EricHG31

I finally watched the broadcast too, and have mixed feelings. I grew up with a "based on" version of Balanchine's ballet (Alberta Ballet's in the 1980s), and as kid, we had a picture book of it, so in many ways this is the Nutcracker I remember. i think Act I is largely superlative--even the poor filming of the Snow scene still made me think of Ivanov's fabled 62 dancers forming stars, etc. The details in the dramas with the kids go beyond any other filmed production, amazing stuff (and amazing young talents). Act II has more problems for me, and more than I expected. I forgot that Balanchine breaks up the order of the Grand Pas. Why? I know he said "Ballet is first by default in woman" but I feel nothing is gained from having the Sugarplum Ferry dance solo, and greet Marie and the Prince without her Cavalier (be he named Whoopingcough or not). The only reasoning I can think is to build her role in Act II as the ruler of the kingdom of Sweets and give a moment of pure ballet early on--but I think it's a poor choice and I really regretted the lack of a male solo for her cavalier. If I could change one thing about Balanchine's version, that's the most thing I would change. (I would have never got into ballet as a little kid if I didn't see how stongly the men danced and a brief bit in the PDD Coda--=as well as the great candycane trepak--might not have done it). Still I do love the production so much--it's amazing how close the set is to the original set in design and purpose, and I love hommages like the "glide across the floor in an arabesque" moment during the PDD.

While far from being one of my favorite musical theatre lyricists, I know that Tim Rice did the new lyrics for this adaptation--all I've heard have been quite... something. When the movie came out it got some of the most bizarre reviews I've ever read--I know it was apparently a labour of love for its director, Andrei Konchalovsky, and largely financed in Russia but many critics said that a lot of it seemed to be a child's fantasy take on the Holocaust (?!), with Nazi mice, etc and other very dark subject matter. Roger Ebert's review has the hysterical quote: "One of those rare holiday movies that may send children screaming under their seats."

I completely forgot about that, but while watching tried to make a mental note about which version was used in the earlier Grigorovich. You're right--he used the Gold Fairy music version, which Petipa used in the original 1890 production--but this time they used the originally composed music--which I admit fits the scene better, but is also what the Kirov/Mariinsky uses, with them then giving the Gold variation in Act III to Lilac. LOL--confusing.

I think they do put a little note intheir broadcast--ie "small type" that it's not actually live. The Live from lincoln Center performances have not actually been live (to the best of my knowledge) in *any* market, no matter what the time zone for a very very long time, if ever. It usually means it's rom Lincoln Center (obvious I guess), was taped live (ie not a combo of several performances or fancy edits), and almost always something shown on Live, unlike something shown on PBS' Great Performances, can only be shown by an individual PBS twice, and can not be released to DVD due to actor/technician contracts. (Which is unfortunate--there have been many Live From Lincoln Centers in the past, things like the Broadway musical Light in the Piazza, that I foolishly did not record and can not be released).

It's extremely frustrating to find a listing that will link to these Bolshoi Live broadcasts and show you ALL the theatres. Probably because New york City Ballet are broadcasting their own Nutcracker, New York doesn't seem to have as many theatres showing the Bolshoi one. I did find ONE listing (I don't know NYC, but it's apparently in the Bronx), so I hope this is some help to you: http://eventful.com/bronx/events/nutcracker-bolshoi-high-def-/E0-001-043583878-5

Oh there have definitely been periods where it was more in vogue to give the ballet classics a "reinterpretated" set--though probably not much as extreme as some opera productions. But that (thankfully) seems to have fallen out of vogue now. After having thought about the production some more, I'm more and more disappointed by the sets. Why did every setting look basically the same? Particularly for the "hunt" Act--whyw as the Prince and his courtiers hanging out in what looked like the courtyard of Beauty's castle already? Was it meant to be some ruin they hang out in, unaware that just a little ways away were hundreds of sleeping people under a spell? Sleeping Beauty was created partly to be a spectacle, as much as some people hate that word. For a long, story ballet like that, that takes place over a century, I think it makes little sense to have what is basically a "unit set" with different lighting--for one thing, it starts to tire the eye. From what I've seen, the set is very similar to the POB and Scala productions, as Natalia so well analyzed in her post--if they wanted to re-use a set, why not go all out and try to use Bakst's designs for the famous Diaghilev production, or at least something inspired by them? (I know there was discussion here: http://balletalert.i...-princess-1921/ about any chance of reviving those designs, and I have no doubt they'd be expensive, but...) They were by no means awful, but I'm even wondering now if they're all that much of an imrpovement on Virsaladze's previous designs for the Grigorovich production, even if they are dated. When you compare with the Royal Ballet's production, or, of course, with the reconstruction of the original production, you realize how important a different look for each act becomes. Natalia said: "Team Frigerio is the 21st-C equivalent to Georgiadis, who designed nearly-identical Sleeping Beauties for various companies in the 1960s/70s/80s." I've never seen Nureyev's production in full, just clips and photos, but in general he seemed to go through a period of using Georgiadis for all his ballet restagings, the way Grigorovich used Vrisaladze for most of his. My mother talks about the first time she ever saw Sleeping Beauty live--when the National Ballet of Canada toured it to our city in the very early '80s. She said she found it long, and heavy, and she's now convinced it was partly just because Georgiadis' designs were SOOO *heavy* in texture and feel in egenral, they weighed the entire ballet down.

I grew up on Nutcracker, like so many North American ballet fans I'm sure (I grew up in Edmonton in the 80s and ever since I was 4 I would go to see the local Alberta Ballet put on Nutcracker--a production which, at least back then, was very much a rip off, inspired by Blanchine's). So it really was my gateway into ballet in general--one of the first pieces of music I owned ws a two record set of the music. As an adult, I find the ballet frustrating, as I think many ballet fans do. I come from the belief that the best versions of the ballet are the most traditional--although as a teenager I went through a stage where I was fascinated with all the darker, even "Freudian" modern versions of the ballet, which is probably seen at its most extreme in the Nureyev production. The belief seems to be that the music is so great, but the story completely lacking, and so many people try to go back to the original, very dark and strange, Hoffmann story. The problem is, the ballet is based on Alexandre Dumas fils' version which was popular in Russia at the time--which is a much more straightforward, children's take on the story. Yes Tchaikovsky's music has some dark and scary undertones in Act I, but I still don't think they support attempts by Nureyev, Baryshnikov and the Soviets to make the story about something it's not. I like my Nutcracker to have a large cast of children, to have a Sugarplum Fairy and her Prince "Whooping Cough" *grin*, etc. I think this is why out of the major productions, Balanchine's is the dieal. Some balletomanes may think there are too many children, a first act which has too little dancing and a second act with too little story, and a plot that doesn't make "sense"--but to a child I think it makes perfect sense. (One side note, I adore Tchaikovsky's music for the Grand Pas--I can never decide whether I prefer it or the Sleeping Beauty one. Yet many critics, to this day, have complained about it--wondering why it sounds so mournful in a fairly happy ballet, or others complaining that it's ALL just a series of descending notes... It does have a certain sadness to it, but I think I love that touch.) I've always thought the original version was an attempt by Vsevolozhsky to replicate some of the success of Sleeping Beauty. In overall "formula" you can trace his scenario as an abridged version of Sleeping Beauty (abridged because it was comissioned to be performed with Tchaikovsky's one act opera Iolanthe opening the evening, even if I'm not sure how long they were performed together. Iolanthe, which is dark and moody actually, surprisingly, does make a nice contrast with Nutcracker). Droselmeyer, a "grotesque" role could be performed in some ways like Carabosse, you have a first act that tells most of the story, a second act (in this case a short *scene* and not full act) which fullfills the required "white ballet" component with the female corps performing elaborate patterns not as Naieds, or fairies, or swans, but as snowflakes, and a final act without much story that serves as a celebration with divertissement (including one for children with Mere Gignon, the way Sleeping Beauty has Hop O' My Thumb--both often dropped from productions), that ends with a Grand Pas de Deux,a final ensemble dance, and an apotheosis. Of course due to illness, Petipa didn't do the final choreography of Nutcracker, Ivanov did, but Petipa was the one who provided Tchaikovsky with his extremely detailed notes on how the music should be. According to Wiley, the notation for Nutcracker is a mixed bag--I believe very little of the Battle of the Mice and Soldiers is notated (and I also believe it was originally performed with students recruited from the Russian military academy), and other parts are scattered. What we do have of Ivanov's production in various stagings is pretty stunning I think (elements of the Snow Flake dance which was so impressive in Russia that apparently much of the audience would move to the upper stalls just to see the intricate floor pattern, I believe originally they had *61* dancers), some of the divertissement (the Candy Canes dancing the mazurka is one--it's interesting that every production seems to change what sweet treat each country represents--as well as the original Waltz of the Flowers which involved a large central basket of flowers to be danced around), and of course the thrilling Grand Pas. Anyway--out of the filmed versions, it's hard to find one that truly is the best. I don't like the movie (with Macauley Culkin) of Blanchine's production due to the narration and effects, and the earlier televised versions seem impossible to find, so I'm hoping we get a good broadcast of it this December. Out of the other traditional productions on DVD, my favorite is the original 1980s Royal Ballet performance of Peter Wright's production (I like the changes he made for the current production, also filmed, much less--they seem to involve him trying once again to give the story "more coherence"). I do have issues with it--for a production that was created originally to be as close to Ivanov as possible, I don't get hy he added the backstory of the Nutcracker being Droselmeyer's nephew, at least that's the sense I get from it, he drops Mere Gignon, some of the kids are played by adults (Clara and the Prince are too old IMHO though not bad), and I think the Kingdom o Sweets set and costume designs are ugly--instead of the colours you get with Balanchine and in the photos we have of the original Russian set designs, they're all pastel pink and gold. But he did keep a lot of the original dancing, and on DVD it's danced very well. There's a great interview with Wright where he discusses this production, his later changes to the production and his productions for other countries, where he covers a lot of what he kept from Ivanov and what he didn't--it's too bad he couldn't do the full Snowflake scene, and didn't bother with other parts like the Waltz of the Flowers. The article is here in PDF: http://docs.google.c...gGV7jjdgg&pli=1 I know it's been discussed before, but I think it's a great read. So that would be my choice out of the DVDs available--but I'm very much a traditionalist, and aside from Swan Lake, Nutcracker is the one Russian ballet I wish someone would try to replicate with the original designs as much as possible even just as an experiment--it's no secret that the ballet got a very lukewarm reaction when it premiered, although it was steadily performed. (I remember either Vickharev or Lacotte spoke of trying to do a more faithful Nutcracker for a smaller Eastern European ballet company, but I can't find the quote or whether it ever was staged). I always assumed one reason Nutcracker has such a strange history in the Soviet era was partly due to it being based around Chrsitmas, with religion looked down by the Soviet regime particularly in its early stages. I've read many productions even weren't allowed to say it was set at Christmas--but it seems that Nutcracker has always had a history in Russia--pre and post revolution--of being performed all year round, not just at Christmas. It does surprise me that the two major Soviet productions discussed here--Grigorovich's and Vainonen's used adults for many of the roles, since Soviet ballet often kept the children's dances in other classical ballets when Western countries stopped. Both of those productions are fascinating, and hjave parts I love, but are also frustrating. Grigorovich's also has that very strange dark, and semi abstract, design by Virsaladze that looks dated now, and out of step with the ballet. Virsaladze also designed Vainonen's but more traditionally (he seemed to often do that--designing many of the Kirov traditional ballets in a more realistic style and then designing Grigorovich's in a much more stylized way). You can find the Bolshoi production on DVD for very cheap though and I think both are worth watching. I'm not sure about the availability of Nureyev's, or Baryhnikov's (which, with ABT, used to be shown on TV when I was growing up a *lot*--it confused me as a kid to no end that the story was so different). Both are interesting if you become a Nutrcarcker completist, but like I said are not favorites of mine. Otherwise... I'm not sure what's out there. One question I hope someone can answer. When N Sergeyev did all those Russian ballet stagings from the notations for the Royal Ballet (back in the 30s when it was the Sadler's Wells), Nutcracker was one of them. I have the feeling it was dropped by the time they became the Royal Ballet--I know when Nureyev staged his version for them, they hadn't done it for a while. But it looks like it was an extremely traditional version (Markova danced the Sugar Plum Fairy originally). I read somewhere it was one of tehe early ballet telecasts they did. Has it survived anywhere? Recently we've seen the abridged Sleeping beauty TV broadcast they did early on, I would love to see anything from their Nutcracker. (Congratulations to anyone who managed to read this entire post! )

Not to mention Alone in the Wilderness! KCTS is running this on Tuesday 20 December at 8 pm, and re-running it on the 21st at 2:30 am (which is just later that same night) Ha, Alone in the Wilderness! Thanks for the heads up! Oddly, KCTS is repeating San Fran Ballet's Nutcracker 12/4 at 3am (only!)

It looks like within the past month or so the Mariinsky has changed their website. Now when you click on Repertoire they group the ballets not by title,but by era, and no longer give you the option to click on the individual ballet and find out choreographer, etc, production date, and a photo. Most annoying--has anyone found a way to view the old website, or maybe I'm checking it wrong?

No, this was taken out by the time Yoshida did it for the 2001 DVD. I was always disappointed by that. Apparently there's been some argument about how long it was kept in the original production as well (I believe the belief is that the famous posed photo may have been just that--posed), and it was a hard moment to include, but I loved it. I've been disapointed with the changes made to Wright's production over the years, which seem to take it further away from his initial goal of including as much of the Ivanov as possible (even if he left out segments like Mere Gingombre, which I always found delightful, and muddled with the story even in his initial production). I don't think anything is gained by having Clara interact and dance in much of the divertissement, etc, except, I suppose, giving her more dancing.

Natalia--I remember reading that they planned on reconstructing the Gorsky Beauty as well. I had forgotten about that, but how fascinating it would have been to see! (Speaking of cuts, the current Sergeyeev/Mariisnky version dropes the Knitting scene in Act I as well, doesn't it?) I think Helene brought up a fair point about N American audiences not used to how long the bows for major dances can sometimes be in Russian performances, but as she said, this was much less excessive than usual. Again, from Grigorovich's book about his previous version (I have a similar book in the same series about his Raymonda--I'm not sure how many were done in total), he mentions wanting to make ALL of the mime "danced"--something Sergeyeev did to a slightly lesser degree at the Kirov, and I admit I missed it, especially after seeing performances of the reconstruction, or even the current Royal Ballet production which seems to have more mime. It just always seems so obvious to me in the music what was intended as mime and what as dance, and it throws the balance off. Forgot to mention--while I was iffy on the sets, I found the costumes, mostly, *gorgeous*.

I had the same thought. I enjoyed the performance thoroughly, but when I thought about bringing friends, I couldn't help but feel that ballet -- this ballet, anyway -- is an acquired taste. I kept thinking about the Mariinsky Jewels. It strikes me as more immediately appealing to the modern eye, and if I were bringing non-ballet friends, it would be Balanchine all the way. I admit, this viewpoint is almost the opposite of mine, so it's fascinating to read. I love Balenchine, but I love the old Imperial ballets for different reasons and I've always considered them (the extreme length of many of them to modern audiences aside), as *more* accessible to someone who doesn't know ballet than the more abstract works. I will also admit that recently I've had a friend, with no dance background except for a little Broadway style stuff, into seeing ballets with me, and at first she couldn't get over the mime--even the little bit of mime that we saw (in the San Franscisco Ballet's Giselle). I had almost forgotten how it's a technique one does need some background in, the same way that when I was being educated about classical opera I found the formal stylist elements (long recitative for plot, then often even longer arias that often express one thought over and over) initially alienating. That said, I thought for such a complete Beauty it went by AWFULLY fast, which is why I suppose I am so surprised by any complaints of length--I can't imagine ever being satisied with the NYCB production, which admittedly I've never seen. I saw the local cinema showing of Sleeping Beauty here in Victoria, BC, where it was time delayed to 1pm. The theatre was surprisingly full, more so than for any past ballet I've managed to see there, and everyone seemed to be really into it--particularly by the Rose Adagio. I really don't have many thoughts to add to the great discussion already. Sleeping Beauty is my favorite ballet, and I'm someone who can't get enough of it, so while I get the complaints about length, for me I was even disappointed that they didn't include the charming Hop O' My Thumb wedding divertissement with the kids. I expected this, as the Grigorovich production has never included it to my knowledge--the only place that I know for sure does is the Mariinsky both in their 1890 "New/Old" reconstruction and in the currently performed 1950s K Sergeyev staging. That Sergeyev staging drops the Cinderella divertissement, which the Bolshoi does do, so I guess it's rare to get a more or less complete version. I admit, I've never seen David Hallberg dance before, except in a few youtube clips, and I *really* enjoyed him in the role. It made me grateful for Grigorovich's amped up male choreography. I'm always on the fence with La Zakharova--I'll echo the thoughts that her over-extensions were distracting, but I thought she really came into hte part for the Vision scene and the final act. Overall I thought the dancing was splending, although I was hoping Grigorovich would have added back some of the mime he removed earlier when Soviet ballet was much more "anti-mime". I thought Carabosse and Lilac were both fine, if slightly unexceptional. I know that Grigorovich, in an old 1980s Soviet book I have (in awkward English) about his previous production goes on at huge length about the importance of juxtaposing their two roles to the entire ballet, and I didn't really get that sense this time. I need to compare it to the DVD of the previous Bolshoi production, which I haven't watched in some time, but staging/choreography wise I think it was basically the same. I admit to being mixed on the designs--I think Virsaladze's designs for the previous version look dated and too abstract for such a classical ballet (I prefer his earlier designs still used at the Mariinsky), but I do admit I missed his use of colour. The deep violet's of Act I, the browns of the wood scene, all seem to go with the musiuc more--I found the settings here often gorgeous but a little flat and "same"--and no real sense of the shift in eras (which no production ahs done better, I feel, than the original). I was also disappointed by the Panorama, but I remember finding it disappointing in the previous Bolshoi production as well. And I share nearly everyone's belief that the floor design was too distracting, even if I appreciated them adding that element. Anyway I was thrilled to see it, and found it to be largely beautifully filmed. The production isn't perfect, but as people on here probably know by now my idea of a near perfect Beauty is the Mariinsky reconstruction--so... Oh, and I thought the orchestra sounded stunning in the theatre--and was also pleased to see the Bolshoi looking so incredible.

Did the Lacotte use a female Franz? I do get the impression (and this could be unfair), that by the time Coppelia premiered in Paris, ballet was seen there more as a divertissement, so a ninety minute ballet would probably be about as long as they wanted. Again, unfairly, I also assumed that was one reason more male roles were played en travestie--an excuse for the men in the audience to see more pretty women on stage. That's a view I think I read in some old ballet book way back when I was a kid, and has probably stuck with me ever since, although I admit I'm not sure how much truth there is to it.

That makes sense. After seeing, and loving, the Vickahrev reconstruction for the Bolshoi, I'm not sure I have any need to track this down, although a part of me is very curious about a "dark" Coppelia... (I know the original Hoffmann story is quite dark, but even less so than Nutcracker, I don't think the music can support that...)

If Act III is dropped, doesn't that make for an awfully short ballet?

That makes a lot of sense re: lack of religion. When I was going to a used bookstores I found a french book titled "Rudolf Noureev L'avant Scene Ballet Danse" which describes (if anyone wants me to list all the Mariinsky and Bolshoi productions, they list please, just ask--I had no clue that the Bolshoi apparently never performed Petipa's version) a March 1938 production by Vainonen that actually made Aberakham the hero and de Brienne the villain. The same book says a more conservative version was in the company by April 1948 (K Sergeyev) (Grigorovich's beautiful, but self congratulating, book on his own new production from 1987 mentions Vainonen's version and calls it dramatacially inept. Personally i am glad Grigorovich reinstated the White Lady but I think he did it clumsily--but that's left up to others to decide).

*double post*

I think he's meant to be un satisfied before... I think it's seeing too much into the music that he is sad more than that.

I THOUGHT that "Vancouver" lady looked remarkably like Rivera. And it turns out she WAS Rivera. . She still has it. .

Sounds fun--can't wait to see photos. I did notice two Odiles last night... (both female, I think...)

I assume they are the Sergeyev version (just before they restaged it for the grand re opening of Covent?) I'd love to see the Nutcracker just because that basic staging is so rare. Fonteyn is a marvel and Somes is... well very handsome anyway. I've pre ordered this on DVD--it's a treasure to have and Helpmann is the scariest Carabosse I've ever seen!

I am still trying to word together my very mixed WSS at Vancouver Opera review (though the dancing was *really* great) but I found this, and thought it was both moving and incredible:

nickwallacesmith has posted this fascinating early (vastly edited) TV performance for anyone who wants to see--with margot Fonetyne and Michael Somes. Ashton as Carabosse is actually pretty genuinely terrifying.

UGH I have no one but myself to blame--I did scan their website with no luck--though I admit I didn't look at the weekend afternoon slots... I've been pretty distracted this weekend between Halloween parties and essays... Lesson learned I guess. Thanks for your info!

ARGH, KCTS, the Seattle PBS I get, doesn't have this anywhere on their online schedule--unless I somehow missed it. Not impressed.