Drew

I was very fortunate to see the Mariinsky in their home theater(s) last week--three performances of the Sergeyev Swan Lake, one of Ratmansky's Cinderella and one of Alonso's Carmen which was part of a ballet-opera gala. I've commented on some aspects of these performances on other threads re Mariinsky and I'm aware too that these ballets have been toured a lot recently so many have seen them more than I, but I wanted to write a little about them anyway (if only for the sake of my own memory). I know intellectually how great the Mariinsky corps is in Swan Lake, but though I have never doubted that greatness, it has been decades since I have seen the Mariinsky in Swan Lake--though I have seen them in other works--and I experienced the performances as a revelation--despite the absurd Sergeyev happy ending which even Lopatkina could not save for me. (The jester I could accept, partly because the role was well danced by both Popov and Tkachenko but mostly because everyone else in the ensemble was so ravishing and I had plenty to look at...) The corps de ballet does not move with military precision--not every pinky finger is in exactly the same location. Much better, each dancer is a distinctive being and yet they all move, breathe, and dance with a unified or, better, shared being. And every single one appears to carry herself with Vaganova style--beautiful backs, arms, shoulders, neck and head. When they stretch into a position the energy just radiates throughout their bodies individually and throughout the one body of the whole corps. Some of the women are more exquisite than others, but all belong to this stunning totality that--together with the outstanding solo and ballerina performances I was lucky enough to see--makes clear how much Swan Lake is a ballet about freedom. The corps/ensemble dancing is exquisite and expressive not just in Acts II and IV--though that is where one feels it the most powerfully. From the moment they enter in Act I, one is struck by the elegance of the women and men. Their arms and hands alone simply put them on another level than other companies. In this ballet, they show genuine greatness and all other companies I have seen recently in Swan Lake look lame by comparison. (I do remember being stunned by the Bolshoi Swan Lake ensemble decades ago: as with the Mariinsky, I have not had the chance to see them in Swan Lake for many, many years). Those who have seen the company's Swan Lake on tour in recent years may be laughing--of course! that's what they look like--but I hardly think it can be praised enough. Soloists and demi-soloists were also quality. I saw the 3D broadcast cast twice (albeit with some camera movement/noise interference): In the pas de trois Batoeva was particularly airy and easy -- and really outstanding on Thursday. I also very much liked Ivanikova's dancing (at once sharp and light with wonderful, high entrechats) and Xander Parish as well. He, like Batoeva, got better on Thursday. The other cast I saw, though, was also very good and I will single out Yevseyeva in the pas de trois for the easy fearless dancing that I associate with the Kirov-Mariinsky at its best. Among other soloists I will only mention what I have said elsewhere, that Skorik (as one of two swans) was lovely. Whatever her weaknesses in ballerina roles, she made a very fine impression here with lyrical evocative dancing. Perhaps it goes without saying that the character dancing in pretty much all top Russian productions of 19th-century ballets is of a quality far beyond Western--certainly far beyond American--character dancing. Even so, one can't help but mention the Mariinsky's extraordinary elegance and verve in the character dances in Act III. The dancing seemed to get even better every performance I attended. In the Spanish dance the woman in the white dress for the broadcast performance had an especially supple back: if someone can tell me whether she was Stepanova or Bazhenova, I would be happy to know. And it wasn't just 'gymnastic' ('hey, look at that back') -- it was gorgeous dancing as indeed it was from everyone. I would also single out the fabulous Mazurka: I thought Gergiev took it at a faster pace than I, at least, was used to and that when I was sitting close up (at the broadcast performance) it was both incredibly exciting and yet distinctively elegant -- very Mariinsky not just great Russian character dancing. I really felt as if I were at some aristocrat's ballroom watching from the sides. We have had debates on this website concerning "whither the Mariinsky": with this quality of corps/soloists/character dancing in Swan Lake, they have to be considered one of the great companies, whatever the vagaries of casting. (And whatever one thinks of the way they dance Balanchine.) The Ballerinas I saw were in different ways outstanding (Kondaurova, Pavlenko, and, for me, in a still different category, Lopatkina). The Siegfrieds were adequate/solid (Ivanchenko and Askerov). I actually thought Askerov is not only very presentable--tall, handsome, with a presence and smile that projects--but on Thursday night in particular came through with a very strong solo in the third act. However, overall, it was the male dancing (not the ballerinas) that pointed to weaknesses in the company. Neither Ivanchenko nor Askerov struck me as particularly interesting dancers. Askerov had notable weaknesses as a partner--in overhead lifts could not straighten his arms to really lift his ballerina, Kondaurova, in a strong position: she may not be easy to lift, but Andrey Yermakov as Rothbart did lift her way overhead, with arms straight up and she looked absolutely splendid. Yerkmakov's dancing was also excellent I thought--pretty much the most exciting male dancing I saw on my visit. (A further side note on the men. Yermakov was rather less good as Don Jose in Carmen than as Rothbart, though I may give him a pass since it's such an absurd ballet. However, I actually found Ivanchenko slightly better as the Torero in Carmen than as Siegfried--more engaged--though I will say he made an excellent partner for Lopatkina in Swan Lake as well as Carmen. I saw Sergeyev as the Prince in Cinderella and he danced very well--it's a ballet designed to make its leads look good, but I have seen Sergeyev dance before and am confident he is a very fine dancer. But still, not quite a dancer one would rush to see and he was also a less than ideal partner for his Cinderella, Daria Pavlenko, as he is a bit short and slight for her. They actually botched one shoulder lift and she had to hold on with one hand as he carried her around. Shirinkina was originally scheduled and I think she is more petite than Pavlenko. All of which is to say that if I were to "worry" about the Mariinsky it might have as much to do with their leading men as with the occasional under-cast ballerina. Of course, I missed Shklyarov, but they should have more than one real male star. That said, their repertory is more ballerina-centric, and the men I saw were, in many ways, good, so...) Ballerinas: Kondaurova in Swan Lake has been much discussed on the thread about the 3D film-cast. I will only underline that there were no mistakes at her performance the day before. However, a few nights earlier I saw Lopatkina--a performance of dreamlike, indeed, unspeakable beauty, certainly one of the greatest I have ever seen and I confess Kondaurova's qualities seem to me 'earthly' by comparison. I know the common criticisms of Lopatkina, but I did not find her "perfection" the least bit cold and I did not find her to be at all a diva. What I saw was unearthly beauty and transparent balletic form. She used her turn out far more than Kondaurova and altogether her dancing realized the Act II Ivanov choreography in particular in all its transcendent beauty. She is not a "demonstrative" actress, but her dancing is not unexpressive: certainly not if one finds ballet expressive. I felt that I was seeing a pure distillation of Odette/Odile--as if the essence of the ballet were being set forth. I do not think I have ever seen an Act II that extraordinary (perhaps Makarova: I don't seem to have the sharp memory other ballet fans do, but I certainly reacted to Makarova similarly and I do recall her extraordinary legato qualities.). I should say, too, no exaggerated extensions in sight. Indeed I would characterize her whole performance as modest, absolutely without special effects, just pure ballet, as if she was letting us see the choreography rather than her 'interpretation.' It was strangely transparent dancing. Actually I found Kondaurova a bit more diva-ish in her mannerisms, with quite a number of interpretive effects (most of which I liked), going slower and faster, moving her head in a notable way etc. and yet still sometimes Kondaurova was less modulated and certainly less subtle in the use of positions and legs than Lopatkina. In the first set of attitude poses Odette takes (in this version) as she initially runs from Siegfried, Lopatkina began lower and more tentatively, building each pose into greater urgency, as indeed the music becomes more urgent. Kondaurova seemed to hit every attitude with equal force. I know comparisons can be odious, but seeing Kondaurova so soon after seeing Lopatkina could not help but lead me to ponder the difference precisely because Kondaurova is really a fantastic ballerina and yet Lopatkina seemed on a different level...Even parts of the choreography I thought the younger more powerful ballerina would, of course, dance more strongly, Lopatkina somehow made more effective--the retiré-passé-entrechats that Odette does in the "coda" part of Act II. Neither of these tall ballerinas did them very fast, but Lopatkina (to my surprise) was much clearer and cleaner, (more turned out too) and even seemed as fast as Kondaurova--so she was altogether much more effective, that is, more beautiful in the passage. Thinking more about why Lopatkina seemed so extraordinary to me, I realized, too, that I felt that at every single nano-second her position was utterly graceful--with Kondaurova transitions sometimes looked less so (even awkward occasionally in Act III), however beautiful she was most of the time and in all her major "moments." It may have been an illusion, but it seemed as if a photographer could not possibly catch Lopatkina at any moment in less than an utterly ideal position even when she was in transition. Her Odile was less impressive altogether--but subtle in characterization, beautifully if not sensationally danced, and yet again I almost preferred it to Kondaurova's very deliberate vamping (especially at Kondaurova's first, non broadcast performance). When Kondaurova threw her leg up to the side in a super vulgar extension (as if to say, that's Odile) it was much of a muchness. I still can't decide if I liked it or not. And at the first performance I saw Kondaurova dance, she seemed positively unmusical in her opening variation however much one admired the execution of the steps. This was better on Thursday and I agree with Macaulay that she really blew through the first variation impressively. (We have discussed on another thread the filigree beating of the leg before the developé to the side in the variation--Lopatkina includes it and Kondaurova does not. Of course, Kondaurova does double turns and is much more powerful than Lopatkina who, at times, seemed almost too ethereal for Odile. But the essence of the character was there. I loved Lopatkina's performance--every bit of it.) Lopatkina's arms and legs hardly need additional praise given how much has been written about them, but still...I have never seen an arm able to bend at shoulder, elbow and wrist and finger joint with such clarity and strength and yet look utterly boneless: again, unearthly, as a ballerina in a dream...Her legs are stunning--how she uses them even more so. And everything integrated--talking about arms and legs is misleading in a way: her body draws a single line. I saw her a few nights later in Carmen and having admired her interpretation of this (in my opinion ridiculous) ballet in New York, at this performance I decided just to wallow in her stunning form. At one point she took an arabesque that I thought was simply the most beautiful arabesque I had ever seen. (It was just at or just below 90 degrees.) Trying to think of something similarly beautiful in the way of arabesques all I could come up with was Anthony Dowell! As Carmen, even the way she turns her wrist is remarkable: expressive of the character's will and allure, yet at once simply and utterly beautiful. Have I drunk the Lopatkina kool-aid then?I did not find her, as some think, a great Balanchine dancer when I saw her in New York in Symphony in C--though I certainly admired her port de bras--but I do think she is the complete expression of the greatness of the Mariinsky today and deserves every accolade. This is too long, but I should say something about Kondaurova's wonderfully womanly, sensual qualities as Odette-Odile and the power of her legs in Act III--she wields them as weapons--as well as the rich, warm pathos of her Act IV as she seems barely able to rise and yet does rise and dances in such a way as to capture the full sorrow in the music. I see in her the qualities people seem to admire in Part, in particular the sculptural beauty of form that carries emotion with it. Whe I first saw her bourrees as she made her entrance in Act II I thought they contained the entire drama of desperate yearning in a single image. I should also say something about Cinderella. I found the production/choreography interesting enough that I would like to see it again. The spare sets work for me in some scenes, especially Cinderella's home, but feel flat in others. I had questions too about certain details: pure pantomime with many 'invisible' props for much of the opening scene, but then actual glasses in the scene with the dancing masters: why the change? And why the oddly touching exit of the villainess with her daughters? Definitely would like to explore the ballet at least once or twice more. I was very impressed by Ratmansky's ability to showcase the leads and found much of the dancing for them just beautiful. The ballet seems to me rather a gift to a ballerina especially. Pavlenko definitely took advantage. She was effectively low-key on the pathos, beautifully radiant in her dancing. I found the ensemble a bit ragged in parts; for example, the three hairdressers weren't perfectly coordinated which undermined the caricature, cartoon image Ratmansky seemed to be creating. Other soloists seemed to me adequate but not entirely filling out the choreography. However I did admire Konstantin Ivkin's solo as Autumn. One final note: Macaulay recently criticized the girlishness of many NYCB soloists, their "arrested development" as he called it. I don't know that that is entirely fair, but there is something to it as one sees when one compares even the leading NYCB ballerinas (whom I love) to the ballerinas I saw at the Mariinsky. I was especially struck by the fact that Lopatkina, Kondaurova, and Pavlenko are definitely grown ups on stage--real women who carry with them and into their dancing the air of strong three-dimensional lives. I loved that quality in all of them, as different as they are. Great ballerinas.

A beautiful tribute Mashinka.

Ivanchenko danced June 2nd in Swan Lake and June 4th in Carmen.

Unfortunately I did not get to the Mikhailovsky.

I apologize if my posts have been confusing. The Thursday night performance was the live broadcast and, as I understand, it was really live. The Wednesday matinee was, as it were, the "practice run" for cameras and performers. But it was not broadcast nor, as I understand, used for broadcast. I assume but I do not know that they will use some of the footage from Wed to cover the 'slips' in the live performance if they decide to issue a DVD of it. As luck would have it, the Wed matinee (not the live stream) did not have the obvious slip ups in Act II that the Thursday broadcast performance did. I personally would not say it was altogether better than Thursday's live broadcast. I actually thought most of the black swan pas de deux was better on Thursday. And some other aspects of performance (such as Parish's dancing in Pas de Trois), though very fine on Wed, were in some respects better on Thursday as well.

At both Kondaurova performances reaction was subdued--actually the Wed matinee, which was at noon (not, I gather, as peculiar at the Mariinsky as it would be in the U.S.) had many children and was so subdued as to be almost embarassing. Though the theater appeared pretty full I don't think that it was sold out and half the orchestra seats were cleared for the camera boom so it was not as large an audience as usual. Still, I was startled and started applauding extra loudly when it seemed as if applause was stopping before dancers had a chance even to take their bows. Thursday night seemed marginally better to me, but only marginally. I felt badly for Kondaurova especially who certainly merited a warmer reception. However, the Thursday performance was very late in St. Petersburg and that I think was a bit peculiar--at least I don't notice other performances scheduled at that time: it began at 9:30 p.m. and ended shortly before 1 a.m. It's approaching real "white nights" time in St. Petersburg and the sky actually had a little light when we got out--a medium dark blue sky with hints of light off in the distance across the Neva--but still, it was well past midnight, and people must have been concerned about getting home. By the by, although this is tourist season in St. Petersburg, in my opinion lack of applause was not due to "tourists" who don't applaud or about weeknight audiences either. First I don't know that there were that many tourists at the Wed matinee--I saw and heard all Russian on the Belle Etage--and second, at the Sunday night Lopatkina performance, the applause was much more vociferous and after the bulk of audience had departed, passionate fans way upstairs and...a few others scattered throughout the theater including myself...kept applauding like crazy so that the curtain came up for several extra calls even after the "front" curtain had been let down. And, too, some of the American tourists in our box actually stayed for most of those extra calls, though not for the very final one we squeezed out. (And, though entirely off topic, let me say Lopatkina deserved it all and more. I actually roared out the first unembarrassed "brava" of my highly self-conscious life. Plus each time the curtain rose the grace of her bows was itself like a profound gift in response.) But despite reasonable explanations for the tepid response to Kondaurova-Askerov (matinee audience Wed, lateness of hour Thursday etc.) I was still surprised. People seemed excited to be at the theater--on Wed. I saw them taking pictures in front of the Tsar's box. At both performances lots of people had binoculars etc. It's not like it felt like a bored uncaring audience. But then, as I type those words, it occurs to me that maybe there were a lot of VIP tickets on Thursday night as well...even if I didn't particularly notice. And of course, I was there as an outsider so there's a lot (everything really) that I presumably would not have known how to read.

I would be very interested in your reactions. And a huge congratulations on your new job!

The crane or camera boom was very much in evidence at the performance. They cleared out about half of the orchestra seats to make room for it and it also moved at various points throughout the performance. One could even occasionally hear a camera person make a remark or whisper to someone. (When sitting downstairs in the Benois level box there was also a camera directly in front of me that didn't block my view of stage but was sort of a minor distraction: I could see what the camera image for broadcast was through a little screen atop the camera, though I only checked once and saw the usual struggle and usual failure to capture anything like the picture on stage.) As a viewer I got used to all this though it did periodically distract--and not just visually as the crane made a decided whirring noise whenever it was moved; it also occasionally blocked my view. Really I didn't have any choice other than to be philosophical, and I guess I should say that the tickets were cheaper for the performances with cameras than they had been for the Lopatkina Swan Lake without cameras a few nights earlier. (A performance which was, by the by, unspeakably beautiful.) That's "performances" plural when it comes to cameras. The camera boom and other cameras were just as much in evidence at the Wed. matinee with the identical cast as the 3D broadcast evening and there were no glitches (that I could tell) in the partnering etc. at the matinee performance, certainly no obvious slip ups. In fact, I thought that even some of Kondaurova's solo dancing in Act II may have been a bit stronger at the Wed. matinee. I tend to suspect nerves played a large part in whatever went wrong in the Act II adagio on Thursday night--and whoever's fault it was. And in fact, most of the black swan pas de deux seemed to me a bit better on Thursday night, by which time any nerves may have settled down. But that's just a guess.

An interview with Tsiskaridze in Le Figaro (via Ismene Browne's blog): http://www.ismeneb.com/Blog/Entries/2013/6/11_Tsiskaridze_tells_Le_Figaro__Its_a_disgrace.html

Well, yes--but a ballet company where the director recently had acid thrown in his face by a thug who is widely believed to have been hired by a dancer in the company. And where the kind of politics that impacts careers has always been rough and tumble. In fact, like you, I prefer named sources, but unnamed sources have a long history and an important role in investigative journalism. I may be more skeptical of unnamed sources than named ones but I wouldn't sneer at them as necessarily untrustworthy, especially if I respected the journalist doing the reporting.

I attended two performances at the New Mariinsky last week: a mixed opera and ballet gala and a performance of Ratmansky's Cinderella. I was quite prepared to like the New Mariinsky and indeed when I first saw it from a block or two away thought its bland modern exterior might even be a rather tactful answer to the seemingly impossible question of what to put next to the old theater that would not in some fashion clash with it or even take away from it. Also, I quite like modern amenities: sufficient bathrooms, proper air conditioning and air circulation, comfortable seats etc. I am also not opposed to modern theater styling and I very much like the State Theater. ("Mr. Drew" nearly died of heat exhaustion in one of the crowded, overheated boxes of the 'old' Mariinsky so he was more than prepared to like the new one too.) Well, we both ended up having a rather negative reaction. Of course I am writing only as an audience member: I assume that the backstage does indeed have technological wonders not available at the old theater and conveniences for the artists as well. So I'm going to talk about some things people may find trivial but to me were surprisingly unattended to by a 21st-century architect (like no. of bathroom stalls). The positives: Certainly the seats throughout seem to be well banked--much more so than in the old Mariinsky. We sat in the parterre ("Benois") front row and one balcony up ("Belle Etage") but the rows behind us in those balconies were elevated by steps so people behind us should have had no trouble at all seeing. Certainly not the case in key parts of the old theater. There is also more spaciousness all around that added to comfort, in some cases multiple routes in and out of seats. I checked out the orchestra which is also much better banked than the old Mariinsky (with steps between rows) though someone short may always have problems. The seats are also comfortable, considerably more so than the old Mariinsky. I'm not a great judge of acoustics, but they seem to be as good as reported. Air conditioning more than adequate on lower level and adequate as we got higher on the Belle Etage...I'm a little suspicious it may be less adequate way upstairs but did not check. I assume air conditioning is not typically a big issue in St. Petersburg, but the week we were there it was genuinely hot. The negatives (and some neutrals): I was not looking for 'old fashioned' atmosphere but the theater seems designed to be positively anti-atmosphere. On the mostly bland and monolithic (but not unpleasant) exterior, the entry is marked solely by a rather small sized glass and steel awning that is actually easy to miss. There is no entry foyer to speak of before you give your tickets which seems to me both inconvenient and strangely unwelcoming; the ticket office has another entry but is also rather small. The large and visually airy foyer that you enter after you give your tickets is, in the heat of June, surprisingly stuffy and was even hot the evening we were there. Presumably not a problem most of the year. The gold toned stone of the walls and the crystal lights, which gleam white, seem rather harsh in tonality and the stair rails to get to the balconies are bare and unadorned (I assume made of steel but don't know). There appear to be bathrooms at different levels unlike the old theater, but only four stalls in ladies room on the Benois level (which was also the level for entry to Orchestra) and on Belle Etage. The bathrooms were also somewhat narrow which, given the long lines, made negotiating them uncomfortable and air circulation was barely adequate (less than adequate on a lower level bathroom I went to before performance). For such a large theater I thought four stalls on two key levels was a poor choice. I did not try to get something to eat or drink. The interior of the theater itself: In photos I thought the wood looked honey toned and its contrast with lighter blue seats seemed a nice contemporary riff on the old Mariinsky gold and blue and even had the right touch of warmth. In reality I found the color tones much paler and cooler than they had appeared to me in photos and entirely drained of any warmth by the white lighting. (Ironically, in photos I thought the old Mariinsky looked dowdy--something I did not plan to admit on the internet--whereas in reality, I found it to be like the interior of an enchanted jewelry box, possibly the most magical place I have ever been.) The expanses of wood in the new theater, to cite Mr. Drew, rather recall the wood paneling of a giant high school gym. Do I exaggerate? We saw exposed screws on the balustrades (that is, on the panels of wood enclosing the balconies) on the Belle Etage -- I mean exposed screws in the manner of an Ikea shelf. An intentional modernist touch? A nod to the working man? I don't know. More bare, unadorned metal bars above the balustrades. At the Cinderella performance we even saw scuff marks already marking up the wood in front of us on the balustrade of the Belle Etage which seems to indicate that nothing has been done to protect the wood from the inevitable scrape of shoes by people in the first row. (I suppose if the old Mariinsky were better lit we might have seen worn out velvet, peeling paint etc....but it has, after all, been open for more than a month.) The very pale blue of the seats adds to the cold professionalism of the atmosphere but what really undoes any kind of atmosphere is the harsh white light throughout the very large space. I do acknowledge that the large size of the theater may be a plus from other points of view--bigger audiences, more revenue etc. The curving back walls were a dark brown--I don't know the materials, but I did not think anything looked particularly compelling. The color and texture seems pretty much like international hotel neutral. Altogether, at first view, the architecture did not work for me as a modern vision of elegant, spacious geometries, which could certainly have a place in the very geometrically compelling St. Petersburg. Sight-lines? Well, it's bigger and thus less intimate than the old theater. Sitting in the back of the orchestra in the horse shoe ring of Benois boxes in the Ur-Mariinsky, we felt closer to the stage than, at the gala, sitting halfway down the side at the same level in the new Mariinsky. I think the size may work better for grand opera than ballet or indeed earlier or more intimate operas. It was difficult to judge the "side" sight-lines since for the opera part of the gala all the singers stood in the center of the stage. The second half of the program was the ballet Carmen which has a semi-circle set enclosing the dancers, and we could see only about 75-80% of the semi-circle but all of the main dancers within it. (The ballet does have dancers lining the set so to speak and we could not see all of them.) We were towards the center for Cinderella up in the Belle Etage and could see everything fine--but were definitely further away than in the equivalent seats in the old theater. I certainly am not criticizing Mariinsky II for being bigger and less intimate, but it's yet another plus for ballet going at Mariinsky I. I assume the goal was a kind of cool modern austerity with grand opera size and I understand the architect is an experienced theater designer. I don't doubt he had problems to solve I can't begin to imagine. But the result, to me, at least on first viewing, is cold and a bit lifeless. More convention/conference center than opera/ballet theater. These are harsh criticisms so I should add some caveats. I am no architecture critic and I believe that sometimes the 'new' is hard to take in--the old Mariinsky was also new to me personally, but of course it's a type of theater I have attended and that makes a more obviously seductive appeal to the eye and to the imagination. (At least if one likes 19th-century theaters--and I do). It also comes with profound, ready-made associations for any ballet fan. As people attend the new theater it will accrue its own loved history and associations. (For me, it's already associated with Lopatkina and Pavlenko as well as Ratmansky.) And good air-conditioning and comfortable seats are by no means to be sneered at. My BACK probably preferred the new theater to the old even if the rest of me did not. The acoustics and backstage improvements must be even more important considerations. At both performances I attended people were very interested in the theater, looking around sometimes avidly, taking photos etc. I don't think this was just the same "tourist" interest people certainly were taking at the old theater as well. I think many people, including the Russian audience members, were curious about Mariinsky II and excited to be there.

Sad all around, though possibly "necessary" at this point; that is, the situation with Tsiskaridze and the company had seemingly become untenable and clearly neither side had any interest in a peace initiative. His admirers and students in the company will be very upset to say the least. I wonder how much of a fuss they will kick up. I don't care for the way Tsiskaridze has conducted himself in the wake of the Filin scandal and question some of his criticisms of Bolshoi leadership before Filin, but he is a major Bolshoi artist--so this can only be bad news even if it really has been become impossible for the company to keep him on. He is, too, the kind of dancer who really belongs at the Bolshoi and won't necessarily fit, as a dancer at least, in many other settings, though I don't doubt he will have many other opportunities.

I was actually sitting in the box next to the one in which the interviews were conducted--not the one you see in background but the one on the other side. The people immediately next to the interview box had to wait to sit down until the end of intermission so it was a bit of musical chairs for a few minutes and, since the boxes are already overcrowded, it was quite a crush as we all stood waiting to get into our proper seats. However, it was fun to be right next to the filming and especially enjoyable to see the artists that close up (and likewise Gergiev during the next intermission). Now that my stage door days are over I almost never see them that way. During the interviews we could only hear Vodianova not the artists being interviewed. I think she looked quite a bit prettier in real life, as indeed did her dress as well. I can see here that the interviews were fairly lame, especially for a balletomane, but as best I could tell everyone in our box (a mix of Americans and Russians) seemed to find it somewhat exciting to be right next to the filming and we all applauded Vodianova as she left her box and she gave us a charming smile. So...uh...I had a great time with it.

Am not able to type at length, but Skorik was one of the two swan soloists in this afternonon's matinee Swan Lake. If I identified her correctly in Act IV, then I have to say that I found her quite lovely, genuinely exquisite at moments. Should she be doing ballerina roles? I could not say, and the reports of her slips and stumbles in more technically challenging roles are damning. But for a few seconds there I though to myself 'Okay THAT is what her admirers are seeing'--not just a pretty body, but delicate, rippling movement, 'boneless' but not inarticulate legs and arms. Much better than anything I have seen on YouTube. Maybe she should not (yet?) be doing Odette, but a lovely soloist--at least I thought so at this afternoon's performance.

Very sad news for the Royal Ballet surely. Cojocaru is one of the today's great ballerinas. It would be wonderful to have her dance more often with ABT, but in any case one can only wish Kobborg and her the very best.

Just a quick note to say I saw Seo's Italian fouettes in a performance of Gamzatti in Bayadere last season (she ended with her back to the audience)--there was also a twitter report of her problems with them when she performed Queen of the Dryads on tour in Spain. Both of these performances were last season and this season she may be better. Not trying to be particularly harsh about her--I gather from reports she has given lovely performances in a number of roles--but the Italian fouettes should be a highlight and were kind of embarassing. I agree that ABT should have dancers in roles like Gamzatti/Queen of the Dryads who don't have those kinds of difficulties. That is, I think ABT should be and, in fact, could be--even sometimes IS--a standard setting company. And may I add how much I wish I could have seen Osipova and Vasiliev!

In my experience, great companies--even at their 'height--have always had some controversial casting and even, from the point of view of fans and critics, occasionally genuinely scandalous casting. That said, some cases are more egregious than others or indeed just plain sadder than others in terms of dancers put forward AND dancers held back. (Ann Jenner anyone?) I have been trying to refrain from coming to a judgment about Skorik based on youtube, but it's hard not to draw some preliminary conclusions especially with so many reports from fans who do not like her dancing. I confess I was relieved to see she wasn't cast in the performances I have tickets for this year and, now that some last minute, unannounced casting changes have been reported for at least one White Nights performance, I am plenty uneasy I'm going to see her anyway. I should think Fateyev indifferent to what is being said on social media about his decision making--and, in a way, he should be. On principle, artistic directors should be primarily artistic directors--and leave it to Hollywood to change the ending of movies based on focus groups etc.. Of course, that does NOT make them above criticism by fans/spectators. Nor is there any guarantee of the quality of a particular artistic director. I'm not saying they are always right (!!). Additionally, Fateyev, whatever his own failings, has Gergiev--and god knows who else--to contend with as well. However, I do wonder if the Mariinsky social media staff read message boards at least occasionally -- I did notice their Facebook page (at least the English language one) recently had a long entry about how the whole Mariinsky complex was being used during one evening, listing all the performances at the different theaters. It could have been exactly a riposte to some discussions on another thread of this forum. And of course, "social media" is their job. But even that may be assuming too much...and I think much of what is said on message boards, Facebook, twitter etc. is also being said in traditional press outlets. Obviously Fateyev knows that Skorik has raised hackles. For whatever reason (good or bad), he is still casting her prominently.

Sounds fabulous. Between what I saw of Seo (and reports from still another performance) and what you say about Copeland, maybe the company needs to hire an Italian fouette coach . . .

...all sounds fabulous...

I actually doubt many American tourists in St. Petersburg will be particularly thrilled at seeing My Fair Lady--they may not be outraged or they may think it's charming, but I'm skeptical they believe for an instant that the Mariinsky does a better My Fair Lady than they would see at a West End or Broadway revival. Undoubtedly they would rather see Swan Lake than The Little Humpbacked Horse for the most part--but My Fair Lady? I doubt it. Local audiences may feel differently. I hope not, but I don't know. I also agree that when tourists see inept ballerinas they will often just be vaguely unimpressed even if they applaud. Bart Birdsall wrote something similar above. They may well think 'what's the big fuss about the ballet.'(I only say "they" because we aren't talking about balletomane tourists--I certainly will be a tourist if my visit to St. Petersburg comes off--with most if not all of a tourist's follies.) It's hard to say over the long term what the damage will be to the "Mariinsky"--especially if the problem remains limited to a bit of bizarre or, at any rate, controversial casting. This June, the casting that has been listed indicates Kondaurova and even Lopatkina and Vishneva are dancing more than Skorik who is scheduled so far for one Bayadere. And if the corps and soloists remain at the overall level of the company's great tradition, then it can probably weather a few ballerina storms, however unpleasant those are for dancers and fans. I agree that the school and its standards are a key issue here. But certainly My Fair Lady is a depressing sign of the times. Very much so. I would have wept had I planned a trip to St. Petersburg and discovered that was what they were doing.

By the time I saw the announcement of the movie showing at Mariinsky II, the live performance was sold out. I don't know when the announcement about the film showing went up originally, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was only after the tickets for the performance itself were gone. I agree that the best would have been a free showing on the square in front of the theater, but I think they are trying to make this a huge special event and feature the whole 'arts complex.' So they are saying--well you couldn't get into the live showing but you can watch it in a "special" glamorous setting (uh...the New Mariinsky).

Thank you. I feel very strongly about this aspect of YouTube. Of course I too watch it and start forming opinions and making judgments about dancers and even express some of those opinions and judgments online. But the You Tube experience of performances (often in excerpt) leads to all kinds of odd disproportions of analysis and comparison. And can never do justice to a live performance in any case.

Just a general response to your questions, though I did not see the particular performance reviewed: The Mariinsky definitely seems to like to feature tall ballerinas in Swan Lake (though not in all leading roles) ... Some might say they are a little overly preoccupied with "tall" for Odette/Odile. There are several men who partner them but Korsuntsev is definitely one of the go-to partners for the taller leading ballerinas. He is in his own right one of their top male dancers and a principal.

Ivanchenko is scheduled to partner Lopatkina earlier in week, so -- if all goes well -- I should have a chance to compare and make a fair judgment. To return to topic: I have never experienced 3D film of any kind--the idea of putting glasses on top of my glasses is not terribly appealing. At some point I guess I will give it a try at least once for one of these ballet broadcasts.

apologies--please delete