leonid17

This is absolutely unsubstantiated. Actually I can prove in details it's not true, but should I? Don't want to hurt abybody's feelings. Many of us who saw both Baryshnikov and Gudonov in the west (ABT) would agree with 4mrdancr, and, from experience, would conclude that what she experienced was not an off night. In fact, many of us have not seen Baryshnikov's technique equaled. His influence as an ideal of male technique may have been as influential as Nureyev's was in England; that he was cast as and was accepted as the romantic hero despite being so short and without the classic "look" can be seen throughout casting in the West. That does not mean that members always preferred Baryshnikov to Gudonov, but that wasn't issue raised. Perhaps we did not see what was so lauded in the Soviet Union, due to his actual dancing and the opportunities that he was given, as well as audience expectations post-Baryshnikov, including style and aesthetics. Bolshoi style and emotional extravagance, both of which I saw from him, was not perfectly in tune with the time. But that does not negate what we saw, and explains some of the reaction to him in the West. This is a discussion board. We exist for for people to "prove in details". As far as hurting people's feelings, we have specific policies for discussions noted here: http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=20526 We often disagree with each other; it's how those disagreements are expressed that are subject to BT policy. Again, we are a discussion board, and when substantiated, hardly "useless". By Ballet Talk policy, we are an English-speaking board, and if non-English links are provided, please provide a translated synopsis. Again, we are a discussion board, and we do not find this kind of discussion useless, as long as it is substantiated and put in context. We do not expect people to agree, but we do expect them to discuss, if they are interested in the topic. Perhaps you read our policies and misunderstood, but this is a perfectly legitimate topic, as it is a public part of Gudonov's life and part of his artistry. I agree with 4mrdancr's description of Gudonov's performance in "Witness". I think it was a finer performance than anything I saw him do onstage, and I wish he had had a long and fine film career. Thank you Helene.

"This is absolutely unsubstantiated. Actually I can prove in details it's not true, but should I? Don't want to hurt anybody's feelings." I firstly would like to state that the title of the film in question is for me extremely tasteless. I feel offended by it lack of sensitivity to the life of a man who achieved more than most and died at a young age. I first saw Mikhail Baryshnikov as a teenager and I have never been a particular admirer of him as an interpretative performer. However, he did when young, exhibit the most perfectly schooled male technique I have ever seen in watching dancers from across the world since 1961. His technique in performance was extraordinary and any one who saw him dance "Vestris" at the beginning of his career will confirm that. Alexander Borisovich Godunov certainly had an expansive technique but was not for me an expressive dramatic artist. However Godunov did exhibit enormous expression in his dancing which had a certain technical velocity. He did not for me have a face suitable for certain roles he essayed. The article in Kultura by Natalia Petrovna Galadzheva (a more correct translation), a jobbing journalist who also contributes to a ballet forum, personally speaking, writes with an over excited journalese, much of which echoes what has been written elsewhere at length in Alexander Godunov’s obituaries and is known to those who follow ballet closely. “I know what I'm talking about, so does Ms. Natalia Galadgeva, a journalist and a film critic, who scrupulously investigated his life” I wonder how accurate the last statement is as Mr Godunov spent more than half his adult life in America. I believe that you are perhaps more familiar writing about films than real life ballet experience unlike most posters to this forum, many of whom without actively realising it, know quite a lot about Mr Godunov and his life as a ballet dancer which I personally believe was his only real life. Alexander Godunov had a following across two continents and those who admired him will not be touched by this film and for future generations who care about the history of dance I suggest will seek elsewhere to discover about this dancer whose anniversary of his death was the 18th of May. I joined others in a prayer for him on that day when we were celebrating the 90th anniversary of Dame Margot Fonteyn’s birth. ps The film of Corsair is not to be admired and I now wish I had not watched it.

There is no witness evidence or statement by either Dame Margot or Rudolf Nureyev to suggest that having become the greatest and closest of friends and often social companions, that there was anything more to their relationship, apart of course from their legendary partnership. There have been a number of trashy books wriiten about these two great artists that have all contained factual errors that could have been easily checked, so how could you trust them in dealing with their matters of relationdship when no substanial evidence of relationship above what I have described exists and none I would suggest to be found, but only invented. I understand that the projected film has arisen from the existence of such published material and not an original work.

Mikhail Messerer has been appointed Balletmaster in Chief of the Mikhailovsky Ballet see website below. http://www.mikhailovsky.ru/en/# Mr Messerer has been with the company for two seasons and took a curtain call for his stagings when the Mikhailovsky visited London last year.

Alistair MaCaulay talks about giving audiences explanations about ballet plots and proceeds in this article to lose his own. Having watched Mr MaCaulay climb to the top rung of ballet criticism, in this article he sounds to me somewhat jaded being some distance from the usual readable informative self which I am always happy to read. When he states, For those of us who had been missing those old-style numbers (George Balanchine and Frederick Ashton excelled in them) in which a ballerina(Ananiashvilli) seemed to make something out of nothing, it was oddly endearing to see a new if minor specimen of the genre." I am not certain that he is old enough to have seen any seriously important ballerina’s other than the one being discussed. One the one hand he wants explanations for an unknowledgeable audience and then writes in the NYT, “Mr. Ratmansky gave Ms. Ananiashvili one particular little beaten step (in ballet terminology, a grand battement raccourci battu) that intoxicatingly caught a recurrent figure in the music.” Assuming members of the gala audience read the NYT, how does such a sentence actually educate the audience that he expresses so much concern for? He writes, “As it happens, Ivanov’s original 1895 “Swan Lake” pas de deux was actually a pas de deux à trois, with the prince’s friend Benno assisting in the partnering. (This version was still danced in the early 1960s, and it could be restored to good effect: it makes clearer that the heroine, in her alarm and conflicted feelings about the prince’s love for her, repeatedly falls away from him, only to be chivalrously caught by another man she doesn’t even see.”Having seen “Swan Lake” with a Benno, I am fairly happy in a non-authentic production of the Petipa/Ivanov version, not to have him in the lakeside scene. Nor in London, do I remember critics or balletomanes at the time missing Benno when he disappeared almost 50 years ago. A gala performance of the type that he is writing about is a divertissement i.e. an entertainment or diversion; it is not an occasion for pontificating such as, “Another is for those in charge to help audiences become more intelligently interested.” A Gala audience in its majority is possibly less of a serious ballet audience than would attend an ordinary ballet evening. They are there to be amused not bemused by something they are not necessarily deeply interested in but have supported something thought to be worthy by paying a high price. He says,” Gala audiences in my experience don’t mind being educated.” How does he know this?” I have probably attended a hundred more galas than Mr MaCaulay and my observation is that people go because it is a fairly high social event(or was in my youth) where you dress up, talk to people of similar wealth or status and feel good that your expensive seats may help to keep a company going. Of course serious balletomanes attend also. In England the government feels it is important to support young people in attending the arts and high arts to create future audiences. I am far from certain that you can educate anyone to enjoy the arts. It has been my long experience of attending art events and producing art events for children and adults, that people find their own way to seeing, enjoying and committing themselves by regularly attending, chosen art forms without any particular encouragement or education in particular genres. Some people go fairly regularly to the ballet to simply enjoy a performance or particular dancers and gain little or no knowledge about the art form and in the process are happy in their pastime. Others seek out everything there is to know about the art form and its history and somewhere in between you may find your average regular balletgoer. Being to educated in ballet may to some, may think that it will robs them of the spontaneity of their experience when they go to performances. Dirac puts the arguments clearly when he states. " Such knowledge can only increase appreciation of the art form, but it’s only truly helpful if the person has already responded to ballet on a more fundamental level, and you don’t need the book learning for that response." PS Thank you Kathleen for starting this thread.

Mary Skeaping was an extraordinary woman of charm and intellect whose background in understanding and performing Russian ballet came from her background of teachers who included Lavrenty Novikov Vera Trefilova, Lubov Egorova and her experience of being a member of both Anna Pavlova's company and the Markova Dolin Company. She came into contact with the Nikolai Sergeyev notated version of Swan Lake when she was ballet mistress for two years with the Sadlers Wells ballet from 1949 to 1951. She staged her four act version for the Royal Swedish ballet which was given its first performance on March 12 1953 with the 18 year old Marianne Orlando as Odette/Odile. This production she then staged for Alicia Alonso's company in Cuba the following year. Not long after this staging Alonso altered much of the choreography making the dances more virtuosic in nature. Mary Skeaping has an international reputation as a choreographer and teacher and was an authority on ballets performed during the 17th and 18th century. Skeaping became Artistic Director of The Royal Swedish Ballet in 1953 raising the standard considerably holding the post in often difficult circumstances until 1962. In that gem of Swedish history the Drottingholm Court Theatre built in 1766 which has survived as if in a time capsule, she employed all of the traditions of staging that had taking place using the extensive material kept in the Royal Archives recreating she recreated ballets and dances from two hundred year old operas in a style assumed to be as close to authentic as it could be which Ivo Kramer her collaborator carried on. In England she continued to reproduce extracts from early ballets especially those associated with the Sun King. She returned to Drottingholm on occasion to stage other works. In England she achieved extraordinary esteem with her production of Giselle in 1971. Mary Skeaping is both the author of books and many articles. She was highly approachable and spoke to everyone with warmth and a smile you would never forget. Regrettably Christian I am not aware of any extant productions of “Swan Lake” which Skeaping set and the production which she had copied ceased to exist soon after she left the Sadlers Wells Ballet. PS Mary Skeaping was born in Woodford, Essex England in 1902 and died in 1984 in London.

Dame Margot Fonteyn de Arias would have been 90 years old today(18 May) and the London Ballet Circle took the opportunity to celebrate this with guest speakers, Dame Monica Mason, Donald MacLeary, David Wall and Alfreda Thorogood. Each of the guests gave descriptions of Dame Margot's tenacity, utter professionalism and courage. Each in turn recalled events of performing roles alongside Dame Margot painting a picture of a woman that most biographers have failed to capture. Her kindness and support of other dancers was discussed and I was surprised to learn that Dame Margot Fonteyn after recommending a school to a backstage Royal Opera House employee for his daughter, she then paid for her tuition until she was able to get a scholarship to the Royal Ballet. The girl was Alfreda Thorogood. Dame Margot comforted Dame Monica when she returned to the stage after a nine month absence due to injury, when Dame Monica felt she had given a poor performance. Dame Margot told her it was a hurdle she had to clear and that now every thing would be much easier. Donald Mac Leary and David Wall princes on and off stage gave many examples of Dame Margot's thoughtfulness and courage when she performed through pain. Apparently Dame Margot was a terrible giggler and loved to tell and be told amusing stories while the dancers relaxed between rehearsals. All the contributors gave praise for those performances where she produced a miracle of strength and commitment to her art. The emotion felt by each contributor made this an extraordinary experience as they shared events they had participated in with Dame Margot and all recalled her miracles of balance and the years when she completed 32 fouettes securely and regularly. When Dame Margot's husband was incapacitated she learnt to drive, passing her test first time, so that she could leave the Opera House catch and train and then drive to the hospital to her husband and then be first in class the following morning. David Wall first partnered Dame Margot when he was eighteen years old and was terrified. In the twenty minutes rehearsal he had with her in a role he had never danced before she gave him every confidence and support and the final coaching he needed for the role. Patience and thougtfulness was what came across from the contributors in their views of Dame Margot. Donald MacCleary's enthusiasm for her was almost exultant. Jennie Walton the photographer and historian had created a small exhibition of historical photographs of Dame Margot and brought along a most life-like posthumous portrait of Dame Margot which one felt could almost speak. In that audience I saw faces that I had known from my teenage when these ladies and a few gentleman I considered elderly over forty years ago. A very nice birthday cake was served with wine and everybody chatted to every body else exchanging memories. I spoke to one lady who used to attend Anna Northcote's class in London in the 1940's who would arrive early at the studio to watch Vera Volkova's class where Dame Margot would perform 32 fouttes with the arms in 2nd every day of the week. I saw Dame Margot dance with a number of ballet companies throughout the 1960's and early 70's. In her retirement I participated in a project with her and found her to be a woman of great culture and in her sixties she had a magical allure, a gentle and kindly expression in speech and an extraordinary positive outlook on the future.

Vivid enough for me. Well done. I am most grateful for your contribution. Ps Along with the rest of the world I have been guilty in promoting a Centerary of the Diaghilev Ballet Russe which actually takes place in 1911 when the company assumed that name. What is really being celebrated this year is the centenary of the, "Saison Russe." at the Chatelet Theatre.

I read SandyMckean as giving a very normal conversational example and I am sure you did not mean to sound patronizing in the above sentence as I regularly witness your generosity of expression with other ballettalk posters. How each of us respond to a work of art has as much value as any other persons whether educated to PhD level or with low educational qualifications. When you say, "...the reality within the Arts themselves.." one has to ask whose reality? The thought of the nebulous scientific approach to the evaluation of art works and eras that are flourishing in our acadaemia are often seen to me by persons of the type that, "... can read music but cannot hear it" or, " ...cannot see the wood for the trees" and yet want to jump on the latest analytical approach that ultimately has no value and will be rejected by most because smacks of dictatorial control of the way individuals should approach art and its history. Are we are talking about theories substantiated by persons with the self-interest of monetary reward and employment or, theories expressed by actual artists? I vote for Balanchine as a complete kind of genius but I also vote for another complete kind of genius choreographer in the 20th century Frederick Ashton. Unless of course this is just a vote about a Russian choreographer who lived and worked for a long time in America.

If I remember correctly, the original 1890 version of Spyashchaya Krasavitsa had what became the Lilac Fairy danced not en pointe but as a character dancer. It wasn't until MUCH later that the choreography changed so the Lilac Fairy danced en pointe. In the 1890 staging as danced by the Mariinsky the Lilac Fairy does dance on pointe in the Prologue. According to Doug Fullington, in his magnificent article on the reconstruction of the 1890 Sleeping Beauty, "The Lilac Fairy variation [in the Prologue] is notated twice and both versions include pointe work." Later in the ballet she appears on heeled shoes. Doug Fullington's article here: The Kirov's reconstructed Sleeping Beauty. Sacto you really aren't helping anybody with continuously posting inaccurate facts. Please check your sources first. Sorry that my reply continues to take this discussion right off post. This question was aired at some length three years ago on ballettalk and I find myself in the extraordinary position of lending support to Sacto 1654 post although he needed to define what "much later" means by giving a date. When there was a discussion on “The Sergeyev Collection” I posted the following. “I cannot at present recall when I first saw a photograph of Marie Petipa in her long dress and heeled shoes, but it was certainly before the popular book " Era of Russian Ballet" by Natalia Roslavleva (see opposite page 92).was published 40 years ago. It was of course widely known before that time that Marie Petipa reputation was that of an outstanding character dancer, demi-caractere dancer and mime, who though danced in soft point (type) shoes in the Prologue of SB, possibly never danced on full point at any time in her long career.” Jan 28 2006, 04:05 PM There was a reply questioning my statement. I then posted: “When I wrote that "possibly never danced on point" it was an unanswered question, not an assertion. Marie Petipa was already nearly 33 years of age and was of a full figured stature in 1890, as a photograph of her in the Prologue costume shows (Compare Lubov Egorova photographed in same costume design). There are two extant notated versions of the Lilac Fairy variation the first marked M.Petipa according to Wiley is technically less demanding, "Marie's choreography is based on the plainest of floor plans and requires very little pointe work......" By the time the 'Sergeyev' notation of her (supposed) version was recorded, Marie Petipa was 46 years of age, very plump in the body and had not danced the Lilac Fairy for a good number of years. Is it possible that she collaborated with Sergeyev given her fathers antipathy towards the Stepanov notation? It has been stated that Petipa re-choreographed his own variations for particular dancers, did this happen when other dancers succeeded to the role of the Lilac Fairy? Perhaps Doug Fullington who knows the Sergeyev notation well, could at some time give an indication how clearly demi-pointe work is shown compared to full pointe work? Is the Marie version in Sergeyev's hand, as Mr. Fullington's earlier writing on the Kirov reconstruction talks about a ' scribe ', rather than directly crediting N.Sergeyev notating the Fairy variations? “ Jan 29 2006, 04:24 AM It was later suggested that there were extant photographs of Marie Petipa in pointe shoes. There are photographs of Marie Petipa in the Lilac Fairy costume without heeled shoes but I defy anyone to prove that her shoes which to my eyes look soft were suitable for dancing en pointe. It was not her forte. Not all secondary roles in ballets by Petipa were set to be danced on full point. Solor in a reply made a point when he posted, “I have seen many photos of Mare Petipa in her Prologue Lilac Fairy costume wearing pointe shoes. Whether she was Marius' daughter or not, I don’t think he would’ve cast her in a role where she would have to dance a formal Pas de Six on half toe.” Feb 12 2006, 03:27 PM The Lilac Fairy as the deus ex machina of the ballet has to be set apart from all other characterisations on the stage to emphasis her power. What also has to be taken into account was the noted expressiveness of Marie Petipa’s portrayals, her status with the Imperial audience and of course her status as her father’s daughter. Doug Fullington wrote, “There are arguments both ways about Marie Petipa. Did she or did she not dance on pointe - in Beauty or ever? We have photos of her in pointe shoes, we have notations (more than one) of dances containing pointe work that have her name on them, we have written history that states she was only a character dancer.” Feb 12 2006, 06:13 PM

I could let this go, and I am definitely not feeling defensive, but this distinction may be an important point in attempting to identify oneself as being afflicted with "balletomania", so I will amplify: My words were: "obsessed with seeing multiple casts" And that's exactly what I meant. I see it just as you do leonid, a true balletomane likely avoids some casts just as well as insists on seeing multiple casts. But the essense is the need to see multiple casts -- the feeling that if you don't, the entire experience lacks dimension. There is the cost issue, but beyond someone who is living a true low income lifestyle, cost is usually handled by the quality of the seat and by avoiding other expenses (PNB has some $25 seats open to every goer for every performance). I'll just speak for me......it is seeing different dancers in the some production that adds the extra dimensions to the work. I am reminded of Picasso's "need" to paint a woman from multiple angles all at once or resign himself to not capturing her at all (well, capturing her alright, but only with a misleading representation since so much would be left out). True, I know all my dancers, and I love to see them all dance, but my real motivation is to see multiple artists interpret the same piece, the same role. It is from all those angles that I get insight into the piece (I could even say learn to love the piece). There is another benefit I didn't expect. When I know I am going to see a production 2 or 3 times, I can relax and pay attention to details, emotions, corps work, the orchestra, etc -- a freedom I never felt before I regularly started going to each production more than once. I no longer worry about "getting it", or missing something. If I want to watch a corps dancer for 5 minutes with my binoculars (following him/her around the stage), I do it since I know I will get a chance later to see what I missed. Sometimes I just watch all the feet, other times all the arms. I find my "dance education" goes up exponentially by seeing multiple casts because these other avenues (angles) open up that are impossible to explore with just one performance. Bottom line....I agree: it's multiple casts, certainly not all casts (except sometimes ) I believe that Sandy McKean and I are at basics, singing from the same hymn sheet. Many a true balletomane shares their thoughts and views with other like minded persons and that is what we are doing here. When Sandy McKean says, “For example, someone who has a subscription and only sees a single performance of each program (and therefore not obsessed with seeing multiple casts) is likely not a balletomane even if they were the most knowledgeable person on the planet. “ In London in the past, almost all of the very best criticisms of new ballets were written after seeing one performance only of a new work and published the next morning. Some critics will go to see other casts if they perhaps warrant a viewing but I do not agree when you state, “But the essence is the need to see multiple casts -- the feeling that if you don't, the entire experience lacks dimension.” I am not sure how we can measure everybody’s experience of what you call dimension as we all see performances through different eyes and use different measurements which may or may not coincide with others even in part. “True, I know all my dancers, and I love to see them all dance, but my real motivation is to see multiple artists interpret the same piece, the same role. It is from all those angles that I get insight into the piece (I could even say learn to love the piece).” I speak for me alone when I say in general I believe we only get true insight into a work when the choreographers chosen first cast is exhibited, because they have been chosen as an essential part of the creative process and the work has evolved with them or their type in the choreographers minds eye. I personally go to see every first cast performance of a new work that I have appreciated, to embed the choreographer’s intention in my memory. For me subsequent casts have never or rarely met the experience that a first cast has given me. However that does not mean that I will not go to see a different cast if the work is revived. It does mean that however much I compare and contrast the very many Odette-Odiles I have seen; I can never see them as Ivanov and Petipa did but only as I observe them. Balanchine said something like, that his ballet would not be danced the same way after he died. Older balletomanes know this because they have been a witness and I believe that we have to learn as much as possible about production values and early casts of ballets, where possible, place them in context, watch films and also review what has been published to gain some insight wherein we can tentatively say, “I think I know quite a lot about this or that ballet.” Am I a balletomane?

I second that. In London, when older balletomanes I know get together the one ballet they all say they want to see revived is Piege de Lumiere. As Mashinka recalls the Festival Ballet ballet staged this ballet and Galina Samsova and Andre Prokovsky were extraordinary in their performances. Another Taras ballet I have always wanted to see was his Designs with Strings with music by Tchaikovsky, and design by George Krista. Premiered 6 Feb. 1948 by the Metropolitan Ballet in Edinburgh with Beriosova, Arova, Franca, Delysia Blake, Bruhn, and David Adams. It was set to thee second movement of the composer's. Ballet Theatre staged it in 1950, the Royal Danes in 1952, Berlin Opera Ballet in 1964. It has been revived for several companies including Ballet Theatre (1950), Royal Danish Ballet (1952), Berlin Opera Ballet (1964), and Dance Theatre of Harlem (1974).

Over the years I have met a good number of "serious" ballet lovers whose knowledge in other fields far exceeds mine. They may who attend ballet performances perhaps only three or four times a year due to living a distance from London. At the Royal Opera House we have met whilst sitting on the banquette or sharing a table in the Floral Hall at Covent Garden and they have often have brought a freshness of view when discussing performances in some depth. I was not born a serious balletomane, initially as a teenager I was taught by older balletomanes and by Royal Ballet students whom I met in standing room. Then both Dance and Dancers and Dance Magazine taught me about appreciation and criticism and Cyril Beaumont's bookshop in Charing Cross Road and Johnny O'Brien's bookshop in Cecil Court set me on my way. In the 1960's, critics were in general much more approachable and more knowledgeable than those of today and I engaged them in conversation. I am sure my early experience in ballet going is not a lot different to others around the world. The important thing is that you don't have to be very knowledgeable to be a "serious" ballet lover but you can always expand your knowledge as I try to do on a regular basis. “Obsessive fawning fans" may not quite be the life blood for a dancer that they think they are. Fans are in some case an utter burden to some dancers. In England leading dancers have had to go to court to get a restraining order against a fan. I have known and observed many fans over the years who were lonely who have developed a fixation on particular dancers and that is okay if it doesn’t become an intrusive. A good thing about fans is when there really is a good performance and they cheer and throw flowers, it is a great finale for those attending ballet for the first time. I am inclined to say that normal, serious people love the art form above individual dancers. I confess however that I have seriously admired from a distance a good number of dancers over the years.

I would add to SanderO’s post and make a distinction between balletomane and fan. The use of the word balletomane has only changed over time due to its misuse in newspapers. In describing the Russian ballet devotee of the end of the 19th and early 20th century, the word balletomane was used to describe not the regular fans in the seats in “Paradise” at the St. Petersburg Maryinsky, but instead, the educated nobility and Imperial family members who were habitués and the artistic and literary fraternity of the Russian capital. Ballet had become a significant past-time of the Russian elite. When Russian Ballet eventually arrived in Paris with Diaghilev’s “Saison Russe” in 1909 it was the artist and intellectuals of Paris that became ardent aesthetic balletomanes. Both Haskell and Beaumont use the term in their writings and they were still using the word in its meaning of the cognoscenti. Clues to the term’s various meaning can be seen in the Spanish words for balletomane “aficionada al ballet” and the Italian “maniaco del balleto” which appear to give the distinction between balletomane and fan. In the early 1960’s in London at least, the more polite aesthetic use of the word for serious admirers of balletic art began to be abused by the press when they began to use balletomane when they meant the newly arrived category of “fans” a shortening of fanatic. The word fan is considered by some to come from 19th century usage to describe a boxing “fancier” which meant a committed admiration for boxing and over time got shortened to fance and then fan which gives it obvious links to the modern use of the obsessive fanatic in a sporting context. If academic classical ballet(ACB) had generally not been torn from its throne as a high art, I would as a serious admirer of this art form be quite happy to be called a balletomane. But as ACB has through the influence of athletic neo-classicism and a gradual move towards gymnastic displays and may now, be in the process of becoming generally “sportiv” as several former Russian ballerinas have stated. I have sympathy with SandyMcKean’s point of view but I feel it is financially difficult for a lot of people to go to every cast change of a particular ballet and I would add that a balletomane knows which performance to go to and those to avoid. All ballet companies are followed by serious balletomanes, but I undertake various manoeuvres to avoid the dreaded fans in London because as soon as they open their mouth to speak, they rob a performance of its aesthetics and drag it down to a narcissistic obsessive response. I remember an example of one obsessed Nureyev fan who like others people had travelled to Zurich to see him dance and she was following in his shadow wherever he went. When they were at the airport to return to England, the obsession took on mythic fanlike behaviour. With nothing in view except her adored one, she followed him straight into the gentleman’s toilet and came out pretty quickly but not abashed by the event. Was she a balletomane? I think not, she was most definitely a fan.

Cigale with music by Jules Massenet is a two act ballet based on a fable attributed to Aesop “The Grasshopper and the Ant.” In the ballet version the grasshopper is changed to a cicada and the ant is known as the “La Pauvrette”. It was a divertissement for 5 characters and first performed at the Opera Comique in 1904. I believe it has been staged a number of times and highly prolific Thierry Malandain Choreographed a version in 2005. I have never found any information that insect influenced costumes were used in any production though the original production sounds like it might have had such costumes. Richard Bonynge recorded this work some time ago.

I think up until the mid 1950’s, educated people in England might have been expected to have read Cervantes Don Quixote. It was considered to be the first ‘modern novel’ and superior to most others. It took me the best part of a year to read in the 60’s. I still love the memory of the reading of this great novel but doubt I could read it again. Later when I read about his extraordinary life I felt more attached to the man himself. Being most interested in the development of ballet, another reason to love this novel is that even before Petipa’s 1869 production it had spawned 6 previous ballet productions the first by Franz Hilverding in 1740 who was from 1758 introduced ballet d’action to St.Petersburg and developed the technique of the Imperial dancers. Don Quixote also inspired Charles Didelot perhaps the real creator of Russian Ballet who staged his version in St Petersburg 1808. Considering the number of published versions of Don Quixote available from antiquarian auctions around Europe published in the 17th and 18th century it is fair to say that its influence upon the development of the novel in Europe was extraordinary. I think perhaps the general speed at which we receive new novels in the last 50 years and the way in which they are written and consume them, has had an affect on me at least, in respect of reading novels of the past with extensive exposition. I once enjoyed the highly influential Joseph Conrad but cannot imagine returning to read him again.

The Whims of the Butterfly(Les Caprice du Papillon) ballet in one act based on a poem by Yakov Polonsky called The Grasshopper Musician. Choreography Marius Petipa, music Nikolai Krotkov. First performed at a private performance June 5 1889 first public performance at Maryinsky 25 October 1889. I have a Legat caricature of Cecchetti in a Green costume with a violin in the role of the Grasshopper Musician which he danced in a revival of the ballet in 1895. This ballet was always performed with a starry cast. The Sergeyev Collection at the Harvard Museum possesses a Stepanov notation of this ballet. Fokine created the ballet Les Papillons for in 1912 at the Maryinsky with Mathilde Kschessinskaya in the leading role. Fokine used Schumann music with sets by Doubuzhinsky and costumes by Bakst. This production was revived by the Diaghilev Ballet Russe in 1914 with Karsavina. Were either of these productions the best?

Firstly we are only talking about a takes on mythological tales many times removed from the various original Greek and Roman sources. Sylvia is a nymph of the goddess Diana. In the last act of the ballet, Eros creates a vision of Endymion a mortal the moon goddess had once loved to show a parallel between her and Sylvia and Aminta’s love and she agrees to pardon the lovers. Acteon is a figure from Greek mythology and a Theban hero. Diana is a character taken from Roman mythology. Check the balletalk archives where I gave a possible explanation for the use of the names in Vaganova’s pas de deux. Both Diana and Acteon are related by two mythological characterisations as Acteon was involved with the goddess Artemis(Greek) who became mythologically associated with the moon as did Diana(Roman). Is it the same Diana? It is a similar source for the characters name. Ballet is an art not noted for its historical accuracy in portrayals. Quite happily exactitude in its mythological representation is ignored, relationships from two cultures are intertwined to entertain us and in the process we are sometimes discombobulated.

Just to add to Robert's post. When Marius Petipa revived King Candaule, he created virtually a new ballet and Riccardo Drigo was let free to re-orchestrate and interpolate music to the Pugni original. The Pas de Diane for this production was as mentioned elsewhere a pas de trois plus eight nymphs. When Vaganova staged her own version of Esmeralda, she took the Pugni (arr. Drigo) music from King Candaule and interpolated the pas de deux that we all know and love, for Ulanova and Chabukiani which was given its first performance at the Kirov on April 3, 1935. PS Petipa died in 1910.

An exhibition of Diaghilev ballet history material is to go on show at the Daniel Katz Gallery in London from the collection of Julian Barran. The exhibition runs from 19 May to 12 June 2009. http://www.katz.co.uk/ PS Regrettably they manage to garble Parmenia Ekstrom's name.

I cannot recall other productions of this ballet other than those mention. The ballet was originally performed in 1907 by Loie Fuller. Schmitt revised the score for Natasha Trouhanova in 1912 which was choreographed by Nicholas Guerra. In 1913 the Diaghilev’s company staged a version with the choreography by Boris Romanov starring Tamara Karsarvina. There was a Later production by Serge Lifar.

There are photographs of Rudolf Nureyev in full costume in "Le Corsaire" with Alla Sizova taken at their graduation performance in 1958.

The first time I saw Yekaterina offstage she looked like a pretty young girl who should be at school and not a ballet dancer with one of the world’s great ballet companies. I was fortunate to see her dance many times and I cherish deep memories of her in many roles. For me Yekaterina Maximova became Katerina, became Phrygia, became Masha, became Kitri and achieved extraordinary success in so many other roles. When I first saw Maximova and her husband who were not too different in age to myself, their extraordinary projection of youth resonated deeply with me. In London she was much loved and with her husband, we were privileged to see performances of one of the great partnerships of the 20th century. Arnold Haskell seeing her dance Don Q pas said that Maximova "...had the wittiest feet since Anna Pavlova." There is a today headline on http://gazeta.ru/culture/2009/04/28/a_2980218.shtml which Ilya posted, which reads, “Yekaterina Maximova - The little elf of the Bolshoi? Which I found an extremely poignant description of this wonderful childlike woman and great artist. To her husband Vladimir Vasiliev and her mother I send my sincere condolences and the ballet world for me is a a lesser place than it was yesterday.

Mr Nureyev is on film with Ninel Kurgapkina in Laurencia pas de six made in 1959 a year after he had made his debut inthe ballet with Dudinskaya. I believe there is also a later film also. He staged the pas de six from this ballet for the Royal Ballet in 1965 and performed in this with both Nadia Nerina and Scetlana Beriiosova. As an exhibition piece, created a minor sensation as it virtuosity was still quite knew to the Royal. Darcey Bussel perfomed in this in 1990.

Seems to me this can only be a mediocre effort at best. Apart from anything else, casting a non-dancer as Fonteyn means the dance sequences will have to be shot under less than optimal circumstances, and Duff seems about as appropriate a choice for Fonteyn as her hubby James McAvoy would be for Tito or Rudi. Oh, well. I have written at length elsewhere on this subject and will concur with dirac's, "Seems to me this can only be a mediocre effort at best."