Drew

69 (or 70 as one of the articles says) seems rather young. How sad. I saw her twice that I remember--both times dancing Flames of Paris pas de deux with Vladimirov as part of a Bolshoi "highlights" program. The first time, I was a very little girl (had only been allowed to go because there was an unexpected spare ticket) and I was totally overwhelmed--though I must admit, mostly by Vladimirov's leaps. But it was altogether a memorable performance. Pretty much my first experience of what now seems very much "old style" Bolshoi bravura dancing. And very exciting to a child who had never dreamed of such a thing!

...And she gets flowers!

Sad news--a great, great dancer. The first time I saw the Royal was a performance of La Fille Mal Gardee at the Met in 1970 and he was Alain, hilarious and heartbreaking! I thought his last performance with the Royal was as the husband in A Month in the Country--they were on tour in D.C. Grant took a solo bow at the end of that performance, and I was one of a group who waited backstage for him. When he saw us, he said several times how touched/surprised he was (I can't remember his exact words) that this tribute from fans was happening in Washington D.C. A Washingtonian myself I was quite irritated when several people there rushed to tell him that they were from New York and did so exactly as he was expressing how touching it was that this would happen in Washington...I realize they probably wanted him to know that they had come down especially for the performance, though there also seemed just a whiff of disdain (intentional or not) for anyone who was not a New Yorker in their manner of rushing past his pleasure at being well-known among Washington ballet fans--which, of course, he was. In that performance of A Month in the Country he once again brought great depth and humanity to a character who might seem merely a clueless or insensitive dolt...one was able to feel for him even while understanding his wife's frustration and disappointment.

Gee, I know Alastair Macaulay is not popular in some quarters on this board, but surely we don't want to conflate him with The Great Beast? (Just kidding, ViolinConcerto. )

Thank you silvermash. The reviewer for Le Monde was more positive, though the ballet definitely sounds as if it took a rather playful view of its "magical" material (Ratmansky seems drawn to jokey...)

Has anyone seen it now?

I don't have deep knowledge of the Bolshoi roster but believe Kaptsova and Lunkina are both more lyrical ...

I had wondered if we were going to update this topic until I started reading more closely! (Based on my nowadays somewhat limited live-performance-going, I was going to write on behalf of David Halberg and Ivan Vasiliev...I can easily guess some other names that might appear.) To Puppytreats' question about whether a director has the power to impact a dancer's career outside his (or her) control of his own company: Farrell more or less accused Balanchine of blackballing Mejia and herself with other ballet companies when they left NYCB--hence she ended up with Béjart, by no means a traditional ballet director. It's hard to know all the ins and outs of that particular story. I rather suspect Balanchine would not have had to 'do' anything for companies to be wary of hiring her if they wanted permission to dance his ballets. But there are other issues as well. She was a great dancer, but an especially extraordinary Balanchine dancer. In general, without having insider knowledge, I still imagine that the number of directors with that kind of power/influence beyond their own company is not great--obviously it can't help a dancer's career to have any of their former colleagues bad-mouth them. However, if they were just frozen out of repertory and decided to leave a company to seek other opportunities? Doubt the scenario puppytreats asks about is often a problem. Though reading this paragraph over, I fear it sounds naive. To take a partly related Modern Dance example, when a documentary film about Paul Taylor's company came out and included a scene concerning the laying-off/firing of a dancer, there were a number of viewers in the dance world who thought it unethical to include the episode since it could adversely affect that dancer's career elsewhere. Taylor was not accused of doing anything directly or deliberately, but the film was seen as a problem. (I don't know what actually happened to that dancer...) To address Puppytreats' other point (which I realize was not directed to me): I can imagine many reasons why a dancer would remain with a company even under very much less than ideal circumstances--especially when finding a more promising position might mean leaving one's home town (or home country) and home language; possibly leaving behind family as well as friends. Indeed a million personal and even professional considerations (style, training, taste, job security etc. etc.) might keep one in a company where one's options were limited. I can't speculate on any particular case of course, but making the leap to a completely new career and likely a new aesthetic does not always go smoothly even for very talented dancers. (At ABT Veronika Part was a case in point: it took her a number of years to find her footing--so to speak--at ABT and I am NOT one of those who considers that simply the 'fault' of management.)

Very sad news...

Thank you for the update...(I had only thought to check his website earlier today before this was reported.)

During one of my last visits with my mother, who was having many problems (mental, emotional, physical), I decided to take her to the Washington Opera--it was Tosca with Licitra. He was terrific and she had a wonderful time and especially enjoyed his singing; the whole afternoon put her in a (rare) good mood. This was not too long before her death. (And thank goodness for Kennedy Center's convenient set-up for someone who could walk a bit but still greatly benefited from having a wheelchair to use at the theater.) Anyway, I know Licitra's career has had ups and downs, but I just love him because of that performance. Wishing him the very best.

Libretti based on his work anyway (he died in 1822)--and rather less gothic than their Hoffmann sources...though productions may well choose to underline Hoffmanesque elements. La Sonnambula (or Night Shadow as it was once called) and La Valse are rather 'goth' or gothic in tone--even if they are the work of a choreographer generally known as neo-classic. (Probably Gaspard de la Nuit too, but my memory of that ballet is very vague--similarly Cotillion which I saw once in the Joffrey's reconstruction of it.) The dark cartoonish critics of Robert Schumann's Davidsbündlertänze also have a gothic quality--especially as they stand out against the Casper Friedrich inspired backdrop; but I have never thought that that moment of the ballet 'worked'--it's at once too literal and too exaggerated and almost seems (unintentionally) giggle worthy. There may be other examples in Balanchine's oeuvre as well--at least I would not be surprised since that was definitely one of the colors on his palette albeit not one he used very prominently or often. On topic? There is a huge world of fantasy literature out there; it's not a genre I read, but it's hard for me to believe it would not supply some intriguing stories that might be at home on the ballet stage.

Done!

Could one reason be that the term "artist" is thought of differently in each discipline, relative to the skills and difficulties? Simon mentioned that, of the 3 young dancers brought to ENB by Schaufuss, including Healy, only Trinidad was an "interesting and real ballerina." I recall several long disputations on Ballet Alert about what that concept, "ballerina," actually means. Does the same hold true of terms like "artist" and "artistry" in skating? I appreciate Simon's testimony, but would not be inclined to draw any conclusions about Healy as an artistic skater/technically accomplished dancer. As far as Healy's career at the Festival Ballet goes, "artistry" as a teenager may well still be developing, but--as noted already--Ashton thought highly enough of Healy to choose her for the "first cast" in the re-setting of his Romeo and Juliet--and I have read praise for that performance as Juliet elsewhere. I also once spoke to someone who saw her at a gala (somewhat later in her career) and found the quality of her movement very beautiful.

...which she ordered of the same fabric she found Carla Fracci's skirt to be made of via sneaking on the Italian's dressing room in the middle of the night and cutting a piece from the underskirt... Oh Gelsey, Gelsey...too much Gelsey.. Maybe she was high at the time? I understand it's a joke--you have made jokes about Kirkland and drugs before--but I believe the drug problem kicked in later and Kirkland did not need drugs to be an obsessive perfectionist. And...uh...the results were more than apparent in her performances which were extraordinary and seemed as if they were utterly spontaneous. Indeed from performance to performance she was different. I'm sure there are some people out there who were/are not fans, but almost everyone lucky enough to have seen her Giselle when she was at the height of her powers remembers her as one of the all time great ballerinas--no joke!

And...don't you find yourself waiting for a super-deep 6 o'clock suported penchee, ballerina touching her supporting leg with her forheadhead in the slow movement of certain, beautiful "tutu-ballet" of him...? (Now, talk about "iconic"! ) I can't quite tell how much you are serious and how much you are kidding, but for myself...not remotely. That's a decorative elaboration of the adagio in Symphony in C, not at all fundamental to the second movement's beauty. Iconic AND essential for me would be the the various great arching and bending drops into the man's arms that punctuate the ballerina role throughout. In this very integrated (modernist) plotless ballet, I would be dismayed if somehow it were re-choreographed without those movements...that would not be the adagio of Symphony in C. But that's very different from dancing a variant of one section of a variation in a more loosely constructed nineteenth-century ballet--and one that is already made of up of elements from different eras by different choreographers set to different composers. (As Alexandra said above: there is a reason they were called variations). And in Symphony in C I can easily live without the head to knee... Let me add quickly, that like Cubanmiamiboy, I too 'expect' the hops in Giselle and enjoy them especially when beautifully done--but if from time to time I were to see a performance in which the ballerina left them out or had to change it up midway (I saw the latter once), that alone would not make or break Giselle Act I for me. The first performances of Sleeping Beauty I ever saw that seemed to me worthy of the ballet's reputation were danced by the Kirov some years ago (Sergeyev version). As mentioned already in this discussion: No fish dives! I was surprised and, I admit, 'disappointed' especially as I did not anticipate the change (to my eyes 'change'): but I still thought it was the best Sleeping Beauty I had ever seen.

Exactly my feeling. I may very well admire and enjoy a ballerina who does the above mentioned sequences brilliantly, especially if she integrates them into the totality of her performances (and does so beautifully, musically, movingly), but these seemingly "iconic" moments should never (as I think) become fetishes. Indeed one of my objections to youtube (along with those already expressed by Simon, Alexandra, and others) is that it encourages a fetishization of isolated moments in a performance...And, of course, it entirely loses whole dimensions of the performances in question.

This is my feeling as well. (In The Shape of Love Kirkland describes working closely with Sevillano on Giselle.)

Leaving aside the question of Somova for a moment, I have to say I'm reluctant to think of "box office gold" as a key criterion for great ballet dancing. I realize that was not the point of your comment, but I'm still wary of confusing the two. Nureyev was much bigger box office than Bruhn--but Bruhn was as great and as historic a dancer, at least in the judgment of many of us. Martine Van Hamel was the favorite ABT Odette-Odile of many knowledgeable ballet fans, but--as far as I am aware--not as "box office" as Makarova (also a great Odette-Odile)...Many ballet greats ARE box office gold of course, but not all of them.

They may be making fan-unfriendly decisions, but I don't think they can be accused of profiteering when they are currently running a multimillion dollar deficit.

Thanks for all the reports from Paris.

Macaulay has been very sparing in his praise of Whelan in her home repertory (neo-classical leotard ballets)...often expressing strong reservations or praising her rather tepidly. As I said above, I don't begrudge him his perspectives on particular dancers. I don't always agree with them either, and that is to be expected. But I noted this instance because Whelan and Lopatkina are very high profile, very admired, and also very loved dancers--really major figures in their respective companies--so it's...well...of interest when he seems to challenge the common wisdom regarding their stature. I should think there is even an edge of deliberateness in the gesture, however sincere (and I assume it IS sincere).

I was a little surprised the following does not seem to have raised many eyebrows--it did mine: "Ms. Lopatkina is the Mariinsky’s equivalent of City Ballet’s Wendy Whelan: an invariably intelligent, experienced and purposeful dancer whose style and physicality are seldom flattered by the most exposing high-classical repertory." I don't begrudge Macaulay his individual taste in dancers and I partly agreed with what he said about Lopatkina in Symphony in C elsewhere in the review (that she lacked a certain "impetus" the choreography calls for, though I would add praise--for her gorgeous port de bras especially)... still, she is a dancer one rarely sees damned with faint praise (as in main clause) or accused of not being good in classical repertory (as in relative clause). The comparison with Wendy Whelan shows he knows he is a bit of an outlier on this one--or is even being deliberately provoking--since he is rather an outlier regarding Whelan as well. Anyway, this got my attention which, I suppose, was its purpose. But, from the little I have seen of Lopatkina I rather doubt it's a just summation.

I, too, thought she was lovely in that ballet...and, in particular, captured just the right tone.

I agree on both counts. Carmen was the worst ballet I've seen in a long time - worse than Anna Karenina and even Vishneva couldn't save it. The music was awful , the story muddled (and how is that possible, really?) the choreography banal. The dancing was mostly wonderful but Ivanchenko looked really silly as Escamellio. if you're unfamiliar with a ballet, why not check it out on YouTube or a DVD beforehand? That way you can save money and avoid seeing a ballet that you disliike and will call "trash"(personally I'd save that adjective for a Millepied ballet). As for Symphony in C, Balanchine's dancing is almost a style and not one that can be readily picked up. I think the Mariinsky did an admirable job with this work and what it lacked in speed and attack it made up for in elegant carriage of upper bodies and technical refinement, something not always seen in NYCB dancers. Youtube is not the best way to make a determination about the quality of choreography, but in any case, if one wants to see the Mariinsky on tour, one does not typically have a huge choice of ballets. I myself was able to get to NY from Thursday through Saturday and essentially planned to see whatever they were dancing. In fact, people go all the time to see ballets they don't care for--even people with lots of opportunities to see performances--perhaps because they want to see a particular dancer, check out the development of a company or, for that matter, give the choreography another chance etc. For myself, I doubt "trash" is too strong a term for Carmen, but I will just say Carmen seems to me a ballet of little substance. Vishneva could not save it--rather, despite the beauty of much of her dancing, it seemed to bring her down with it. From where I was sitting, her Carmen was a one note sex-vamp/seductress. Much to my surprise, the next night Lopatkina spun this...let's call it "straw"...into gold. That is, she could not make Carmen a great ballet, but somehow when she was dancing it did not matter because SHE was so great. Every move was riveting; I even found her characterization compelling -- her Carmen was complex and independent with sexuality the expression of something more troubled or troubling inside of her rather than the full sum of her character. And Lopatkina's legs are surely the most beautiful legs in all of classical ballet (and beyond). In short, when she was on stage, I was transfixed...