canbelto

I have a video of Giselle with Nureyev and Fracci. Late for both of them. Anyway, both of them are dealing with failing technique. Nureyev compensates by over-dancing -- rotating and jumping wildly, tongue sticking out, eyes ablaze, sweating so hard you worry about him dehydrating. Fracci compensates by under-dancing. She somehow gets through Act 2 of Giselle while moving as little as possible. The result was the worst Giselle/Albrecht pairing I have ever seen. (And keep in mind that Nureyev is one of my favorites, and I like Fracci too.)

Both. I've seen Carmen several times, both live and on videotape, and Vishneva and Ferri's were by far the best. They were, as I said, sultry and sexy and playful. Lucia Lacarra and Cyril Pierre gave us grand tragedy. It was riveting, but it wasn't Carmen. And let's not talk about Natalia Makarova ... (as a huge fan of Makarova too) Don't get me wrong. I think there are some thing Vishneva does not excel in. For instance, although I enjoyed her Rubies immensely I could see why Balanchine stylists might find her port-te-bras objectionable. I am not saying Vishneva is perfect in everything she does. But I do think it is immensely unfair to say she's just good in Forsythe and Balanchine, because of Vishneva's prodigious talents in classical ballet. She is so much more than "In the Middle Somewhere Elevated" and "Rubies."

As Aurora, she's literally a beacon of light. Joyous, playful, girlish, with a pure classical style. Then as Giselle, she's no delicate shrinking violet, but a strongwilled, passionate girl, so her breakdown is so much more effective. In Act 2, she's of course unbelievably beautiful and technically strong, but again, I love how she injects Giselle with so much strength. This is a Giselle determined to fight with Myrtha to the end to save the man she loves. As Carmen, she's sexy, sultry, playful, without being the least bit crude or distasteful. I think it's great that the Kirov cultivates new talent. Of the new crop, Evgenia Obratsova and Yulia Bolshakova seem very promising. But Vishneva is a talent that the MT would be wise to keep.

Yes Vishneva IMO blends the best of both worlds. I have a video of her in Nureyev's Sleeping Beauty where she is just perfect: radiant, beautiful, technically flawless. And then she can go all angular and athletic and jazzy in Rubies. I think Vishneva is one of those ballerinas who is always "herself" in whatever she dances: she brings the same charisma, beauty, energy, and joy. It's fitting that Rubies is a trademark, because if I were to characterize Vishneva as a jewel, it'd definitely be a ruby: shiny, eye-catching, flamboyant, charismatic.

According to this very reliable website, Jewels is being released on June 20.

Just to add to this discussion, in the "Balanchine" documentary he said that his fondest memories were watching three MT ballerinas: Tamara Karsavina, Olga Spessivtseva, and Agrippina Vaganova. So while he might not have followed Vaganova's teaching method, it was clear that he was greatly influenced by the Imperial Ballet and their style of dancing.

I just rewatched Pharoah's Daughter, and Maria Alexandrova as Ramze wears brownish tights, with brownish pointe shoes. Picture: Alexandrova I must say that I find the look ugly. Then I saw the recent Maya Plisetskaya gala, and the Bolshoi "street dancers" in Don Quixote also have the brownish pointe shoes. I don't like this trend. And I still prefer the shiny satin, especially if the dancer has beautiful feet. For instance, look at the satiny beauty here: Sylvie Guillem Or here: Alla Sizova as Florine On the other hand, no tights, with blue pointe shoes, is kinda ugly: Lopatkina, in Blue Satin Shoes

Yes that's why I liked Allegra Kent's book so much. While it was clear she had enormous affection and respect for Mr. B who remained loyal to Kent despite all her personal problems, her book is mercifully without "only I know what Mr. B really wanted" grandstanding. Because, as people have pointed out, what Mr. B "really wanted" changed over time and changed with each dancer.

Ok well I think she is fantastic in the classical roles too (that I've seen her in). She's been wonderful in all the roles I've seen her do, classical and modern. So therefore I think she's diverse (or versatile). It's just a difference of opinion. To each his own. ETA: and my original post was not a knock on dancers who don *not* have a very versatile repertoire. Alessandra Ferri for instance nowadays has a rather limited repertoire but I still think she's a wonderful artist.

Very true. There's a dancer that was a great favorite of a major company that I've never enjoyed watching, but I'd never insist that she was a ballerina who was unconvincing and unenjoyable in all her roles, because she obviously she convinced a lot of people and brought great joy to lots of people too. Just that she wasn't to my taste, for a variety of reasons.

Well I have seen Vishneva both live and on video in many different roles and she has been convincing in all of them. So in my book, she's diverse. I think we're really arguing about Vishneva as a dancer. Obviously you don't find her convincing so you don't find her diverse, while I've found her convincing in all her roles, so I think she's diverse. It's a matter of opinion. But I think Vishneva's invitations from ballet companies all over the world to dance a variety of roles, with both critical and popular success speaks for itself.

And then he moved to the refrigerator: Fonteyn's feet were "pats of butter." (Which I thought was overly snide -- sure she didn't have very ideally arched feet, but I wouldn't call them pats of butter either.)

It's because she has danced a great many ballets, all different styles, and has had successes in all of them. From Balanchine to Forsythe to Petit to most of the classical roles. Aurora, Giselle, Nikya, Romeo and Juliet, now Swan Lake. That's my definition of a diverse ballerina.

I've mentioned this before, but a dancer I've noticed that wears shoes with an EXTREMELY wide platform that makes her feet look very large (especially compared to the rest of her body) is Alina Cojocaru. I found some pictures: Cojocaru as Giselle Cojocaru as Juliet Cojocaru as Nikya Juliet again I've never seen a dancer needing such a wide platform. I wonder if she has bunions that make her feet look larger, or whether she just prefers having an extremely wide, boxy platform. They look much wider than the shoes on Gillian Murphy: Murphy Murphy again

And am I right in guessing that Lopatkina dances the 2nd movement of Symphony in C?

Well I am happy to hear that despite any tensions (???) between Vishneva and Vaziev, that the MT audience still adores her. IMO the management would be foolish not to please Vishneva. Of the principals she is probably the most diverse -- Lopatkina only seems to dance the grand tragedienne roles (except for Jewels), Ayupova, Nioradze, and Makhalina are in the twilights of their career, and Pavlenko doesnt seem to dance much at all.

Can I pipe up in a really small voice and admit that I don't really care for the broken wrist port-te-bras? I think it's appropriate in his more post-modern works like Agon and Four Temperaments, but when I saw a Jewels where everyone had the broken wrist port-te-bras, it just looked wrong. And if the measure of how much I like a look is "Would I be bothered if it wasn't there anymore," then my answer would be a firm no. If I never saw the broken wrist port-te-bras, I wouldn't be bothered at all. I'd enjoy the ballets just the same and wouldn't think anything was really missing or wrong.

Interesting. Vishneva not dancing Ondine AGAIN? And Vishneva didn't appear in the Rubies filming. But she is dancing Giselle (but NOT according to her website) and also Romeo and Juliet in April? And she danced Swan Lake in January That is strange ... I sense a desire to perhaps switch emploi?

I voted for the POB Nureyev, having just viewed it, because it's classy, traditional, with very satisfying ending, and the solos Nureyev interpolated for Siegfried do not detract from the Petipa/Ivanov structure one bit.

I notice that this port-te-bras is more common in his neoclassical leotard ballets, like Four Temperaments or Agon. I think it's to take his ballets away from the classical ballet port-te-bras, and make it more modern (a la Martha Graham).

If that's true, then wow, it's even more traditional than I thought. Nureyev really made a complete 180 with this Swan Lake. All to the good of course. The 1966 film is a cool curiosity, but the POB Swan Lake is something I could imagine a company owning for years. A very classy beautiful production.

I don;t really see the wit in Agon. However, I *do* see the wit (if it's a bit dark) in Theme and Variations. The part where the entire corps line has to interwine arms seems to me to be a parody of the Cygnets, and I'm sure there are spills and trips galore in any rehearsal of this ballet.

One would think/hope that Obratsova's Giselle is imminent, because she has all the right qualities. Glad to see Tereshkina dancing Myrtha. She is already so commanding and imperious. She will be great.

Even the "pas de trois" Black Swan pdd is probably very close to Petipa's original. I mean, the white swan pdd was originally also a pas de trois with Benno, but Benno was 86'ed because it was much more compelling just to have Siegfried and Odette dance together. The 1960 Royal Ballet film with Fonteyn and Somes has Benno supporting the adagio. Besides, the pas de trois Black Swan pdd is dramatically very effective -- it contrasts the tug of war in Siegfried's mind between evil temptation (Rothbart and Odile) and the purity of his love for Odette. So in essence, this was simply an embellishment, not a wholesale change of Petipa/Ivanov. Really, the Nureyev Swan Lake for the POB is probably one of the most traditional Swan Lakes out there today.

I don't understand why the final Nureyev version is "controversial" except for the fact that the POB dancers didn't want to change from the Bourmeister. Because except for a solo at the end of Act 1 and a very brief solo in Act 2, Nureyev's Swan Lake is as traditional as it gets! He, unlike Kevin McKenzie, preserved the tradition of the two Ivanov white acts. He doesn't pull any funny stuff like having two Rothbarts. Rothbart is also not a hideous swampy thing, but more like an evil magician type. And let's not even mention Peter Martins' butchering of Act 2 The 1966 film, I agree, is "cool." It's like the 60s -- it's different. But Nureyev really went traditional with the final POB version, right down to Odette's mime.