Kathleen O'Connell

New York Theater Ballet has carved out its own NYC niche in this area with its Once Upon a Ballet series. I think they used to take these on the road too, but I'm not sure if they tour them anymore.

If dance -- or any of the arts -- had the audience professional (or college) football and basketball had, there would be plenty of coverage. Note that a lot of the deepest "print" sports coverage now happens online on sites like ESPN's Grantland, which has expanded to take on bits of popular culture too. ESPN can afford to throw money at marquee content producers and long-form pieces.

Well, thank you for popping back in, Leigh! That's a mighty helpful summary, especially for those of us that don't get to see as much live Ashton as we would if this were the best of all possible worlds.

I would have expected him to be there. I don't think her performance featured in his 1/16/15 review, that's all. Here's the quote re SL from the "Cinderella" review: "After the stuffy self-conscious rigor of the company’s opening two performances of 'Swan Lake' at the Brooklyn Academy of Music last week, you feel what a breath of naturalness Mr. Ratmansky is to this company." Can't say I disagree. If given a choice between seeing the Mariinsky in Ratmansky's "The Little Hump-Backed Horse" or in its current rendition of Sergeyev's "Swan Lake," I'd definitely opt for the former, even though the sets look so cheap it breaks my heart.

Although Macauley's review was published in the January 17 print edition of the New York Times, the online version is dated January 16, 2015, which is when he would have had to submit his copy in order for it to be in print on January 17. I therefore don't think Lopatkina's performance informed his review. (ETA: She performed on January 16.) He surely would have mentioned her if he saw her perform and would likely have compared her performance with Tereshkina's. I only saw one performance (Tereshkina's & Shklyarov's second), but there are a number of things in his review of opening night that ring true to me.

Miss Venezuela put me in mind of Ovid's Daphne! I realize that's not a laurel she's rocking, but it's a mighty fine tree nonetheless. I think you can see all the costumes here. The countries with a Carnival tradition know how to pull out all the stops, although that doesn't explain Canada ...

Yes, there should definitely be something to set up the lakeside scenes! I'm just not convinced that one needs every bar of music or every step of dancing traditionally presented in Act I to do so. One does need more than the presentation of the crossbow, however. What do we need? First, some exposition. I think the critical takeaway is this: it's the Prince's birthday, which is not simply an excuse for a party, but rather the moment at which he is expected to embrace full manhood. In his hierarchical society -- at the top of which sits his mother, the embodiment of its authority -- that means taking a wife, which the Prince has absolutely no interest in doing. But just as important, there needs to be a marked difference in theatrical texture between court and lakeside. They have to look and feel like two different worlds. I think cramming Act I full of dancing! dancing! and yet more dancing! -- especially dancing on pointe -- actually defeats that. If it were up to me, especially if I were doing an abbreviated version, I might reserve the pointe work for Odette, Odile, and the Swans just to make it clear that these women are absolutely, categorically unlike any others the Prince has met or ever will meet. But that's me. (Reserving tutus for the Swans is at least a step in the right direction.) So, I think a short, expository Act I would be just fine. Honestly, I took away none of this from last Friday's performance at BAM. The Mariinsky production is flat out the most gorgeous one I've seen, but I don't think storytelling is one of its strengths, especially for an audience that's not steeped in this ballet and its traditions.

The Mariinsky version at BAM ran three hours and ten minutes. Understand that I say this as someone who 1) doesn't much like Swan Lake in the first place and 2) resents the amount of oxygen it continues to suck out of ballet's room. If the version you're watching has abandoned all pretense of storytelling, as both the Mariinsky's Sergeyev version and NYCB's Martins version pretty much have, for example, the first act is practically meaningless as theater. Lots of pretty music, lots of pretty dancing, but if it's not telling us something about Prince Siegfried, his world, and the limitations of both -- i.e., setting up the meaning of the lakeside scenes -- it serves no dramatic purpose. If I were an AD and had to stage a two-hour version for whatever reason (and kbarber has pointed out a not-implausible one), the first thing I'd go after with my pruning shears would be Act I. I'm not saying Hill made the right choices in terms of what he elected to cut and / or rearrange or that his version wasn't the disaster you describe, but as someone who has seen quite a few dispensable versions of Act I, I'm not so shocked. (And wasn't the original variously cut, expanded, re-arranged, to accommodate various demands during its creators' lifetimes?) What I am perturbed about is the idea that one must cater to the alleged deficiencies of the audience's attention span. I understand accommodating the realities of modern life -- there are any number of reasons why three plus hours at the theater might be tough for someone with a family or a job to pull off -- but it does the audience a disservice to assume that they are incapable of sitting in rapt attention for a few hours. I suppose the question is why do Swan Lake at all if you can't do the whole thing? Well, it puts butts in seats like no other ballet not called The Nutcracker and it makes your company look legitimate. And Hill may genuinely believe he's given his audience the whole story, not just the highlights reel. But two jesters is absolutely the last straw!

Thank you! I forgot about this! I'll put a copy of the link in my opening post later this morning.

This just hit my inbox. Given recent discussions we've had on this board regarding dancers of color, I thought it might be of interest. The panel includes three African-American ballerinas -- Dolores Brown, Karen Brown, and Andrea Long -- as well as dance historian Zita Allen and Iquail Shaheed, AD of Iquail Dance. It's free, but seating is limited so you'll have to rsvp in advance. I've pasted the text of the email announcement below. The official announcement is here. Join Dance/NYC, in partnership with Dance Iquail and Harlem Arts Alliance, for a free Town Hall titled Black Swan: Solidarity Beyond Colored Pointe Shoes, which will examine the importance of resilience as seen in the stresses on black artists, communities and institutions. In this Town Hall, a panel of women of color in the ballet world, as well as Iquail Shaheed (Artistic Director of Dance Iquail), will consider how dance as an art form is placed to help organizations and individuals adapt and recover from the shock and stress of racial segregation, diminished resources, and social disenfranchisement. When: Monday, February 2, 2015 6:30pm-8:00pm (reception to follow) Where: Riverside Theatre 91 Claremont Avenue New York, NY How: Free. Click here to reserve tickets + for more information Who: Moderator Baraka Sele (formerly of NJPAC), and Panelists Zita Allen (dance historian), Delores Brown (former ballet dancer/teacher), Karen "KB" Brown (former Artistic Director of Oakland Ballet), Andrea Long-Naidu (former NYCB and DTH dancer), and Iquail Shaheed (Dance Iquail)

So, here’s one of the significant differences that I noted between the Verdy / Hayden / McBride versions and the majority of the more recent ones: how much of the music the ballerina fills up with her traveling arabesques. The music for the variation has the following basic form Intro A1 A2 A1 A2 with transitional material B1 B2 B1 B2 with transitional material A1 A2 & coda Verdy, Hayden, and McBride all start their traveling arabesque sequence when the B2 transitional material begins and continue to travel backwards across the stage all the way through the reprise of A1 (the opening theme), hit a pose in relevé just as the phrase ends, and begin the closing turning sequence just at the beginning of the A2 reprise. (Hayden omits the relevé.) Scheller, Copeland, Herrera, Bussell, and Núñez all attempt this, with varying degrees of success. “Success” equals doing it the way Verdy does it: i.e., transitioning out of the traveling arabesque sequence into relevé at exactly the moment the A1 reprise ends and launching into the turns when A2 begins. Some of these ballerinas stop traveling a moment or two too soon; some of them travel a moment or two too long—and the éclat of transitioning from one thing into another in time with the music is muffled. All of the other ballerinas (Dvorovenko, Dupont, Gilbert, Pujol, Froustey, Platel, Cojocaru, Obraztsova, Somova, and Zakharova) wrap up their traveling arabesques around the time the A1 reprise begins and then dash across the stage to be in position to start their turns when A2 begins. I’m not a huge fan of traveling arabesques, but I like the “two hops and a dash” version even less because it wastes the musically important reprise of A1 opening theme on what is essentially transitional and preparatory material. I don’t know if this version is Trust-sanctioned, but I’m not a fan. Frankly, I’d rather see ballerinas try to nail the Verdy version, even if they aren’t 100% successful, but your mileage may vary.

Just an update: I gave the Hayden clip a closer look and noticed that the soundtrack is wildly out of sync with the image. The music appears to be something like 8 counts behind the dancing. Keep that in mind when you watch!

There are worse things to have in your "mind's ear" when your're jogging! Thanks for finding the Froustey clip. I've added it to my original post as an addendum to the POB section. The Pujol clip was already on my list, but I'd taken it from a page that was mostly in Russian, so I replaced my link with yours so more folks could review the comments and whatnot if they had a mind to.

Some ticket buying advice: CALL THE BOX OFFICE if you want to pick out your seats. I tried ordering online and kept getting put into seat D118 for the ring I chose, which didn't seem like it would be one of the best seats available in that price range this far in advance. So, I called the box office and the very helpful and patient agent put me in seat A105 -- same date, same ring, same price as the seat in Row D. FYI, here's a seating chart to refer to if you call: http://www.davidhkochtheater.com/Downloads/DHKT-FullChart.pdf Per the agent, although the Joyce Foundation is renting the theater for the Royal Ballet run, it's not using the house ticketing system and that's why you can't select your seats online as you can for NYCB etc.

I thought I’d re-purpose the Tschaikovsky Pas de Deux compilation that I posted in the Misty Copeland thread for an opening entry in a new compare / contrast thread. If you aren’t familiar with the ballet, or even if you are, it might be helpful to visit the ballet's page on the NYCB website to read the program notes and watch Tiler Peck’s lovely little introductory video. I think I’ve gotten my YouTube cue point issue sorted out. The samples below should all start where the variation under question begins. If they don’t, it usually begins around the 5:00 - 6:00 minute mark on tapes of the complete ballet. I’ve arranged things thusly: 1) Ballerinas who danced the role for Balanchine. These are our touchstones. Violette Verdy, the role’s orginator Bonus feature! Here's a clip of Verdy coaching Tiler Peck in the variation. (Thanks to cantdance for the link) (Note: This clip has been extracted from a video of a 2010 New York City Center Studio 5 event hosted by Damien Woetzel in which he and Violette Verdy coached Joaquin De Luz, Tiler Peck, and Daniel Ulbricht in Donizetti Variations and Tschaikovsky Pas de Deux. They also coached Jared Angle and Jenifer Ringer in Liebeslieder Walzer. Here's where the whole Tschai Pas coaching session begins. Unfortunately, the video ends before they've wrapped up coaching the coda.) Melissa Hayden (The out-of-sync music track appears to have been fixed.) Patricia McBride The Verdy and Hayden videos aren't of very good quality, but I think we can still see enough of what they do to make watching them worthwhile. 2) The only current NYCB dancer I can find a complete sample for: Ana Sophia Scheller. Note, however, that this is not an NYCB performance. Update! I found a complete version with Ashley Bouder. And more Bouder. Another: Footage of Teresa Reichlen in rehearsal. Not a current NYCB ballerina, but post Verdy, Hayden, and McBride: Darci Kistler. 3) ABT ballerinas: Misty Copeland, Irina Dvorovenko, & Paloma Herrera 4) POB ballerinas: Aurélie Dupont, Dorothée Gilbert, & Laetitia Pujol plus, Mathilde Froustey (Thanks for finding the clip, yudi!) plus, Élisabeth Platel (Thank you, Mme. Hermine) 5) Royal Ballet ballerinas: Darcey Bussell, Alina Cojocaru, and Marianela Núñez Bonus footage! Bussel rehearsing the variation. First she marks it, then she dances it full out. 6) Bolshoi and / or Mariinsky ballerinas: Evgenia Obraztsova, Alina Somova, and Svetlana Zakharova If anyone finds any other examples, please share! Caveats! It’s simply unfair to judge any ballerina or her interpretation of a particular role based on the evidence of one video. It could have been a bad night. The conductor could have been inept. The video could have been speeded up or slowed down. The music could be out of sync with the image. Etc., etc., and etc. So, while I think we can use the videos to make some observations about how the role was danced while Balanchine was alive and how it is danced on the world’s stages today, I don’t think it’s possible (or even very interesting) to use them as evidence that a particular dancer is either lousy in general, lousy at Balanchine, or, alternatively, has hands-down-definitively won ballet. If I get a chance, I’ll post my own thoughts further down in the thread.

OK, here's a video of Violette Verdy, who originated the female role in Tschai pas, dancing the variation. The image, which looks like a kinescope, is blurred but you can nonetheless tell what she's doing. It's very interesting to compare her version with McBride's to see what they did differently, even though they were both Balanchine dancers. If the cue point I tried to set up isn't working, go to about 2:15. (Go to 2:00 to hear Verdy recount what Balanchine told her about her "eloquent feet.")

Oh, let's go to the tape! Note: YouTube's cue points aren't working for me. For videos showing the whole pas, skip ahead to about 4:45 - 5:00 to get to the variation. I've edited my post to put Violette Verdy, who originated the role, at the top of the list. Here's Verdy Here's McBride Here's Dvorovenko Here's Copeland There are things that I like and don't like about all three versions. I will say this: traveling arabesques flatter no one, IMO. If I never saw them (or hops on pointe) again my life would not have been materially altered for the worse. ETA: Here's Bussell and ... Here's Herrera (lousy video quality, alas ...) Here's Cojocaru Here's Zakharova and, unless I'm mistaken, Scheller Lordy! Every Ballerina on the planet seems to have done this one! Here's Obraztsova Here's Nuñez (another iffy video ...) Here's Pujol Here's Dupont Here's Gilbert POB hattrick!

I'd hoped that when I used the word "implication" it would be understood that I meant just that: that the quote implied something rather than stating it explicitly. I was careful to make that distinction.

Thank you, California! Duly bookmarked ...

kfw Here’s a quote from the post that appears to have kicked off this whole discussion. (It is still in the original thread; it didn’t get moved to this one.) In the quote as I read it, Copeland is unfavorably compared to Lane because she did the steps in a way that members of the audience found offensive. The implication seems to me to be that Copeland shouldn’t have let Whiteside touch her breasts and shouldn’t have twerked because other people, not Copeland, were offended by the gestures. (As we all know, it is easy to misread online comments, so a heartfelt apology to the original poster if I’m doing so now.)

At least one commenter in this thread indicated that Copeland made a bad choice, presumably either by appearing in the work or by not following Lane and Forster's example and toning it down.

kfw - My comments reflect my response to a number of comments made earlier in this thread, and not to any one poster in particular. Copeland was the primary target of many of them, but please note that I included Whiteside, Lane, and Forester in my post as well.

I’ve been thinking out loud about “With a Chance of Rain” for a couple of days worth of posts now, and haven’t been as articulate as I’d like to be. Here are a few points in summary that I hope will better crystallize what’s going on in my head: 1. Even though “With a Chance of Rain” is not a story ballet, IT IS STILL THEATER. (Apologies for shouting.) Copeland, Whiteside, Lane, and Forster are not portraying themselves on stage: they are artists creating theatrical personae through movement. We don’t think that The Siren in Balanchine’s "Prodigal Son" is in any way representative of what the role’s originator, Felia Doubrovska, was like as a person. Why is it any more appropriate to assume that the woman whose boobs are jiggled* in Scarlett’s “With a Chance of Rain” is representative of who Misty Copeland is as a person? I am frankly stunned that this point even needs to be made. 2. I find The Siren to be one of the most disturbing depictions of a woman—or of a human being, for that matter—in all of ballet. (And thirty years of watching hasn’t dulled my response: if anything, she troubles me more now than she did when I was in my 20s.) Yet I would never, never expect a ballerina walk away from the role because the Siren’s frankly and aggressively sexual persona didn’t comport with her personal values or the norms of polite society. (And I’d certainly say something intemperate if it were suggested that the role be toned down to appease the pearl-clutchers.) 3. I just don’t get all the fuss over the boob-jiggling and twerking in the first place, much less why it would somehow be righteous for a dancer to refuse to participate or to demand that the gestures be toned down. I don’t think the gestures worked as theater because a) they were tonally out of sync with much of the rest of the piece (though not the later episode where the men drop their partners or the—what’s the word?—uneasy duet for two of the men) and b) because we hadn’t yet been told enough about the ballet’s community—i.e., the (social) world it implies—to put them in context. Maybe they were supposed to look juvenile; maybe not. I just couldn't tell. But I don’t think that they were in and of themselves somehow unworthy of the ballet stage or beneath the dignity of the dancers who did them. I simply didn’t know what to do with the information Scarlett was giving me; I’m even willing to accept that the problem might have been as much about my dance watching skills as Scarlett’s choreographic chops. I thought those gestures looked out of place in the kind of ballet “With a Chance of Rain” seemed to be, but I probably wouldn’t have thought twice about them if they’d cropped up in a work by Mats Ek (this one, say), Jiří Kylián, or Jorma Elo. I’d like to see the ballet again with more careful eyes. * Somehow, "breasts are fondled" doesn't quite capture the gesture

I misspoke! The boob-pawing and ass-shaking wasn't "buried": it was an isolated, italicized gesture that seemed to be part of a (deliberately?) lame joke that also involved homophobia. "Buried" suggests that the movement was somehow part of the dance's fabric, and it wasn't. If it was vulgar, I think we were intended to see it as such.

Just out of curiosity, did you see "With a Chance of Rain"? If not, you might have gotten the impression from this thread and others that the pas in question was nothing but 10 minutes of Whiteside pawing at Copeland's boobs while she shook her ass, and that is definitely not the case. We're talking about something like maybe 15 seconds of choreography buried in a rather more complicated duet, which was itself part of a much longer work. "With a Chance of Rain" is simply not the kind of moral hill one must choose to die on to defend one's honor. [ETA: I'm not suggesting that time alone is the determining factor when it comes to the artistic merit of boob-pawing and ass shaking. An awful lot of pawing happens in Prodigal Son and we all seem to deal with it just fine.]