Hans

As before, the evening began with Allegro Brillante, this time with Irina Dvorovenko and Maxin Beloserkovsky as the principal couple. This was my first time seeing the ballet, and I think it is one to add to the list of 'beige ballets'--its chief merit is the negative one of inoffensiveness. Still, it was pleasant enough, and I enjoyed seeing Balanchine performed with the elegant upper bodies of Dvorovenko and Beloserkovsky, who, although they have long lines and limbs, danced with easy agility. I thought the demi-soloists looked rather ill at ease, though. Next was that creaky old gala pas de deux, Flames of Paris, performed once again by Daniil Simkin and Sarah Lane. The danger of a flashy pas de deux like this is that sometimes dancers will turn it into a technical exercise, and that is what happened tonight. A suitable backdrop for Simkin's variation would have included a pummel horse and uneven bars--his death-defying jumps drew gasps, but they remained athletics, not art. I have to pity Sarah Lane. She seems like a charming and technically strong dancer, but it seemed she felt she had to prove herself a worthy partner to the flying whirligig--in trying to impress, she reached too far and in spite of some nice pirouettes, the overall effect was one of unsteadiness. I think if she had worried less about tricks and had just relaxed and provided some much-needed personality, it would have been more of a success. Next was the real meat of the evening, the reason I went in the first place: Pillar of Fire. I had only seen this ballet once before, probably the last time ABT brought it to the Kennedy Center. I'd been sitting far away and was mostly confused by it, though I wanted to understand and see what others saw in it. Well, tonight I did. The performance (Michele Wiles, Marcelo Gomes, David Hallberg) wasn't what it should or could have been, that much was clear, but the dancers performed it with commitment, and the power of Tudor's choreography came through. It was intense and very moving. I understand why they put the 'difficult' ballet in the middle, but I wish it had been last. At the end of it, I felt the way one feels after Giselle--what could follow it? ABT went the mood-buster route with Brief Fling, which I found tedious and long. Tharp has a reputation for wit and humor, but this ballet was more like Scotch Symphony on hallucinogens. The dancers had plenty of energy, and Cornejo was particularly impressive, but the whole thing seemed pointless and odd rather than clever and interesting. Generally, the evening was a bit of a letdown. Three of the works presented really had no choreographic substance, and they looked even emptier next to Pillar. However, in my opinion Pillar alone was worth the ticket price, and I'm glad I attended. It does make me wish ABT would bring more Tudor here, though.

That is good information to know, rg. I have to teach on Monday, and I'd rather not go all the way to NY with no certainty of getting in, so I guess I'll have to miss it.

Mathilde Kschessinska, who died penniless in France in 1971. It's not just that she died in such unfortunate circumstances, but also that she never worked as a coach or ballet mistress. She had a school, but like many great dancers was not a very good teacher. One thinks of the imperial-era dancers as belonging to another age in a dusty text, but the 1950's and 60's were producing dancers who are teaching now. Imagine what she could have given us, even if it were just memories of Petipa, had she been consulted in a more useful way. I also see in Imperial Dancer that Olga Preobrajenska's "belongings were sold (without her agreement or even consultation) during her lifetime."

I had considered going to New York for this, but I see it is sold out. I hope anyone who attends will let us know what it was like.

They did mention 'In the Night'--Peter Martins briefly talked about how difficult it was.

Wasn't Northanger Abbey intended to make fun of the popular gothic novels of the day?

Things at the Mariinsky and Vaganova Academy have changed a great deal since the 1940's, too.

Could someone please tell me what on earth Suki Schorer knows about Russian-style ballet? What does she even mean by 'Russian'? As far as her training goes, I know she studied with Danilova and Doubrovska, but they were products (as was Balanchine) of the pre-Vaganova Imperial school, which no longer exists. From my time at SAB, it seems to me that the SAB/NYCB 'establishment' seems to have a problem with the Vaganova method even though Balanchine really did not have any contact with Vaganova and was not developing his style with knowledge of the innovations and updates of her method. Therefore, this seems to me a false comparison, especially considering that comparing a choreographic style with a teaching method is like comparing apples and oranges.

This has been floating around for months at least, and the NYT just picked up on it now?

I'll be seeing the mixed bill tomorrow and Swan Lake the day after, so I look forward to reading about Wiles as Odette/Odile. Thank you for this review, Natalia--I believe Wiles is doing Hagar again tomorrow, so I am very excited to see her in that role.

Yes, but in the original Petipa version of the pas d'action, Siegfried does the lifts (according to what I've read here on BT) and Benno does the promenades. Doesn't seem like much help to me. I've also been told that the lunge is ballet symbolism for a kiss, but it doesn't seem appropriate that Benno would perform the lunge, then. Can someone explain this? Edit: I just watched the video canbelto linked to, and I really need to know why it is not performed that way anymore! There is so much about that choreography that makes sense, I don't see why it was altered. It also makes clear that Siegfried really gets barely any partnering assistance from Benno, and as Benno is not onstage most of the time, I don't understand why people felt the need to eliminate him totally. Also, this is the first clip of Fonteyn as Odette that has any complete dances in it, and I can finally see (hopefully) what people mean when they talk about her Odette. She is THE swan queen, from her acting to her port de bras, épaulement and the first-rate technique of her legs and feet. Breathtaking. She really makes me see Swan Lake in a new light, as does the excellent staging.

Wasn't partnering mostly what Gerdt did toward the end of his career? I hadn't realised that the Act II pas d'action didn't always end with a penchée. I think it might work better finishing with the lunge, as the dancers usually seem rushed trying to fit the écarté devant, lunge, and penchée in there, and the penchée is generally no longer a beautiful line but rather a split.

I've never seen that, and I hope I never do.

I assumed so, too.

The short answer is that some ballet dancers are good at many types of dance, and others are not. I'm terrible at social dancing, for example, because it requires improvisation, which ballet generally does not. However, I know some ballet dancers who can also do tap, jazz, hip-hop, you name it.

Yes. The April 2006 Mariinsky Ballet performance that is now available on DVD/Blu-ray disc has the orchestra play the entire Prologue with the big main curtain down. Just to be clear--Swan Lake as written by Tchaikovsky does not have a prologue. The ballet starts with Act I, preceded by an overture.

Not every dancer at POB has a big arch. Rather, it's the way they use their feet that makes them so extraordinary.

At SAB, some of the boys used to put cotton balls on top of our feet inside our tights or socks. The problem, of course, is that if you ever have to dance in a ballet without tights or barefoot, your feet will look rather different.

Even if the audience doesn't understand the mime, that doesn't make a prologue necessary. The dancers should be good enough actors to convey the basic idea, and the audience can read the synopsis in the program. I've lost patience with the 'just close your eyes' reaction to bad choreography: If I wanted a concert, I'd go to the symphony. And I would respond to ABT by telling them that if they hadn't needlessly complicated things in the first place, they wouldn't have to explain it all with a prologue.

Oh, for heaven's sake. I had hoped DC was beyond that sort of thing.

If the production is one that retains the major mime speeches/dialogues, a prologue is unnecessary. Odette tells Siegfried what happened to her in Act II; we don't need to see it twice. Likewise, Siegfried's conversation with his mother in Act I tells us his situation. Even if the mime is removed, a principal dancer still ought to be skilled enough to convey the general idea.

I think they are referring to the practice of lifting the sides of a tutu while one is wearing it. This would cause the tutu to lose its shape--the front and back would droop. I'm not entirely certain, though.

Balto Opera changed its slogan to something like, "Opera: It's better than you think it has to be." I understand, but...

These remind me of the horribly off-putting cards Baltimore Opera used to send. They said things like, "Where there's a smokin' Druid priestess, there's fire" (advertising Norma). I've received many other cringe-inducing ads from them over the years. It makes these organisations seem rather desperate.

It looks about the same to me. Just a question of personal taste, really.