Drew

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.)

Thank you Trieste--that's very helpful. Both hotels I'm currently considering fall within the grid you describe...

I'm not a Chicagoan but hope to attend some of these performances. If I had to choose between Kent-Gomez and Osipova-Hallberg, I would choose Osipova/Halberg--not just for her, but for him and for the partnership which they unfortunately do not have that many chances to develop now that she has left the Bolshoi. (For ABT's NY season, I believe they are scheduled to dance together twice.) In theory what Mussel says is correct, but whenever I have thought I had "plenty of opportunity" to see a great dancer, those opportunities ran into everything from geographical changes (mine or the dancer's), health problems (mine or the dancer's), and plain old bad luck (mine or the...well, you get the picture). I would add that there is no guarantee that Osipova or Hallberg will continue to appear with ABT on tour in Chicago: they are not company 'regulars.' In New York perhaps one might be more blasé... Basically, when I believe someone to be a great or historic dancer I take every chance I can to see them and I have never regretted that approach. I made a special trip to see what must have been one of Cojocaru's last Auroras before her neck injury--this, when she was still plenty young and I had no idea she would suffer anything like a "broken neck"--and although I have since seen her dance the role ravishingly twice, never with the same preternatural ease at every moment or unbelievably brilliant and classically 'finished' fish dives. (Of course, Kent, as you know, is a very lovely ballerina and presumably nearing retirement: I have not seen her Giselle, but remember reading raves on this board for a performance she danced in D.C. a number of years back. Gomez obviously is a huge favorite of pretty much everyone who sees him...so I don't think you will regret your decision either way.) Oh...another question for Chicagoans: The nearest hotels to the auditorium theater are either reportedly pretty bad (as in not clean) or involved in labor disputes or both, but there are some I would be happy to stay at that are listed an official 4-5 minute walk away (at my pace probably more like an 8-10 minute walk). Will that be reasonably safe for a woman alone at 10:30 pm on a weekend? Are there people around on the streets in that area etc.?

I never much liked the men's costumes -- and had mixed feelings about the tutus when I saw the ballet the first few times. However, I rather got used to the women's costumes and even came to like them. The men's costumes, I have also gotten used to...but never liked. I have mixed feelings about all black on male dancers and the rhinestone or sequins on the costumes seem sort of cheap looking and unappealing (to me at least). I guess I like their simple cut, but its value seems purely a negative one. Hard to believe the men's costumes could not be made more elegant even while being kept simple.

Diane--I suppose one might say in the spirit of Balanchine that there are no great-great-grandmothers in ballet. One only knows from the program exactly who the character is supposed to be. But someone with no access to a program but knowledge of other ballets or even just knowledge of fairy tale conventions, would still (I think) easily recognize the character as a kind of 'fairy godmother,' or 'Lilac Fairy' character through w/o being able to figure out the exact relation. The ballet does make it clear that she is not part of the everyday Kingdom and that only Irene can see her and there is even a very nice passage just after the escape from the goblins in which Irene has to 'teach' Curdie how to see her, when she helps lead them to safety. I thought the scene was fairly clear. (I have always thought that if I saw Swan Lake w/o knowing the story, I would not be able to make much sense out of key portions of it, and I have always been okay w. the need for some program notes and character/cast lists for most narrative ballets...)

I am very late writing about Tharp's The Princess and the Goblin which I saw almost three weeks ago--to make matters worse I have lost my program! This ballet is a joint production w. Royal Winnipeg Ballet, but received its premier in Atlanta. I found it enthralling. An affecting love letter to classical tradition that is also funny and just plain fun. I believe this may actually be my favorite Tharp ballet--though I will add that the "scale" might not translate to a larger, technically stronger company. It was perfect for the Atlanta ballet. (Tharp was clearly pushing the dancers, but not overloading them. Indeed I'm not at all sure that her consciousness of the company's strengths and weaknesses did not contribue to the ballet's success--these are wonderful dancers but Tharp could not just "WOW" the audience with daring-do physical prowess.) I gather the Royal Winnipeg Ballet will dance it in the Fall and Tharp may tweak it at that time. I highly recommend it and if the Atlanta Ballet revives the ballet in future would happily see it again. What follows below came out rather long--I think the ballet deserves the attention it has gotten and more. Brian Seibert wrote a mixed but overall good(ish) review in the Times, but I found myself in much stronger agreement with Susan Reiter's more positive review in Dance Magazine--she invoked Bournonville (A Folk Tale) as precedent and that seems to me quite right. At any rate, both ballets feature trolls! (Because of misplaced program, what I have written is from memory--hope no details are 'off.') The ballet is based on a Victorian children's novella that I have never read, but I gather is much loved and admired (I assume by many here at Ballet Talk too): neglected Princess Irene saves the children of kingdom who have been kidnapped by goblins while the adult, widowed King and his court fail to notice that their children have gone missing.. She does so with help of the spirit of her great-great grandmother (the ballet's Lilac Fairy figure) and a young non-aristocratic male friend Curdie...In the ballet version, the self-absorbed though not evil King/father is also king in the goblin world (or, at any rate, consort to its Queen) so the heroine's victory over the Goblins is allegorically a working out of a better relation to her father. Indeed the ballet's final scenes include all the formerly neglectful parents of the kingdom dancing joyfully with their children. It occurs to me that if I READ the above paragraph I would think the ballet sounded...well, sort of sappy and not my taste at all. In fact, except for Balanchine's Midsummer Night's Dream I can think of no choreography for children that I actually love--as opposed to tolerate or, at best, like well enough (the latter would be other Balanchine). But what makes Tharp's version of the story magical and almost perfect as a ballet--at least in my eyes--is that the reconciliation of generations is actually refracted through an allegory of ballet tradition. One generation passing on the glories of classical ballet to the next--from the ghosts of the past, that is, the great, great grandmother, to the children, but not leaving out the goblins (or, should one say, character dancers?). I really enjoyed the children here and my companion (even less of a fan of children on stage than I am-- refuses to see Nutcracker ever) -- well, he enjoyed them too. So, in this version of the story, the beauty of classical ballet conquers all--distant parents, evil goblins, lost children. It brings love, joy, and beauty to the Kingdom. Having the same dancer play the heroine's father AND the lead male of the goblin kingdom occasionally got confusing (my companion was somewhat puzzled), the shift from the one role to the other might have simply been better marked in the costume metamorphosis. The person sitting next to us said that the book makes more sense. At one point it looked as if the hero (Irene's friend Curdie) got so carried away enjoying himself dancing with the goblins that he got distracted from their mission of escape. But then that may have been Tharp's joke not my confusion. Early in the ballet, specifically Irene dances in soft ballet shoes, but then is taught by her spirit-great-great grandmother to dance on pointe. Once on pointe, Irene in turn wows the goblin world (where the goblin queen initially dances rather like a 'classic' Tharp modern dancer of the 70's--hard to describe: twitchy, at times sexy, shifting, twisting moves). The goblins become besotted by the possibilities of pointe work--at one point forming an ensemble where it appeared that they had one foot bare and one on pointe. I actually thought of Massine rather than Bournonville. The children likewise, though always dancing in a youthful easy manner, eventually take on balletic dimensions. They range from tiny to early teens and the two oldest, towards the very end, under Irene's impact, dance a brief purely classical pas-de-deux with the girl on pointe (the only time in ballet one of the children was on pointe). I guess I AM sappy when it comes to ballet because I found this unspeakably moving. There is also a lovely pas de trois for Irene, her friend/boyfriend and father towards the end--uh believe it or not this is entirely without creepiness and also sort of melds Tharps' contemporary, swooney Sinatra style with her more purely classical vision--it really does seem to be a dance about reconciliation and joy. The very lovely backdrop behind the pas de trois was a night sky covered with bright, bright stars. Indeed one of the pleasures of this ballet was too the way it brought together different Tharps (so to speak). At times, the dancing of goblins/children recalled her best early modern work -- only here the shifting, bumping, jokiness had a very precise role in the story telling--at others one felt in the more "musical theater" world of, say, her Sinatra work--but ultimately everything was reconciled in the glories of classical dancing. (I should say I have only limited familiarity with Tharp's work...but this work did seem to me to bring together threads in her career--though the two lead male goblins in particular seemed pretty distinctive too--they belong in this ballet and nowhere else.) Negatives? Well, honestly for the first few scenes I was decidedly unconvinced that this was for grown ups at all. The introduction of the main characters of the kingdom was very schematic--simple choreography, simple characterization, even to the point of simplistic, and the costumes looked cheap and uninteresting to me (in fact, my recollection is that, for the Atlanta Ballet, this was a very expensive production). I thought my only real pleasure all evening was going to be the wonderful dancing of Alessa Rogers as Irene--lovely clear and fluid phrasing, beautiful lines with nuanced shading of her upper body (exquisite épaulement). However, the childern were surprisingly enjoyable and by no means dominated the action and then the initial goofiness of the goblins started to win me over. Then, too, scene by scene the whole thing built momentum and once Irene was on pointe and the goblins were gobsmacked--well, as is obvious, I thought the ballet turned out to be wonderful. Other dancers I especially enjoyed included John Welker (the father/goblin king) and Jacob Bush as Curdie, Irene's (boy)friend. Bush studied with Lise Houlton--as I was delighted to read, since she was a favorite of mine at ABT--and seems very accomplished technically with an easy light manner on stage. I also was impressed by Tara Lee, though one might bring even more power to her role as Queen of the Goblins. (She and Welker have a "flashy" pas de deux when they first take on "ballet"-- as if they are the stars at a gala; they were very good, but flashier dancers could have done more with it.) Anyway, I found The Princess and the Goblin funny, goofy, exuberant, and also beautiful. (The music was Schubert adapted by Richard Burke.)

That sounds like the right approach though I would add explicitly (what you were probably assuming)--it also depends on the quality (better strong singles than sloppy doubles)...but I have come to miss brilliant, whipping, fast singles...

I regret that I don't remember Blood Wedding very well--other than as a work of great dramatic intensity--but I do remember being very, very impressed by it when the Cubans first brought it to the States and being very dazzled by Gades.

Absolutely! 32 singles brilliantly done make a stunning impression--in my experience much more exciting than anything I have ever seen replace it. (Semenyaka in Act III Swan Lake and Kirkland in Act III of Don Quixote are particularly charged memories) The doubles, triples and other tricks usually look slower and more mechanical to me (and I speak of doubles and triples done well without the uncontrolled travelling and grimacing they sometimes engender). Worse yet, doubles and triples are occasionally done with an air of seeming improvisation, as if the ballerina is not entirely in control of her effects--that is, a double alternates with a single steadily for the first 16 or so and then a triple is 'thrown in' etc. here and there, seemingly arbitrarily, or suddenly one gets two singles in a row as if the double did not come off etc. etc. Of course, it's fun gala fare to see the doubles/triples, but I have actually come to feel slightly frustrated that "top" virtuoso ballerinas now seem to disdain Legnani's specialty. What I would not give to see someone like Osipova just "whip off" 32 single fouettes at top speed. Too easy? I should like to see today's ballerinas show us just how easy it is to challenge the likes of Semenyaka and Kirkland for power, speed, and brilliance in fouettes. (I write as a passionate fan of today's ballerinas, including an exciting virtuoso--even, arguably, a bit of a showboater--like Osipova.) As far as flubbed fouettes goes: I thought the 'standard' fall back position for a ballerina unable to complete them was a series of piqué turns, which I think has also been a fall back for ballerinas who can't do the fouttes at all...Cinnamonswirl mentioned this above...

Although on the whole I had a mixed reaction to the Mariinsky's Symphony in C during their summer NY season, I quite liked Shirinkina in the fourth movement. She made me think of perfectly turning music box ballerinas--not mechanical but just so very, very pretty as well as centered and exact. I would love to have seen her in Les Sylphides...it seems an ideal role for her. Glad to read about it though.