has just gotten out on both flute and sax. He's been doing it for years. Must have quite a library!

Second that! Though she inspires divided opinions, she is considered by many (including myself) among the world's foremost Odette/Odiles. If you like gorgeous, tall adagio dancers, you'll eat her up. If you like tiny little spinners, not so much.

Thanks so much, nysusan. It's a term I hear a lot, and it seems to be somewhat hard to pin down precisely, but your explanations and references are very helpful -- much appreciated!

I wholly agree. Tonight's performance felt more dramatically satisfying than many Swan Lakes I've seen. Which is saying something, when you consider it's a Minkus score! I felt heartbroken in the final scene, along with both Solor and Nikiya for two completely different, dramatically realized reasons. The emotions felt so vivid. I don't think I've ever seen this in a Bayadère before.

Plus they did it last year and this year, and for anything other than Swan Lake but still high-profile ballets, the pattern seems to be two-years-on, one-year-off. Swan Lake is here every. single. year.

Wow. What an amazing night at the ballet tonight! With Veronika as Nikiya and Gillian as Gamzatti, you felt like you weren't missing out on anything! A gorgeous adagio ballerina and an astonishing allegro ballerina, covering the whole spectrum. The stage was electrified in Scene 2 with their confrontation. And in Denys Nedak we finally have a partner (now that Marcelo and she don't seem to dance together much) who can match Veronika with dramatic intensity and lyric strength. From the moment they shared the stage in Scene 1, the overwhelming love Nikiya and Solor were feeling for each other swelled higher than the music. When Veronika appeared veiled at the top of the steps and many in the audience burst into applause, one of the women sitting next to me asked the other, "Who's that?" "I don't know," the other replied. After her first solo, I heard them both whisper to each other, "Beautiful!" Veronika was captivating, with her long luscious limbs, her temple dancer's figure, and her poetic, articulate feet and hands. Tom Forster was commanding as the High Brahmin and Alexei Agoudine was surprisingly good as the head fakir. (I think of him as the perpetual Wilfred or Catalabutte.) Christine Shevchenko, subbing for Paulina Waski, stood out in the D'Jampe dance in Scene 2. Nedak and Gillian had a lovely rapport during their chess match, which I watched while the corps D'Jampes were at it before the two soloists came out. Gilian's performance in the betrothal PDD was stellar. She didn't load up on the multiple fouettes (just one triple, a bunch of doubles), but they were firm and solid and nailed in place. Arron Scott, as usual, stood out in the waltz that opened Scene 2. His legs are just so beautifully sculpted and articulated. I forget whether it was in his betrothal variation or Shades variation, but Nedak's beats with his feet were thumpingly strong, yet swift. The three shades were Luciana Paris, April Giangeruso, and Katherine Williams. The first two were excellent, the last only so-so. Luciana also looked great in the betrothal Pas d'Action. Zhiyao Zhang was the Bronze Idol, but didn't dance up to my expectations. (He's been really noteworthy in the past, even in corps parts.) It was fine, even very good, but a little messy and just not particularly energetic. Speaking of which, it was reported earlier that Gillian looked tired earlier in the week. There were no signs of that tonight! She was on fire throughout. Her acting and her dancing were top-notch, to my eyes. Nedak is a keeper, especially for Veronika. I wish they were dancing Swan Lake together. I'm just so tired of seeing her paired with Cory -- who's fine, and good, but just doesn't have the dramatic intensity -- or intensity of any particular sort, for that matter -- to live up to her. She's one who really can't carry it alone; she seems to feed off the interaction with a great partner. (People always talk about Marcelo and Diana, but the same is really true of Marcelo and Veronika. If you've seen their interview clips during the Youth Grand Prix video where they dance the White Swan PDD, you'll know what I mean.) To wrap up on a lighter note, Veronika's crop top in the final scene reminded me of Sarafanov's teal midriff-baring Solor outfit in the video of the Shades scene with Tereshkina that's on YouTube. I wasn't there last night. Any chance he gets to wear this instead of ABT's costume? I don't know who has the lovelier belly -- he or Veronika.

Hi nysusan -- as someone without dance training, I'm interested in this concept of "line" and how it gets talked about and what exactly it refers to. Could you describe what, precisely, you're seeing when you say that MK has "an ugly arabesque" with "no line to it." I'd love to learn more about this topic. Thanks!

I say stick with it. From everything I've read (I only saw Sarah and Herman, so I can't compare), it sounds like Herman's performance of the Act III variation was the most masterful -- no matter how he looked in the costume, his dancing was superb. And Sarah, while she looked small onstage amidst all the hoo-haa, and while she slipped up in the Rose Adagio, seemed perfectly suited to Ratmansky's take on this ballet. They were both superb. As I noted above, read DeCoster's long review on p. 8 of this thread for a very astute take on their performance -- which was their very first in this production, and so will very likely be improved upon in performances to come.

This was a breathtaking moment! Thanks so much for your insightful, spot-on review, DeCoster (#109 back on p. 8).

My point was that he condemns the act of orientalizing, not the use of the term orientalism. It's like condemning the act of racism but not the naming of something as racism.

Using the term orientalism is completely different from using the term oriental. I think a lot of what's being said here is irrelevant once you know what orientalism is and means. The term orientalism is not considered offensive thanks to Edward Said. Said titles his own book Orientalism. Using the term orientalism is simply naming the act of fetishizing or "other-izing" that which is perceived of as "oriental." (Which for Said typically means not "Asian" but more broadly "Eastern" -- or more narrowly "Middle Eastern.") The same is true of using the terms chinoiserie or japonisme. They're all references to what may be offensive acts, but the terms themselves (like "racism") are not offensive.

Right. The difference between studying what people (often, though not exclusively, in the past) did with other cultures vs. doing it oneself.

It's a pretty common term in the field of art history, is it not?

I guess I don't see much difference between the 2nd image you posted (which I'm guessing was not realized as a 3-dimensional set -- or am I wrong?) and the painted backdrop in the 3rd image (current production).

I know nothing about thrones, but would there necessarily be a set of thrones in every large space in the palace? Or would the "main thrones" be moved around to be used in different spaces as needed? In other words, perhaps these weren't even intended to be thrones but rather just nicer chairs for the rules to sit in on this particular occasion.

To the extent that the set relies heavily on painted panels rather than three-dimensional sets, I think you're right. But I do think there's a degree of visual richness in those images that's simply absent in the Nutcracker production.