tomorrow

The dancers haven't said much on Twitter but the usual complacent critics have dubbed it ambitious and exciting. The Guardian's Judith Mackrell, who doesn't seem to know much about ballet outside of the RB and ENB, tries to justify the dearth of French neoclassical choreographers by claiming there aren't any, and that the new choreography course will change all that. Um, OK. I'm not impressed. It's the stale, conventional programming seen more or lees anywhere and should be hailed as the textbook example of how static programming has become company to company. Where is the commitment to women? For somebody who claimed to care about people of colour, he certainly doesn't understand inclusive programming. I hope the dancers have the sense to just oust these two (in 2012 there were reports of friction towards Lefevre over the lack of classics, after all) but I think they may be mad enogh to accept it. It seems the defile and public rehearsals are now AROP only in a disgraceful show of contempt for the public. Ticket prices are up and aside from the 10 tickets for under 28s and this 'digital stage' thing, accessibility doesn't seem to be much of a priority (just like inclusiveness). As for William Forsythe, who clearly shows no sign of loyalty to the Nureyev etoiles the company's trying to pretend never actually existed, well, I wish I could say I still found him interesting. Hopefully Sylvie Guillem's removing him from here farewell programme as we speak...

Via the POB's Twitter account, Charmatz, Robbins, Balanchine, Millepied, Keersmaeker, Wheeldon, McGregor, Bel, Ratmansky, Peck, Marin, Forsythe... The only 3 classics are Nureyev's La Bayadere and Romeo and Juliet, as well as Giselle... That's it. Please, please, please tell me the Paris Opera's dancers have the sense to strike.

Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker confirmed, William Forsythe for associate choreographer (Sylvie Guillem's ending her relationship with the guy right now ;-))... http://m.culturebox.francetvinfo.fr/musique/opera/lopera-de-paris-renoue-avec-laudace-pour-la-1re-saison-de-stephane-lissner-211039?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#xtref=acc_dir

Via an article in today's Paris Match, Édouard Lock's coming back next season as part of an all Tchaikovsky programme. :-/

Me too, and not just because of the standardised neoclassical rep but the standardised contemporary dance and music. Jerome Bel and Nico Muhly (how ambitious!) confirmed, according to an interview with Millepied. Slightly interested in the ballet set to Daft Punk, but not very. Stephane Lissner's programming isn't any better though - a diverse range of operas but too many predictable directors. It's all about easy patronage, I guess. Either way, I will try to see this when it's in Manchester. I think the last time the POB was in the UK was Le Parc with Laurent Hilaire and Aurelie Dupont. 2005?

Well, William Forsythe isn't a former dancer but a dancer, and would argue regardless of whether you do or don't become a 'professional', you're either a dancer, or you're not. Part of the reason he has left The Forsythe Company is because the stress of running a full-time troupe was negatively affecting his health, preventing him from dancing. I'm not sure I could explain this quickly and I don't have much time right now, but I'll give it a shot and come back to your question about the importance of quality of choreography later. One must remember Forsythe has been extremely critical of the lack of recognition dancers receive throughout his career, even going as far to credit his ballets/works as "Choreographed by William Forsythe with...". An amatuer writer is still a writer, a professional writer is a writer, and a writer who stops publishing his or her work is still a writer. They're united in their art, as artists. Dancers don't seem to have that luxury. They just count and make shapes then they retire and become 'normal' people, or non-artists. Misha is very guilty of enabling this, frequently claiming "dancers aren't born, they're made" detracting from - and even hiding - the more natural and creative abilities a dancer has. Forsythe's work seems to be a response to this stereotype, an assertion that actually, dancers are artists and think as much as they do on stage as they do in the studio, and out of it. Forsythe even believes a choreographer is at the service of the dancer, and never the other way around. Liz LeCompte of The Wooster Group works similarly, weaving together what her artists can - or want to - bring to the stage to develop a piece. Both Forsythe and LeCompte impose parameters which influence what happens during a performance as well, from signals to improvise for x minutes to how to react to specific movements or text (I'm not very familiar with Merce Cunningham but I think his work with chance explored slightly similar territory?), enabling their performers to be conscious on stage - to think. If you have speakers, Riley Watts very briefly touches on Forsythe's work allowing dancers to 'think' in a workshop on Forsythe's improvisation techniques: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=iotX0Bs1pCM. Sylvie Guillem has said she doesn't like dancing Balanchine because she feels pushed into a box, and I think that's what Forsythe is referring to (Laurent Hilaire and Guillem are his two biggest influences, after all, and he notes both as special because they're collaborators, i.e., not just executioners). He cares more about allowing a dancer to be in their natural, creative, conscious state, than being boxed in and on autopilot. Of course, it is debatable, Marina Harss noted a recent performance at BAM exerted too much control over his performers, but was it control or being tiven the freedom to dance in the eyes of the dancers? If it didn't make any sense, apologies! Back for your question later.

Frustrating news. I do wish EU countries would implement more rigid structures with regards to the administration of their performing arts institutions. The Governments should designate x amount for dance, x for opera etc. rather than take the misguided view one person will split the funding fairly - or push the programming of an art form they're not even connected to in the right direction. To be honest, companies like the La Monnaie and the Paris Opera just remind me of France's ridiculous National Choreographic Centres. A director's hauled in to do whatever he or she likes (provided the state agrees), then the repoirtoire's thrown out at the end of their tenure, sacrificing any chance of increased semi-sustainability through steady commercial growth. And this is in the middle of an era of financial austerity...

Best: ENB's Lest We Forget, Wheeldon & the RB's The Winter's Tale and... World Ballet Day Live! I really enjoyed it. Also the short documentary on Brigitte Lefevre was good. It wasn't perfect but still interesting to see her in a different light. Laura Hecquet's promotion at the POB too. Worst: Laurent Hilaire's cruel and unnecessary departure from the POB (Pfffft. Their loss - none of them will rival his absolutely brilliant public repititions, or his following for them!), news I will probably never see Carla Körbes perform live, and Nacho Duato's arrival in Berlin. Apparently the new czar has said if it was upto him Vladimir Malakhov would still be there. You couldn't make it up if you tried! There are definitely more so I'll come back to this later.

My thoughts exactly! If you're not going to promote anybody, don't make them go through the stress of this ridiculous competition. Similar happens at the recruitment competition sometimes where they still ask people to compete when there aren't any vacancies. I'm not sure I agree. The dancers are supposed to be judged only on their performance at the Concours, not based on their performances during the rest of the season. If no one is promoted it means no one knocked it out of the park at the Concours. The concours is meant to be points based though. There are three rounds, with a maximum of ten points for each: a fixed variation, a free variation, and an evaluation of the individual dancer's work over the previous year, which rather unfairly depends entirely on how well each jury member knows the dancer in question. I don't think it is ethical to ask dancers to compete in the concours if, prior to the competition, you can't come up with a shortlist of dancers based on the third round alone. I'm not sure how the jury works after the points are awarded. Is there a vote and is the top ranking dancer only promoted if the majority agree to it, in which case, what's the point in that third round? If the final say falls on the director, then why is there a need for a (costly) competition at all? Gerard Mortier removed the limit on how many etoiles there can be, therefore a vacant position in the premier dansuer rank doesn't leave room for an additional etoile. So, if the decision not to promote anybody was because they would rather one of the promoted coryphees took the position next year, again, why ask them to compete? The whole thing is poorly thought out. I haven't checked the ONP's website but I presume they didn't publish the top five dancers this year, just the two promoted. Unusual but there is talk Millepied wants to remove the concours, if the staff agree to it.

My thoughts exactly! If you're not going to promote anybody, don't make them go through the stress of this ridiculous competition. Similar happens at the recruitment competition sometimes where they still ask people to compete when there aren't any vacancies.

A shame not to see Arthur Raveau and Eve Grinsztajn cast for Manon. Similarly with Swan Lake (Laura Hecquet also). I've not been impressed by Millepied's casting yet...

Since savvysearch revived the threat, definitely Laurent Hilaire. 52 and still a beauty.

Ah OK, I could have sworn he was (once?) involved in AROP's administration but clearly not. It's amusing the power people with money think they have, no? ;)

I think he is still AROP's president or deputy but either way he isn't somebody you want to cross. His attacks on and personal campaign to have N. Joel fired were pretty horrific.

Philippe Villin, head of AROP, isn't happy his - as the hip kids say - 'BFF' Nicolas Le Riche didn't get the job, nor is he happy with where the company's going. He seems to insinuate Stephane Lissner didn't give Nicolas Le Riche a fair chance. The same with Laurent Hilaire, I wonder? http://tinyurl.com/nvkurk3 Google Translate isn't great so for the French speakers amongst, does it says Villin has left the company? "Drove to" specifically. This is one of the most well-connected members of the Paris elite, by the way...

Perhaps their more mainstream fame is why a lot of people credit Claude Bessy and Rudolf Nureyev, rather than the team. Giants like Laurent Hilaire and Sylvie Guillem were remarkably adaptive whilst remaining distinctly French, and both have emphasised how important it was for them to learn from other companies. Ghyslaine Thesmar was - and still is - very much Laurent Hilaire's mentor, and whilst Hilaire and Manuel Legris are the face of the Nureyev generation, Charles Jude was always Rudolf Nureyev's closest protegee. If I remember correctly, Claude Bessy took a fairly experimental approach to training students. A lot of them learned Graham and I seem to recall reading Bessy even offered classes in martial arts to learn the attack so often missing from the POB school. I suppose, ultimately, Bessy placed a lot of emphasis on the standards of other schools, but as Laurent Hilaire and Agnes Letestu have said, mime and acting wasn't something the school - or the company - prepared them for. Hilaire claimed it was Rudolf Nureyev who brought that over, or at least, the mime the English and Russian audiences were used to. As for Macaulay, he has written in the past the POB today confuses classical dance with academic technique, and this is certainly echoed in Paris. Criticism of the company amongst in-house balletomones always seems to surround one or more of three areas: 1) the loss of the French style, 2) the lack of interpretation or stage presence, and 3) the weak technique. A French friend recently quipped, "If the ONP has a style, it's defined by Brigitte Lefevre's disdain for the technical and artistic standards required of a major company." Is that opinion widely held internationally though? I'm not so sure.

The concours promotes fairness in theory, sure, but there are still brilliant dancers trapped in the corps who aren't given opportunities to gain experience specifically because of their contract. 10/30 points will depend on whether each member of the panel knows - or likes - you, it doesn't give injured or ill dancere a chance (which is just sick in 2014), doesn't test partnering and does nothing for dancers who don't excel at short variations. Not every Giselle on the gala circuit makes a great Giselle. Plus, how do you judge it fairly if it's as much about technique as it is 'artistry'? A lot of the dancers enter with modern and contemporary dance for their optional variation.

What purpose does the concours du promotion serve though? It goes against today's ethics, particularly with regards to equal opportunities in the workplace (the POB penalises you if you're sick) but some of the dancers with the most potential are stuck in the corps anyway. I'm not sure there is even much discussion involved either. There's a possible ten points per variation then ten for your performance over the past year, like an appraisal of sorts. As some have pointed out, including Brigitte Lefevre, if somebody on the panel doesn't know you, then you probably won't score above 20. There used to be a limit on how many etoiles there could be under Hugues Gall, which Gerard Mortier lifted because it caused various problems when there were injuries or if somebody had a reduced schedule. Marie-Agnes Gillot's promotion to etoile was controversial for this reason, somebody else had been lined up by the public. The increase in the number of etoiles is criticised heavily in Paris though, not just because there's a lot of them now but because of the payroll (it's public money, it comes with this sort of criticism!). It'll be interesting to see how Millepied fares with France's new Minister of Culture too. I didn't like the last one (letting Laurent Hilaire go just one example of her many, many failings) but the new French Government isn't, shall we say, afraid of following orders where cuts are concerned.

The Royal Ballet of Flanders announced Assis Carreiro has been dropped from AD. They've not said much about why...

I too find the lack of attention Sofiane Sylve's received quite bizarre. I thought the French championed their artists' achievements abroad, or at least in anything other than dance it seems! I get the sense Mathilde Froustey is just very media savvy and the French certainly like their glamour, if you know what I mean ;-). Laura Hecquet was also seen as having huge potential to be an etoile but despite being closely associated with the dancers trapped in the corps Laurent Hilaire has tried to push forward, was never given any of the key roles or opportunities Mathilde Froustey had. Laura Hecquet's first lead role in 11 years of employment disgracefully didn't even see her interviewed. Aurelia Bellet is also on a sabbatical dancing in Spain and wasn't given any publicity either. Mr. Hilaire sadly now leaves the company a scapegoat, whether at the hands of Stephane Lissner or the scary Socialist party is unclear, but there are a lot of wonderful dancers he should be credited for supporting. Unsurprisngly, none of them are given any attention in the French press. I think the press in France has changed considerably over the past few years though. I cannot recall the dancer's name off the top of my head, but gone are the days where dance journalists felt Marie-Agnes Gillot's promotion to etoile robbed another dancer of their's. Of course, back then there was a limit on how many etoiles there could be and Wilfrid Romoli was in a similar sotuation, only promoted once Laurent Hilaire left his etoile contract 'officially'. They weren't sujets however. If anything the French press today often seem reluctant to criticise the POB negatively, and some editors even consider one line a review ;-).

Yes Abbagnato has always been fiercely critical of Lefevre (and her programming choices) but the reactions to her promotion to etoile were rather polarised. I find Mme quite confusing generally though. Manuel Legris was too conservative to run the POB, Laurent Hilaire, whilst great, worried her because he might be too into the modern, yet Nicolas Le Riche, who has similar tastes in repoirtoire to Hilaire anyway, was her preferred choice if the job couldn't go to an outsider. I think it's safe to say Abbagnato won't be dancing in the Grand Foyer or in a metro station anytime soon though so I'm not sure why Millepied's a hit already.Brigitte Lefevre's interview in Télérama, where she admits feeling stung by a remark from Millepied. There's also an interview in Têtu (not online, excerpt on Dansomanie) where Lefevre briefly mentions she has found the unkindness from dancers difficult.

Whether Laurent Hilaire was dismissed for new blood or because they didn't get along nobody knows, but I'm reluctant to see Aurelie Dupont's promotion as smart. I realise it may be legal to dismiss managers for new faces in the US but unless the Paris Opera is exempt because of its status as a public institution, I doubt it would hold up in the French courts. I'd expect similar for any disagreements, especially for a no. 3 of a department (the administrator being the real no. 2), and the Paris Opera's track record for ignoring the labour law over the past few years is insulting enough.Politics aside, Millepied said recently there would still be Nureyev's productions and to keep technical standards up, Balanchine and Robbins (Millepied's connection to them is irrelevant, their trusts are already very involved in the POB), but his focus was very much on the contemporary repoirtoire. A shame if the company does become a French City Ballet - much of the POB's heritage is already collecting dust. Nicolas Le Riche also said in an interview a couple of weeks ago he was leaving at the right time because the project of the house was changing and it wasn't his idea of what dance is, so I'm expecting a noticable shift in repoirtoire. I'm glad Millepied is interested in developing in-house talent. I would hope that isn't just synonymous with young talent though and extends to include Jean-Guillaume Bart, massively underutilised by the company, and Florence Clerc. Clerc seems like a strong producer but has never been commissioned to reproduce something, but then this is an incredibly talented coach whose lack of promotion to at the very least assistant ballet master has never made much sense...

I will track down the interview you've cited but etoiles are offered the chance to alter programmes to make it more personal by adding a one act ballet to their farewell evening, and unless my memory serves me wrong, Agnes Letestu didn't specifically mention a gala. Here's one of the interviews which says Le Riche proposed the farewell gala (Google Translate : https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=14&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://m.lesechos.fr/redirect_article.php%3Fid%3D0203307923202%26fw%3D1&usg=ALkJrhhgBb1_xwCysvop2FieKnKG4BIyTw. I am not saying the spend isn't justifiable, but questioning whether other etoiles would be given the opportunity? I'm not aware Busell's farewell gala at Sadler's Wells was funded by the Royal Ballet, for comparison's sake. As for tickets being snapped up, were they? It's an increasing problem in Paris - private evenings where even subscribers don't get a look in, despite both the general public and subscribers funding at least some of the evening.

Agnes Letestu wasn't clear about whether she was offered a gala or, as traditions go, an extra ballet of her choice added to the evening. Brigitte Lefevre did not ask Nicolas Le Riche if he wanted a gala, he asked her and organised it himself. Would others have been given that luxury? I'm not convinced and that is my point entirely. Le Riche may have broken down walls and entered the mainstream of French culture but I am for fairness, not favouritism, regardless of a dancer's wider fame, sorry. Back to the topic at hand, does anyone know if the three cinema screenings are open to the public?

Nicolas Le Riche is a great dancer and perhaps the 'greatest' of his generation for his fans, but this evening is still questionable and I am not alone in that (even Les Balletonautes mocked the decision to single him out, and they're French). There was public demand for Laurent Hilaire and Manuel Legris to receive galas but nothing came out of it. I would have thought reaction to Millepied's appointment proved Le Riche isn't the company's only iconic male thus no more deserving. I'm sure also given Isabelle Ciaravola's devoted fan base streaming her farewell online would have been more than welcome. But nope... The private and elitist nature of the gala is another issue and should never have happened but as I said; the Paris Opera is a strange company.