Drew

Very nice to read about Kent's performance--I can easily believe she was lovely--and I loved her performance as Desdemona in Lar Lubovitch's Othello--but I did want to add something about the "technical" question. The Moor's Pavane is not a classical piece, but that does not mean it doesn't require a very specific modern dance technique which, in my experience, ballet dancers often are not qualified for even if they appear to all intents and purposes to be doing the steps with ease. I remember the first time I saw a modern dancer in Moor's Pavane, I experienced it as something of a revelation--the sense of weight in particular was entirely different from that of the ballet dancers on stage. I enjoy the reports I am reading of ABT's performances and it sounds as if the ABT dancers had a success in this work, but if they took Limon's technique seriously, then I suspect it was something they also had to study to master effectively. (And more balletic performances of Moor's Pavane have been known to be effective theatrically in any case: it's just that over the years I have learned to respect the difference real command of a very different modern dance techniques can make in modern dance works.)

It is likely that almost everyone on this thread with experience seeing the Mariinsky over the years has had experiences similar to mine--experiences that, for me, give these discussions a quality of unreality. Though, indeed, I have only been able to see the company very sporadically over the years... Certainly, when I first saw the Kirov in the early 80's one thing that struck me was that although they had a lot of principal dancers I did not quite 'get' (including dancers much admired in the Soviet Union such as Mezentzeva), I never doubted I was seeing serious, skilled artists in complete command of what they were doing. I never had to make allowances or create a back story to explain what I was seeing, praise someone for having 'improved' or focus on potential--EVEN when I scrunched up my brow in puzzlement and thought -- "so, that's what a non-defecting Kirov ballerina looks like...not what I imagined exactly." Everyone on stage, as a friend of mine said, "knew what it was supposed to look like" and, as it went without saying, had the skills to make it look that way. (This was in Petipa and Fokine I should underline.) And, in Pacquita, say, up and down the line, one soloist was better than the last: a display of as high quality classical dancing as I had ever seen. I had some favorites but never worried twice about the "cast"--certainly not when it came to the company's women: whoever was dancing and whatever the role, she was sure to know what she was doing and be doing it at the highest level. Then, at the end of 80's I saw a performance on tour where that was not entirely true. I remember the exact moment in Pacquita when someone seemed to lose their poise and dance with less than perfect security and I was--at the time, without irony--SHOCKED! shocked that such a thing was possible at the Kirov...Some on this board may remember too towards the very end of the Vinogradov era, some fans were puzzled by the Makhalina phenomenon which was attributed to favoritism and an inexplicable taste for hyper-extended limbs: little did we imagine what was coming. The season with the reconstructed Sleeping Beauty at the Met was the first, ironically enough, to break the spell for me. I would take Sergeyev danced the way they used to dance almost any time over the reconstruction the way they were dancing it at the Met. I saw not one but two less than ideal Auroras in the company of Sizova, Kolpakova, in more recent memory, Lezhnina. (Of course I wouldn't mind seeing the reconstruction danced ... the way they used to dance.) I actually have seen Somova (everyone's exhibit A for the prosecution) give what I judged a lovely and, indeed, very appealing performance in Ratmansky and a quite nice one in Balanchine (allowing that the Mariinsky's Balanchine is not my favorite) ... but it's really unspeakably depressing that a company that once had such incomparably high standards in the pre-Balanchine era classics is so out of touch with its legacy that fans find themselves debating just how much allowance should be made for ballerina x or whether ballerina y even deserves principal roles. Moreover these are fans who don't necessarily see eye to eye on everything: it's not simply one clique that happens to hate one dancer. However, I will say that as my narrative above suggests I think the problem is about more than a couple of controversial dancers--dancers about whom there is still some range of opinion--and precedes the current regime and, perhaps, includes something strange in the company's own relation to its "post-Soviet" moment: including how it decides what parts of the Soviet legacy are to be kept, what revised or chucked altogether, and generally what modern ballet at the Mariinsky should look like (other than Balanchine as a rather obvious choice of choreographer) -- perhaps, too, in its relation to how the company should be financed -- etc.

Thank you for reporting on the performance you saw Mashinka and the atmosphere around it.

With Osipova dancing Swan Lake at the Royal, I have been hoping she would also dance it at ABT--so I would be very happy if tba cast for Swan Lake included an Osipova Odette-Odile (esp w. Hallberg). Would also be delighted to have Hallberg join the Osipova/tba/Vasiliev cast in Sylvia. Love ABT in the latter ballet and will do my best to get to NY to see it. Very pleased Cornejo has been cast as Siegfried w. Cojocaru. Hoping I can see that too... (Osipova's Don Q is scheduled on days when I can't get to New York. I admire Osipova so much that it seems rather a little joke the universe is playing that I am never able to catch her in her most famous role. The repertory I am most interested in -- the new Ratmansky- Shostakovitch ballet -- is similarly ill-starred for me, though I expect I will get to see it another season. Hope so.)

I would be interested in hearing reactions to Osipova's performances of Swan Lake at the Royal this season...I have seen a few (very positive) tweets concerning tonight's performance--her Royal Ballet debut--but that's all. I know Odette-Odile is a relatively new role for her and not one that obviously suits her style, but I have always imagined that, at some point, she was bound to find an artistically persuasive way to dance it. Any reports?

I am in a similar situation with similar questions...For us, joining a tour group is not really an option, but we are concerned about navigating the city on our own.

Would be interested to hear reactions to Justin Peck's new ballet....

A line of crystalline beauty and innate nobility does come through in those youtube excerpts (thank you Paul Parish for posting). If only they were still dancing like that at the (now) Mariinsky...

The way Skorik is slightly 'off axis' in the photo Natalia posted actually makes her look a bit Balanchinesque -- though I realize that may just happen to be the nano-second caught by the photographer.

Tudor was also not as prolific as Balanchine or Ashton. i remember an interview in which he talked about not wanting to repeat himself and was quite explicitly critical of Balanchine simply repeating Apollo. But there are still other Tudor ballets I have sometimes thought might have a long shot of being revived...Decades ago, Joffrey pulled off a revival of Orpheus in the Underworld, and I have sometimes wondered if there are any former Joffrey dancers who might lead a revival (and perhaps it too was notated?). I remember it as (darkly) entertaining. I also wonder if some company in collaboration with Gelsey Kirkland might try a revival of The Tiller in the Fields. Not a major work, but I remember a rather rapturous pas de deux for Kirkland and Bissell that I would not mind seeing again. And the image of one of those ballet-peasant ballerinas actually ending up with a baby bump was not one I've ever forgotten -- though i guess no-one will ever quite be able to reproduce the expression of anxiety-yet-hope-for-happiness Kirkland pulled off when she showed it to Bissell. (Tudor seems to be reminding us what's actually going on in ballet's rapturous idealizations...) (I note that ABT has also revived Shadowplay in recent years.)

Apologies...I got all tangled up trying to edit something and ended up posting in response to myself. There's a metaphor...

I have been surprised not to be reading more about the Stravinsky festival at NYCB--wonderful programming for many of us I should think and based on what I saw this weekend, the ballets are receiving some excellent performances. I went up to NY with a special eye to the program w. Stravinsky Violin Concerto/Monumentum/Movements/Duo Concertante/Symphony in Three Movements. I have to say that, previous to this trip, the last time I saw Stravinsky Violin Concerto at NYCB it was a dull affair and though I tend to defend NYCB in the Martins era, after that particular performance I thought 'well, that it is the sort of thing his detractors are talking about.' And the last time I saw Monumentum/Movements at NYCB it was with a past her prime Kistler. So I was particularly curious how this program would look. I thought that at the Saturday matinee and Sat evening performances with partly overlapping, partly differing casts the company looked energetic, intelligent, and engaged. Overall, the dancers were terrific. And the ballets!!! Classical ballet broken down and reassembled from the inside out--to become something utterly astonishing and deeply moving. I have to admit that for me it's also a very challenging program, even mentally exhausting, like a blockbuster art exhibit; by the time you are looking at your 60th Cezanne you are just a little dizzy... I don't have time to go into detail re performances plus or minus, but I will say that Sterling Hyltin was electric in Symphony in Three Movements and Megan Fairchild playful, womanly, and quietly radiant in Duo Concertante. Fairchild was also excellent--musical and even witty--in Danses Concertantes the night before, despite an opening slip; in fact, these three performances were the best I have seen her by far; she seems to have reached a new maturity and artistry as a dancer. In Duo Concertante Finlay and she made a nice Martins/Mazzo after image, but by comparison with her, he needs seasoning. This weekend was also my first chance to see Robert Fairchild in a substantial dancing role (the Martins role in Stravinsky Violin Concerto) and I was very impressed. I had seen him in Double Feature and Liebeslieder last spring--in both of which I thought he was excellent,but this performance really sharpened my impressions of him as a dancer. In some ways, he seems to me the quintessential American male dancer of our era. I'm not forgetting Hallberg, but the latter seems to belong more to the Bruhn/Dowell line of elegant classicists; one recalls Hallberg's French training, supplemented more recently with the note of drama that the Bolshoi seems to be injecting into his persona. Fairchild more obviously recalls the NYCB lineage of D'Amboise, Villella, and Woetzel -- while also being just entirely himself. He is wonderfully easy and yet still precise in the quality of his movement--likewise boyish and yet manly, graceful and yet sculptural. The last quality is something particularly pleasing to see in a role created on the very sculptural Martins. Call me a fan. Other highlights? Well, when the curtain went up on Stravinsky Violin Concerto Saturday afternoon and Janie Taylor was standing facing the audience with two men on either side of her, there was something so relaxed, attentive and subtly galvanizing in the way she held her body while just standing for the first few bars of the music, that I felt instantly that this was a performance it had been worth my while to get on a plane to see. Lots more to say about the weekend--including my enjoyment of Reichlen in Movements for Piano and Orchestra Sat night (and the final sensual moments of her berceuse in Firebird the night before)--but I'll stop. For myself, I think that if NYCB can consistently perform the major Balanchine modernist works at this level, then they are doing very well indeed. Was every performance a home run? No. And in patches Symphony in Three Movements could perhaps have used more of a charge from the entire ensemble. (Actually I was a little pooped myself at that point in the program.) But no-one I saw dance was lax or out of their depth, as I have sometimes seen at NYCB. As for the ballets: I find them to be among the most wonderful works of art ever created. Sorry I can't see the Agon program as well.

If all goes well, then I will be able to visit St. Petersburg around the 31st of May/1st week of June--I hope that while the company is on tour with Rite they leave behind a decent contingent (preferably dancing some classics)...too much to hope? Such is life, but I would be rather broken-hearted if my one opportunity to visit St. Petersburg corresponded to a time when I couldn't see the company at its home theater...Timing of potential trip can't be changed as it corresponds to my partner's work exigencies in Europe. I can live without the Rite program -- especially as I can imagine my partner's face when I try to explain it to him. He likes "the one where the swan dies." (Okay: it's not really the only one he likes, but you get the idea...)

Thank you Alexandra...

I don't think this is a fair summary of Macaulay's article and certainly I don't believe that he hates the classical ballet. Specifically, he does not have a problem with Petipa masterpieces in this article ... it is revivals of those works that are full of inaccuracies/revisions or otherwise pastiche (not Petipa at all) that nonetheless retain or, much more problematically, exagerate the racism of the original--even, in the case of the Bolshoi Raymonda he discusses, putting it in where it did not necessarily exist in the Petipa masterpiece. He is also very careful to say that he does not believe in applying a strict "political correctness" to works of the past and even goes so far as to defend national stereotyping in the Nutcracker. But didn't he object to the whiteness of the Shades? It's not even funny. As I read the article he did not "object" to their whiteness--What he does say is that when the ballet imagines a heaven for its Indian maidens it is a white heaven and he seems to intend that as a reflection on the generally problematic attitudes that shape these ballets. For me, that was not one of his strongest points since there are strong ballet traditions shaping the scene that aren't simply a matter of ethnic codes...In fact elsewhere in the article he alludes to moments of transcendence in Bayadere and surely it's pretty obvious that he means the Shades scene. I realize though we are in the realm of "ballet writing" rather than "Met season" ... For myself I was also surprised by news of a new Corsaire production if only because the old seems such a success, but perhaps costumes and/or sets were in need of repair and it seemed worth the investment. (I have no fears that they will be replacing Julia Trevelyan Oman's designs for A Month in the Country and hope that it's true that Ashton's ballet is in the works for ABT.)

I don't think this is a fair summary of Macaulay's article and certainly I don't believe that he hates the classical ballet. Specifically, he does not have a problem with Petipa masterpieces in this article ... it is revivals of those works that are full of inaccuracies/revisions or otherwise pastiche (not Petipa at all) that nonetheless retain or, much more problematically, exagerate the racism of the original--even, in the case of the Bolshoi Raymonda he discusses, putting it in where it did not necessarily exist in the Petipa masterpiece. He is also very careful to say that he does not believe in applying a strict "political correctness" to works of the past and even goes so far as to defend national stereotyping in the Nutcracker.

I had to laugh reading the quote from Terekhova..."I mean a full barrel cannot go out on stage and wear a white tutu and dance Odette. But for them in America, it's normal." Oh yes, those barrel shaped American ballerinas! (Come to think of it, wasn't Balanchine accused -- not without some reason -- of creating an aesthetic that valued tall and thin over other qualities? He may have featured some more petite dancers, but on the whole that was not what was associated with the overall NYCB 'look' and long before Guillem.) Mashinka's post remains rather enigmatic to me. That is, I agree that there is a difference between making the case for one's favorites to get more roles and making the larger case with what is wrong with Fateyev's directing -- and I certainly know of no company in which the casting satisfies all fans. But I'm guessing that spelling out the problem being alluded to would involve speculation/gossip...if not, though I wouldn't mind being enlightened!

It seems rather unfair to Shirinkina to have her debut during an opening night--a kind of favoritism that could effectively hurt her if she needs some seasoning in the role. I hope she does do really well, as she definitely caught my eye the one time I saw her and she seems a natural 'Cinderella.' But yes, it's a bit odd.

I remember always reading his reviews when I lived in Washington and I am sure I learned a lot from them... More concretely, I remember the opening of his rave review for Macmillan's Requiem (Faure) for the Stuttgart--saying that sometimes a critic had to go out on a limb and going on to make the case not just for the ballet's success/beauty but for its importance. I loved the ballet too -- I have not seen it since then and don't know what I would think now, years later and w/o the original cast, but I rather expect I would still think highly of it. My parents and I often sat right behind him (and his wife) in our subscriber seats during the mid-70's -- I believe I was mortified when my mom once said something to him about enjoying his writing, but he was, of course, quite polite and pleasant in response.

When I was in Paris in the early 80's Michel Denard collaborated with a French stage actress on a Phedre piece (I can't get the accent over the 'e' to appear). She read a major speech or speeches from the play and he danced the role of Hyppolite around her. I have forgotten who the choreographer was. It was an interesting event to me, but not a great ballet event (though Denard was beautiful to watch), and I don't remember much else about it. The idea of an actress collaborating with a male star on some sort of Phedre 'ballet' must have stuck in someone's mind.

I have also read that, asked if Lifar "really" performed certain difficult passages in Apollo (with the implicit suggestion that he could not possibly have done them because they were too difficult), Balanchine said yes. I have always had reservations about Apollo in performance. I have never doubted its historical importance, but I've never seen a performance that seemed 100 percent alive to me. The leads in Apollo and Prodigal Son still remain two of the the most important male roles in the repertory and have been danced by major dancer after major dancer in the generations following their creation. Lifar was their originator. That doesn't mean he gets the credit that rightly goes to Balanchine (and notably Stravinsky in the case of Apollo and Rouault in the case of Prodigal Son), but in my eyes, it counts for quite a bit more than nothing when I assess Lifar's place in ballet history and importance as a dancer. It's very true as Dirac and several others have noted that Balanchine was a master at working with dancers' strengths and weaknesses and knew how to make Lifar look good, but it's not as if Villella, Baryshnikov, Nureyev, D'Amboise, Martins, Hallberg, Stiefel, Gomez, etc. have not found these roles interesting and challenging to dance and interpret. And not because they were too easy or only required good looks and girly poses. Nor have I ever read that the male roles were massively re-choreographed for these dancers or others. For the rest, I don't think anyone -- certainly not any American ballet fan I know of -- has ever doubted that Lifar comes through as more than a tad ridiculous in anecdote after anecdote. (Worse in some other respects already discussed above.) As originator of Apollo and Prodigal Son--for me, not so ridiculous.

Balanchine was a defender of Lifar's dancing -- for example in Apollo -- and that is certainly good enough for me when it comes to Lifar's importance as a dancer especially at the most important time of his career. And I would love to see Suite en Blanc: critical descriptions and reports by fans, its lasting role in the French repertory, and even youtube excerpts suggest it is well worth seeing! The Bluebird excerpt posted above is quite embarassing but it's a particular performance/rehearsal from a particular point in Lifar's career and also at a particular time in history. (What did Lifar's contemporaries look like in the role? I hope better, but perhaps not or not often, so...) However, I have always been a little skeptical one could judge musicality very well on youtube since I assume the sound and the image may not be perfectly coordinated. I guess one might get a hint. I'm afraid, though, that I don't see much "grey area" (for example) in Lifar's more or less boasting of having been involved in an anti-Semitic organization during the Russian Revolution--even if he was making it up, which he may have been. I can feel human sympathy for the fears and pressures he experienced when called a "Jew" during the occupation and I can wonder how I myself would have behaved under similar pressures, but... Regarding people who fought to protect a Jewish husband/wife, best friend, lover during WWII--that, in and of itself, does not prove much to me. To put it a bit brutally, antisemitism has never precluded having a 'favorite' Jew. A letter from Himmler recently turned up showing that Hitler [sic] intervened on behalf of his Jewish former commanding officer. And even if the issue is not someone's antisemitism, but public and private collaboration with an antisemitic regime in order to save a Jewish friend or lover, that's hardly unequivocally ethical behavior whether or not one finds it humanly understandable. For obvious reasons, looking for prominent people with perfectly 'clean' hands in occupied Europe during WWII is not an altogether easy task. I have no particular animus against Lifar; I certainly don't think he is one of WWII's great villains. Not at all. And I myself do not believe one should judge his career as a choreographer or a dancer with an eye to these ethical/political questions. But one can still see the ethics/politics involved as pretty ugly.

The Bold and the Beautiful -- which I do watch now and then depending on what plots are being rehashed -- does not set the bar particularly high. (Seriously off topic, but...when it comes to people who don't know when to leave the stage--and this even when the stage involves getting struck in the head--I believe there are few entertainers who can compete with aging boxers...)

I actually caught Diller's last, quite recent gig on the Bold and the Beautiful and remember thinking it was strangely, sentimentally, very entertaining. She played a doddering character who was also a soap-style deus ex machina to bring one of the show's older on-again/off-again couples back to the altar--she just happened to have recently gotten licensed to marry people--and, well, she was all too believably doddering. But genuinely funny too. The veterans playing opposite her exactly captured the spirit of the whole goofy episode...They seemed as bemused/amused as I felt. She had some other short gigs on the show at least some of which I saw...in one of them I believe she helped disguise one of the show's most beautiful characters as homely etc.--sort of riffing on her gags about her own looks much earlier in her career. So, in B&B, she was a kind of wierd fairy godmother figure in different plots...but it's the last time I actually remember. Kind of delightful not just that she lived into her 90's but that she was still working into her 90's. Edited to add: I do realize the Bold and the Beautiful is not what Phyllis Diller was famous for...

My favorite ballerina ever, a ballerina who inspired me with more passion for ballet than any other, was--or I might rather say is--Gelsey Kirkland; so, as one can imagine, I'm not at all inclined to hold a dancer's demons 'against' him (or her). And Polunin evidently has them. I also mostly agree with Leonid's suggestion, made in another thread about Polunin, that companies should be extra flexible in dealing with the extra talented. But I have to admit that, after reading Kavanaugh's piece, I continue to be a bit skeptical that there was any (realistic) way to keep him at the Royal -- whatever mistakes Mason made and whatever her faults may or may not have been as an artistic director. I couldn't help noticing too that the 'straw that broke the camel's back' at the Royal was a rehearsal with Cojocaru...The article implies Cojocaru is not herself easy to work--by all accounts neither is Polunin and...uh...neither was Kirkland--but the episode does suggest that even pairing Polunin with the best of the best ballerinas did not solve his problems with partnerships at the Royal. (This last issue was raised earlier in the discussion concerning the complex of motives that may have caused him to leave the company.) The article indicates a potential happy ending at the Stanislavsky where Zelensky seems to be both a mentor and a rather clever boss (setting up a contract in which particular plums Polunin wants depend on his behaving a certain way). Though Kavanaugh is decidedly skeptical re the potential partnership with Shapran. Still, I write entirely as an outsider to any real experience of Polunin's talent. And I am rather curious what Royal Ballet watchers and admirers of Polunin thought about the Kavanaugh article ... Edited to add that Kavanaugh represents Polunin as saying that certain things he said at the time of his departure from the Royal were deliberate mystifications, which also makes it all the more difficult to evaluate anything he says about himself in this interview or anywhere else.