Drew

Thank you very much Mathilde K. I adore Lopatkina - though I have only seen her live a handful of times - and I sort of enjoyed watching her in an unusual setting. But I appreciate that this is not really her 'scene' so to speak (nor should it be).

I agree that SB is "three hours densely packed with interesting dance" as fondoffouettes writes above -- and I love it and even adore it more than I can write -- though I'm not sure new-to-ballet-viewers always agree. I remember at the end of a performance by the Royal Ballet some years ago an older cousin walking over to say knowingly to me (that is, ignorantly, but in a 'knowing' tone of voice), 'obviously all the good dancing is in the last act...' I was actually too dumbstruck to argue. Let's hope that ABT & Ratmansky go for as dense and substantive a production as they can muster! For myself, I am planning a trip to NY to see this production multiple times next season. If it's the quality of the Ratmansky-Burlaka Corsaire, it will be well worth it. Even if it's not, I expect it will be worth it.

I agree with Birdsall. If you are a ballet lover, then the inside of the historic Mariinsky theater is not to be missed especially now the theater is going to be renovated. (Given the current cast of characters running things there, it's hard to trust that the renovation will be worthy of the theater. Though one can hope.) When I say "not to be missed": The historic Mariinsky is not exactly spectacular--no Palais Garnier grand staircase as in Paris--and I suppose it is aging and...uh...you certainly should pick your seats carefully and other caveats that often apply to 19th-century theaters ... but it is just so completely and utterly enchanting, that if you can get to see a performance there during your trip, (even a ballet you aren't crazy about or, indeed, even a lesser opera performance), then I think you should. Since I do find travel kind of stressful myself and I have limited stores of energy, I understand that one might decide to stick with Moscow, which should be plenty great--I still haven't been to the Bolshoi and hope I get to go someday!!--but though it's hard to explain, the historic Mariinsky is just something very, very special.

The link below takes one to a Russian Talk show. From 14:47 to the very end, Lopatkina is the guest. I don't know Russian, but watched anyway--it seemed very much in a Lettermanish spirit except perhaps a tad more respectful of Lopatkina as Prima Ballerina of the Mariinsky (that much I could translate). She was wearing a stunning (I thought) gown and at about 23:20 she goes out onto the floor for mostly comical kibbitzing with the host, as she shows him port de bras, though also, a bit later, she dances a very brief port-de-bras centric solo in which she dances like...well...like Lopatkina, thought it was just arms and a bit of a back bend. At the end, the host escorts her onto the street (it's raining too, so he holds an umbrella over her head) and into a bakery where they get some pastry. I thought that touch was very Letterman. Here is the link... http://mlik.ru//vecherniy-urgant/ulyana-lopatkina If anyone is interested and watches who DOES know Russian, it would be great to learn a little about what they actually said. Of course, Lopatkina is no giddy comedian (!), but she does seem relaxed, laughs, and even gets some laughs as well.

My experience was identical to California's--well I wasn't getting on a plane, but I couldn't figure out why my code wasn't accepted--thought it was because I was on my Ipad. By the time I got to my regular computer it was sold out. Thank you Speed100 for the explanation but, if what you say is correct, then to say I am infuriated doesn't begin to capture it. If Lincoln Center is going to offer special "treats" to members, then ... uh... they should get the information to us correctly.

Fantastic! My vacation this year also was was Italy...Hope you and your mom are having a wonderful time.

Just saw this! Welcome back --

Apologies for supplementing my own post. Here, I believe, is the Paquita (thanks to Tugarin-2) -- always a 'Mariinsky/Vaganova' touchstone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCsqWEZkmpQ (Other performances from the program also available and easy to find once one gets to any one of them.)

Thanks for this report...

When I saw Ashton's version with the Royal I liked it very much, though with reservations about certain details/decisions. In certain sections, especially the fairy variations, one can see his full internalization and then transformative renewal of Sleeping Beauty. I wish I could see it again. I find the pas de deux for the Prince and Cinderella also very lovely (Cojocaru and Kobborg can be seen on Youtube and when she walks astride the air, she certainly seems to float--with a frisson of desire as well.) But whatever one thinks of the Ashton choreography, if the Fairies & others are looking "frantic" in ABT's production. then they haven't mastered it. Amour: Ratmansky's (which, like Ashton's I have only had the chance to see once) seemed uneven to me; it's also a decidedly non-traditional take on the fairy tale with some rather enigmatic details. (Ratmansky's version has been discussed here on a variety of Mariinsky threads and also in the context of the more recent version he did for the National Ballet of Australia). But in sections, I found it quite brilliant and very touching with especially attractive choreography for the leads.

I have seen the Petit--I remember finding it not uninteresting, but little else about it. I would not be keen on seeing ABT revive it. Faux Pas: Perhaps Cojocaru or Osipova could be interesting in "The Invitation" if it is, indeed, revivable. (Not clear Osipova has any future with ABT these days and in some ways it might even be more appropriate for the Royal to revive it.)

Interesting suggestions -- though I would put Ashton in a completely different category than the other choreographers you mention, and am always happy to see ABT mount Ashton ballets. I actually rather admire Dame aux Camelias, but for the most part -- like Vipa above -- I am not an admirer of the Cranko-Macmillan nexus of full length story ballets. If I lived in NY, then I might come to see a Vishneva Manon or Onegin (and the performances she has given this season do sound thrilling), but I have only once ever opted for a trip that was organized around one of these ballets (a weekend with both Vishneva and Osipova in Romeo and Juliet supplemented by Liebeslieder Walzer at NYCB). Cranko's full lengths I find even duller than Macmillan's. Still, I do take Macmillan seriously, and returning to Faux Pas's suggestions, I would rather see Song of the Earth or Requiem than Manon or Romeo and Juliet--they belong to very different genres. I remember Concerto as much lesser. I have also always been curious about the Invitation (another narrative ballet in a historical setting, though not full length), but always assumed it was not revivable--certainly to revive it one would need a very substantial dance-actress... If ABT wants a new full length story ballet of the full-length "passion" variety, I would be very interested in seeing Ratmansky's Lost Illusions, but I would probably prefer they would acquire one of the one act works he has been creating for other companies that would work well at Met (perhaps Psyche which he created for POB) and include it in an additional "repertory" program during the Met season. All that said, it has been very enjoyable reading about these performances of Manon. Thanks to everyone for posting.

I hugely admired Malahkhov with ABT and was sorry not to see him dance more--especially loved a couple of performances I saw him give with Mckerrow (Bayadere & Giselle); the two dancers had a kind of echoing purity between them. Alas, I lost any opportunity to see him when he went to Berlin and stopped appearing with ABT.

Cojocaru is a great Giselle even when she is a bit off her game (as I thought she was when I saw her do it a couple of seasons ago. It was still, in particular, one of the most memorable Act I performances I have ever seen, as she was Giselle in every pore of her body and the dancing exquisitely harmonious throughout). When she is on her game I can only imagine how great it must be. That said, I agree that you can almost certainly get tickets for almost any sold out performance at the Met either the day before or day of the performance--especially if you are able to check the box office directly. So if your heart is set on Vishneva, then I would not give up.

Is there a feeling among City Ballet fans that this emphasis on new work post Balanchine and Robbins is worth the time and effort? Are there really that many works of note that have been created since their deaths? I ask because it seems that the critical reception of many recent works - with the occasion exception of Wheeldon and Peck - seems to imply that the new stuff falls short of the master. There have been several threads discussing exactly this issue -- with many different perspectives expressed -- so it might be worth your time to do a search. I will say that the fact is that if a company is unwilling to risk duds and other works that are merely okay, then it is unlikely to get masterpieces either....especially since even the best choreographers need a chance to develop, take risks etc. Nor do I think it is a bad thing for NYCB audiences and dancers to have been exposed to choreographers who have developed elsewhere such as Preljocaj--whose Spectral Evidence for the company has been controversial, but not without admirers. Has there been a lot of less than stellar work to sit through? More than is ideal? Sure...I think so at least. But the idea of turning NYCB into a company that does nothing but Balanchine and Robbins is, I think, a nonstarter even for those who wish the company would do fewer new works. (In a wierd way it wouldn't even be Balanchine's company if it did nothing but Balanchine...that doesn't seem to be what he thought a ballet company should be.)

Sort of off the original topic but... NYCB has always been committed to dancing premiers and even when Balanchine and Robbins were alive danced works by other choreographers--some of substance, many...not so much. Their core audience? If, as a onetime New Yorker, now non-New Yorker who comes to NY periodically to see NYCB I count as core audience, then I can answer that I certainly think the commitment to new work matters. As a result of the company's commitment a number of major new works including works by Wheeldon and Ratmansky have premiered there, as well as works by choreographers such as Preljocaj, Bigonzetti, and Forsythe that I at least don't find a waste of time. (Balanchine's ballets are, of course, incomparable and the basis as they should be of the repertory.) As you probably know several critics have started championing Justin Peck in the last year. Peck and Wheeldon really emerged through NYCB and Ratmansky's career took a great leap forward with the creation of Russian Seasons for the company...Namouna which is arguably his best ballet was created for them. These works contribute to NYCB, but also to ballet as an art form. (I would rather see Namouna a third time than, say, Robbins' I'm Old Fashioned.) The importance of new works in developing dancers has often been debated on this website--indeed the whole issue you raise about repertory has been taken up, and a lot of different perspectives expressed...but for myself, I think it wouldn't be NYCB if it were simply filling a curatorial function even if that is the company's most important function. The dancer numbers have grown and contracted over the span of years (recently contracting after the 2008 financial crisis for example), but within any short period of time the numbers are I believe usually pretty steady and retirements/departures do impact the numbers of new dancers they can accept or promote. Others, who follow the day to day workings of the company more closely than I, can comment in more detail on that. More related to topic (though not to the larger structural issues): Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall that Gen Horiuchi has been mentioned. He came to NYCB in the early 80's (Wikipedia says invited by Balanchine) and was frequently featured by Peter Martins, who created roles for him--actually one of the more prominent dancers of the early Martins era.

A wonderful read...

I think he was reasonably successful as the villain/Iago in the Moor's Pavane, but perhaps that choreography helped him to find the inner bad guy...

Thank you for the detailed review. (About 'forgiving Rebetskaya anything:' some years ago, I saw her in a secondary, character role in Corsaire and remember writing on this website that I thought I had fallen a little in love with her...)

Smirnova was pegged as a future ballerina when she was still a student at the Vaganova school--Assylmuratova even cast her as the lead in the Bayadere Shades scene at a school performance. As many people reading this probably know, her alternate in the role that year, ie the second cast (Shapran) is also on a fast track career albeit at the Stanislavsky which is a less high profile company than the Bolshoi. In other words, she wasn't cast because she was lacking for competition or it was a 'weak' year. When dancers at the Mariinsky penned a letter concerning working conditions at the theater, they even mentioned the loss of Smirnova to the Bolshoi as evidence of the company's problems. Vishneva, too, has been quoted praising her highly. Smirnova may or may not be being pushed too hard and too quickly by Filin--I have seen other major dancers pushed this way and been dubious, though sometimes their careers worked out pretty spectacularly--but she is not exactly his invention. Personally, I think that it's not out of line for Mckenzie occasionally to bring in "rising" stars as guests if he has reason to think they are potentially major artists and especially if he hopes to build a longer term relationship with them. Like other ABT fans, I have my opinions about and occasional frustrations with ABT management decisions (and loss of dancers like Simone Messmer) but I don't think the invitation to Smirnova was unworthy of the company. Finally, a big thank you to everyone for these reviews/responses to Bayadere. Looking forward to reading about this weekend's performances as well.

Thanks for reports and videos.

You also bring them in to represent a certain artistic standard or quality and to share that with the audience and the company. Ideally, as in ABT at its best, the company itself is at a comparable artistic level, but that doesn't mean it and its audience can't benefit from a great dancer's guest appearances. And, of course the company is not always at the same level. It's the excess of the guest appearances, the drop-in, drop-out policy of many of them, that seems the problem, especially when seemingly very talented men at ABT are not being given what seem like obvious opportunities. (If they really are not up to those opportunities, then the company needs to figure out why; if they are...it needs to have more faith in them.) (While some of those invited this season are unknown to me, I wouldn't want to comment on quality without seeing them. Maybe they will be something special. Maybe not. I wonder, though, if ballerinas like Murphy had an influence on the import of some of the unexpected male guest artists...if they have expressed concern about having experienced partners.)

As opposed to medium rare? (sorry, couldn't resist) -- Undercooked is what we often get--slow and cautious. Or oversauced--doubles and triples, but not fully controlled. (Kirkland in Don Q did fast and brilliant singles, fully controlled. At least that's how I remember it. I actually think fast,powerful singles can be the most exciting. If I were Siegfried that's what would make me dizzy.) Anyway, as a fan, do I want to see the Fouettes? Heck yeah...and I think their now iconic value and the expectations they arouse are not entirely trivial aesthetic matters even if they are partly or even mostly imposed on the ballet due to the history of its reception and contingent factors such as Legnani's particular skill. But if I had a chance to see an otherwise great Odette/Odile who left them out? I would still run, not walk, to the theater -- and be grateful. I agree with Cubanmiamiboy that at a gala they should be there or one should pick another pas de deux.

A little bit off topic, but I wanted to go on record as saying I saw Kirkland do brilliant (super fast, clean, controlled, FUN) fouettes in Baryshnikov's Don Quixote: roughly first half in place and second half, just as music changed, controlled traveling forward in a steady straight/centered line, and I also saw her do consistently brilliant turning of other kinds in his Nutcracker in performance after performance. Maybe others who saw her more may feel she wasn't always a brilliant turner--at any rate, we know she was always a perfectionist and very self-critical--but I when I think of brilliant fouettes her Don Q performance is on my list. (Alas, I did not see her one Swan Lake which came after a long period of not dancing or dancing, as Croce wrote, like a shadow of herself, due to her problems with weight loss. I would not be surprised if she was not in her best bravura shape at that time, though I have read the performance had many beauties.) I agree with Helene that much of the Act II pas de deux is pretty sacred text for the ballerina in Swan Lake. I would be more appalled by a traditional Swan Lake that messed with some of that choreography (eg the swoon) than with the fouettes. But sure, I prefer the fouettes to be there and...uh...well done.

What were your impressions of the corps and soloists?