canbelto

I think Ratmansky should be it. He obviously has the respect of the dancers and the dance world in general. He's shown a willingness to foster dancers from within the company. He's just the right man for the job.

Well a little digging on Youtube has me watching a mid-70's video of Sleeping Beauty from the Royal Ballet. Merle Park/David Wall are the leads. Anyway it is interesting to see how a lot of what Ratmansky has insisted on as authentic Imperial Ballet style is sort of British classical style. The rounded arms, the low jumps, the low arabesques and attitudes. The 1970's version doesn't have Aurora do her variations on demi-pointe nor does it eliminate the overhead lifts, but it does seem as if a lot of Ratmansky's dictums for his Sleeping Beauty are inspired by the British way of dancing.

I went home and pulled out Ballet's Magic Kingdom. Here is what Akim Volynsky had to say about Mathilde Kschessinskaya, the most famous of Aurora's. This was after he upbraided her about her lack of arch in her foot:

Natalia a way more detailed description of the production is at my blog, clickable by clicking on my signature.

well it was a great night to see just about every balletomane in NYC (and Miami!). I had some mixed feelings about the production. I wrote so much on my blog it'd be too long to copy and paste here: http://poisonivywalloftext.blogspot.com/2015/05/ratmanskys-new-new-old-sleeping-beauty.html But I'll just mention what I missed the most: The "flying" lift that usually ends the Florine/Bluebird pas de deux and the usual hand gestures of Princess Florine Choreography that just looks awkward on modern dancers: Gillian Murphy trying for the menage of chaine turns and coup jetes in her hard Gaynor Mindens. I have no doubt that dancers of Imperial Russia were able to gain momentum and speed on demi-pointe with their softer shoes but Gillian's variations looked sluggish. Choreography that really worked: the lower developpes and attitudes. Made sense with the knee-length tutus. Costumes and sets overall beautiful. Mime from Craig Salstein (Carabosse) and Alexei Agoudine (Catalbutte) clearly articulated and funny. LOVED the restored Act Three and the partially restored Panorama.

I saw that interview and Sibley said IIRC that she felt daunted because Margot had the right look for Chloe -- the huge saucer eyes in particular that even when she was in her 40's could suggest youthfulness (Aurora) or a waif-like innocence (Cinderella). I think a better example of a ballerina overcoming perceived aesthetic deficiencies would be Melissa Hayden. She didn't have Balanchine's favored look and she admits that when she was first in the company she didn't have the strength and conditioning either. She says only by working hard within the company in his classes did she acquire the strength and musculature required for his ballets. She's pretty frank about this in this interview:

Well here's Macaulay's writeup of the double-farewell bill: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/arts/dance/review-paloma-herrera-and-xiomara-reyes-give-farewell-performances-of-giselle.html?ref=dance

I feel like this line could be written about any number of current Giselle's, but the one that comes to mind immediately is Osipova.

Even among the confetti and flowers you can feel the brrr factor when Kevin McKenzie came onstage.

Eh, I think Robert Gottlieb is the must-read dance critic on the NY scene now. His opinions are sharp and not always politically correct but always interesting and he also knows his dance history.

cobweb, having seen Maria K. right up to the time she announced her pregnancy, I'm not sure it's exactly weight gain (or baby bump) that you're seeing. I do think that it's a slowness/hesitation of movement that can be perceived as heaviness. Totally understandable, given her condition, but she could have just as easily been coming off an injury. I've seen many dancers who come back from injury also have a bit of sluggishness/hesitation in their movements which often then gets labeled as weight gain, when IMO it's not that they're actually heavier, they're just dancing heavier, if that makes any sense.

Well there are critics who manage to work in a brief 411 of the ballet without spending the bulk of the review on a sort of canned history lesson. A good example would be Robert Gottlieb's recent review of La Sylphide: http://observer.com/2015/05/city-ballet-scores-with-new-la-sylphide/

I actually get more annoyed when he often spends more time on a sort of potted history lesson of the ballet he's reviewing than on the performance. A good recent example is this: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/arts/dance/city-ballet-revives-three-pieces-in-repertory.html I don't mind a brief potted history of "Chaconne" or "La Valse" but a review that barely any time talking about the actual performance annoys me. For instance, this is all he had to say about Sterling Hyltin's debut:

Well that's a posed shot in the air and it tells you nothing about how Pereira actually dances. I've seen her dance and I wouldn't say she has much in the way of elevation, ballon, or that her jumps cover a lot in terms of height and distance. In addition what you can see in the photo is that she doesn't have much in the way of muscle in her calves and thighs that would allow for her jumps to develop.

I just don't understand why Pereira is often pushed into roles that seem to highlight her weaknesses. For instance she has a somewhat weak jump. It's okay, not everyone is Ashley Bouder. But she's given roles like Square Dance or Symphony in C third movement which just make her jump seem weaker. She's more of a lyrical dancer but she was never given Flower Festivals of Genzano (a role that should have suited her like a glove), but instead the role was given to people like Reichlen or Mearns who IMO were miscast (way too mature, not enough delicacy).

Here's my blog: http://poisonivywalloftext.blogspot.com/ I write about ballet, but also Broadway, opera, TV, everything ...

I am beyond bummed I missed the Stella Abrera Giselle due to some unforeseen circumstances (including an ear infection that hasn't gone away). But now I have confidence that this will not be Abrera's only Giselle. So there's always next year ...

Well Aurelie Dupont's complaints seem consistent with other reports of how the school was run: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/08/france.arts As I said, the school might have changed under the direction of Elisabeth Platel, and I'm not sure Millepied is the right person to revamp the Nureyev classics, but I don't think the Lefevre reign was a summit of classical ballet in Paris either, and I think the charges of the school's climate (if true) need to be addressed. I should add that similar complaints were made about 10-15 years ago at the Vaganova and Bolshoi academies. These complaints have since lessened, because apparently many abusive teachers were told to retire or let go. Nowadays there have been no major complaints of a truly abusive, unhealthy environment at either Russian academy.

This might not be a popular opinion but I'm not sure the POB system is ideal and that changes aren't needed. For instance Aurelie Dupont and some other dancers have spoken rather bitterly about how brutal and inhumane they felt the schooling system was under Claude Bessy. Not sure if this has changed, but their complaints (if true) need to be addressed and not just swept under the rug of "well, that's the French way." Second of all, the "classics" in the POB are almost always the Nureyev versions. Some of his versions are good (La Bayadere) but other versions of his classics IMO could be replaced. For instance his Nutcracker is a rather creepy Freudian tale with (as always) lots of extra dancing for the male. His Swan Lake is also overly fussy, Freudian, and with so much busy dancing. His R&J is IMO inferior to the MacMillan, Cranko, and Lavrovsky versions. I'm not sure Millepied is the right person to enact changes, but I'm also not convinced that Lefevre's tenure represented French ballet tradition in the most pure way either.

I also saw her in leotard ballets this season and didn't suspect a thing. No baby bump at all. But so happy to hear about this.

Well you might not be seeing Maria Kowroski in the role for awhile, that's for sure. She just announced on her public instagram (so I'm posting it here) that she's pregnant and the baby is due in November.

Dress Circle is probably a good choice, but they know it: seats are pretty expensive there. I sometimes choose rear orchestra and after intermission sneak up.

I don't know but his public instagram seems to show he was there: https://instagram.com/p/23vAYiRs88/?taken-by=davidhallberger

This is a wacky theory but it just occurred to me that of all the ballet documentaries I've seen (and the fictional movies), ABT's 75th Anniversary documentary was the only (first?) not to focus on: 1. The hard work involved in ballet. Almost every other ballet documentary I've seen has followed ballerinas into the airless studios, the crowded dressing rooms, and looked at their blistered toes, their tired faces, and stressed that ballet is Very Hard Work. This documentary, with its constant gauzy slo-mo footage, seemed to minimize that aspect of ballet in the way, say, uh, Ballet 422 or Ballet (Frederick Wiseman) or even Bringing Balanchine Back did not. 2. Even the documentaries that didn't emphasize the literal hard work of ballet dancers have emphasized the emotional toll dancing can take. Like for instance in Elusive Muse the otherwise serene Suzanne Farrell has tears streaming down her face as she remembered how she considered suicide and the rather icy way Balanchine accepted her resignation (by simply taking her tutu away). Ballet Russes was a joyful documentary but it did talk frankly about the rivalries, the low pay, the endless touring, and other less romantic aspects to ballet. 3. This kind of buys into Homans' ideé fixe that of ballet as some platonic ideal -- a reflection of noble, courtly, Godly values. Because who wants to see blistered toes and stern ballet mistresses shouting corrections when you can talk about Louis XIV and ballet's roots in royal obeisance?

To answer the question, yes, I did see several Hee Seo performances without any major mistakes. One was Month in the Country, and she was fantastic. Very lyrical and graceful and it was definitely her type of ballet. The other was last year, as Gamzatti. She didn't make any mistakes, she just wasn't exciting in any way and had no temperament as the spiteful princess. Hee Seo's a lovely, lyrical dancer but she's definitely a dancer in the Julie Kent mode. 32 fouettes are not her thing. KM seems to want her to be that indestructible all in one type of ballerina (a bit like Paloma Herrera when she was younger, and nowadays Gillian Murphy), and that's not her.