Drew

Lovely to learn about this...

That is certainly how it seemed to me. I was also impressed by the dancers and very interested by many things they had to say, but do think the discussion--framed (and I do mean "framed") by the interviewer's questions--skirted some areas they would be wise to avoid. Whatever one is trying to say about guest artists, it can come out sounding a little differently than one intends -- not that I know exactly what the interviewees intended, but I doubt this is an area in which "tone" is as much in the dancers' control as they may wish. To get a little more concrete: I don't think it was such a good idea for one of them to more or less openly suggest the company dances better when they are backing up one of their own--(gee! way to sound artistically committed AND sell tickets!)--or for another to question whether the "name" made by some dancers was equal to their "technique" etc. I'm inclined to give the dancers a pass...They are hard-working artists at the top of their field and I think ABT SHOULD do more to develop their talent. This year my travel to NY will enable me to see Copeland and Boylston (who was not included in the interview) take on some major roles which I am very happy about. But I don't know that the battle over the company's current direction (reliance on guest artists in New York especially) should be taken up via dancer interview. During the days of the dance boom many of these same issues came up, of course, and sometimes, too, through dancers speaking in the press. I'm not sure it solved anything.

Thanks, CM for the clips. It was nice to see the short snippets of the company dacing "Theme and Variations". I wish a complete video could be available to now compare the way the Cubans dance the late 40's/unlicensed Alonso's version with what I saw here,which I asume has to have certain little differences-(stilistically speaking, and maybe even choreographically)- probably made by Balanchine himself in the course of the years. It was also interesting to hear calling Anette Delgado the best bearer of Alonso's style and technique instead of Valdes. Sad though how when talking about Cubans dancing abroad only Acosta and Toto are mentioned, as if others like the Feijoo sisters or Sarabita are non existent. Then, of course, Alonso, always praising her most beloved partner and friend, "one of the best dancers in the world, Igor Youskevitch". Balanchine revised the ballerina role somewhat for Gelsey Kirland (eg added gargouillades)...

Off topic, but I feel compelled (as if by a strange unconscious force) to say something on behalf of Freud whose ideas are far from being simply "much discredited" and who was himself, not so incidentally, a remarkable and witty writer. Of course, programmatic and bad novels, plays, and biographies are written all the time in the grip of Freudianism...and Jungianism, Aristotelianism, Marxism etc. Occasionally good ones too. I don't read many novels these days and have read few of those mentioned above but I did like Fitzgerald's Blue Flower; I still remember thinking that like other British authors writing about continental figures obsessed with philosophy--living, breathing, eating philosophy--she gives the impression that she can't quite bring herself to take their obsession entirely seriously. (Stoppard is far worse in The Coast of Utopia.) Writers have always imagined their way into historical figures: I confess that whenever they write a fictional work about a figure I have a deep interest in or about whom I care and know something, it vaguely gets on my nerves--as if the writer were cheating their way into seeming more interesting and important than they would otherwise be with an openly fictional story (even one that actually drew on the lives of people they knew). Same w. films: I still have not seen Bright Star (film supposedly about Keats and Fanny Brawne), but I remember saying to someone who asked me about it: "If they want to make a regency romance--and have run out of Jane Austen--why not just adapt a Georgette Heyer novel?" I did not add what I was thinking "That would be more honest." That said, I have never been able to work up my vague irritation into a serious ethical account of why writers and other creative figures should not imagine their way into the lives of historical figures. It's entirely understandable that they should want to do so (and of course "history plays" have a long history of their own, as does history painting)...Even if one distinguishes between long dead Renaissance Queens and only recently dead modern ballerinas--as one could make a case for doing--I do appreciate why an artist might be drawn to explore imaginatively a compelling event/story. And if a great writer has the 'right' to try it--well I guess a lesser one does too...though the latter may well get more of a pasting from readers. At the same time, readers may well feel compelled to raise uncomfortable ethical questions too...if only because the genre seems to call for it. To return to Leclercq: perhaps oddly, I feel intuitively that a "friend" or insider writing about Leclercq would seem more of a betrayal. Though here, too, writing seems to make its own laws. X or Y as "writer" and X or Y as "human being" are often two quite different things--and art rarely fits into neat ethical categories--certainly not great art and maybe not even bad/failed art or not-quite art... P.S. I've never been particularly bothered by "reinvent"... sometimes it works...

That sounds amazingly fun--have a wonderful time!

Of the four men pictured, I actually find Newman to be the prettiest... I assume that we are all too old and dignified to start discussing online who was the hottest...

Thank you...I found, from the same person, a few short clips of Act III as well. (I had searched for Osipova on Youtube, but these don't turn up--I assume one needs to search under the Russian name.)

Would be interested if anyone saw or has access to (reasonably reliable) reports on Osipova debut in Swan Lake at the Mikhailovsky...Thanks...

I thought it was a very interesting interview. As far as Russia goes--he pooh-poohs psychoanalysis, but it's clear the wounds go very deep though they are framed in terms of his anger at the country for the suffering and (as he described it, from his perspective) absurdity of his parents' lives. Smiley did not push him on post-Soviet Russia, but Baryshnikov volunteered a sentence to the effect that it had changed, yes, but not in the way he would have liked. He rambled a bit at times but I thought Smiley was right to let him do so rather than interupt.

I totally understand being very excited about seeing these two ballerinas in the same cast. Unfortunately, I feel as if I ought to be more excited than I am. I bought tickets because although I have seen Vishneva in several major roles, the only nineteenth-century classic I have seen her dance is Giselle. For the rest, I find Gamzatti an utterly thankless role and even the thought of seeing Osipova (whom I adore) dance the part does not change that opinion, though I can't help but be curious about anything she does. Some years ago, I did find Dvorovenko's interpretation of Gamzatti as a silent movie style seductive villainess mildly entertaining and I vaguely remember that she even made something of the classical divertissement in Act I, but neither Cynthia Gregory nor Elizabeth Platel (in Nureyev's version) nor Dvorovenko herself in that divertissement could make me think it anything other than middling Petipa indeed. It goes w/o saying that lesser lights as Gamzatti have made no impression on me at all. So I'm afraid that despite the toe-to-toe encounter of two such remarkable ballerinas in Act I, it's still the case that the one thing I most anticipate about this performance is what I always anticipate about performances of Bayadere--Act II. But I AM hoping, albeit not too optimistically, that Osipova somehow surprises me.

NYCB has done the one act version since Martins produced his full length--not often, but they have done it. I think it quite striking. In response to earlier parts of discussion I wanted to say very explicitly what many have been more or less suggesting/assuming in discussing Cubanmiamiboy's points: ballerinas can make a decisive, historical mark as great ballerinas in the Balanchine repertory as well as in Petipa--usually they do so while making their mark in other neo-classical works as well, but Balanchine seems to me the really crucial figure, a twentieth-century peer of Petipa. Such ballerinas include Suzanne Farrell, Patricial Mcbride, and (to show it can happen "post" Balanchine) Wendy Whelan...From the little I have seen and the rather more that I have read Bouder, Peck, and Mearns are all candidates in the current generation. (It is also the case that great ballerinas in the nineteenth-century rep are sometimes not effective in Balanchine...) In choosing Lopez to direct MCB, the company's board appears to have chosen to build on the company's strengths and to reach out more visibly to the Cuban and Spanish speaking communities in South Florida (though not necessariy to fans of the Cuban ballet tradition) ... a decision that may be disappointing to ballet lovers who would have liked to see a different approach developed and different opportunities given to the dancers, but which in and of itself makes plenty of sense. I suppose,too, if Lopez is a sucess, then she may be able to expand what the company currently does and she probably has a better chance of success if she begins from strength. (Given time, she may have some surprises up her sleeve in any case).

Somova was delightful in Ratmansky's Little Humpbacked Horse--no reason to think she may not be so in his Cinderella. I have only seen her in twentieth and twenty-first century roles, so can't comment on her performances in the classics, but as a neo-classical princess she can be lovely. (Of course, people who "avoid her," as Natalia writes above, will avoid her.)

good good good Depending on how short you are, you may have trouble seeing the dancers' feet. When I have sat in the first row that has consistently been a problem for me, though being somewhat on the side helps since the angle across the stage means the dancers are further away from you (good for feet). If I were sitting in the front row I would actually want to be on the side even if it meant losing a corner of the stage.

When I saw the added male dancing I vaguely assumed it was Mckenzie's idea (based on some of his other productions where he adds male pyrotechnics inappropriately--and he is partly credited for the ABT Sleeping Beauty)--but there is no way of knowing...or, at any rate, I don't know. It was not a successful outing for Kirkland/Chernov or Mckenzie...but the elements that I remember being most criticized when the ballet premiered were the added layers of psychological/allegorical interpretation (plus the visuals), something Balanchine did not go in for...at least not in such explicit, literary fashion. I think that in staging these ballets companies should take account of their own histories and traditions. A Bolshoi style reconstruction of Coppelia would probably not work at NYCB, which does not preclude NYCB having a successful, and still quite traditional, Coppelia that does work (I think) and that the company has often danced very successfully. When Makarova did a Sleeping Beauty for the Royal that lasted one season, some reviews suggested that the real problem was not the production per se, though no-one liked her little "cupid" figure, but the imposition of a Russian/Soviet Sleeping Beauty tradition on a British company that had its own very distinguished British Sleeping Beauty traditions. I cannot claim to have a trained eye for these different qualities or to know how to describe them, but in a general way I get the idea. And I have always wondered if Makarova's SB would not have worked better, for example, at ABT ... which has never really "owned" the ballet the way the Royal has...

My thought as well. Certainly, I can't imagine that pre-professional ballet classes will ever be anything other than very tough (mine were...and, as you may infer, I never became a professional). I went to two very good schools, both of which were pre-professional and one, in particular, which produced major dancers for major companies. Why would classes in that context be anything other than tough--strict in all ways and holding students to the highest standards? But, with at least two teachers at the first of the schools I attended, there was also an edge of sadism and manipulativeness in addition to strictness--qualities that I hardly knew how to recognize or understand at the time, but that, looking back, I am extremely skeptical were in any way pedagogically productive. Indeed, I was often just baffled by the "tone" of the classes and retrospectively I think my bafflement was actually an inchoate insight into the problem. Simple favoritism seems unavoidable in a pre-professional context: you bet the teachers are interested in the students they judge to be talented and, in all candor, not remotely interested in anyone else (unless perhaps the child of a potential donor). But even w. regard to inevitable and even understandable favoritism, I think, in the case of the one school, there were elements of sheer game-playing -- or perhaps projection on the teacher's part -- that did not just have to do with talent and, indeed, I rather think may have been detrimental to some talented students. (To be clear: the latter would not have included myself. I am not...what's the word? Oh yes--coordinated.) The second school I attended was also pre-professional and though quite strict--including my main teacher scolding quite unpleasantly any student who yawned!--had much less of this sort of thing. It was still a tough place and my memories of it are far from exclusively happy ones. But it showed me that it is possible to teach ballet seriously without sadism.

Yup...back a few posts in this thread--from when it was originally started in 2001--I describe bits from two quite different Kirkland (ABT) Swanildas I saw including one w. Baryshnikov...I won't repeat what I wrote--the memories were closer in 2001 anyway. But I will say she was wonderful both times.

Kirkland--My favorite ballerina of all time. No contest. Balanchine's Coppelia: love it...don't find it heartless at all. With possible exception of recent Bolshoi reconstruction, my favorite version of the ballet. Think the finale is stupendous ... Think Kirkland would have been wonderful in it. Mcbride most certainly was as indeed was Kirkland in ABT's Coppelia. I remember a Coppelia in Washington D.C. the first season Baryshnikov and Kirkland were dancing together (Fall 74?)--when their partnership was still, to recall Bruhn's dictum about great ballet partnerships, a "love affair on stage" and had not yet descended to "a bad argument." Clive Barnes wrote a rave about this particular performance; it was not just first-rate--it was, as Barnes wrote, one of those special nights, and they sparked sensationally off of each other. (As for the "bad argument" I know exactly the Giselle bart is talking about and must have been the only person in the audience disappointed a few weeks later when a Kirkland-Stretton Giselle was changed to a Kirkland Baryshnikov one at the last minute: I had been looking forward to seeing her dance with someone with whom she did not have a fraught relationship. The drug problems would of course have been the same either way, though presumably they impacted her dancing somewhat unpredictably.) The view of Balanchine expressed in her memoirs seems to me wrong-headed historically as well as critically and converges with an understanding of Balanchine I have sometimes read in some hostile (and as I remember usually European) reviews and that I also believe is a caricature at best. But certainly he and NYCB were not a good match for her--not that any company could altogether be said to have been a good match--and certainly the narrative ballet (to which she expresses her committment and is still committed in her teaching) is proving fertile ground for one of the few major post-Balanchine choreographers around, that is, Ratmansky. In an interview he has even given that as his 'contribution' so to speak to what is happening in ballet today. Replacements? Early, when her problem may or may not have been drugs, I saw Ichino replace her in Don Quixote. I had come into New York for the performance and was devastated as I was, too, when, after her firing from ABT, I travelled to see one of her appearances, w. Bissell, with a student group in Towson Maryland and she cancelled. However, when she danced--even during the period of her drug use--I can only think of one or two performances I saw that were not...well...as beautiful, moving, and expressive as it is possible for classical ballet to be. Even during the height of her problems, I saw a Three Preludes in Boston -- also w. a student group I think -- that was just ravishing in its sensuality, daring, and precision.

Well, it only took them about 20 seconds to realize that having a big promotional stripe over the screen might...um...obscure the dancers. In fact I saw Reyes and Cornejo on Friday--downstairs I did not think the house was too bad. I saw him often when he was an extraordinary soloist--no matter who the principal was, one opened the program, saw Cornejo's name in whatever secondary role and thought FANTASTIC and he always came through with pretty much the best dancing of the evening. But I have not seen him at all as a principal dancer (now my ballet going is more limited by opportunities/funds to travel). I bought tickets to see him last year with Cojocaru and he then was injured...so, I was delighted to have the chance to see him dance Albrecht and very pleased with how commanding, elegant, and charming he was. His dancing continues to be a model of classical excellence though perhaps he is not quite as airborne as he used to be. And he is wonderfully alive--stretched out and vital in every inch of his body while always dancing with classical purity. If it were physically possible to make oneself taller by sheer carriage of the body, he would surely do so. The performance overall was highlighted, too, by the corps de ballet. But otherwise, not a great evening. Reyes' Giselle is very sweet and gentle and she gave an affecting and believable account of the mad-scene though low key, even low energy--more very, very sad than genuinely mad. Her dancing however was weaker than it needed to be for much of the ballet. In the big Act I solo, with the exception of decently done pique turns at the end, she flubbed, underdanced, or simplified pretty much every phrase. I am not a stickler (if someone falls off pointe during the hops I don't like it, but I can overlook it), but the whole solo was off. Call it an off night--probably--but her dancing in Act II was not terribly impressive either. She does not have beautiful feet and evidently does not use any sort of artificial arch enhancement (kudos to that I guess), but the lines during Giselle's jumps in Act II looked positively unfinished; at one or two points her feet seemed almost floppy. I had rather thought Giselle might be a good role for her, but I don't think so now, unless Friday evening was indeed anomalous. It seems a shame the company can't find/promote a better partner for Cornejo--I had thought Lane was in the running for "petite" principal--the sheer quality of his dancing is a real pleasure; imagine if he had a comparable partner. I should say though that I liked Messmer's very Vampiric quality as Queen of the Wilis on Friday night; she had some trouble getting a really secure footing in her arabesques--but seriously severe looking and powerful otherwise. Not the majestic beauty of Part, but no-one you would want to run into in the middle of a dark forest either...Friday night the whole opening Act II Wili sequence she led was a highlight of the evening. A dancer I have criticized before but who also very much impressed me on Friday was Jared Matthews in the peasant pas de deux. His first solo was ... well ...good(ish) soloist work, but after that, he really took off: explosive but tightly landed jumps and the kind of presentation that suggests he can indeed be more than a soloist. Very happy to see this, hope it was more than a "good" night! I also saw Herrera/Stearns. He certainly looked stronger than the last outing I saw him dancing in a principal role (in Dame aux Camelias--where the partnering seemed way beyond his capacity and effectively undermined Dvorovenko's otherwise very fine performance). Given his male model good looks, I also thought he made a good choice in playing Albrecht as more of a cool seducer than ardent lover--though I have to admit that given Stearns rather cool affect on stage generally I'm not 100 percent certain it was a choice, but I think so and quite effective. He also handled himself well in Act II, conveying Albrecht's remorse effectively and dancing well if not spectacularly. After Friday night, I could not help appreciating Herrera's sheer ability to dance all the steps and I think she is in fact a very fine dancer with a likeable stage persona (loved her in Bright Stream last spring); it sounds odd to say this of a Giselle, but she notably put a kind of effective "weight" into her arm movements in Act II that gave them a sort of ghostly sensuality that I rather liked. But I don't think she is a great Giselle and this was not overall a memorable performance. Also,the ensemble at the matinee in Act I--notably the grouping of Giselle's friends was decidedly weaker than at the evening performance, not as sharply unified nor as strong individually. I sound fussy--I am a bit; perhaps if I were not travelling (food poisoning this time too!), staying in hotels, etc. to see these performances, I would be less so. (Edited to add: probably not.)

Joseph Phillips

I did get to Chicago for three ABT Giselles and I will say right off the bat that Osipova/Hallberg were well worth the trip--especially in view of some very fine dancing from ABT's corps mentioned above by Miliosr. Hallberg's dramatic qualities have grown so that they now infuse his beautiful classical form. His stage presence has become authoritative as well: of course he is so beautiful on stage he could almost get away without "presence," but he really fills the stage now. It is a huge privilege to see him develop as an artist (even the little I have had a chance to see him). Sat's Albrecht was considerably deeper emotionally than the one I saw him dance three years ago. And in Act I, one could scarcely tell whether Albrecht was more excited to see Giselle or Hallberg to see Osipova. Who can blame him? She dances like no-one I have ever seen (and I have been very fortunate in the dancers I have seen)--and like nothing I could even have imagined before I first saw her three years ago. And like a coloratura soprano of old she added her own complex 'decorations' to some of the ballets biggest moments (I describe the hops below). I understand that this may not be to everyone's taste; I loved it. I agree with the description of her characterization given above by Trieste--she is a creature 'apart' from the moment she appears: emotional, volatle, sometimes flirtatious, sometimes childlike, and sad almost to sulky, and whatever she does/feels always tending to dissolve upwards into the air. (Okay: that last phrase does not make much sense, but that's how she dances.) Her mad scene had the same volatile energy as her entire Act I. Hallberg's Albrecht seemed utterly enthralled by her every move and every expression, as she was, too, enthralled, by him, but perhaps with less full awareness of what it meant to be enthralled in just that way. At one point in the first dance they do with the ensemble of peasants, she looked up at him as they arrived downstage in front of the ensemble and it was if he had just touched her in some particular way (I may have missed exactly what Hallberg did) and her entire body responded as if burned or shot with electricity--she was startled, pained, baffled. I did not think they kept up the current of charged energy between them with 100 percent consistency throughout the Act, not at that level anyway (and in Act II I also thought the overhead lifts were just the barest hint cautious--he didn't fully extend his arms and he also let her down a hint earlier than I would have expected). I firmly believe this partnership has history written all over it: but they need to dance together more. Hops across the stage in Giselle's solo? Huge (space covering hops), fast...then only at the end of the diagonal a turn/nod to Mother and a turn nod to Albrecth--that then became a three-hundred sixty degree turn while hopping on point (she had already covered most of the stage) and as she hop-turned, her arms overhead miming with her hands her love of dance...the solo concluding with the the brilliantly fast pique turns that most top-notch or even just plain very good Giselles dance brilliantly fast, but Osipova appears to dance faster still. But as thrilling as all this was, Act II was even more so. Hallberg and Osipova inhabit the haunting, ghostly love story with great though subdued tenderness. For the rest, the brilliance of Osipova's dancing is phenomenal. The whipping turns of her opening initiation, so fast one almost does not quite believe one's eyes, immediately followed by the series of assemblés crossing down stage, leaps that simply fly upwards into the air like nothing I have ever seen (except perhaps Osipova herself three years ago). The famous entrechats sequence similarly remarkable: someone on this board a few years ago said that when she does them--using the "Bolshoi" trick of slightly bending one knee so she appears to be jumping even higher--she looks as if she is rebounding off of a trampoline, and (I would add) all the while, she maintains the clarity and refinement in her feet that makes the passage beautiful. I have seen other ballerinas do the "Bolshoi" trick (including Herrera in the afternoon): none of the them look remotely like Osipova. In this ballet air is her element. I am aware that Giselle is not "about" brilliance and Osipova seems to me almost (but not quite) blindingly brilliant in Act II even as she aligns her brilliance with the ballet's deep fountains of anger and forgiveness. But one way or another I am nothing if not grateful to have a chance to see dancing like this... I am going to wrap up. I agree with Trieste that Part's powerful portrait of Myrtha does indeed make it seem as if she is the great conjurer of Act II--especially the opening. Of course, that is IN the choreography, but not every dancer makes that power her own. She was a touch insecure in her arabesques --unlike the preternaturally secure Abrera whose Myrtha that afternoon, while not nearly as powerful, included moments of such exquite lightness and beauty that I now join her fans in saying--for goodness's sake (or for ballet's sake) let her have another chance at dancing the lead as she was to have done before her injury. Similarly, Lane was excellent in the peasant pas de deux--the most polished technically and stylistically of the three women I saw in the role. Her partner, I agree too with Trieste, was not remotely at her level. Another highlight for me, though, was Boylston's Moyna--articulate, energetic dancing, eye-catching and lovely. For me, quite the best of the Moynas or Zulmas I saw over the course of three performances. Perhaps I will say a little about the other performances I saw in another post. I know this has been a very long post. I, alas, did not see Gomez, in the street (or get to see him dance) during this trip but did see Hallberg on the street walking towards the theater on Saturday; he appeared to be talking on his cell phone. It was definitely a fun moment for me.

Nureyev and Baryshnikov were high-profile defectors during the cold war and got a lot of non-ballet press: I think that is a large part of the reason non-ballet-goers know their names. Still, I don't think Makarova ever acquired quite the same kind of fame and from a purely "ballet" point of view she was just as high profile. Of course great male ballet dancers were seen as rarer -- and rightly so. That may still be the case today, but much less so, in part because of Nureyev and Baryshnikov. However Makarova did do a Broadway show of the kind we are discussing, albeit running for a month and with two at least partially different programs alternating. This was the height of the "dance boom." The programs included Petipa: a setting of the Paquita finale with young dancers filling out the ensemble and solos. (I think some were advanced students from SAB or the ABT school--someone else might remember more exactly). There were also largely uninteresting new works. I can't remember if the program included any 'chestnuts'... Makarova had to withdraw at least two nights, but instead of cancelling the performance -- I don't even know if that was an option permitted by the producers -- she chose young, entirely unknown dancers from the ensemble to replace her. They got nice press too. But having come in from out of town for one of the performances she cancelled, I was very disappointed and I have to say that I found the evening quite dull. I felt this way despite Pacquita, which the young dancers were not really up to, and despite Anthony Dowell (one of my all time favorites--one of the all time greats I should say) in one of the new works on the program. With Makarova I think the program would have been well worth my while, but still not one of the more memorable ballet-going evenings of my life. (The audience was full of empty seats. I think they had let people trade tickets for other nights once Makarova cancelled. Since I was in from out of town I could not do so--to make matters worse I had convinced a non-ballet going friend and her ALREADY skeptical father to attend, thinking: "Makarova: they have to love it." No Makarova and they did not.) Vishneva is a great ballerina: no evening spent watching her could be a complete waste of time. But, as I felt after seeing her dance Carmen in July, it is possible for such an evening to come very close to being one.

I remember it as a staple of the (now defunct) National Ballet of Washington, which, name notwithstanding, falls into this category as it was founded and directed by Frederic Franklin (later joined by Ben Stevenson). I remember enjoying the ballet a lot--and have a few images in my head, though my memories are not very concrete...I'm pretty sure I saw Christine Knoblauch (later O'Neill) dance in it and, probably in the role of the drummer boy, Kirk Peterson?? (Those programs long since tossed...) Glad the ballet is still being danced--quite a tribute to its craft and -- however dated -- charm...

Spinning2night: sorry you won't be able to make ABT this year. And Giselle in the theater still awaits you! Osipova and Hallberg have (I believe) danced Giselle at least twice with the Bolshoi since her ABT debut. Once when he was a guest artist and once since he joined the company officially...Various excerpts have been posted on youtube...Not sure if there have been other performances...but I think we can expect these artists to be developing and deepening their interpretation. (I thought it was already fantastic at Osipova's ABT debut which I was very, very lucky to have seen; some agreed with me, but others were more skeptical.)

Glad to hear about the Ashton program--I withdraw my objections to the new season! Monotones I and II is (in my opinion) the really choice piece of Ashton on that program and also makes "aesthetic/intellectual" sense as an Ashton work whose pristine formal qualities still challenge any contemporary non-narrative choreography the company wants to feature.

Helene: your summary of next season did not mention any Ashton at all...I understand they are moving away from "curatorial' and one could do worse with new choreography than Wheeldon, Ratmansky, and McGregor (well, the last named obviously will be somewhat controversial) and trying to develop Scarlett makes sense too -- but no Ashton at all? NB When Leigh Witchell saw the Royal dance Symphony in C a few years he was so dismayed he commented it would be better if they did not dance it at all -- I saw it roughly a week or so after he did and reacted identically to the first two movements -- it was pose/pose/pose as opposed to movement--literally could not have been less like Balancine--...I thought it picked up with Morera leading the third movement, her dance sense and energy seemed to spark the corps a bit and perhaps even just the speed of the music got everyone moving more through the movement. But I was reminded of Balanchine's very snyde remark from many decades back that in England if you "move" then "already it's vulgar." I am all for the company developing their ability to dance Balanchine, but I would be even more in favor of an Ashton or two. (The Royal's historic neglect of Ashton--corrected by Monica Mason fortunately--is one reason I have never been as outraged by Peter Martins at NYCB as others: uh...he may cast Balancine wierdly, not hire the coaches fans think he should hire, let certain details slide, but the ballets are THERE and done often enough and well enough that they can come to life and periodically do come to very beautiful life.)