nanushka

Agreed. It would have seemed premature to me. The fact that she was given Aurora (Act III) again this year is a recognition of her excellent performance in the role last June. And she gave a superb performance as Princess Praline. I think she is still very much on their radar.

This is exactly the news I was hoping for a week ago. I do have a heavier heart now than I would have then, but that doesn't change the fact that all four are truly deserving of this. I'm excited to see where they go from here.

My guess is that it's what fondoffouettes described above (quoting from a previous page –– don't know how to do that on here): It's a pretty great enticement to potential donors to say "Give $100,000 and attach your name to a dancer." A bit more exciting than having your name engraved on a brick in the wall. The benefit to ABT must outweigh the annoyance of entitled donors. In reality, money is fungible; in terms of perceptions, not so much. So although the money goes into the general pot, there would be a real perception, with real consequences, that the donor is indeed paying (at least part of) the dancer's salary.

Wow, that article is really eye-opening, and just dripping with subtext. There is so much attempt on so many people's parts to downplay the significance and implications of it all. I'm not at all as confident that those protections are sufficient. "Unsavory" seems like exactly the word for this system.

I suppose it's true that he has to consider the experience of an audience much less familiar with the dancers than we are. I was seated maybe 25 feet from him, and the lighting didn't strike me as at all a problem. Agreed about Hee Seo, though as vipa has noted it fit his consistent narrative about her. I've had very mixed reactions to her in the past, but I thought Wednesday's was a superb performance.

Yes, this is definitely a problem I have noticed. "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" Well, that's the critic's job, isn't it? LOL. "The blind staggers"! Amen, I'm with you.

I wasn't thinking male ... I was thinking more like ... hmm ... something you'd say about someone's aunt or maybe about Joan Sutherland or something.

The latest review from Macaulay is a perfect example of how, so often, I just don't see how he sees what he says he sees... "And excessive side lighting [in Souvenir d'un lieu cher], by Brad Fields, makes it hard to identify the dancers." Really? You couldn't tell Abrera from Lane or Gomes from Lendorf? "James F. Ingalls’s lighting often leaves faces in shadow. The queen’s ludicrous white beehive wig casts a pall over the whole event. Several of Mr. Ratmansky’s ideas of Petipa’s most crucial details for Aurora look pedantic, underwhelming." None of these things has changed from the full-length version –– but none was such a severe problem that it was worth mentioning in full-length reviews of that piece? And I understand that space is at a premium, especially in a review such as this. But please, a hint at least of what those "most crucial" example are! "And while many more details are brilliantly considered and sensitively realized — several individual dances lack contrasts of light and shade." This is so vague and generalized that it helps me understand nothing of what he saw. Again, yes, space is a concern. But better to say fewer things clearly than to say things like this, I think. "Isabella Boylston and Joseph Gorak (Monday), marvelous stylists, are almost ideal..." Wait...seriously? (Granted, this one is perhaps just a difference of taste but...wow. What a difference.) Other parts are clearer to me. I can see this, for instance: "Veronika Part, a handsome ballerina in her farewell week with the company, catches several if not all of its contrasting facets; its dazzling unpredictability makes this her freshest vehicle. She opens herself to the soulfulness of the opening Preghiera, then returns in for the closing Thème et Variations in a regal yet brighter manner. / The virtuoso playfulness she lacks is shown by Christine Shevchenko in the second cast, but she in turn lacks (as yet) authority and contemplative tranquillity. David Hallberg, partnering Ms. Shevchenko, smudges a few details of the scintillating solos; Blaine Hoven, with Ms. Part, is clear but bland." (Though "handsome" makes me retch.) Maybe it is mostly just a profound difference in our tastes, but I just wish he had more consistency in visually illuminating the performances he reviews.

I have a feeling they're in for a pretty anticlimactic experience, but I guess we'll see. I'm actually surprised, logistically, that they decided on after. Now these intense fans will have to decide between staying inside for the very last "Brava!" or getting outside to address the largest possible audience. But I suppose logistics isn't really what's driving this.

This has certainly been quite an eventful season, hasn't it?

Oh wow. Now that's grace. And yet there's still such crispness too. Thanks so much for sharing the video!

Agreed. And it could also cause concern among any other potential future employers if Veronika were perceived as having been involved. In her own comments on Facebook, writing to the organizer back before the petition was even created, Veronika asked her to drop the issue. Later, even some of her initial comments about the situation were subsequently deleted. She's likely trying to keep her distance from all of this.

That makes sense. It's easy to imagine how the shift to smaller virtuoso dancers would settle in over time even if, as you suggest above, it's not the best decision. I'll be curious to see if Cirio does better with the role on Friday.

"Insouciance" is just the word. I think that's the quality I was most missing in David's performance especially. He has many fine qualities but insouciance is not among the strongest. He's more Ballet Imperial than Mozartiana. I didn't realize that Castelli was a particularly tall dancer. Croce wrote of Ib Andersen's "slightness in comparison to Farrell" and then went on to say this: "You might think that Balanchine would cast [the second man] in contrast to Andersen, but in fact it's Victor Castelli, another lightweight" (Going to the Dance 404-405). And in her article "Assoluta" in The New Criterion (a must-read for Veronika Part fans, by the way!), Laura Jacobs writes that the gigue is "always cast with a slight young male virtuoso" –– but the latter was in 2004, so Jacobs may be reflecting a more recent trend. I wasn't around to see Castelli dance.

That was in a comment that Part herself made on Facebook, I believe, not in an article.

There was a lot to appreciate in Wednesday's Mozartiana, and I'll readily admit that my criticisms may be unfair, given my investment in Monday's performance, but it just didn't all come together for me in the same way as the earlier performance had. Christine's preghiera was indeed quite beautiful. The effect was marred at the very end by applause that began before the radiant final three notes of the piece, but I can't really blame people who don't know the music, because it does sound like it might be over at that point. (That said, if that had happened at Veronika's performance on Monday, I might have lost it.) I was able to focus more on Simkin's gigue this time and I found it surprisingly unimpressive. As I noted on Monday, I felt it lacked the necessary energy and buoyancy, particularly in signature moments like the side-to-side steps and "T" jumps in the sequence at about 6:02 here: The menuet (Basmagy, DeGrofft, Hurlin, Whalen) was fine, though Monday's (Fan, Giangeruso, Waski, Williams) seemed better to me. Last night's seemed a bit like going through the motions; the révérences looked particularly perfunctory. On both nights, though, the développé balances (around 9:05 in the video) were quite well done. I agree with alexL above that Christine's performance in the T&V was less satisfying than her first movement. In particular, I wanted to see her legs more strongly articulated, in Mozartean style. Her steps seemed a bit too fluid and legato to me, as if she were dancing Odette (a role I'd love to see her in). (As a side note, I have always loved the Mozartiana hair, but Christine had one curl that kept flopping about in a most distracting manner.) I don't think this is particularly good role for David, and I was more impressed by Blaine Hoven on Monday night. David's long, shapely feet just don't look right to me when he's dancing Balanchine's footwork here, and he's more prince than cavalier/consort. (I don't want to sound too much like a critic who shall remain unnamed, but I also found David's facial expressions to be off-putting. Sometimes he comes across as "having airs"; sometimes that works.) Tchai Pas was much improved from Monday night. Watching Whiteside, I just kept thinking, "This is why Joey Gorak is not a principal." The performance was not without some problems, but it definitely had that "dangerous" quality, on the part of both dancers, that mimsyb described above. (The solo trumpet was having some serious problems, though. The orchestra's been sounding quite decent this year; let's not go back to the bad old days of wince-worthy ABT brass.) The fish dives were better, though still somewhat unexciting. In his solo, Whiteside's series of jumps from stage right to stage left almost kept going right off into the wings. That's the sort of big dancing I like to see. He's been looking very good this year. In the past I've been resistant, but he's been winning me over. Marcelo and Hee both looked gorgeous in the Nutcracker PDD. This is a perfect role for her. Some aspects of the choreography were odd out of context (particularly the parts where the two dancers are reveling in their new, adult freedom to dance), but this highlighted how well-made Ratmansky's choreography is for its context. None of the great PDDs are interchangeable; each fits its narrative context in a distinct and effective way. I'll skip to the Aurora's Wedding grand PDD (with just a side-glance at Luciana Paris's excellent Diamond Fairy and Gabe and Sarah's gorgeous Bluebird PDD): There was very good partnering here, for the most part, considering the late substitution. Cassandra's balanced backbend, facing Désiré upstage, was long, slow and gorgeous –– a real standout moment. The first fish dive was quite good, so far as two-handers go. But then the second was almost a disaster; she got into position just fine, but then once he had her there Joey nearly lost it and dropped her. He came back with one of the best variations I've seen in Ratmansky's production, though. His legwork was crisp and lively (except the final diagonal sequence, which lagged somewhat), and he looked beautiful in the costume, with very nicely toned calves. After what I'd thought about him while watching Whiteside earlier, it was particularly good to see Gorak give what, to me, looked like his best performance of the season.

I've been sad and upset about it all as well. There's no shame in having strong feelings about the loss (to oneself) of a great artist whose work has had a profound impact on one –– particularly when that loss comes prematurely and in questionable circumstances. Live performances, especially, can create such strong emotions. Veronika's performances have affected me in a way that few other dancers' have, and year after year I have looked forward to them as highlights of my experiences as a balletgoer. Yes, her life isn't over, there will be a next chapter, she may even continue to perform in some capacity. But it is quite likely that I will never see her dance again. I have many feelings about that. Pity –– either for myself or for her –– is not one of them.

It's striking to note that, with Vishneva's and Part's departures, ABT has only 6 female principals left: Abrera, Boylston, Copeland, Kochetkova, Murphy, Seo. Kochetkova danced hardly at all this season, and is also a principal with another company, so in a sense that leaves five –– two of whom have demonstrated fairly significant technical deficiencies this season and before. America's National Ballet Company® seriously needs an infusion of principal-level talent. But it's a serious shame that Part is being flung aside just when the ranks are so lacking in seasoned principal-level long-term experience. (They have 29 years among the six of them -– 15 of which are Murphy's alone!)

Quite impressive that, as of right now, 462 people have signed. I agree, I don't expect it to change anything, but it's a nice gesture of support.

Your description here is Boylston to a T. I remember reading numerous people on here in the year or so after she made principal saying things like, "Why isn't she getting better coaching to correct some of these problems?" For a young principal it seemed borderline excusable. Now it's really just gone on too long; I don't feel that she's developed much at all since her promotion. With Vishneva and Part gone, she will be the third most senior female principal (after Gillian and Hee). She has some very nice qualities as a dancer, but these problems are becoming unacceptable. But I suppose if she sees the sort of praise she's been getting in the Times and if she sees a dancer like Part, with very different qualities, getting fired, maybe she just thinks she's on exactly the right track?

It didn't help that, 4 or 5 minutes into the surprise intermission, the house lights flicked off for a second!

Turns out there's only one intermission in the Mozartiana/2PDDs/Aurora program, with one piece before and three after. I'm surprised, given that Aurora can't be much shorter than AfterEffect, and SLC and Nutcracker PDD are both supposed to be 13, I believe. I wonder why the discrepancy between the programs.

Mozartiana is 25-30 (depending on tempi); the two PDDs combined should be 25. So with two intermissions, Aurora's Wedding should start a little after 9. It's a little unclear exactly how much of Ratmansky's original Act 3 they'll cut out, and there are two pieces being inserted. I'd say a good estimate is you'll be on your way around 10.

Then again, it's only quite infrequently that others in the company post about Veronika in general –– at least among those I follow.

When are we going to get her book on Balanchine, which was first due out well over a decade ago?