nanushka

Yes, that's at least one of the times when he partnered Reyes. He got the role late, due to an injury and some reshuffling. He spoke to Gia Kourlas about it in Time Out:

I once thought Gorak was going to be big. But I don't think the story is quite as simple as mere waste or neglect by ABT management. (And they've certainly been guilty of that in numerous cases, in my opinion.) There was some of that, I think, but there was also a lack of real growth on Gorak's part as an all-around artist. Over the years, I didn't see evidence that he was really working hard to develop in those areas where he needed it most (especially partnering and stage presence). He's a beautiful dancer (and those feet!), but it just didn't seem like he had the necessary drive or was putting in the necessary work. I can only base this judgment on what I saw onstage, though, so it's hard to be sure — and certainly the lack of sufficient support and investment from ABT management could itself have contributed to that lack of drive. A stagnating career can be a self-perpetuating phenomenon. But something important has been missing from his performances over the past 3 years or so, and I'm not convinced that his having been given too few opportunities is the sole cause of that.

I'm glad he finally got to dance it and that it went so well. He's been scheduled and had to pull out at least once before. (I'm pretty sure last summer at the Met.)

Yes, judging by casting, they seem to have decided that most of the current soloist men aren't going to move up (with Royal as the most likely exception), which means corps men will have to get two promotions before the male principal ranks start getting filled, at least from within the company. It's kind of baffling how this has all been handled over the past 5+ years.

After being quite impressed by Hammoudi's performance in On the Dnieper — and not having been impressed by the performances I've seen from him for a number of years now — I'll be curious to see how he handles his Act III solo.

Thanks, @miliosr. That's really disappointing. It looks like the notice is dated May 10, but I never received anything.

My first time seeing it, but completely agree — Pollack was excellent. Isaacs gave a very good performance, but when they were dancing at the same time, my eyes were drawn to Pollack.

A solo bow in front of the curtain but I ducked out after that so not sure about a bouquet. A lot of warm applause for her throughout. What a great piece to go out on! She looked like she was having a great time and feeling a lot. I enjoyed the piece. Interesting that the central PDD has so partnering/lifting of one another — that’s the same when it’s done M/F?

The casting sheet has said "Pollack (replaces J. Peck)" for awhile now. Is there a unisex role in the ballet?

Completely agree, and taking the repeat in the music is a must!

It's a piece that should work well in both the Koch and the Met. Granted, I think it'd be better with a real set design in the latter space, but the costumes are bold enough (though, I agree, not nearly as nice as they could be) that they allow the piece to work there.

This busyness is exactly what I loved most about the piece, and I think it's quite purposeful. It fits the concept, and it fits the music. Glazunov's seasons aren't four distinct movements; they run one into the next — as do the seasons of nature, overlapping and mixing. There's no place in the concept for a single solo lead — there are dominant elements and subordinate elements, relations and cross-relations, dependencies and juxtapositions. It's a company piece, allowing the company to work both as a company and as distinct elements, with particular stand-out features. It has wonderful energy.

The costumes for The Seasons were indeed rather low-budget, and there was no set, but throughout the entire performance I couldn't have been happier. It was 40 minutes of non-stop ballet heaven. Only Balanchine, in my experience, has so filled a ballet with such wonderful dancing, leaving not a moment wasted. It was truly a gift to the company, with so many dancers getting great opportunities to stand out. I've never liked Hee Seo or James Whiteside so much. Catherine Hurlin, as others have said, was fantastic, in both this and On the Dnieper. Sarah Lane was at her best. I loved all the different configurations: four female variations overseen by Winter; a PDT with solos for Zephyr, Rose and Swallow; a prima solo variation; a corps waltz; a Faun solo (Gabe Stone Shayer filled in for Blaine Hoven) with two Satyrs for backup; a bacchanale led by Bacchus (Blaine Hoven in turn filled in for Calvin Royal) and Bacchante; an adagio PDD for Corn and Zephyr. It had everything. Only Isabella Boylston was disappointing to me; I so wished I were seeing Stella Abrera. (Watching the choreography, I could just picture her.) Isabella, as often, was lacking in grace and refinement (I guess the "Spirit of the Corn" is suppposed to have those qualities? the choreography, at least, made me think so), and there were some stumbles. Songs of Bukovina, in my opinion, was a mistake for the Met — far too subtle and small-scale. It was swallowed by the space, both visually and aurally. Not a good start to this program. Tom Forster was quite good in On the Dnieper — I'm excited for his Rochester, and I wish I'd seen his Zephyr. The four principal roles were, indeed, all well-cast and very well-danced. Natalia fits Devon Teuscher's coolness, allowing her to be emotionally affecting in a way that really works for her. Catherine Hurlings was again superb as Olga. And I don't think I've ever seen Alexandre Hammoudi dance so well as in his Scene 2 solo. I truly did not know he had that in him! Overall, the evening just got better and better, and I left feeling like this Met season might just turn out okay after all. ETA: I know this has been covered before on BA, but looking at the program I was struck again by the current state of the principal roster, especially on the male side. Setting aside Bolle, Hallberg and Simkin as part-time principals (at best), there are three: Cornejo, Stearns and Whiteside. With Cornejo injured, that leaves two. That's nuts.

This is an ABT problem? I think NYCB, for instance, is an overall stronger company right now, but quite regularly when I see programs there I think some of the dancers are "good and perfectly cast" and others not so much. Isn't that pretty common?

Thank you so much, @Roberta, for the very detailed description/analysis! I always feel I can take in so much more of a new piece when I have a sense of the structuring elements going in, so I plan to refer back to this while listening again to the music before I see the piece tomorrow night. Very much appreciated!

Tickets still seem to be available — here, for instance.

Yes, and if not that should be enough time for a replacement to rehearse sufficiently with his partners — in which case, the question becomes: do they give a shot to someone not otherwise cast, risk overburdening someone who is already cast, or (though this is less the common practice now) fly someone in from elsewhere?

That's rather a bizarre headline, considering that the cited comments were posted in December. I thought light traveled faster than that.

I share many of the concerns with and criticisms of the piece, but just to be completely fair to Seibert, the article was not presented as a "review," but rather as a "Critic's Notebook," which is typically a more topical/reflective piece in the Arts section. We don't really know what degree of autonomy Seibert had in deciding what to write about; he may have been told by his editor that he had to write a piece about Ramasar's return and included the bits that were more reminiscent of a review on his own initiative. ETA: This is not to say that his comment about Mearns' relationship with Ramasar — or any other particular comment — belonged in such a piece. Just to say that it perhaps shouldn't be blamed for not being more of a conventional "review."

Interestingly, Nancy Reynolds notes in Repertory in Review, "The scrim was abandoned after the first performance; it is now clear that all four episodes take place in the same ballroom" (p. 272). A description by Goldner on the preceding page makes it clear that the scrim referenced is the same one used today: "We see the dancers behind a scrim, a scrim suggesting whirlpools of water, no less." Arlene Croce writes the following in a February 1971 piece (collected in Afterimages, pp.304-307): So at some point the scrim was reinstated. I remember reading another Croce reference (can't find it now) to its being brought back.

Yeah, that made me wince a bit. Why not go all the way and just call Ashley Bouder "shrill"?

Completely agree that some balance in the form of thoughtful, incisive, keen-eyed dance criticism/reviewing would be very welcome.

While I think the article has some definite oddities of logic, style, tone, etc., I don’t find its very existence to be unjustified. The return of a much-loved NYCB principal, in the current cultural context, in the given circumstances, seems newsworthy to me.

I don’t see Ramasar’s girlfriend’s personal forgiveness of him as having any particular bearing on the case one way or another. I haven’t seen anyone (including Seibert) questioning her right to forgive him.

Brian Seibert writes in the New York Times about yesterday's matinee, including Amar Ramasar's return. A taste of the article's rather odd shifts and turns: