Bored_on_Wall_Street

I haven't come out to see a show at PNB since Carmina Burana in 2019, and there have been a lot of changes in the company since then (let alone when they last did Giselle) but this really remains the showpiece for the company. While there were parts of the saturday matinee that were underwhelming and my worry about a degradation in the particular style this production needs, sunday made up for it. In addition to what you mention, the acting/miming--which is really important to the restored production-- was more refined, complementing the natural articulation of the corps. Also, as opposed to saturday's casting, Iliesiu's Myrthe was imperious with touches of sadness. Very nuanced.

Very nice writeup. I don't have much to add to the superlatives you and others have provided in this thread other than to emphasize how alive this production was, particularly last night's performance. Ashton's fluid choreography moves the narrative forward by itself (particularly with the ever-present use of props), but the way that the cast embraced it was a site to behold. I often grumble about how ABT has turned some of their big warhorses into dusty museum pieces, and this was a great antidote to that. And to any ABT marketing people in this thread: i went last night with a friend who has only seen two ballets, and she loved La Fille. This is the kind of ballet that could be a big hit, I think, with many demo groups. It was a fairly grey crowd for the performances I went to, but this has cross over appeal to families, younger people like my friend who want to see a ballet but are inclined to see something with a story, or something "fun" (and not too long...), tourists who couldn't get tix to a broadway show, etc. I can only hope we don't need to wait 12 more years until this excellent production returns...

Head scratching. I come in with a bias, as (a) I think nutcracker is one of balanchine’s weakest works that gets regurgitated by too many companies each year at Christmas and (b) I loved the character nuance, staging and metatextualness (and plain ol’ weirdness) of the Stowell version. I tried to put that bias aside when we saw the Friday, December 11 performance but…I just don’t understand the purpose of the new production. Artistically: The changes from the NYCB version of George Balanchine’s Nutcracker (TM, all rights reserved), are more of a different shading than a meaningful change (which of course is a result of the Balanchine trust’s “protection” (ossification?) of their IP). Yes, there is the video intro, the different design of the forest during the snowflakes, costume changes, a chistmas tree that doesn’t seem to have heard balenchine’s view that the tree should be impressive, etc, but it seems weirdly regressive to go back to the future with a 1954 version in which the individuality of the company is suppressed and, in my opinion, you’re left with a less appealing version of the production for the non-ballet going masses due to the lack of dance in the first act of Balanchine’s. (For example, you may not agree with Stowell’s inclusion from the Queen of Spades (? I think?) to tell the story of Prince Pirlipat, but aside from me being one of the three people who think it was a clever artistic decision, it also just includes some dance for people expecting to see dance in a dance barren first act.) Financially: Perhaps it was cheaper to do the Balanchine than restore the 30+ year old Sendak sets. And I’ve no doubt there will be a short term bump in revenues (the theater seemed a bit more full than when I saw it last year or 2013). But I am genuinely curious to see what the reaction and sales will be in 1-2 years. Traditions are a gamble to mess with, and this risk seems enhanced when it comes to Christmas, a holiday that is all tradition. Based on comments I heard during intermission, and the admittedly probably biased results of a poll that the Seattle Times has, showing ~55% preferred the old version (biased as the disgruntled are the ones more likely to fill out a survey like that), this gamble may not pay off. And, as an irrelevant aside, the audience in the lower grand tier was truly one of the worst audiences i have ever seen any live performance with. Constant talking, FB updating. I should not have to be telling grown-ass, middle aged people much older than me to NOT carry on full conversations during a show. I always liked how boisterous the PNB crowd could be for applauding, and Nutcracker obviously brings in non-usual ballet goers, but it was like a herd of people on a coke binge stumbled onto an envelope of free tickets...

I see a lot of ballet. So, sometimes (often) performances blur together. But Lane's performance on that Wednesday in July 2013 is still etched into my mind.

Sort of off topic, but I have two physical tickets for Tuesday (Murphy/Hammoudi are the leads) that i cannot use. Cost was $145 each (row F, aisle seats, grand tier) but willing to let them go to a ballet alert-ian for best offer. PM me if interested. Thanks!

I really don't care about the whole Copeland discussions that rumbles through this forum--she brings audiences in, I think she's a perfectly fine dancer, I will never go out of my way to see her (cf. other soloists Abrera or Lane), and ABT has way bigger issues to worry about than a popular dancer who may not be up to technical snuff to critical gaze. But the 32 turns--as goofy as they may be to the narrative--are an intrinsic part of the audience expectations of Swan Lake, like it or not. To say that a 33 year old soloist just needs some more studio time to work out this issue rings a bit hollow. This is not a like teenage Sara Mearns who had to bail. This was not a conscious decision to remove an awesome looking but narratively out of place series of moves. Instead, this was a soon to be principal (who is dangerously close to being mid 30s) who couldn't do the steps, and this was not the first time. Is that good enough for a company with ABT's delusional sense of grandeur? .

Pretty much this. Much of the choreography just requires Juiet to be carried and/or dragged around, and Seo, as a great looking and skilled dancer, looked great doing so. But MacMillan's ultimately a dramatist, and Seo simply has no acting ability, and just follows the steps, alternating between HAPPY ( ) and, SAD ( ) face. I think she has improved as a dancer, and am not inclined to join the Seo hate parade, but it speaks volumes as to the state of this company, and the competence of the AD, that she is forced the perform this role 3x in a week.

Maybe those who would prefer something different to the god awful, empty dreck served up by the 2007 production?

If this were an exercise in pure pedantry,I doubt the interpolated fish dives in the wedding PDD would be there. Instead, this seems to be more of a work of repair, to rid the production of empty gymnastics and emptier, de-contextualized panto. Sometimes, to move forward, you need to go back at first.

When I was leaving Weds' show, my date (who really has only seen a few of the modern versions of the big classics) said that she really liked how this seemed more refined and less "jumpy", and asked if any companies do that style still. My answer was immediate: yep, the Danes. While as Helene notes, Bournonville and Petipa were working from a similar french background, I do recall that one of Bournonville's principals/soloists ended up teaching at the Marinsky, and I think this great production suggests there may be a little Danish DNA in it As for the production itself, I have serious problems with ABT and many of their spring season warhorses, but for the reasons many have mentioned on this thread, I think that this is the best-presented full length the company now has in rep that wasn't choreographed by Ashton. Let's hope ABT can similarly revive Giselle, Swan Lake, et al from their ossified decrepitude.

We all are entitled to our opinions, but I find it a bit hard to reconcile your seemingly snarky statement that the show will "travel well" versus your annoyance at the interpolated "big jumps and bravura" being lost, among other things. Most folks view ballet as being something akin to gymnastics (a problem that even Bournonville railed against in his autobiography,and he died in 1879-ish), so it would seem that features you dislike also would limit the long term commercial viability of the production. This is not the production some expect, as it doesn't reflect what people today think ballet "is". to me, that is one of this production's strengths. it seems more alive, as a cohesive, dramatic whole. The panto you dislike, for example, is what gives depth, and fills out features, from Carabosse in the christening, to the awakening scene. (While the plot of SB is pretty straight forward, I think, perhaps ABT should consider doing what PNB does for its Giselle and add a basic primer on mimetic gestures to the program?)

I can't quote on my phone, but Seattle_Dancer's remarks on Immler...she may not tick every box of what some people might want from a principal, but i'm always perplexed why this company doesn't feature her more. she's a god damned technical marvel!

Mixed views on the performance. "Dirty Goods" gave me flashbacks to the worst student film and theatre pieces I saw my friends do in undergrad--cringeworthy stuff--but Serenade was mesmerizing. The excerpts from Jewels were also top drawer; I expected we would get the polonaise portion of Diamonds--what better way to send off a ballerina than with Balanchine's idolatry of Farrell/exultation of a ballerina--but I was pleasantly surprised by the choice.

Tisserand had a problem one sees often at NYCB. Skilled dancing, but she didn't inhabit her character(s).

I also appreciated Neubert's look of disdainful boredom during the national dances. I suppose if one was an evil wizard with an absurdly complicated scheme driven by peculiar motivations, you would be bored while various nations danced for your amusement, Great write up, btw,