Natalia

Marc - Not that I want to give my friend Eugene more "fuel," but, believe it or not, Bournonville made a "Valkyrie" ballet! Have you seen it, Alexandra? I know that the CD for the ballet music is available...not Wagner but some Danish composer. - Jeannie

C'mon, Eugene! Purchase a copy of Beaumont at Dave Leonard's shop, please, and read about the greatness of "Daughter of the Pharaoh" in 19th-century Russian ballet history. I'll join the Kirov dancers in requesting that the company not go too gah-gah for Balanchine. It's fine for the former Imperial Russian Ballet to dance works such as "Ballet Imperial" (which it has yet to add to its rep) or "Theme & Variations," "Tchaikovsky pdd," "Symphony in C" and "Jewels" (esp. "Diamonds"). This sort of tutus-and-tiaras Balanchineana suits them perfectly. The same cannot be said for "Apollo" or "Serenade," I'm afraid.

Pavlenko is a bit smaller (shorter) than Part & has slightly sharper facial features. Part has a softer, languid girly-feminine style; Pavlenko is more aggressive & gung-ho. I agree with Leigh - she was very impressive last summer. Tremendous attack. One of the few Kirovites to dance Balanchine with a bit of "abandon." However, I didn't care for her Lilac Fairy; Part had the softer touch that makes Lilac work for me. Pavlenko could be a great Myrtha some day.

Spasiba balshaya, Andrei! A couple of notes: * Veronika Part - A ravishing beauty and seems to have the right equipment (I don't recall sickled feet). Student of an equally beautiful creature - Inna Zubkovskaya! But you a right concerning the lack of musicality. She does everything on 'autopilot.' More artistry and, hopefully, musicality will come, in time. * Dmitri Simeonov - Now I'm REALLY going to look for him in London! Isn't he the brother of Kirill Simeonov, the fine demi-caractere corps member who occasionally dances Jester, Peasant pdd, etc.? Kirill graduated in '95 or '96. (sorry - I work from memory...) * Tarassova - Good for her - I've always said that she is the least-appreciated female soloist in the Kirov. * Ponomariev - You must have sat at the wrong angle, Andrei * Government Box Seat - My husband always loved to sit there--at the seat closest to the stage, because he could practically touch the tutus...as my husband said "I can make eye-contact with ballerinas!" Can you believe that, one night, I saw a couple of the Shades try to stifle their laughter--he must have been winking overtime. MEN--YOU ARE ALL THE SAME!

Spasiba balshaya, Andrei & Ilya! This is awesome. Yes, something told me that McMillan would be a 'hit' in St. Petersburg, as much of his theatrical choreography is similar to that of Boris Eifman. It is no surprise for me to read a comparison of McMillan with Eifman in the same sentence. "Mayerling" comes to mind as a quintessentially Eifmanesque sort of ballet. Oh, they would love "Mayerling" or even "Anastasia" at the Mariinsky. [i'm not so sure about the comparison of McMillan with Ashton as similar English classicists, in the St.P Times review, though...I'm certain that a few of my UK friends must be boiling over about that one. He-he-he...] It's also no surprise that Zakharova's rendition of the title role would be deemed less-than-successful, compared to that of Assylmuratova or Vishnyeva. When will the Mariinsky ever learn to cast the leading roles properly, instead of automatically assigning them according to rank in the roster or political pull? Geez...

This isn't the sort of info that any ballet specialist would be expected to know. Not trying to point out boo-boos for the sake of pointing them out. Just thought you & the rest would get a kick out of knowing what 'insiders' in the world of architecture think about Stone & his fellow Exterior Decorators, compared to Johnson, Corbu, Mies and other REAL architects. Balanchine & Kirstein knew that they were selecting a REAL architect in Johnson; that's why the State Theater is considered the true gem among the Lincoln Center Theaters, for architects, anyhow. The quality of the architecture reflects the quality of the works on stage, right?

Nice review (as usual)! Small nit-picking from an architect's wife, regarding the architecture of the Kenn Center. Phillip Johnson had nothing whatsoever to do with the design of the Kennedy Center. Heaven forbid, as Johnson is a true Architect &, besides, one of true architectural geniuses of the 20th Century. Edward Durrell Stone designed the KC. Stone is considered--ah...how to phrase this delicately--an "exterior designer" in the world of architecture. [This message has been edited by Jeannie (edited March 30, 2000).]

Mea culpa, Steve. I type with utmost dispatch, often failing to check my errancy.

And how about Jacques d'Amboise's fabulous talk about the Art of Bowing, in the 1989 Kennedy Center Honors' tribute to Alexandra Danilova? D'Amboise related how Mme. Danilova went backstage after a performance of SWAN LAKE & told him "You dance like Prince - but bow like Peasant." She then showed him the proper way to bow & acknowledge the audience...which D'Amboise demonstrated to the Kennedy Center audience in his inimitable manner! It's one of my favorite all-time KCHonors video-bits.

Michael1 - I totally agree. It's just a bunch of PR....but all companies stoop to similar attention-grabbing tactics. I just find it ridiculous that the "Long vs. Short" (or full-evening narrative vs. one-act "abstract") argument is being cloaked in such black-and-white/either-or rhetoric. Like everybody above has commented, the viewer can see (or imagine) a plot in even the most "abstract" of ballets.

In this Dancemagazine article, I find Roca's blanket-comment about critics' disdain for story-ballets the most puzzling. TRUE...certain powerful critics in New York have a special attachment to NYCB & the Balanchine tradition, & love to take pokes at naive story-ballets that are "general audience" favorites (Merry Widow, the Eifman ballets, etc.). Perhaps Roca is sticking his tongue out at these critics? Nonetheless, NOBODY--not even the NYCB-gushers--can be categorized as being completely inflexible and, thus, I find his blanket-statement upsetting. I remember Octavio Roca's critiques in the Washington Times--conservative rival paper to the liberal Washington Post--as being, very often, 180-degrees differing from critiques in the Post of the same performances. It's GREAT to have an ultra-conservative, pro-Russian/Cuban, pro-fairy-tales viewpoint or two in-print out there but not to the point of being irresponsible & just-plain-nasty, as this seems to be. Just my 2-cents worth! [This message has been edited by Jeannie (edited March 01, 2000).]

Mary - Estelle is right. The Golden Age of mythological ananchreonic ballets--including Didelot's "Flore et Zephyr"--extended well past the French Revolution into the first two decades of the 19th century. Somehow, the mythological characters seem to have appealed both to the nobles & "commoners," e.g., the mythological female symbol of "La Liberte" leading the common people, as we see in David's paintings from that era.

So the 3rd movement is out again? Too bad; I like it. Indeed, I saw it at the Balanchine Festival in '93. Miami City Ballet also danced the complete four-movement version on tour a couple of years ago. I'm trying to remember who I saw as the female soloist in New York. It was neither Roy nor Borree...Kelly Cass, I believe (no longer with the company but another "cute & perky" emploi-er).

Hi Dale! Thanks for the info on MM. I didn't realize that she was out on injury for so long, as I've been away for most of the Winter ballet season. She's had the worst of luck injury-wise, hasn't she? You are right regarding Symphony in C. In fact, that is the same emploi-of-sorts structure that Mr. B gave to the four sets of soloists in Western Symphony, in that same order! Have you noticed? You can always bet that Yvonne Boree will be doing the "perky allegro" movement, etc, etc.

My, this seems to be THE hot topic on this Board! More on Emploi as it relates to Aurora. Yes, Manhattnik is right. This seems to be one role in which ballerinas with a variety of body types can shine. I'm sorry that I missed Van Hamel's earlier run of Auroras; I saw her in the twilight of her career in the classic tutu-and-tiara roles. She was POWER to the N-th degree...but I like my Aurora's softer & more naive in manner. It doesn't have to do with physical age but, rather, the overall style--Fonteyn & Kolpakova were both younger-than-springtime Auroras when each was well into her 40s. Does this make sense? Also, my taste for Auroras veers more towards the petite & Cecchetti-style ballerina, e.g., Fonteyn & Collier, to name but two. When the MacMillan BEAUTY had its initial run at the Kennedy Center eons ago, it was Amanda McKerrow & Cheryl Yeager who impressed me the most. Similarly, I was most impressed by Margaret Tracey at NYCB. Viviana Durante is my Aurora of choice in today's Royal Ballet; Bussell, on the other hand, seems like a gladiatress among the china figurines of Florestan's Court (but she's a dream of an Odette/Odile). Perhaps it's because, to me, petite & small-scale = younger, and Aurora is the embodiment of dewy youth? As for the current Russian trend to "attack" this role with full-guns-energy and ear-high extensions...well, this is one gigantic exception to my frothing over anything that the Russians do! I cringed as I watched Zakharova perform her 180-190-degree developes. Zakharova was not a delicate young princess out there; she was a killer-gladiatress with knowledge beyond her years! Vishneva had the extensions too but, to me, was softened by her face & young manners (more naive--less regal). Unlike Aurora, the other grand-scale Petipa ballerina roles--Raymonda, Odette/Odile, Medora--seem just fine when danced by the taller & more "queenly" types. Aurora is very "Princess" & less "Queen," it seems. Here's another visual: Meunier is a splendid Odette/Odile...but, somehow, I can't picture her as Aurora. Anybody know if she's slated to debut the role in the next run of BEAUTIES, this May? It would be fascinating to see.

Thanks, Alexandra, for verifying my hunch about Martine Van Hamel being a well-known Myrtha, but not a Giselle (my comment above on Cargill's post mentioning that Van Hamel was not given a chance to dance Myrtha). My memory was not deceiving me, after all! For the most past, Van Hamel's roles at ABT were most eppropriate for her style & "look." The only "out-of-her-emploi" (??) role seemed to be Aurora in the current MacMillan staging; then again, she was so technically impeccable, that we can forgive the casting directors this lapse of "emploi-savviness"!

Cargill - When did Martine Van Hamel ever dance the title role in GISELLE? Do you really believe that she rarely danced Myrtha? You may be interested to learn that Martine Van Hamel is considered to be one of the greatest Myrthas of all time, having performed the role many times with ABT. I believe that it is Van Hamel who is featured as Myrtha in the video that stars Makarova as Giselle. Perhaps you were thinking of someone else & typed "Van Hamel" by mistake? (smile)

Ilya - I agree; paying members of the audience are free to choose to stay & applaud or leave quickly without applause, if they did not enjoy the performance. However, I believe that Brooke's topic of discussion is about average audience-members who dash to the garage or subway, despite having enjoyed the performance. It's a lamentably common occurrence at the Kennedy Center in DC. Mary, I have not noticed it to such a high degree in NY; my yardstick is Washington, & I have yet to see an audience that is more restless to dash to the garage. I feel like asking such people, "Didn't you come to the ballet to relax?" Estelle, Europeans do not dash-away during applause that way; I've rarely noticed such a thing, or maybe I've been in the company of the most laid-back & polite audiences in Europe. I've often wondered: Are American ballet audiences in the Southeast, Midwest/Central and West Coast states as restless as those in the big cities of the East?

You surely did so, Dale.

Just ran across Alexandra's "Dancer of the Week" page on this website - and it's none other than Diana Vishneva. Thanks ... great choice!

Manhattnik - C/3rd mvmt. is Vishneva's tour-de-force...'ya ain't seen nothin' yet! She won the Benois de la Danse prize a couple of years ago for precisely this role. Until recently, DV specialized in sunny, allegro roles & C-3 was typical of what she was being given to perform at the Kirov. It's only very recently that she has come into her own in the more lyrical rep. When I saw C in Russia, the first-cast consisted basically of what we will see Thursday night - Nioradze 1st, Lopatkina 2nd mvmt (fantastic!) and DV in 3rd. Juliet - re. Lopatkina's body-type...if what you mean is that we refrain from the typical American "Yuk...oooh...another anorexic Russian dancer.." then I agree wholeheartedly with you. Nothing wrong with Lopatkina's lines!

FINALLY Lopatkina has arrived! I'm looking forward to my overdose of this fine dancer in the two Balanchine programs, as well as her Zarema at the Saturday matinee. Where will you be sitting, Manhattnik? Re. Lopatkina: Am I the only Kirovian-Balletomane who finds it interesting that the best of the current Lilac Fairies in the 1952 Soviet production of BEAUTY does not dance the role in the 1890 revival...allegiance to her mentor, Dudinskaya, perhaps??? Mark, do you know?

Marc - Prima Ballerina of the Kirov-Mariinsky Ballet of St. Petersburg, Russia, that's what. From the moment I first saw DV in the old (1952) K. Sergeyev production of BEAUTY, I instantly thought - "The beauty & radioance of Margot Fonteyne PLUS the physique and technique." DV's smile, face, and "sunny" quality make me want to jump out of my seat and make an arse of myself jete-ing up the aisle of the theater! Quite simply, the finest AND (to me) most physically ravishing ballerina I have EVER seen. Period. (Doesn't mean that I don't respect your opinions, Marc.)

Wendy - Wow, I'm sorry that I missed Assylmuratova at the Wed. matinee. (I can only stretch "time off" work just so far! ) To try to answer & comment on your QQs - I have not seen the new BEAUTY production at the Mariinsky & am only going by a couple of phone conversations with someone who did see it. Yes, there is a new Panorama in this production. Yes, it is an exact duplicate of the 1890 original, as are all of the other sets and costumes. The details of the new-old Panorama are different than those in the 1952 Panorama designed by the Soviets (Virzaladze), most notably the "bend in the river effect" (first spot Beauty's castle from afar; optical illusion in the scenery makes it appear as Lilac's boat is going around a riverbend; suddenly the castle appears close-up). Sleeping dogs and horses--presumably models & not real animals!--are seen at the castle's entrance. The Mariinsky does have a trap door in the center. The disappearance of Carabosse's cape could occur through the trap door; it did in the 1952 production! I'll guess that the MET does not have such a trap door &, thus, this effect could not occur on tour. The Act III backdrop scenery is a flat. It was designed as a flat in 1890 and that is what was replicated in 1999. Ironically, it's the old Soviet (1952) Act III that incorporates real fountains with real water...but I'll take the brightness & color of the 1890 scenery any day! I remember reading a story about George Balanchine reminiscing about the real fountains in BEAUTY, when he was a child. We now know that he was referring to Act I & not Act III. Like you, I am a bit perplexed at both Anna Kisselgoff and Clive Barnes' negative comments on the "problem" of staging an old-fashioned ballet in 1999. I've always known them to be great admirers of the classical style. Maybe they've become too acquainted and cozy with the accellerated New York City Ballet style of dancing the classics? In all fairness to them, I, too, was a bit skeptical at how the "NY Ballet In-Crowd" would react to the Kirov's new BEAUTY...but that was before Monday night. What puzzles me is that, even after the all-embracing reaction of the Monday opening night crowd, these two critics still feel this way. [Hmmm...wonder if they really attended the Monday opening night or if they wrote reviews only based on the rehearsal that afternoon?? Nah...just a dumb thought!] By the way, even I am starting to tire of discussing BEAUTY. How about turning the focus to the current Kirov production, GISELLE, with a new thread? Would love to read everyone's impressions of Vishneva (last night), Zakharova (tonight), Sologub (tomorrow night)& Assylmuratova (Monday). I'll be able to join in discussions on Dumchenko's performance (tomorrow matinee); saw Zakharova & Assylmuratova in the role in past years. [This message has been edited by Jeannie (edited July 02, 1999).] [This message has been edited by Jeannie (edited July 02, 1999).]

Ooohhh, Manhatnnik...thanks for the preview. Can't wait for the full report. Sorry that Vishneva is no longer scheduled to dance GISELLE at tomorrow's matinee (as announced in the initial season brochure); I'll be seeing Maya Dumchenko with Andrian Fadeev instead. Oh, well...I'll have plenty of opportunities to see Vishneva again next week in the two Balanchine programs. Maybe, maybe...if I'm lucky...Vishneva will substitute Irma Nioradze in the final, closing-night GISELLE (wouldn't count on it, though).