Drew

A cultivated taste for Grigorovich is a bit of an enigma to me as well, but one could legitimately say that high extensions that are appropriate in one ballet are vulgar in another. But I'm really writing just to note on Osmolkina's behalf (and putting aside any claims about "the Russians") that, in the video I have seen of her Aurora, she does not dance the role with extremely high extensions. I doubt she looks like a 19th-century ballerina, but she also looks nothing like the young Zakharova (for example). I haven't seen Osmolkina live, but I would like to do so. "Vulgar" is something she certainly does not seem to be.

Well, I'm bummed as it looked as if I was going to be able to catch Herrera's farewell in Sleeping Beauty (and was looking forward to it). I won't be coming up to NY for Giselle at all. And, having seen her dance it just a couple of years ago, tend to agree that it's not her greatest role. But likely it will be a moving performance. (Sidenote: I think Sleeping Beauty calls for as much "artistry" as Giselle; it's a different kind sure. But it's not as if it's a role in which "artistry" makes no difference. I suspect that wasn't exactly intended by what was written above.) If she must be replaced in Sleeping Beauty, then I hope it's Murphy!

I love reading everyone's reviews, but I'm conscious that this production is just underway. The current performances amount to something like 'out of town' tryouts--all the ballerinas should be more comfortable once it gets to NY. But even if that were not the case, it seems highly unlikely to me that Herrera will be phoning it in for her farewell performance. She dances other ballets being done this season. Presumably she wanted Aurora...

I agree that classical ballet requires particular kinds of strength, very different from what might be demanded in a work by Matthew Bourne--and even when it comes to classical roles, one might choose to retire one and not another. When Gomes danced Bayadere a couple of seasons ago, he already danced a version of the Shades scene variation/coda without the double assembles. I don't think it made him a lesser Solor: actually (and I wrote this at the time) I preferred that approach to poorly done double assembles.

Fantastic news!

Star Trek has not played as important a part in my life as ballet has, but at times...almost. RIP Leonard Nimoy -

Fabulous!

I remember her posts as one of the highlights of this site--though I never met her in person, I do miss her.

It does sound incredibly interesting!

Very interesting to read about the conference; thanks Natalia.

Have never seen this, though I think I did see a production Martins did for the Hartford ballet long before the NYCB Kirkeby one and in any case can certainly live without it. But I did want to register that having the opposed clans discover the bodies in the crypt at the end is true to Shakespeare (as you may know) and can be very moving. The lovers' deaths leads to reconciliation so that they become a kind of sacrifice for the community. (I think in the play that the explanation is that a page witnessed some of what happened in the crypt and went yelling to the townspeople about it)... I'm not saying Martins' version is moving, but that the conception is not absurd. Lavrosky includes this as well. I did find Lavrosky's version compelling the one time I saw it with Bolshoi. (Filin was Romeo...) Had trouble with multiple quote feature, but wanted to write a resounding Ditto to what Royal Blue said about Tiler Peck: Her "routine" is "unparalleled." ("This was a routine performance from [Tiler Peck]; but in her case that means one of unparalleled excellence. Tiler Peck makes every ballet she appears in look better.") Also: a huge thanks to everyone for their reviews this season.

RIP Elena Tchernichova -- Her memoir is on my "to read" list...

There is a tradition of major dancers performing the Lilac Fairy -- as indeed there should be in my opinion -- including Bergsma and Nunez at the Royal. Though I realize it also gets cast with soloists, albeit often soloists perceived as up-and-coming. The Mariinsky (for better and, sometimes, for worse) respects "emploi;" Obratzsova never got Odette/Odile there, though she has elsewhere. In an earlier era Baryshnikov defected partly because he knew his physique would pose limitations of repertory if he stayed... No-one has to like any particular ballerina--and no-one will like every ballerina whatever the reputation; sometimes when I am not as enthusiastic about a ballet dancer adored by others--and experienced dance goers to boot (eg to make Amy feel less lonely on this thread, Assylmuratova whom I liked but did not adore as so many others did) I suspect that I may be the one with the limitations! Anyway, I think there is lively discussion here today because, for many of those who DO admire her Lopatkina is not just any "admirable" ballerina, but really on a special and rare plane. For me, a life-changing ballerina. And her qualities (again, speaking for myself) are qualities that define something about ballet, so that our love of her dancing touches on our very love of ballet. In that context, it would never occur to me to think less of her because her career took her to Lilac Fairy not Aurora or because she is more remarkable in some major roles than others. This doesn't keep me from admiring/liking/loving other, very different ballerinas with other, very different qualities. But Lopatkina I own is in my pantheon of the all time greats that I have been fortunate enough to see. Missing her performances on the Mariinsky's current U.S. tour (to return to the topic of this thread) has been well nigh physically painful for me. But as Amy said -- for all kinds of reasons, sometimes one can't just pick up and see the performances one would hope to see.

I'm having trouble with the quote function, but wanted to say, Amy, that an M.A. in Ballet Studies is the sort of thing I sometimes wish I had done! (Amy wrote: "I've been a balletomane for 11 years, I'm studying MA Ballet Studies in London and I'm an amateur ballet historian.")

Thank you for showing the Pavolova, Amy, --no-one can doubt it is HER ballet. She is the ur-swan and the greatest. I'm interested, too, in all of your sources for the backround to the film. When I saw it at a Douglas Fairbanks film festival [sic] many years ago, the audience was told the film-makers simply didn't film the whole thing--hence its shortness. I also was under the impression that Pavolova was not the most turned out dancer under any circumstances. She didn't need to be of course: she was Pavlova. Far from being bored by Lopatkina I find her one of the most profoundly compelling dancers I have ever seen. Her dying swan, albeit on video, is pretty much the first "modern" (post Pavlova) swan I ever found genuinely watchable as an adult whether live or on video--though as a child I was fond of the liquid, not to say wormy, arms of Lydia Diaz Cruz. Lopatkina taught me to take the whole ballet seriously in a way I never had, and she did so even if the version she is dancing has differences from the original. (My ballet going dates back to the late 60's and -- to restrict myself to great or admired Russian ballerinas I have seen live -- includes Makarova, Semenyaka, Bessmertnova, N. Pavlova, Stepanenko, Anananiashvili, Mezentzeva, Lezhnina, and even, late in her career, the wonderful Maximova. To say nothing of more recent ballerinas such as Krysanova, Zakharova, Stepanenko, Vishneva, Part, Kretova, Kondaurova, Alexandrova, Smirnova, and Osipova. (Edited to add: I actually forgot a few including one of my faves -- Terekhova -- as well as Assylmuratova and Ayupova; possibly others). I'm not trying to be a jerk and apologize if I sound like one: I'm sure you have an equally long list, and possibly a longer or even much longer one; I just want to make clear that I have points of comparison to a range of great Russian-trained talents.) Obviously, anyone is welcome to find Lopatkina boring or over-rated or whatever. I have often read criticisms of her on this website and I myself am far from finding her equally good in every role and have expressed some reservations of a performance I saw her give of Symphony in C. We've been warned, too, by the moderators not to try to be the "last word" on any dancer (!)--But I can't help but want to go on record as saying I find her far, far, far from boring or over-rated. And there are, after all, a lot of different ways a dancer can be interesting. I feel compelled because a Swan Lake I saw her dance in 2013 seemed and seems to me (2 years later) one of the greatest and most memorable performances I have ever seen. (A relatively new-to-ballet sports-fan companion loved her in it too, so her appeal was not without range.) It really restored my faith in the transcendent possibilities of the art in the traditional repertory as little else has in recent years.

One of the few times in my life when I have spent money on gala tickets. I did so to see Kirkland (who was not dancing much of anything at the time and not in the best of shape) and I sat far, far away. I remember admiring her simplicity in the role--I also felt that "nothing was overdone"--though at the time I could not take the ballet itself seriously even as old-fashioned gala fare. I'm actually more open to it now. When Kirkland first appeared with the Royal Ballet in London, De Valois was quoted as calling her "a young Pavlova."

Sergeyev danced with Somova. (I was able to get up for that tour.)

Regarding what Kathleen O'Connell noted above--Macaulay wrote a full review of Tereshkina only, but in a later review (I think of Cinderella) made a passing mention of his reservations about what he seemed to see as the lifelessness of the first two Mariinsky Swan Lakes--not just Tereshkina's. He is on record elsewhere as not thinking much of Lopatkina in "exposing" classical roles. (He made that remark in one of his articles on the last appearance of the Mariinsky in New York--at the same time equating her with Wendy Whelan and expressing reservations about both of them in a single sentence.)

Personally I do like full length ballets to be part of ballet's repertory -- though I don't always think they are the best choice for smaller companies with smaller budgets -- and Swan Lake done thoughtfully is one of ballet's greatest achievements. I certainly can't pretend to be shocked that it gets hacked about in a small "regional" company's production, because it even gets hacked about in large, world-class companies' productions. But, still, I find it hard to picture this degree of hacking, in the name of a full length "Swan Lake" as anything other than unfortunate. Act I not important? Not worth sitting through? The whole magic of the lake scene is set up in contrast to the world of Act I (that's one reason I don't like added "prologues" that set up Rothbart's transformation of Odette before Act I). The idea that a production is a "full length" Swan Lake without Act I--even a truncated Act I which would be more understandable--seems peculiar to me. Like Helene, I would call this version "abridged." But that's not exactly a compliment. (Getting rid of that many character dances strikes me as unfortunate too...I forbear asking about Act IV.) In the "old" days: dancing Act II on its own was not uncommon. That's what was announced, and that's what you saw. Mixed programs were the norm and audiences were thought to find all the frameworks to balletic vision scenes (mime especially) boring. But if people, today, really love "full length" ballets, then what exactly is the point of reducing those ballets to dance highlights reels?--indeed to something like what we got on mixed bills of old (even if one narrative ostensibly strings them together)? I know the answers that have been raised: theaters that require productions to stay within "two hours" "audience attention spans" "Act I is just waiting for Odette" etc. Unfortunately, as others have noted, these aren't really artistic/critical answers (except the last which, as noted above, I don't agree with). Ironically, it almost starts to sound like audience don't like full length ballets--they just think they do. I remember Hill as a dancer with ABT. I saw him dance Siegfried once. I also saw one of the works he choreographed for ABT. I don't doubt his committment to ballet as an art form and I don't doubt he has huge challenges running a regional ballet company on a miniscule budget and under much less than ideal conditions. It's fantastic to read his company has a good Odette/Odile and he doubtless needs productions that are likely to sell tickets. And, most importantly: if competently danced, then Swan Lake Act II exposes his audience to some of ballet's greatest beauties. Those are big pluses... Still, for my taste: why not announce "Swan Lake 'highlights'" or "Highlights from Swan Lake?" -heck you can even put "highlights" in small print and "Swan Lake" in big print. (Someone mentioned that the Balanchine distillation of the lake scenes is called "Swan Lake;" true--but it always appears on a mixed bill with other ballets. It also dates back to an era when just Act II was the norm not the exception.)

Well Smirnova is injured now and has had to pull out of some performances. June is a long ways away but I certainly hope she is healthy by then. I have actually started to worry about this even if that seems absurdly premature. She has been out for a while which suggests a long term injury or trouble healing from an older one.

Thank you Jane Simpson...

I wonder if presenters are thinking that "Age of Anxiety" is appropriate as a New York themed ballet...But in any case the overall programming is more intriguing/thoughtful than we sometimes get--credit to the Royal and Joyce foundation for that.

If it were not for this thread, then it would not even have occurred to me that tickets were already on sale! So, thanks to...everyone. I did call box office, as Kathleen O'Connell suggested...got just the seats I wanted at reasonable price. So reasonable, that if I end up not able to use every single ticket--always a risk when I buy this far out--I will consider it a sound investment in getting good seats for the other performances. I also would have preferred to know casts and Lincoln Center festival plans before making final decisions, but am very well satisfied. Also--any presenters/impresarios reading this thread take note: I'm very pleased with the decision to bring mixed bill programs showing the 'classic' Royal (Ashton/Macmillan) and 'new' Royal (Macgregor, Scarlett, Wheeldon) and even, with the highlights evening, a chance to see what I assume will be a range of dancers. (With full length ballets it is very rare that I would be willing to buy tickets without knowing casts.) Also: "The Dream" -- that's as close to a perfect ballet as there is. Even with less than perfect casting.

I suppose you are right--it doesn't quite compute--but...well...they are social climbers. Anyway, I bought the designs for the Cinderella home; for the ballroom scene--not so much.

Thanks for report: From Siberia to Moscos is one of the Bournonville ballets that I am most curious about...Any indication how much they have to 'go on' other than libretto, music, and jockey dance...?