Drew

Absolutely agree ...

My understanding was indeed that Mariinsky II, as per Natalia's ironic allusion, has no studios for the ballet company-only new facilities for the opera. Of course, that's a problem, even shameful given the historic centrality of the ballet to the Mariinsky theater. But that doesn't entirely explain to me why leaders of the school should be so adamantly opposed to the idea of the company using its studios during the planned Mariinsky I renovation--given the historic precedent and indeed given that it would presumably be temporary. That is, only until the studios in Mariinsky I were renovated. (Admitedly, that's likely to be a long "temporary.") I assume that they have reasons for their dismay other than anger about the Mariinsky II situation, reasons having to do with the organization of the school etc. But it keeps being mentioned as a kind of absolute outrage that the company would use the school studios -- and I confess that puzzles me a little. Edited to add: reading this over, it occurred to me that the atmosphere of anxiety of Gerviev's grand unification plan may be fueling antagonism to the idea of the company using the school's spaces. In other words, anything that smacks of "consolidation" is distrusted on the face of it. But I would be interested if there are other thoughts/information about this issue. Further edited to add: I was corrected below--at any rate Mariinsky II has one ballet studio.

In an interview Tsiskaridze said that through the 1970's the Kirov used studios at the school. Does anyone know if that's correct? Or what it involved? I'm asking because I'm trying to understand how "bad" it is for the company to use the school's studios when/if Mariinsky I is renovated. Of course, something that worked in the past may not be appropriate or practicable now, but I haven't altogether been able to understand why this issue, in particular, has become such a huge casus belli. I understand the ballet world's distrust of Gergiev (I share it), but however independent the school is--it still is proud of its role as the feeder school for the Mariinsky. They are linked institutions.

I agree and would add that just the name "Bolshoi" sells--well known stars or not. But I'm not sure about Spartacus not being an audience favorite--For many people (and I should think especially the Russian audience in New York) Spartacus "is" the Bolshoi. Perhaps that's an outdated notion??

Very enigmatic situation indeed. That is, a few things seem pretty clear -- mostly regarding Gergiev's ongoing power and influence. But the overall direction of all this? Some of it seems unfortunate (say, regarding the apparent treatment of Asylmuratova) but not all of it. I was relieved to read that Lopatkina is not retiring from the stage though of course what people are saying now and what will happen may be two different things. I certainly believe she can contribute a great deal as a teacher/coach to the future of Russian Ballet. But she still has a lot to contribute on stage. It is kind of hard to picture Tsiskaridze not being involved in artistic decisions of any organization of which he is the head, administratively or otherwise -- if Lopatkina plans to continue dancing full time then for now at least it may be workable to have an administrative head with artistic involvement/interests. But otherwise? Down the line? I thought Urin's comments about the diplomatic/people skills required in the head of an organization were very pointed.

YID: I would be grateful if you have any links to the reviews of Lopatkina's performances in Asia. I have seen some discussion (and short excerpts) of the Giselle you mention on youtube. However, I do think that it's a forlorn hope that she would come to D.C. if she is participating in the opening ceremonies for Sochi--as seems very likely (and indeed, if ballerinas are being featured, quite as it should be).

Ha-ha, for me, Lopatkina's the one who seems like she's the one who will not change an eyelash from performance to performance. Her readings are so richly detailed, and it's a joy to see what she's found, but I do miss the suggestion of spontaneity. I know that most people find Lopatkina anything but spontaneous...and I would not exactly say she looked spontaneous to me. But I will say the performance of Swan Lake I saw didn't look at all calculated, not least because it came across as completely without affectation. I felt as if I were getting a kind of pure distillation of the ballet. I experienced it as if, after all these years, I had suddenly gotten a revelation of the Platonic form of Odette. It sounds like I'm going soft in the head, but I'm very sure I saw a great performance even if it would not be to everyone's taste. But since this thread is about Makarova, I should say I am plenty grateful to have bookended my Swan Lake going up to this time in such fashion, and remember what you describe about each performance having a distinctive quality.

Thank you for the links.

A little late in the day--well, in some respects, very late--but I will speak up for the Makarova fans. I considered Makarova's Swan Lake one of the great performances of my ballet-going life--both when I saw her do it shortly after her defection and years later--indeed especially years later with Dowell, though I also enjoyed the performance(s) I saw her give earlier with Nagy. For many years, she was my absolute favorite Odette-Odile--along with Semenyaka, though the latter I only saw once and under very peculiar circumstances. I found Makarova poetic as well as moving and the slow tempos didn't bother me; if anything I felt as if she was eliciting every possible beauty and the deepest possible emotion from the movement. I wrote that "for many years" she was my absolute favorite. Recently I finally got to see Lopatkina and I was overwhelmed. I would have to say Makarova/Semenyaka/Lopatkina are definitely THE Swan Lake interpreters who have made the profoundest impression on me. As I mused over Lopatkina's performance shortly after seeing it and tried to think who/what I had seen that beautiful as Odette--Makarova was the only name that came to mind, though actually I would still say Semenyaka was the single most exciting Odile I ever saw. (Oddly, I also found Makarova's Giselle too "calculated," as Alexandra mentioned above, though I admired the romantic silhouette of Act II and, like Alexandra too, I quite enjoyed her 'calculated' playfulness in the Don Q pas de deux. But I did also love her as Macmillan's Juliet--with Dowell.)

I think you are right that the art of dance has a certain future, but the art of ballet is more fragile. Even if it continues in the coming century, we can be pretty confident that in 100 years it won't look quite like ballet today. We know this just by looking back at photos of late 19th-century productions even of ballets still danced in something like their original form today, let alone film from the 20's and 30's. And if it were to look much as it looks today, the effect would still likely be very different--like a performance of "period" dances. That doesn't mean exactly that all change is all good: change involves loss as well as gain for sure.

According to his Bolshoi bio, Denis Rodkin is now under the tutelage of Yuri Vladimirov, whose most prominent pupil is Dmitry Gudanov. If one counts past associations, then I would add Ivan Vasiliev's name to the list of most prominent people who worked closely with Vladimirov.

Loved the video--thank you. It was something of a golden age when Ryom was dancing classical roles. As well as Jeppesen, I remember, too, Arne Villumsen, Linda Hindberg, and the young Ib Anderson among other favorites from the tours I saw at that time. Unfortunately, I have never been to Copenhagen.

I feel very much the same. Thank you.

She was one of my favorites when I saw the company on tour. (I never saw her in Giselle though.)

There is something that this statement is trying to capture (like Graham's "the body never lies") but I don't think it's strictly correct to say body language is universal. It has conventions and is also inflected by "baseline" cultural expectations, many of them gendered, of how people inhabit space. Holding hands seems a pretty universal expression of affection. But Men holding hands in one society is read completely differently from man holding hands in another society. (And that in turn influences even the desire to hold hands--who feels it and why.) One could think of other examples. But it's not just cultural differences at issue, but context as well: a slouch that's modest in one setting, is rude and disrespectful in another. Are there deeper bodily universals? Maybe, but that kind of body language would still end up being very thoroughly embedded in not-so-universal body languages.

Part has had some serious cross-over publicity (a Letterman appearance and she gets mentioned on a regular basis in James Wolcott's column/blog for Vanity Fair). But it's also the case that even among balletomanes there is not absolute consensus about her greatness or her fitness for every role. Personally, I would like to see her get a shot at Tatiana, but the company would absolutely need to give her the right partner.

Wishing the company and Filin the best! (And continued improvement for Filin's eyesight.)

Sad news indeed--and she was quite young. I have vivid recollection of her fabulous Swanilda in the Danes' distinctive Coppelia. I probably saw her in a Bournonville variation or two but that is the performance that has stayed with me. I wish I could have seen her dance more though--the article mentions how she developed her repertory. Best thoughts to her family and friends.

I don't see the company as regularly as you do, but from my occasional viewing over the years (and having last seen Hyltin during the spring season), I think she has genuinely grown as an artist in a very impressive (and pleasurable) way...Maybe others could "see" her qualities before I did--but I also think she has really changed if only in the sense of realizing those qualties.

I'm very excited about Chopiniana. I will be jumping again on a plane just for it. This ballet is deeply engraved in my memory and heart, and was a staple of my Alonso's company all the way until I left Cuba-(it was actually on the very last program I ever saw over there...(sight)..). I can't wait for the magical Glazunov orchestration of Chopin and the swirling Sylphs... It is wonderful. The best performances I ever saw of it were probably with the Kirov in the 80's--maybe early 90's. I also loved Baryshnikov as the male lead with ABT in the early 80's. Actually my favorite Baryshnikov performance. I believe it was reported that for the Fall season revival ABT would be using a "lost" (and now found) Benjamin Britten orchestration.

Very best thoughts to all the victims--but special thoughts for James Fayette, his son, and his wife (the wonderful Jennifer Ringer).

Great to read about this--it's the program they are doing this season that I would have most liked to see.

I agree with much in your post--though sometimes it can help one to understand what one admires about one ballerina to compare her to someone one admires less--but the above seems to me an entirely different issue. I don't think critics and fans are "nitpicking" when they see things danced in a way that often evacuates them of their meaning/impact and feel they need to say something. If a ballet company chooses to dance Cunningham, then I think it is fair for viewers to reflect on what those dancers are doing with it for good or ill. Someone might even say they like it danced by ballet dancers even if it is 'wrong'--but a knowledgeable viewer will know the difference and a less knowledgeable one who wants to know more may well be curious about what the difference is. And someone who has only seen ballet dancers dance modern dance classics (Graham, Taylor, Cunningham, even Tharp in some incarnations) may be forgiven if they sometimes wonder what the fuss is about. Cunningham precisely did NOT have his dancers dance Giselle--modern dancers don't tend to pretend their technical prowess can take on anything and in any case most major modern dance companies were founded in part to do new work if not work in an entirely new idiom. Ballet dancers, who do have extraordinary prowess, are often capable of crossing over...up to a point (call it pun intended)...but not without costs that I don't think it would be nitpicking to mention.

I read an article that said that in the Australian production Ratmansky would be revisiting his original version--but not redoing it from the ground up. Plus it's being redesigned as discussed above. I think redesigning it was a great idea as the designs for portions of the original production are very thin in sections, and not, in my opinion, in an interesting creative way. (Natalia has often complained the Mariinsky production looks cheap. I liked it in portions, but in other portions--basically anything that wasn't supposed to be the slum--I thought "yeah...it looks cheap.") I have seen four full-length Ratmansky ballets, but as chance would have it each of them exactly one time. Though I found his 'original' Cinderella the most uneven in quality (high highs and low lows) it was the only one that left me feeling absolutely confident that the best parts of the choreography would hold up to repeated viewings. For example I found the pas de deux for the leads in the ballroom scene, and again when they are reunited, more intrinsically interesting than the pas de deux for the leads in Bright Stream--even if the latter, with the masked wife dancing with her would-be cheating husband--has a lot of plot interest/pathos built into its situation. But...as Birdsall indicated, it's not exactly a conventional family fairy tale ballet. (I do find it very classical though.) I most certainly would love to see the revised/redesigned Australian version.

I can't say that I'm totally surprised as this last season was not particularly charming, imo. And without charm, there's nothing to draw people in. In the last episode - the 'finale' - we see the BW dancers are invited to perform at a private fund raising gala. They perform and join in the party at a very upscale L.A. home, but it is a small gathering that we see on camera, and somehow it feels rather lackluster, and lot of trouble to go to for a contribution. But I'm sure Adam Sklute also intended it as a fun end-of-season outing for the company. But a few of his dancers are dealing with real troubles in their private lives, especially Bennett and Ruud, who we learn are divorcing. Which just brings everything to a low ebb. At least there was very little of Zach Prentice in the finale (sorry Zach fans!). When I think back over the 2 seasons, the only things I really learned about concerned interviews/contracts and company apprenticeships. Any real information concerning the ballets danced was mostly omitted, or cut into little bits. Not charming, and really not inspiring. I enjoyed the bits of ballet in the final episode--and the glimpses of the Malibu mansion; also kind of liked Christiana making the case for supporting the arts to a donor. But from a 'storyline' point of view, the episode was a downer.