Royal Blue

Things turned out much better Wednesday evening than I anticipated. Pictures at an Exhibition received a far from perfect performance by the nine dancers, but they all had some exquisite moments; and I found myself anyhow luxuriating in the sheer inventiveness of Ratmansky's choreography. I love the entire work, but the "Bydlo" segment particularly. Cameron Grant played the wondrous score beautifully. Mr. Grant is having an outstanding season of his own with his performances of Bach and Mussorgsky. Rodeo is filler and was wisely placed in the middle of the program. I enjoyed watching it Wednesday for three reasons. First, the initial disappointment from seeing it last week had worn off; and at the same time I approached this viewing with lower expectations. That always helps, I say. Secondly, the men of NYCB really make a nice effort here, and in one part it certainly pays off. Having resigned myself to the fact that no woman would appear during the playing of some of Copland's loveliest music, I found this time around that I actually liked the choreography for the 2nd Episode. (It reminded me of the effective way Lar Lubovitch used men in a work of his I had seen once at the Joyce.) The last and most important reason was, of course, Tiler Peck. This was a routine performance from her; but in her case that means one of unparalleled excellence and beauty. Tiler Peck makes every ballet she appears in look better. One advantage of having placed Rodeo between the other two works was that it made the initial appearance of the female corps in Mercurial Manoeuvres even more impressive. Manoeuvres is a very fine piece that was superbly performed Wednesday evening. It was especially gladdening to see Russell Jansen display such strong partnering skills, because this made possible yet another magnificent debut by Sara Mearns. So there seemed to be an interesting progression in what took place on stage at the Koch theater that night. Pictures amounted to an instance where the choreography prevailed over any deficiencies in the dancing. Rodeo served as an example of a dancer triumphing over any shortcomings in the choreography. Manoeuvres was what you hope to see whenever you go to the ballet: an occasion of the quality of the choreography being matched by that of the dancing.

It didn't work very well for me at all either. Some of the people in the orchestra section actually gave it a standing ovation, something which almost never happens at NYCB --even for the most amazing of performances! But I don't mind being in the minority whenever I have to be. In general, I have liked Justin Peck's work --with the exception of the piece at the Joyce and now Rodeo. But with all due respect to the gentlemen who performed in Rodeo the best segment of that ballet was --the portion Sara Mearns danced in! I confess to being a strong adherent of the "ballet is woman" school of philosophy. Of particular curiosity to me --a cause for head-scratching actually-- was that a beautiful, slow section of Copland's score was choreographed for several men only. Interestingly, I have a ticket for the program next week in which Tiler Peck is scheduled to perform in Rodeo. I wonder whether I will be singing a different tune after I see her in it, but I doubt it because the problem here was hardly Mearns at all! I liked Pictures at an Exhibition very much but the highlight Wednesday for me was Tiler Peck's gorgeous performance in Mercurial Manoeuvres.

Having seen "The Goldberg Variations" three times in a week with two different casts (my first experience with this work), I can safely say that not only do I like this ballet but I am deeply moved by it. Last night's cast proved to be every bit as good as the first one. Everyone who participated in these presentations --from Faye Arthurs to Peter Walker (and, of course, Cameron Grant)-- is to be highly commended for their efforts. I agree with all of the positive remarks about specific dancers made by posters above. So I'll just add a few personal observations. No one mentioned Lauren Lovette's performance last week, but I felt she did very well indeed. Last night Ashley Laracey was excellent in the same part as well. I find Laracey to be an enchanting ballerina and wholeheartedly concur with someone above who wished she was given more opportunities. Since I expect so much from Sara Mearns anyway, I consider Sterling Hyltin to be the one who is having an outstanding season. She has been dancing in a lot of works (besides the Goldberg) and doing so --for the most part-- superbly. In my opinion (a strongly held one), Tiler Peck is one very, very special ballerina. I too thought that she (to borrow cobweb's exact words) "was just astonishing" in the first two "The Goldberg Variations". Ashley Bouder, however, is a remarkable artist in her own right, as she showed yet again last evening. I think we are indeed very fortunate to have these two exceptionally talented women dancing at NYCB in the same time period. NYCB has a lot to boast about right now. Finally, I thought that Emilie Gerrity looked splendid up on the stage last night. It was a great call by the powers that be to give her this chance. She danced her part with a sprightliness and confidence that were thoroughly endearing.

Wonderful to learn this--she certainly can dance as if "on the edge of a volcano" ... Indeed! Mearns is a thrilling artist. Her love for ballet, music, the theatre --art in general-- informs all her performances. In the same interview she explains how Makarova (her role model) in a 1975 performance of Swan Lake "wanted everyone in the audience to go into the story." Mearns wants everyone in the audience to go into every ballet she dances in.

According to an interview she gave to The Dance Enthusiast, Mearns is learning La Valse.

. It's difficult to disagree with anything in your well-thought-out post, California, but I would submit that the reason why "it's easy to tangle separate and distinct issues" is because they are profoundly difficult. My understanding is that Triumph of the Will and The Birth of a Nation are considered highly effective and/or groundbreaking works. The fact that we find their content appalling does not prevent some individual of generally sound mind (Spielberg for example) from appreciating their merits and even --I daresay-- admiring their sheer craft. Sadly, the reality is that others will view such works and draw all sorts of dangerous and wrongful conclusions from them. How does a free/open society like ours handle this dilemma? I, of course, entirely agree with you that they should be carefully studied. But the key point is that different people will derive something entirely different from the exact same thing. Wagner's case is mind-boggling because of his character and the anti-Semitism you mention. But his operas simply cannot be lumped with the above works. Wagner has a reputation --justly from all I know-- of being a sophisticated thinker and a great musician. This is why so many Jewish musicians have no problem performing his works. To put it differently, your race, creed, gender, religion, nationality, class --these need hardly matter with Wagner. Many simply cannot stand the man and his works, but these same works can potentially appeal to a wide variety of people because they explore profoundly "human" issues. To this I hasten to add that many persons love his great music who don't care about or bother to understand the messages in his operas. And also, of course, that some may derive certain crazy and harmful ideas from them. But again: we are affected differently by the same thing. Here is the deal with Spartacus. I am not convinced that it really belongs with any of the works we are discussing here. It's certainly not great the way Wagner's operas are. But I don't believe that an artwork's being bombastic and over-the-top is sufficient grounds for considering it repulsive. I'm also unsure about the strength of its militaristic message. Some will view it this way, yes; but others will either belittle this aspect or ignore it altogether. In fact I don't quite understand what both its detractors and its proponents think this ballet is about. Does everybody derive the same message from watching it? And, I would argue, it's important that we in the West are not perceived as having ulterior motives for attacking it. To get back for a moment to the Bolshoi's Lincoln Center performances. The bottom line is that the Company did a fantastic job of presenting Spartacus. I attended two performances. One was very impressive, and the other was downright powerful. All the members of the troupe and the orchestra deserve to be applauded for their wonderful work. Happily, I'm not one iota more militaristic today than I was a few days ago. You're absolutely right about the importance of trying to understand the historical and cultural context surrounding a work of art. At the same time that must come after first becoming acquainted with it. That Spartacus reflects the Soviet Union's "glory days" should be a secondary consideration for a viewer in 2014. That it reminds Putin and his countrymen of the "good old days" should not be the primary concern of a ticket buyer in New York. An artwork should firstly be judged on its own merits. An examination of the societal context it sprang forth from (and exists in) should be tackled afterwards.

"Try to please everyone and you please no one." The lament of artistic directors of ballet companies everywhere, I presume. You raise a lot of significant issues in your post, danc1988. A character in an old classic movie declares: "Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." I agree on your take of smartphones, among other things. What I would like to know, though, is whether all those people who despise Grigorovich's Spartacus, and who are dance enthusiasts and (perhaps) well-versed in the art of choreography themselves think Spartacus' story a suitable subject for a ballet.

Some people would argue that "this new World" referred to above looks suspiciously a lot like the old one, if you look closely enough. As California's post makes clear it is impossible to discuss Spartacus without bringing "politics" into it. Those who criticize it seem to be objecting not just to the choreography but to its subject matter and its putative political outlook. Any implications about the views or tastes of someone just because they happen to enjoy a work of "art" (even if accurate and therefore depressing) are highly problematic though. It would be interesting to know, but should it really matter to us whether Putin loves Spartacus? Do all people who like a work of "art", a person, a nation, or anything else like it (or him/her) for the same reasons? Would Spartacus love Putin or Hitler --or Spartacus? Should we loathe Wagner's music because the Nazis loved it? Should we burn all the copies of Leni Riefenstahl's movies because they glorify a hideous, dangerous political movement and philosophy? And while we are at it all copies of The Birth of a Nation because of its blatant racism? On and on. Classical ballet represents an eminently worthy and civilized attempt to escape from all the ugly, brutal realities of the world --or at best deal with them only very subtly. I myself greatly prefer to see Willis, swans and Shades populate the stage, but that cannot happen when you are trying to portray soldiers, slaves, courtesans, shepherds and gladiators. What you see then is not supposed to be conventionally pretty. Should a choreographer stick his nose into stuff like this? That's a different issue. Is Grigorovich's attempt silly and preposterous? Fine. Has anyone done so successfully? (I am waiting to see Flames of Paris.) And there is something else worth pointing out. Some people express frustration with having to see Swan Lake, The Sleeping Beauty, The Nutcracker, Romeo and Juliet etc. all the time. Exactly how many full-length (or story) ballets are widely considered masterpieces? Not many, it would seem. "I think Herman Cornejo ... can out dance every man on the Bolshoi stage." Cornejo is a wonderful dancer but I doubt that he himself believes this. There is also something inherently questionable about this kind of assertion, even if we only consider that we're dealing with a different training, style, repertoire. "And to watch Gomes do ANY role is surely the best thing since sliced bread." You cannot ask more of a dancer than what Mikhail Lobukhin and Svetlana Zakharova offered us Sunday afternoon. We may not like the characters they portrayed and the ballet itself, but those are different issues. By any reasonable standard these were great performances.

I agree with the previous posts. I especially was fond of Kretova's "go for it attitude". Her extraordinary balances aside (and they were pretty amazing!), I found her to be the sunniest, just happy to be dancing for you gal in this role. possibly a comer. This is a joyous production of this war horse! Speaking of which, I see "Spartacus " on Sunday! I wanted to be the one to get the credit for drawing you out about Spartacus, mimsyb! I thought that Kristina Kretova's balances in Don Quixote were "extraordinary" and "pretty amazing" too, although one was indeed "wobbly". But we cannot all agree about even a number of balances during a performance! That reminds me, I have to check out Rashomon again.

This afternoon the Bolshoi Ballet's marvelous artists made Spartacus look like a great masterpiece. What a way to end the NYC tour!

I wholly subscribe to this opinion. I attended Saturday's matinee with apprehension - and was surprised at the beauty of the choreography.This is a dark and grown up, non sentimental interpretation - I found the narrative more cohesive and streamlined, (though I do prefer the original score). I wonder if the experience of Evil in the last century in that neck of the woods, (continued even as I write-Ukraine) is the source of Grigorevich making this a parable of good and evil. All this is very interesting and sheds light on the Grigorovich production. However, it also underestimates the power and beauty of fairy tales, and comes across as a bit condescending towards the artists who originally created Swan Lake. This was always a parable about good and evil. Having the same person portray Odette and Odile speaks volumes by itself. To relegate this great dual role to a figment of Prince Siegfried's imagination is both unnecessary and understandably upsetting to a lot of viewers. Siegfried is, after all, a young man and the sort of sophisticated reflections he is credited with in this interpretation can only arrive with time and experience. Personally, I have no problem watching this version of Swan Lake; but I am a little surprised about how well it is apparently liked in Russia. It is somewhat ironic that Don Quixote is to be performed next. Hopefully, no one's enjoyment of the Bolshoi's production will be lessened by the wholesale differences between the ballet and the novel.

Ekaterina, not everyone here in New York agrees with the views of the posters you have been reading. I have seen all but one of the performances this past week, and it seems to me that you Muscovites are both very fortunate and have a lot to be proud of as far as ballet is concerned. Based on what I've seen I think that the Bolshoi is a truly wonderful company. I find the female corps de ballet in particular to be simply magnificent. Their work in the "lakeside" scenes --which after all account for much of the fame and beauty of this ballet--was stellar. The same can be said of the soloists. Virtually everyone of the ladies who danced as one of the brides in this production, as well as one of the three swans or four swans made an excellent impression. And as far as the principals are concerned, I think that Svetlana Zakharova and Ekaterina Krysanova are extremely accomplished ballerinas who gave virtuoso performances as Odette/Odile; Olga Smirnova and Anna Nikulina, I believe, are well on their way to becoming such. Obviously there are differences in the way each performer dances this great and difficult role (that's what makes watching them all so interesting), and quite frankly not everyone can do everything equally well --to say nothing about all the things that never go quite as planned during a live perfomance. But what I can say is that I certainly enjoyed watching all four of them. One more thing about all the women of the Bolshoi: they are incredibly comfortable en pointe --they make the viewer feel that they could remain there forever! It's always more difficult for me to judge the performances of the men when I go to the ballet. Having said that, I thought that Ovcharenko, Chudin and Hallberg (whom, of course, we know very well over here because he has been a member of ABT for many years) did very well as Prince Siegfried --but none of them was flawless. Pretty much the same can be said about all the gentlemen who danced the roles of the Evil Genius and the Fool, roles which seem to me to include some difficult choreography. I believe that Spartacus is a ballet which will better showcase the talents of the Bolshoi's male dancers, so I'm looking forward to watching that. Many people who post on this forum, Ekaterina, are very experienced balletgoers and are therefore quite demanding. You can tell from what they write that they've thought a lot about specific ballets, and have strong opinions regarding interpretations and dancers. Some of them perhaps are (or have been) dancers themselves; some may have taught ballet. None of this makes whatever they state necessarily right, and they often sharply disagree with one another. I also think that we Americans feel freer when we criticize. This has nothing to do with Muscovites understanding nothing or being blind. Although people over there surely have different opinions about ballets, productions and dancers too, no? In New York during the past several years we have been seeing a lot two productions of Swan Lake: one offered by NYCB, and the other by ABT. Both are very much despised. So the reaction to the Grigorovich Swan Lake is hardly unique in this respect. As a matter of fact I think one critic in New York has stated that there is no satisfactory production of this ballet anywhere in the world right now. As you can see, we have very, very high standards. But the bottom line is that you should be extremely proud of those compatriots of yours --Tchaikovsky, Ivanov, and whoever else-- who created this splendid masterpiece.

Last night's performance of SL was the third one I have seen this week. Monday was a peculiar evening for me, because I felt simultaneously weary and intrigued by what was happening. I really like Gillian Murphy, but I simply could not get into Act II --the heart of the work for me-- at all that night. I had mixed feelings when it was announced at intermission that Hee Seo would be replacing her. Having seen Murphy last year in this work I knew that she would have been wonderful in Act III. On the other hand, I wanted to take a look at Seo, whom I haven't seen much of at all. In general I was disappointed, although this had partly to do with my strong dislike of such a major casting change in the middle of a performance --because it makes the necessary suspension of disbelief required of the viewer even more difficult. Several posters have heaped lavish praise on Veronika Part for her performance at the Wednesday matinee. I couldn't possibly agree more with them! She was utterly ravishing! Watching her closely the entire time she was onstage I appreciated anew how many things the ballerina who plays O/O has to do. In fact some things could have been done better; and yet her performance on the whole could only be characterized as exquisite. It's hard to imagine a more gorgeous Odette (she is truly great at all the adagio sections of the work -- the most beautiful ones, in my view); but we're (some of us anyway) used to this by now. So what is especially impressive nowadays is how good of an Odile she is too. I simply don't understand the logic of giving her only these matinee performances! One more thing that needs to be said about the Wednesday matinee. While I certainly can understand some of the criticism directed at Cory Stearns, I must say that I also enjoyed his performance. He dances much, much better than in previous years, and it seems to me that his partnering is now more accomplished too. His ability in the acting area may perhaps improve with time. Like so many others I was looking forward to Alina Cojocaru's SL, although I found myself necessarily lowering my expectations a bit after Veronika Part's great performance. I was very disappointed and somewhat irritated to hear that she was cancelling her appearance this year too. The entire situation seems a bit odd to me. I feel like I'm going through some kind of Pavlovian conditioning which will end --I fear-- in my associating the words "Alina Cojocaru" and "Swan Lake" with the word "cancellation". Some of us cannot afford to keep dishing out amounts like $160.00 for a "good" seat in the expectation of seeing her. So taking into account my reaction to Monday's SL and my frustration with Cojocaru, I found myself in a poor mood for Friday night's performance. To my surprise, things turned out a great deal better than I expected. In point of fact I found Hee Seo way more enchanting than the posters above. I felt that her dancing and acting in the Lakeside Acts were both quite marvelous. To me all her movements were connected and made me lose myself in the story, as well as appreciate the timeless music Tchaikovsky wrote. From where I was seated her interaction with Roberto Bolle seemed quite superb. As far as Bolle himself is concerned --not having seen much of him so far-- I realize now why he is considered such a star. He is simply magnificent, and has everything you could ask for in a male ballet dancer. He is tall and handsome, and along with his great dancing and acting abilities has wonderful partnering skills. During the entire length of the wondrous Act II there was in the orchestra section I was seating in some kind of appalling feedback (?) noise. Typically I have an extremely low tolerance for any kind of distraction during a performance. It is a tribute to the work of both Seo and Bolle that I nevertheless kept my entire focus on what was going on onstage. It's true that in Act III Seo did not hold that balance she held on Monday night. And her fouettes were --if anything-- somewhat worse, because she ran out of steam and ended that sequence badly. This is an area she clearly has work to do. But to me these flaws by no means substantially detract from the overall impression made by her performance. In every other way --most importantly her solo-- she was as good or better an Odile as she was the former night. There was much fine work from other members of the company too. I find Acts I and III a bit tedious if they are watched several times over the period of a few days; but the performances from the leads helped me enjoy them a lot last night. I particularly enjoyed The Great Hall sequence with Siegfried (and later Rothbart) and the Princesses. As far as Acts II and IV go, they were utterly gorgeous! Each and every swan deserved to be given a bouquet of flowers of her own. I realize how much this production is disliked (or should I say despised?), but I have sort of accepted its limitations and try to enjoy the beautiful moments it contains. I must be just about the only person who likes the opening of Act IV, for instance. And I really like the moment when Odette runs to the edge of the precipice when she first appears. Seo handled this, as well as her fall a few minutes later (Act IV here is way too short) beautifully! For me the casting "fiasco" turned out okay after all! My apologies for the long post. It's high time I learned how to express myself when discussing ballet. I have been attending performances for years, but I'm a complete outsider to this world. Its movements and vocabulary are alien to me. My love and appreciation of its great beauty is visceral. I guess one can say that every ballet performance I attend makes me feel a bit like Prince Siegfried when he first encounters Swan Lake.