canbelto

When the production was rolled out in the UK, it certainly did not get ecstatic reviews. Many critics complained about the underwhelming sets and costumes.

I don't think anyone should be required to do "homework" on a ballet any more than someone should be required to do "homework" before a baseball game. Of course if one read up on the strategy of lefty-vs.-righty, batting order, fastballs vs. curveballs vs. knuckleballs, you'll understand the game better. But then again, most baseball fans understand the game instinctually by watching many games, observing, asking questions, listening to sports commentators. I kind of feel the same way about ballet. Learning is not always "homework." Many times, it's osmosis. ETA: I think that playbills that bother to place so many ads could at the very least provide *some* program notes for any ballet, whether it's Symphony in C or Enigma Variations.

Gennady Smakov in his book on Russian dancers has some very harsh words for Galina Ulanova's technique, but obviously she triumphed despite her deficiencies. In her day, Anna Pavlova was also criticized and ridiculed for her perceived lack of perfect technique, but her ethereal grace and delicacy obviously drove the audience wild.

I must respectfully disagree about this. And my reasoning? When I first started watching "vintage" videos (of Ulanova, Fonteyn, Tallchief, etc. etc.) I thought their style of dancing looked very foreign to what I was used to watching onstage. But, now, I'm struck by the similarities. Of course there are differences. There will always be differences. The way Alla Sizova danced Sleeping Beauty is I am sure not the way Mathilde Kschessinska danced Aurora. But really, when I watch old videos, and I watch current stars, I'm struck by the continuity of tradition, and not by what has been "lost." To use one example, I recently saw Diana Vishneva and Vladimir Malakhov in Giselle. I then watched the pdd of Nureyev and Fonteyn in Giselle. And I realized that they were great for the very same reasons. Their sense of line, the tenderness of feeling, the synchronization of two bodies into one. Obviously Vishneva and Malakhov are not Fonteyn/Nureyev, nor should they be. But I don't think "different" means "inferior." That's just my two cents of course.

Ok to twist this in a whole new direction: how to characterize Roland Petit? Because his ballets inevitably involve pointe shoes, and classical dancers seem to love his choreography. Yet his ballets involve very little "classical" choreography, meaning pirouettes, arabesques, attitudes, etc.

In the doc Leningrad Legend Natalia Dudinskaya gives a mini-demonstration of proper port-te-bras. "Arms must be soft, but strong," as she spreads her arms out, displaying exactly the kind of elegant port-te-bras that the Vaganova School is famous for.

I remember seeing Enigma Variations in the theater and i was totally, utterly confused. No other way to put it. I wasn't given any program notes explaining the background or characters in the ballet, and so to me it just seemed like people hanging out in a British country house for one afternoon. I really wish for a ballet like this they'd give at least some kind of background explaining the characters and whatnot. It would have really helped me. Instead, I stared at the stage blankly, and wondered how hard it was for the women to dance in those heavy Victorian dresses. Mayerling is another one of those ballets. I didn't really "get" it until I read up on Prince Rudolf and Mary Vetsera and the Hapsburg clan. ETA: I agree with Natalia about La Valses. Ashton's La Valses (available in the Evening of the Royal Ballet dvd) seems too ... cheery. Don't know how to describe it, but it didnt match the somewhat sinister music at all.

Did Baryshnikov and Lisa Rinehart ever dance together? Also: Mikhail Fokine and Tamara Karsavina (although sadly that didn't last) Irina Kolpakova and Vladinen Semenov (still together)

There's also Darci Kistler and Peter Martins. And now, Darci Kistler dancing with her stepson, Nilas Martins.

I have a live video from the Kirov in which Giselle exits via the trap door, and two from the POB as well in which this happens. I suspect the Kirov doesnt have the trap door because it's on tour and the stage may not have a trap door to set this up. I have a dvd from the Tokyo Ballet with Vishneva/Malakhov which also uses the trapped door. I think it's much much more effective than having Giselle simply walking offstage. Having her walk offstage gives the mistaken impression that she's still a Wili. But having her descend into the grave drives home the point that she is now at peace, having saved Albrecht. As for Diana's "full-bodied" dancing, I agree. Having only seen her Giselle on video I had no idea of her enormous elevation, something Karsavina always mentioned as being particularly important for Giselle. Even her bunny hops seemed to rise in the air effortlessly. When she first enters Act 2 and does those frantic turned arabesques she also gave the impression of a jet propeller about to take off. One thing she does that is particularly effective at the end: as she lifts Albrecht's arm, she looks towards the heavens, as if to say that she is out of purgatory.

I have to respectfully disagree with you about Corella's Albrecht. I had no problem with his dancing per se, or his partnering of Vishneva. Corella is rather short, but Vishneva is petite enough that they did not look awkward together, either. I had an issue with Corella's interpretation. I think Albrecht calls for an interpretive deepness that right now Corella doesn't have. He looked alternately detatched and hammy, which is what I thought of his Siegfried also. I think Malakhov could have danced Albrecht with anyone and he would have been Corella's superior, simply because he understands the role better. JMO. I've heard Giselle called the Hamlet of ballets, and I tend to agree. I think Corella came up short in this role.

I forgot to add: the Peasant pdd was very well performed by Abrera and Savaliev. I didn't see it that way at all. She acted like a magical spirit that breathes life into him. She stretched her long arms around him, and then she pulled his arms up as if to tell him, "You're alive." He lifts her for the final time (one of the best moments of all of classical ballet). Finally, as she backs away, she gives him a flower, as a final sign of her love. If only the ABT had allowed her to descend into the grave, as a final sign of serenity. I could write till I'm blue in the face about all the ways Vishneva/Malakhov were great, but really, you had to be there. Just watching them "mirror jump" at exactly the same level, was thrilling. Both of them have an ability to remain suspended in the air. Diana Vishneva is a great Giselle, and Vladimir Malakhov a great Albrecht, but the two of them have a great partnership and that is what I saw last night. I only wish Part could have been Myrtha. Then the performance might have been absolutely perfect.

Natalia, thanks for the very interesting review! The curtain call drama reminds me of the spectacle during the filmed Giselle with Mesentzeva, Zaklinsky, and Terekhova, in which Terekhova is thrown a HUGE bouquet of flowers. She has a HUGE smirk on her face, as Mezentseva gets a smaller bouquet. She smirks through the rest of the curtain calls. It's funny. The performance is set to be released on dvd -- check that out. As for Novikova, did you notice any partnering mishaps that might have prompted the hissy fit? Hope the Giselles are better ...

I went tonight. I've seen the Malakhov/Vishneva Giselle dvd from Tokyo, but seeing her int his complete role was so special. Vishneva combined so many elements -- technical mastery, physical beauty, and a strong, vivid personality. Vishneva's Giselle is somewhat unconventional -- headstrong, rebellious, mercurial, and passionate. Her "love me, love me not" scene didn't have the cloying cutesiness of so many Giselles -- Vishneva was genuinely extremely upset. Her mad scene was frantic, but never hammy. In Act 2, Vishneva was an otherwordly spirit, but one could sense incredible strength. It was a battle of willls between her and Myrtha, and one knew Giselle would win. Technically, she was a marvel. Her hops on pointe were excellent. Her developpes hada hiint of tentativeness, but they were overall solid. Vishneva used her long, long arms to great effect.. Her grande jete is amazing -- airy, feather-light, yet extremely powerful, and they covered huge distances across the big Met stage. But most of all, her dancing has incredibly fluidity. I never feel like she's posing from one beautiful position to the next. She is a beautiful classical dancer, but she moves to the music like water in a stream. Even during the mad scene, she was able to convey a momentum as she tore at her hair and slumped on the ground. She received a well-deserved standing ovation at the end. A+. Malakhov -- what can I say? A real dansuer noble, and his chemistry with Vishneva was palpable. In Act 1, Malakhov was caddish, but not overly so -- one just sensed that Albrecht was a spoiled rotten playboy that couldnt predict Giselle's deep love. In Act 2. he was truly remorseful. He and Vishneva have danced together many times, and it shows. They were able to mirror each others' movements beautifully. Both have incredible elevation in their jumps, and at times it seemed like both were literally flying. In the Act 2 pdd, it really seemed to be two bodies moving as one. They were really emotionally spellbinding. At the very end, Malakhov remained prostrate on the ground, clutching the flowers. Michele Wiles was disappointing. I don't think shes a natural Myrtha -- she's not scary or intimidating at all. I think it's a shame that nowadays Tall = Myrtha. Wiles' wholesome persona grated -- why is everyone so scared of her? Overall, I don't think Michele will ever be a favorite of mine. I've seen her enough times, and so far she's never been able (for me) to convey anything but technical excellence and a bland, wholesome persona. I have a video of Veronika Part in this role and the difference is enormous. Part walks onstage like a queen, and commands instant respect and even fear. Murphy would be a great Myrtha too. I HATE the ABT production. I hate how Giselle just walks on and offstage in Act 2, with no descent into the ground. That is one of my favorite moments of the ballet, because to me its a sign that Giselle has fought and won against the Wilis. She descends into the grave, haiving saved Albrecht. She is at peace. With the ABT production, I'd like to ask Kevin McKenize: where does Giselle go? Ugh. I also dislike Act 1 intensely, with two huge brown mud slabs that frame and crowd the stage needlessly. But overall, it was worth it for the incredible pairing of Vishneva and Malakhov.

Deepdiscountdvd is having a big sale, so I'm wondering, what are your thoughts on: 1. Macbeth - Dench, McKellan 2. King Lear - Ian Holm 3. Hamlet - Richard Burton 4. Twelfth Night - 1996 adaptation 5. Merchant of Venice - Trevor Nunn, 2001 film 6. As You Like It - Olivier, Bergner

Alina Cojocaru IMO has beautiful epaulement. Her arms always serve as a musical instrument. But about epaulement in general, I saw Sylvia at the ABT and then I saw the Sylvia telecast from the Royal Ballet, and I realized what was missing from the ABT production, which was the upper body coordination of both the corps and the principal dancers. At the ABT, the dancers kept their upper bodies as stiff as possible, perhaps to imitate the "stereotypical" British style and carriage. But the Royal Ballet corps understood the difference between the regal upper body and a stiff upper body.

I like how the book doesn't just profile the big names, but also touches upon the dancers whose careers were cut short but influenced Russian ballet nevertheless. The chapter on Lydia Ivanova chilled me to the bone. After reading the chapter on Ulanova, I popped in some dvd's of her dancing, and while I don't agree with his overall negative assessment, I can't deny a lot of what he says. For instance, her habit of throwing her neck and shoulders back to hide her short, somewhat unattractive arms. The article on Mathilde Kschessinska was very informative. Looking at her pictures today, it's hard to imagine how she could have been the PBA of the Mariinsky, and Petipa's favorite dancer. She looks so ... unballerinalike. But Smakov explains her phenomenon, and also how Pavlova changed the fashions of ballet.

Norma was also very fond of a specific type of acting which is sort of hard to describe, except to say that she moves her face as little as possible. She kind of reminds me of those stars who've had too many facelifts so their faces become immobile. One of the most unexpressive screen actresses of her generation, IMO, and that's why her films and performances are relatively forgotten. Oh I forgot -- Olivier's Richard III is slashed beyond recognition. A disappointment. Has anyone seen Orson Welles' Othello?

Is the 1935 Midsummer's Night Dream available on video? And also, has anyone ever actually seen the famous Shearer/Howard R&J? I always just read about the ridiculousness of casting the late-thirtysomethings as teens, but I've never seen the film.

Dale, thanks for posting this. I had wondered about this release and I'm glad I didn't get it, because I already have all the clips independently on other dvd's, except for the Serrano/d'Amboise pas de deux.

I know everyone hated this film, but I actually didn't dislike the Midsummer's Night Dream from a few years back with Michelle Pfeiffer, Rupert Everett, Calista Flockhart, etc. I didn't think it was a great film, but I laughed, and I had a good time. But then again MSND is a teflon play. I saw it as an outside production on a college campus, where everyone was shivering, and the lovers were dressed in chunky sweaters and jeans, and the set was the cheerleader bleachers. And it was magical.

I also think a lot of the bickering comes from the "whoever bats last has the advantage" situation. The two people who are most noisy about "guarding" Balanchine's legacy happen to be the two people who were closest to Mr. B artistically at the time of his death. Namely, Martins and Farrell. But, had Mr. B lived longer, or had Farrell and Martins danced in the 1950s and retired by the 1970s, there's no saying that Mr. B would not have evolved, and that Farrell and Martins would have remained his biggest Stars in the company without stars. He might have let another very talented ballerina catch his eye, and she would have been the next Muse. In other words, Martins and Farrell probably have a good idea of what Balanchine wanted his ballets to look like in the final stage of his long creative life. But that doesn't mean they are omniscient, or the last word on anything. Case in point: Apollo. Everyone seems to remember the wonderful way Martins and Farrell danced Apollo and Terpischore. But how would Serge Lifar had reacted, as the ballet was created for him? Would he necessarily have thought that Martins and Farrell were even being true to the original concept of the ballet?

The endless arguments about how Mr. B would have "wanted" his ballets to be danced reminds me of Rashomon. Everyone from Tallchief to Villela to Martins to Farrell has his/her own truth, and like Rashomon, the "truths" don't match up, and I'm not sure we can believe any of them wholeheartedly. Kurosawa was wise enough not to give a definitive version of the events. The point of the movie was to accept the different realities, no matter how much they contradicted each other. I think maybe a similar thing needs to happen re: the Balanchine ballets.

I rewatched La Strada when I came home from work. (I had taped it on my dvd recorder.) Masina frustrates me. Because there's a part of her acting that is appealingly naturalistic. Her voice is surprisingly hearty and emotional. But then there's the endless Chaplinesque "posing": the puppy-dog eyes coupled with the childlike smile. To me, this grows old. And it has the unusual (and perhaps) unintended effect of making the movie seem rather static. The storyline and script suggests that Gelsomina is less and less able to endure Zamparo's abuse, even though she loves him. But the constant sad/childlike smile makes it seem like, as I said before, a puppet show. I think the story is very moving, and well-directed, and Anthony Quinn does the impossible by making me care for this absolute brute, but ultimately I think the movie would have had more pathos had Masina/Fellini not shoved so much pathos down my throat.

Well I'm slapping myself in the wrists for not thinking of the Czinner film of "Romeo and Juliet." Of course, it's perfect. Particularly the moment when Juliet runs down the stairs, and accidentally touches Romeo's hand. Fonteyn jolts a bit, as if she was literally shocked by electricity. Mel Gibson's Hamlet has some weirdly effective moments, and I say this as someone who despises Mel Gibson both personally and as an actor. (No need to go into reasons.) But I watch it for Helena Bonham Carter's Ophelia, and Glenn Close's Gertrude. I must say that I love the gothic atmosphere of Olivier's Hamlet but I don't worship the film. I don't like the simplification of the play as "a prince who could not make up his mind." That just grates on me. I also think that Olivier could be a very stodgy actor and Hamlet is one of those roles where he decided to be stodgy. Believe it or not I saw a footage of Malcolm X reading parts of "To be or not to be" and then he commented on the monologue and I felt that Malcolm X got a better read on Hamlet's psychology than Olivier.