EricHG31

This whole attitude annoys and perplexes me. The argument seems to be that these reconstructions deplete funds that would otherwise go for some groundbreaking, brand new work of art, that they only please some mythical (and, the implication is *old*) obsessed ballet fan and scare new audiences, and that they actually regress the dancer's technique. The same basic arguments seemed to exist with those who were against the reconstructions in Russia, as well. I don't buy it. I feel that more often than not, if a company didn't do one of these reconstructions, they wouldn't instead spend the funding on some potentially groundbreaking new ballet, they would probably do yet another, most likely derivative "new" production of one of the classics. I would argue that going back to try to discover what made Raymonda so great in the first place, is at this point more important and groundbreaking than doing a new edition based on, say, the Nureyev production. Like with all arts, there's much to learn from going back to the source. I haven't seen any company that's been dominated byt hese reconstructions. I have the feeling that when Vikharev did his second full length Petipa at the Mariinsky--La Bayadere--that really frightened some who felt the theatre would become a museum piece. But that's a small handful of shows in a large repertoire--and while I find much to love in K Sergeyev's Kirov versions of the classics, at this point int heir life span, I don't find it any more artistically valid to keep them in the repertoire. In fact I'd argue that the reconstructions made the Mariinsky *more* unique in the wolrd of ballet. I also resent the implication that productions like this scare away the youth. I'm 31 now, but have been a big ballet fan ever since I can remember--literally at least since elementary school. It's very important to keep up new works, and not give the impression that ballet is all tutus and ancient museum pieces. On the other hand, I know many young audiences who have gone to the ballet for the first time, and been disappointed to see a modern work that perplexed them. They wanted to go and see a spectacular 19th century style spectacle--I think these productions DO appeal to many young audience members who see going to the ballet as an event (it's similar to why a lot of younger people start going to the opera). I also think it's rong to say that these pieces no longer can inspire--the arts need to look back as much as they look forward to survive--it's not only forward motion that's needed. But back to my main gripe--I simply don't buy that these productions are taking up resources and time that otherwise would be devoted to brilliant brand new pieces (and even if they did--would the brand new pieces get enough of an audience to help sustain a company?) Looking at La Scala's website, their repertoire looks very diverse, and I don't see it weighed down by traditional productions of the classics--Raymonda looks fairly unique to it, in fact. Anyway thanks for the review--I'd love to read more reactions.

Apologies for bumping this thread, I wasn't sure whether I should post in here, or in the Ballet on Film forum, but my questions seemed better suited here... I saw the cinema showing of the Bolshoi's Esmeralda, and with some reservations, really enjoyed it. This may be a question nobody can specifically answer, but... What I've not been able to find out (from the credits on the Bolshoi's website, the movie's credits and on screen introduction, and searching on this forum), is just how "authentic" is it to Petipa's late 1890s final revival (I believe it's from this revival that the notations come from)? Specifically, if one was to call the Russian reconstructions from Vikharev as "most authentic" (even though I know authenticity is arguable) and the Lacoste ones as "least authentic", how close in terms of design, costumes, and of course choreography to the late 1890s Petipa is this production? Is it similar to Le Corsaire (which I look forward to seeing broadcast in cinemas in March)? I know it's a complicated question, but any discussion or details would be greatly appreciated.

There's so much beautiful music in Swan Lake that isn't in the Petipa/Ivanov version. that said, I vastly prefer that version--preferably, pretty much as it was performed in '95, even with the interpolations of Drigo's orchestrated Tchaikovsky waltzes in the final act. But if I'm just *listening* to the score, I prefer the version as first written, much, much more. And yes this piece, as well as the gorgeous Russian Dance are two of my faves. (I could have sworn Nureyev used this piece as an Act I prince solo at some time--as suggested in the original post in this thread, from years ago, but it's been a long time, and I'm probably mistaken).

Does Gergiev even LIKE ballet? I was thinking of getting this, but may just stick with the POB DVD for now--I love Jewels, but there are other ballet DVDs of works I don't already have that probably should take precedent, after reading these comments.

That's the same as the original then, I assume. Helene, do you mean you prefer Lilac in heels for the Prologue as well? Because I do agree with you about the rest of the ballet. Mel, those are terrific tidbits I'd never heard before--all this kind of trivia fascinates me. (The Tim Scholl book talks quite a bit about Soviet SBs before Sergeyev and Grigorovich's, and I've seen photos of the various Bolshoi productions in the Girgorovich Sleeping Beauty picture book--some look ridiculously over the top in a, well, Soviet kind of way--but I'd love to learn more).

I love that there's a venue to discuss this kind of thing. I remember as a kid falling for ballet in the late 80s, I would try to find everything I could about the original productions of many of these ballets, and come up with scattered articles, booklets, and photographs--with descriptions that nearly always contradicted each other. And I have many friends and family members who love ballet, but frankly, questions of authenticity have no importance to them as long as they enjoyed the dancing and performance (which is probably true of most balletgoers, understandably). I've always had a fascination with theatre design, and it does seem to sometimes get forgotten when discussing ballet productions (unless it's particularly awful or ill suited, and distracts from the performance). Good point! For a long time, the general impression was that this never existed until Diaghilev, I'm sure many people still think this. It's true that he probably took it to a higher level--hiring famous artists, etc--but it's obvious that a lot of thought from the start went into the design. I know that for the ballets Vsevolozhsky actually designed the costumes for (which include Beauty, Raymonda, and I think Nutcracker and the '95 Swan Lake, but am not sure), he did so as early as when the ballet would be comissioned and a libretto worked out. And speaking of Diaghilev, it was Benois who wrote rapturously about how Sleeping Beauty re-awakened his love for ballet, partly because he saw every element, includig the designs, as a complete whole for the first time, a ballet "Gesamtkunstwerk". So there are several direct connections there. I admit, I also always thought that one reason these ballets would never have restored productions was that to a modern eye, judging from the photographs, it would look fussy, over-dressed and cluttered, as you say. Also, audiences would have to get used to longer tutus, even more wigs than the Soviets used (;)), those 'modesty shorts" for the men, etc. But when you actually see the results, for the most part the design simply *works*. That's a good point I hadn't thought of. It's true the pendulum of what people like tends to swing one way or the other, and currently I think many audiences going to the ballet appreciate, and maybe even expect, the spectacle--which for a while seemed to be the opposite where people felt it took away from the purity of dance. Probably another reason why story ballets, even brand new ones, seem to currently have by fair the most mainstream appeal. For non regular ballet goers, it's so expensive to go to a major production nowadays anyway, that, for good and bad, it might be a bit like the Megamusical trend--people want to see some of their money up on the stage. (I would have killed to be able to see that revival of Atys). I think you're right. These things go in trends, and to repeat myself, the pendulum will probably swing back again. But I suspect a few companies will keep them in their repertoire, if only to pull them out occasionally for special occasions. (This is why I hope the rumours of Raymonda being filmed are true--and I'm still greatly annoyed that we never got a commercial release of the three Vikharev/Mariinsky Petipa reconstructions, back when they were briefly being regularly performed). I hadn't been to the Mariinsky's website in about a year, and they DO still list The Awakening of Flora and Sleeping Beauty in their repertoire (along with the Sergeyev Beauty which they seem to be doing exclusively now), so that gives me a tiny glimmer of hope--Flora certainly would be a good vehicle to show off students. On the other hand, both versionfs of la Bayadere used to be listed, but the 1890's reconstruction has been now removed... No big surprise I suppose (I know the standard version uses many of the same set designs).

Right, I forgot that the Suite version ends before the Nightmare as well--I believe Laurents may have even used that as justification for cutting it in his production (the Robbins estate is VERY firm about not cutting his choreography in WSS, Gypsy and Fiddler on the Roof, which has caused some trouble when directors want to do a drastically different version of, say, Fiddler and still have to shoe horn Robbins' choreography into their concept, like with the last, unsuccessful, minamalist Broadway revival). You nailed it perfectly--tit drastically changes the whole tone of WSS, even just of the Somewhere dream ballet, to end on a note of uplift, and it feels dishonest with what WSS is about, to me. I try to take the Clipper to Seattle as much as I can afford for theatre and ballet, but hadn't heard of this. I'll be curious to hear about the choreography-the Dream Ballet in particular. I did see the Trevor Nunn revival back in London around 1999 (with Hugh Jackman), which had brand new Susan Stroman choreography. I like Stroman, though she's certainly no DeMille, but I admit I did miss that distinctive Demille vocaublary, although Stroman did an adequate job (the production was filmed, and I believe her Dream Ballet is on youtube). At least with Oklahoma we are lucky that DeMille personally staged nearly all of her original choreography for the film version (we were less lucky with her other major Rodgers and Hammerstein show, Carousel, which she wasn't allowed to supervise due to how difficult she had been on the Oklahoma set, and so it has pretty mediocre choreography, except for the dDream Ballet in that show is fairly close to her original--so close that apparently she sued, and rightfully so). I completely agree! I think some productions really do lose this--even common modern production details like having the Prince kill her before the kiss scene, kind of negate this element. And all you have to do is go and listen to the music--the two key themes throughout, and spelled out in the Overture, are Carabosse's and Lilac's--not Aurora's and Desire's... (It's a bit like in Raymonda how there are several spots where the White Lady's leitmotiv pops into the score, and it personally kinda drives me crazy when nothing in the action accompanies that... But I guess many people wouldn't notice).

And that photo makes it pretty clear (to me) that it's meant to be for the Forest scene--even though it appears to be a posed shot, I doubt they'd put her in front of the wrong set... Mel Johnson, I know there's always been some controversy about the Lilac Fairy's Prologue variation (I *believe* the excuse was that Marie was given a deliberately too easy variation, with the justification for using a later version being that any other dancer would have done it that way--but I admit to finding the whole thing confusing). From what you posted, you mean for a while in the 1970s the Kirov/K Sergeyev version added a fairy, and had the Lilac Ferry not in toe shoes? How long did this last? I know by the 1983 (?) Kolpokova recording, it's back to six fairies, with Lilac in toe shoes throughout the ballet. Fascinating stuff, and your post raises the very valid point that it's often hard to really know what's authentic, particularly with something as subjective as dance. I think the best reconstructions give us the opportunity to get a sense of what the feel and intention of the original production was, but it's impossible to truly consider them "authentic", and that's OK with me, if the research was properly done.

Chiapuris, thanks for another wonderful review! I am so glad that it looks like this has been filmed and will air in some fashion. In regards to one of your comments--it is striking from the photos how the original costumes made it so clear who was from what area of the world, etc--this all gets kinda abstracted and vague in nearly every modern production (of course the Bolshoi's is from that long Grigorovich era where he and designer Versadze prefered those semi abstract swashes of colour and glitter faintly hinting at buildings, that I think don't work at all for these classical ballets, and certainly look very dated to the 50s-70s now, much more dated than the original designs). This is always one of the "problems" with these reconstructed ballets (and one reason detractors often call them pointless--which I disagree with, obviously). Personally, it doesn't bother me so much. I think it's important to teach the dancers twhat is known about the style of the time, particularly when it comes to mime, and to try to keep some of that--but it's an obvious compromise and unavoidable (and modern audiences would probably be disappointed, as would the dancers, if they had to mentally force themselves to under extend everything they're used to, etc). It's like The Globe Theatre in London which tries to fairly accurately recreate the original Shakespeare performances (although only for certain special performances are they completely authentic and have the female roles played by young men). And while they try to teach the actors how to perform in a historically correct style--as best we can tell--you're still going to get actors with modern training and technique, and audiences expect that. Similarly, for these ballet reconstructions, it could be argued that they use modern lighting techniques, modern toe shoes, etc etc. I think that's more or less irelevent, if the piece still manages to capture the feeling and intention of the original production, which I feel these Vikharev productions have done as best as possible. (I admit, this is also why it doesn't bother me that they did give the premier danseur one extra solo, though I'm sure some purists hate that).

Dirac--thanks for the welcome! As to if these "types" with female heroines, and as Paul mentioned male characters, still have relevence, I think if you turned on your average teen soap, or read Twilight (not that I'd recommend that), etc, you'd see them still present. Even many of the feisty women seem to more often than not, get passive when the dreamy, loner, soulful guy they fall for is close by... One more thing about reconstructions (well, for now). I'll keep tis brief because, although dance plays an important part, it is somewhat off topic, but I'm involved in theatre and musical theatre, and this same debate constantly comes up. Many argue that a revival that recreates the original production, including choreography, makes the piece a museum piece, when it should live and breathe and be constantly reinterpretated. Again, I think there's room for both views, but there are many musicals, for example, that are a group effort--A Chorus Line (which legally major revivals have to use the original choreography--a rare exception in musicals that mainly only Bennett and Robbins shows have) was created as such a joint venture with music, songs and dialogue written sometimes after, or to, or around the dance steps, and staging. I saw the recent West Side Story revival on Broadway that Arthur Laurents directed before his death. There's the gossip that Laurents was angry that everyone, Bernstein, Sondheim, especially Robbins, got more fame from WSS than he did for his libretto and sought to emphasize his contribution. But the best parts of the production were the original music, lyrics, dialogue and especially choreography. The new scenery was so so, and the new costumes were no improvement on the often reused originals. And as Sondheim said, when Laurents cut out the final Nightmare part of the Someday Dream Ballet, he inertly ruined the whole dramatic purpose of the ballet. One last example--It's long been believed that the groundbreaking musical Oklahoma! had a great score, iconic Agnes De Mille choreography, but that the original production was too simple, the designs too bright and abstract, and badly dated--a work that needed a new production to connect to modern audiences. Last Spring there was a major production that attempted to recreate the original--luckily people involved with it were still alive to help--many revelations occured, like some long missed DeMille choreography, the fact that the original costumes and settings actually brought out long forgotten aspects of the musical, that some moments that people felt hadn't made sense before, suddenly did, etc. (the production will air on PBS sometime this Spring, BTW). Anyway, like with ballet reconstructions, I think it just shows that often they can illuminate long forgotten or neglected parts of these great works, that simply sticking to new productions, or beloved productions from 60 years back, can't. It would be dull if suddenly every company was doing the same, 1890 derived version of Sleeping Beauty--but there's no risk of that happening. (And if the Mariinsky doesn't start performing their Sleeping Beauty--I believe it's been nearly 5 years now--soon, I hope another company thinks of picking it up--though in the meantime it's exciting to see lesser known works like Raymonda being done this way).

Roland Wiley's excellent A Century of Russian Ballet 1810-1910 has a lot about the first Russian production of Esmeralda, staged by Perot when he was briefly ballet master for Russia in 1849 (the original Perot production actually premiered in London, five years earlier). There's quite a bit of translated reviews of the time as well as the original libretto, and it was mentioned that Quasimodo's role was diminished due to audience sensibilities, Frollo's death was off stage due to "women's delicate sensibilities", and that being a ballet it was decided it had to have a happy ending (which amuses me for two reasons, one is that even by then there had been plenty of tragic ballets, and the second is I have to wonder if they got in as much trouble from fans of Hugo for marrying Phoebus and Esmeralda at the end as Disney did for their animated version ). Of course this production is based on the Petipa revival notation of the 1899 production (he had previously revived and revised it in 1888 I believe) which is why already there's a fair amount of interpolated music by Drigo and others. It really doesn't have much to do with the novel at all, just take some of the incidents, and key characters, and work from there--an awful lot like other ballet adaptations of the time (Don Quixote being the obvious esample which contains even less of the novel's plot). I haven't read the novel since I was in French immersion school as a teenager (I loved it though, even more than the other Hugo we read, Les Miserables), but I'm pretty sure it ends with Esmeralda being sentenced to death, and the final scene is a bereaved Quasimodo, clinging to her dead corpse so long as it whittles away to bones... I thought it was GREAT--this was my first Bolshoi broadcast (I sadly missed Coppelia last Spring and hope it will come to DVD) and I was thrilled. it's especially exciting to me to see, because as a kid of 7 or 8 I would always read a library copy of Cyril Beaumont's Complete Book of Ballet which contained these strange sounding librettos for dozens of ballets I thought I would never see performed, La Esmeralda being one of them). I don't have any specifics to add, though I think it was a brave choice to pick this one to air, as it probably wouldn't be as much of a crowd pleaser to a newbie expecting Swan Lake.

That is a fantastic review, and has made me all the more excited, and hopeful, to have a chance to see this! You basically answered every question I've had (I suspect I know at least one of the "surprise" spots the White Lady appears in--you can clearly hear it in the music, yet the Grigorovich and Makarova productions don't use it, and of course the K Sergeyev doesn't even have her). Looking at the photos on their website, while reading your review, *almost* can bring it to life. The amazing colours of Vsevelozhky's costumes, which remind me of his for Sleeping Beauty, are thrilling and prove how much is lost in those original black and white photos. I admit, as a purist, I always question when any changes are made, when the purpose is to do a faithful reconstruction, but the ones you describe *do* make sense. I think, even with an audience knowing they're seeing a reconstruction, it's very hard to stage a long ballet and not give the premier danseur a solo--I can completely understand why the change was made. And I always thought the quick introduction of Aberakham's retinue in the first scene that Petipa had added to the score seemed unecesary, and to ruin some of the surprise (though perhaps he felt he had to telegraph the moment to his audience). As for the apotheosis, that sounds exactly what it was in the original production--the Joust depicted as a painting, not a tableux vivant, which seems strange to me, considering Sleeping Beauty's apotheosis. (Then again isn't Nutcracker's original, somewhat bizarre, apotheosis of a harmonious beehive a painted backdrop as well?) One question--the souvenir program sounds amazing. Is it only offered in Italian--and would anyone know if it's possible to buy online or by mail order? I know it's a long shot, but I know you can buy souvenir programs online from Broadway shows and Met Opera performances. There's so little about Raymonda in ballet books, and being one of my top 2 ballets, I'd love to be able to buy it. Thanks again for your detailed write up and can't wait to read more thoughts!

I thought the wig was always removed with the costume change between their elaborate, non-dancing, entrance costumes, and the PDD? I know, from photographs, that this often *did* happen in other ballets of the time, and was just one of those things you were meant to accept. That (excellent) DVD opens with the Kiss Scene from the end of Act II and I believe he has the wig, at least, in that brief bit.

This is a fantastic thread, as I've been obsessed with the original productions of these ballets (particularly Sleeping Beauty and Raymonda, my two favorite 19th century ballets) ever since I was honestly 8 or 9. Trying to track down every photo I could find, comparing different productions on video and trying to guess where and when the changes came, etc. At the time, the hardest ballet to do this with was Nutcracker, partially I suspect as the original production wasn't really deemed a success (what I would give to be able to see a visualization of the original's "Bee Hive in Harmony" apotheosis--a final image that would have made sense to 1892 Russian audiences, but now would leave nearly any Nutcracker audience member shaking their head in confusion). Of course the Royal Ballet's 1980s production (by peter Wright?), initially inended to go back to the Ivanov original, but in the end it seems not very much was retained, and even the story was changed to try to add more cohesion, something I find a mistake with The Nutcracker where I think much of the charm comes from its almost Alice in Wonderland lack of logic. As a child the basic story (as done in the Balanchine version, anyway) made *perfect* sense to me, it only seems to be adults who need more justification and "depth". Many argue that the ETA Hoffman source story was so different, darker, and what we'd now call "freudian", but seem to forget that the ballet was adapted from the Dumas, fils, adaptation which turned it much more into a fairy tale. I've been out of touch with the ballet world for some personal reasons the past couple of years, and I feel really upset that, living in Victoria--a short boat trip away--I knew nothing of PNB's "old/new" reconstruction of the Petipa/Perot version of Giselle. I hope it is brought back next season. I understand Bart Birdsall's feelings about the Sleeping Beauty reconstruction... I grew up watching the Irina Kolpokova VHS of the K Sergeyev Kirov version, so it holds a special place in my heart. But I have to say, seeing the reconstruction (and only on the poorly shot youtube version) was such a revelation to me. And I have to say that I really believe, issues of length aside, most modern ballet audiences, if they don't have preconceptions, soon get absorbed into the whole, perfectly worked out, piece that the reconstruction suggests the original 1890 Beauty was. (I'm sure you know too, that it is hard to fairly judge the piece from youtube videos...) Helene has raised every point I could think of to make, and many more, and is a far greater authority on the subject than I am, but I would like to add a few thoughts. To me, keeping the Lilac Fairy more as a mime "non toe" role does place her and Carabosse more clearly against each other. They are the only two fairies who communicate primarily through mime. I also think we have to keep in mind that by 1890, these Petipa ballets were true spectacles, and I use that term here in a non derogatory way. I know Vsevolvsky when he comissioned Sleeping Beauty, which was truly his baby, he wanted it to be a Ballet-Feerie. These were meant to be, as I understand it, a combination of dance, mime, and spectacle (most obviously in the tableau). Already in 1890 some balletomanes decried such spectacles polluting the stage--on the other hand seeing Sleeping Beauty also made many, including what would be the core of Diaghilev's group, see for the first time the potential of ballet. Many considered it, and still do, the first time that design, music, and physical performance all came together at one in ballet--in a way the equivalent to what Wagner was doing with his operas. It has to be remembered that Tchaikovsky wroe his score to Petipa's incredibly precise (and fascinating to read) outline. Yes some cuts and interpolations were made (less for SB than for many other ballets), but when you listen to the score, it's very clear when you're listening to the story/mime music and when listening to the more abstract dance music. I feel when the mime is done away with, you miss an important juxtaposition, even though it's still spelled out for you in that gorgeous, near perfect score. It's ironic that the Soviets seemed to have, around 1950, a bigger problem with mime than the Western companies did. To me it seems that with K Sergeyev's revised Petipa ballets for Leningrad, and then more drastically with Grigorovich's for Moscow, the point was to try to keep what they felt the essence of Petipa was--the dance--and to try to tell the mime parts in dance as well, which they viewed as more "pure" to the form. The current Royal Ballet Sleeping Beauty has much more, what I see as largely authentic, mime than the Russian versions do. In the case of SB where I find mime most missed is in the Prologue, which really does set up the story. These reconstructions can illuminate to people truths about a work that over time have been forgotten. Even a basic story like Sleeping Beauty, when I watched the reconstruction, suddenly made *much* more sense--not a detail seemed pointless or curious. There also was a snobbish belief that the designs for these ballets were done by hacks, with no thought to the aethetics of the actual ballet. But, for me anyway, the reconstructions have largely proven this untrue. I think people were too used to those faded, black and white posed photographs we have--I remember reading with Sleeping Beauty many were shocked at how gorgeously colourful the ballet was, and how perfect the design looked (although I do know many felt it heavy as well--to which I'd ask if they ever saw Nureyev's version...). The 1890 production probably looked dated to Russians by the time it was redesigned, I believe, around 1920, the same way something from 20 years ago would to us, but 100 years later, going back to that original source no longer feels dated, at least to me. Finally, I think there's been a mistake with many who dislike the reconstructions, to miss an important part. These ballets were done as true collaborations. Why is it more ok to completely change the choreography, than it is to change the score, when they were written as a collaboration between Petipa, Tchaikovsky (and Vsevelosky to an extent)? (I exagerate of course as small changes and edits are always made to the scores, but...)? I do understand that ballet is fluid, and harder to notate and reproduce than music is, and there's no way to be sure of full authenticity, and I understand that modern ballet bodies and techniques can't dance exactly the same way. But I do think there's as much to be learned and gained in reconstructing these masterpieces, artistically, as there is in doing a new interpretation. (I admit, one issue that does bother me with the reconstructions is that often there is less dancing for the men, particularly the lead. Pavel Gerdt basically seemes to have done the later ballets, some said due to his age, in mime with one final, short, variation near the end. I think there is *some* justification for trying to interpolate a variation for the premier danseur somewhere else in these ballets, as so many modern ballet audiences go to the ballet to see men dancing as well, I know I do. On the other hand, I find the balance goes completely off when they go the Nureyev route and try to refocus the ballet on the journey of the prince...) I'm partially playing devil's advocate--truthfully I believe there's more than enough room to have these reconstructions AND still have valid new productions. But many don't seem to feel this way--it's a very devisive issue. Of course, it's financially restrictive to mount the lvaish original productions anyway, and few companies could ever have both a reconstruction and a "new take" in their repertoire at the same time (although I believe the Mariinsky did for a while, and I think technically, though not performed to my knowledge in a long while, the reconstructed SB is still a part of their repertoire). Anyway, it really saddens me that the reconstructed Sleeping Beauty (and La Bayadere to a lesser extent) no longer are performed, and it seems unlikealy they will again soon. I'm planning a trip to Russia within the next few years, and it would be a dream to see it live. At the very least I hope someday we'll get a professional video record of the production. (I cling, and watch repeatedly, the near complete SB Act III on the New Year's Gala DVD as well as the bits of Act I and The Vision on that Mariinsky documentary DVD). If Bart Birdsall is still reading this way too long post, I'd recommend checking out the reconstruction the Mariinsky did around the same time of The Awakening of Flora, a short, more abstract ballet Petipa did around the same time, that is on that same site. It would be interesting to get your take on it, since I don't think any modern version has existed, so there would be less preconception. Finally, having been so out of touch with ballet this past little while, I was THRILLED to hear there was a reconstruction of La Raymonda being done right now at La Scala! I've already checked out every image and bit of information I could find on it online, and I can only hope somebody does desice to film and release a professional DVD record of this. Raymonda probably has far more divergent productions than Sleeping Beauty, even though a fraction of the ballet companies perform it. (I do largely love the K Sergeyev version, but details like the complete removal of the White Lady bother me, especially since Glazunov was so careful to give her a theme for her appearances. I admit, I also like the Grigorovich version, which dramatically works better and has some particularly spectacular male dance work. But again, I feel there should be room for these newer interpretations as well as the original).