Drew

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.

I find it hard to believe the Olympic organizers did not want to have the Stones and probably the Police/Sting too. My guess is that the former at least cost too much money (even to cover). For myself I would have preferred a closing ceremony that was a little less exclusively a big pop concert at least as shown on NBC. However, I am probably not the target demographic.

I only watched part of closing ceremonies and I thought I had, very unfortunately, missed Bussell who has always been a favorite of mine. But I gather from various complaints registered by others on Twitter that NBC cut Bussell and the section of closing ceremonies choreographed by Wheeldon. Apparently being a great dancer--whether modern dance (as in Akram Khan) or classical ballet (as in Bussell)--disqualifies you from American television.

Very true that no woman could 'get away' with Bolt's showiness. But I am willing to give him a lot of leeway--he has been so great for track and field.

I haven't found it so...I guess since he IS really so great and I thought the fist bump to the volunteer standing behind him before the 200 meter was hilarious especially because the volunteer seemed to think so too. In interviews it's clear, though, that he is more self-conscious than four years ago--as one would expect. I also like the classy way he has stopped mid-interview on occasion to stand silent while a national anthem for another medal winner has been playing. Oh and the Jamaican men just this minute blew away the world record in the 4X100 relay. I was very happy, too, when the American women did the same last night.

Very saddened by this news--actually rather surprised at how much. Something about his firmly American, strongly masculine onstage personality still comes through to me quite sharply after all these years. Cragun was a crucial member of the group of artists that stamped the Stuttgart ballet indelibly on the imagination of the ballet world and a very exciting, virile dancer, whose partnership with Marcia Haydee was one of ballet's genuinely great partnerships. Their charisma (and, in my judgment, their charisma alone) made a lightweight work like Taming of the Shrew altogether worth watching. Some of my youthful enthusiasm for the Stuttgart faded--and pretty quickly after the first time I saw them--but my enthusiasm and admiration for Cragun (as well as some of the company's other dancers--most especially Haydee) never did. Anything else? Oh yes: Washington fans may remember two remarkable performances Cragun did with Gelsey Kirkland in the Baryshnikov Nutcracker. (At least I think it was two--there may have been more, but I remember attending two of them.) He set her free to be her utmost self...and it was fabulous to see. Hope on this occasion I can bend the no-gossip rule a bit: at one of those Nutcrackers I was told by a backstage acquaintance of Kirkland that at some point in rehearsal Cragun turned to her and said "I get it...you need space..." Whatever it was that happened at rehearsal, those were magical performances...

Spoilers for those dependent on NBC--(I know we aren't really worried about that in this thread, but sometimes people aren't expecting to see results so I will insert some space): . . . . . . Thrilled w. Usain Bolt's victory in 100 meters...What a charismatic champion for track and field. Great too how he has pushed all the top sprinters so we see fantastically fast times across the boards. Sad for Tyson Gay though (who ran very well and just needed to thrust his chest forward at end and might have been on the podium). Bronze a terrific vindication for Justin Gatlin. (Obviously silver medalist Johan Blake was great too: I'm thinking he will have other opportunities to take down Bolt...if he can.). I will definitely be rooting for the Americans in the relay, but even w. Bailey running so well it won't be easy. (I always watched these races in the Olympics but only started vaguely following at least some track and field beyond Olympics--plus boxing--a few years back and largely because of my onetime track and field athlete partner.)

One may find that the debate here includes a)the nature of racism across different cultures/contexts...What exactly does it mean that Russians don't, as you say, view "black face" as racist? That it isn't? Maybe yes...but (in my opinion) more likely no...and b)What counts as extreme? Excising most or all nineteenth-century norms from (authentic) nineteenth-century ballets would, to my mind, be extreme. But that is not what is being discussed. Pharoah's Daughter--the work of a twentieth/twenty-first-century French choreographer--hardly seems to me an "artistic" event whose vision is based in any kind of authenticity. It's a contemporary tribute/pastiche that has already been adapted to contemporary norms (eg length)...

To my mind, It's particularly unjustifiable in the case of Pharoah's Daughter which is a piece of fakery from beginning to end and makes all kinds of choices that have nothing to do with Petipa. This is no sacred historical document--not even close. But somehow the use of black-face is a piece of 'tradition' that the late twentieth-century choreographer & company found SO charming it was well worth keeping?? (And for those wondering whether the Russian empire, Soviet Union or post Soviet Russia has a history of racism regarding people of black-African descent or any other 'non' white populations...I think Google is a pretty helpful tool. Wikipedia too--which also gives sources. Is the U.S. any better? Let's say all racisms are "worse.") As for Obraztsova...even when I'm watching a ballerina as great as she is...my pleasure is spoiled by what seems to me unnecessary theatrical boorishness. Which I think this is. And I gave up on the video.

Rosa--Thank you for posting that clip.

I gather NBC cut one of the big dance moments from its television coverage entirely (Akram Khan).

Something that intrigues me...When it comes to ballet, I actually think almost everyone does know the difference; they just don't know that they know the difference. That is, when they see a really great performance, they always get that something special has occurred. At least that has been my experience. I never took someone to see Kirkland who was not blown away and suddenly more understanding of my passion--it's not that they became balletomanes, but they certainly 'knew the difference.' Similarly, when they see lesser dancers, they may not know how/why or even THAT it is lesser, but they indirectly register it: a less excited response, a willingness to just 'enjoy' whatever they saw (not always a bad trait either) & sometimes boredom is, I think, mostly how they register it. (People who see Balanchine and find it 'boring' sometimes have only seen the very post-Balanchine performances that some of the older NYCB fans complain about bitterly. In a funny way, ignorance and expertise join hands.) I do acknowledge that certain kinds of greatness are easier for someone unfamiliar w. ballet to 'get'--Nureyev on the whole more than Bruhn etc. And the traditional 'Kirov' style was always more austere than the Bolshoi. Of course, with the Mariinsky even the least of their casts in a ballet like Swan Lake should be quality and it's depressing if/when that is not the case..

Royal Ballet announces that Osipova will be dancing Swan Lake with company in October: http://www.roh.org.u...eason-announced

Hesitate to comment since I know Miami City Ballet only by its excellent reputation. But I will say I appreciated Bart's most recent post: It does seem as if VIllella is the one figure who can make at least a little lemonade out of all these lemons for what is in a way "his" company. I understand that he may feel hurt and anger, but hope he can find a way -- that still answers to his sense of personal integrity -- to contribute to a more positive atmosphere (if that's possible) as he leaves the company. Might help too if Lopez would reflect more openly in interviews about the fabulous legacy she gets to inherit. Regarding the interview Birdsall just posted more generally: I wish the best for Miami City Ballet and for Lopez and she may well turn out a great director. I also don't think Forsythe --whom she also mentions along w. Duato--would necessarily be a bad choice for a contemporary addition to the company's repertory (though, of course, neither example suggests she is much interested in the Alonso-inspired Cuban ballet tradition that exists in Florida...) BUT I wish all ballet company directors/administrators/critics would stop saying they don't want ballet companies to 'become museums'--as if THAT were the hugest risk plaguing ballet companies. I would much rather hear them say that they don't want ballet companies to become modern dance companies...I even wonder if this particular figure of speech (the company should "not become a museum") is something that they are taught to say at "ballet co.-director" retreats run by marketers. I actually think there is always a bit of sleight of hand going on with the anti-museum talk: basically it means 'we don't want just to present older works and/or works in older styles...' but one is somehow also supposed to hear 'boring, stultified, frozen-in-amber works.' Well, Giselle and, for that matter, Concerto Barocco or, indeed, In the Middle Somewhat Elevated, are older works, but a great production of any of those ballets is none of those things. The word edgy in this context, or any of its variants (edgier, cutting edge) has lost any serious association with something...well...genuinely EDGY...but I guess it, too, is a kind of marketing-friendly shorthand, in this case for newer works that are not based solely on classical ballet vocabulary/tradition. Which is to say some kind of eclectic "contemporary" ballet-modern dance hybrid that, incidentally, was already being done decades ago. In fact, I am a fan who quite likes to see new works, including the occasional contemporary work--& was certainly pleased Atlanta Ballet did a McGregor work this past season in lieu of some of their more "pop" ballet repertory. But I would say that Villella by bringing in premiers by Scarlett and Ratmansky has done pretty well by new work--that is, new ballet work--certainly in his final seasons. And that is the kind of thing ballet companies, underline 'ballet,' should be doing (when they can). [This was edited after I first posted to mute somewhat my criticisms of words like "edgy" and "edgier" etc.]

Yours definitely seems the more sophisticated approach....and one assumes that all the factors are interrelated in some complex mathematical formula that may or may not lead to still more complicated or expensive pricing schemes.

If this was their best box-office year at Met, then I think we can assume the policy of bringing in a lot of guest artists--even new one-offs like Matvienko--may be seen as paying off...Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing for the company seems to me a rather complex question. There should be no reason they CAN'T produce more first-rate principal-quality artists w. box-office appeal from within the ranks, but the dancers they are bringing in from outside obviously include a number who fit (and help to pay) the bill. Personally I have fewer problems w. guest artists (underline artists) especially those who dance w. company pretty regularly, than with the Met repertory which I wish could be more varied--and offer some higher quality versions of the Classics... Re City Center season: not announcing casts before tickets go on sale makes it seem almost as if the company were doing penance (and, worse, making its audience do penance) for the "cast" orientation of its Met season. Hope they don't try it again this year...

Mikhailovsky will have live internet broadcast of Don Quixote w. Osipova and Vasiliev on July 25th: http://mikhailovsky.ru/en/live/

That was the one aspect of the article I disagreed with; For me, also, the general slamming of NYCB at end of article seemed a little unfair if he was not going to back it up with some actual analysis as he had just given of ABT. Of course Gottlieb has more personal history with NYCB and, one suspects, greater emotional and intellectual investment in its traditions which may make him harsher or at any rate more inclined to find things "dispiriting" -- his word -- when he sees problems (which they do have). I suppose it's also possible that if he really found their season dispiriting he thought he was being less harsh by not detailing his objections. For the rest, although I have not seen the range of performances he discusses (and that others on this board have seen) I found everything else he said completely persuasive based on what I HAVE seen. Completely agree with him about Semionova--so far at least. She's impeccable, but....--and right now, for me, it's a substantial "but." And though I did not see Boylston's Swan Lake I did see her Firebird and agree with his account of her as a thoughtful artist with real ballerina potential. Actually pretty much agree with him about every dancer he mentioned. To get to men and topic of this thread: Even Gottlieb's asides re ABT rang true to me as in his praise for Zhurbin's Kastchei -- which I did see and found better even than Hallberg's: more powerful melodrama villain, less glam rock wannabe. (Uh...that last comparison is me not Gottlieb, but he did make a point of praising Zhurbin's performance in Hallberg's "role" as he put it). Re the men, too: I decidedly share the reservations about Stearns whom I found not only bland as Albrecht, if not bad at all and even much improved (this was in Chicago), but also bland as Katschei, which is a neat trick given Ratmansky's crazed vision. And, despite having shown, for a nano-second, a genuinely Dowell-esque arabesque in The Dream, Stearn's Oberon completely missed the point of the key moment in the final pas de deux when Oberon lifts one arm over his head while supporting Titania w. another arm as she turns, as it were, under her own arabesque beneath him. At this moment, Oberon raises one arm then casts it down on her waist in a gesture of mastery (loving mastery if you prefer). Gomez did this with real command and Hallberg, though more gentle, still looked out at the audience as he lifted his arm--clearly asserting himself before placing the arm on her waist. Stearns could not even look up as he raised his arm but had to keep his eyes on the arm supporting the ballerina and just lifted his other arm up weightlessly en couronne then let it down as if he had no notion of what the gesture might mean or that it might mean anything. (None of the three men could really "master" Ashton's choreography for the irreplaceable Anthony Dowell, but in different ways Gomez and Hallberg gave excellent performances; the latter was especially otherworldly). Edited later to add: I can't yet get behind the idea of Simkin as a leading male dancer in the 'canonical' repertory. Extraordinarily talented, yes; wonderful to watch in the right role, yes--but until and unless he can find a way to look like an adult on stage (even a short adult) he can't convincingly inhabit classic 'leading man' roles. I know people on this board were convinced by his Siegfried which I missed...but I remain dubious. Would be happy to be proved wrong about both Stearns and Simkin of course. Anyway, thanks for drawing attention to this essay...

Reading this was something of a stab to the heart...won't be able to see them at all. Don't know about the 90's--saw them just once on tour--but I saw them in the early 80's several times at the Palais Garnier incl. Swan Lake and Giselle. A number of fine dancers, but no...nothing like a standard-setting company, at least not that I was able to see. (I'll mention a rather quirky Stravinsky Violin Concerto I saw around that time--over dramatized but sort of worked.)

For me, the Ratmansky Shostakovich evening is the most exciting event of the season. I can't always get to NY for exactly the ballets or casts I want to see, but if it's being done during a week I can travel, then it will be my number one priority. And if the company is indeed dancing A Month in the Country, then that will be a very close second with pretty much any cast(s), though certainly I have some preferences. Otherwise I'm less interested in the coming season's twentieth-century options. (Love Symphony in C but don't feel profoundly curious to see ABT dance it.) However, I have concluded that my buying a ticket for Vishneva in one of the nineteenth-century classics is very close to a jinx on her actually dancing it so I will have to debate whether or not I owe it to other ballet fans to quit trying to see her in those roles...Which is not quite the same thing as saying I'm eager to sit through Manon without Anthony Dowell as Des Grieux...

Roland Petit died one year ago (July 10, 2011) and I don't remember that Sergei has ever worked with him, has anybody a different information? Maybe there is something wrong with the translation. You are exactly right--the translation misled me -- the English makes it sound as if Polunin is literally referring to Petit -- and my brain did not kick in to remind of the latter's death (though, when I read it, I was mildly surprised he was 'still alive!')...so my point about that is...uh...pretty null. Leonid -- Polunin sounds quite extraordinary and perhaps his talent will indeed find a more comfortable home at the Stanislavsky...

Osipova danced with the company in Chicago this past March (I saw the performance); According to the listings on the ABT website for their last Asian tour, she also was scheduled for an R&J w. Hallberg in Japan. I assume it happened but don't know. I do not see her scheduled for their Asia tour this year.

I just listened to the old interview for the first time--I don't at all begrudge Polunin his search for freedom, self-realization etc.--I'm a lot older than he is and often have the same yearnings -- but listening to his ruminations I'm not convinced one can put much blame on the Royal's "lack of freedom" for his departure; he sounds like a very restless young man...If he had started at the Stanislavsky, then he might now be at the Royal...(I was mostly struck by his joke about changing countries--which is just what he has now done.) As for the more recent interview: he describes Roland Petit giving him more choices dancing Petit's Coppelia than the Royal coaches gave him with the choreography he danced at the Royal. Well, the original choreographer is still there to guide him and tell him if he (the choreographer) doesn't like something Polunin tries out, so it's easier to grant the freedom in the first place. One hears similar stories re Balanchine telling dancers to do what they want w. their arms etc. But if I were a Royal coach guiding someone in the work of Petit or Balanchine or Ashton (!!!) -- well, of course I would be unlikely to let even a very talented 21 year old do what he wants with his hands as he says Petit did. Anyway, will there really be "more freedom" at the Stanislavsky generally (not just when the choreographer is right there leading rehearsal) and would that even be a good thing? Maybe yes and maybe no; I couldn't venture a guess. [Edited later to say that the translation confused me about Polunin working w. Petit--he did not. Annamicro made the correction below...]

Since Ballet West was putting on a program obviously meant to be a kind of (simplified) dance history lesson (classical/neo-classical/contemporary)--as was mentioned briefly in passing by the director--I did think it was a shame Breaking Pointe didn't take a few minutes to let that be explained/demonstrated, perhaps using interview material with Sklute or principal dancers inter-cut with excerpts from the ballets -- just very, very short clips -- maybe even showing similar moments of partnering or turns in each ballet and noting how each one is different. I really think this could have been done in a very short (2-3 minutes) segment. In fact they probably had the footage they needed to do it, but just decided "boring." As noted by many above the show's producers seem completely uninterested in dance per se. But uh...I didn't really expect better (well, maybe I expected a little more of the performances -- & shown with their actual music--ahem!) and mostly enjoyed the show for what it was.