Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Drew

Senior Member
  • Posts

    4,025
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Drew

  1. In today's NYTimes, Macaulay wrote that Osipova withdrew from Sleeping Beauty due to passport problems.
  2. I'm at a hotel computer where I have to pay for every second, but since I wrote to express my disappointment at missing Osipova, I feel obliged to write and add, having seen Wednesday night's performance, that I cannot regret that I will see Cojocaru twice in the role. Tonight her performance was not without flaws, but it also had details and emotional qualities that made it still more powerful for me than the pretty much flawless performance I saw her give with the Royal a few years ago. I also want to say how much I enjoyed Boylston as Princess Florined--this is the first time I have seen her. She does not have the prettiest lines in the world, but she dances with tremendous verve and energy. She was the one ABT dancer on stage whose dancing said (in the best possible way) 'look at me.' Radetsky was giving it his all as Bluebird and I thought he did well, but he looked like he was giving it his all--she looked like she was dancing. Since I'm having to pay for my time, I refrain from comment on the production other than to note that a big problem is simply how thin it looks (too few dancers) and how cheap.
  3. Pulling out because one's partner is injured six days before the performance seems unprofessional to me. It would seem that six days is ample time to rehearse with a new partner. Also, partner injuries happen all the time, and such eventualities need to be part of the planning. Pulling out because one's guesting schedule is ultra packed, is decidedly unprofessional. If you cannot handle the schedule, don't commit to being on two sides of the Atlantic at the same time. Perhaps in the future ABT should publish other commitments of their guest stars. At least that way we the ticket buyers will be better informed about the odds we are facing. I'm guessing she did not have the 6 days time to rehearse with a new partner because of the packed schedule (that is, she was also preparing the R&J), but it's just speculation on my part of course. And one wishes things had been planned differently for sure.
  4. Once I heard Halberg was injured I was worried Osipova might pull out. I know others, including Semionova just recently, have gone on at the last minute with new partners, but this is not a role Osipova has danced much--only once to my knowledge and that time with Halberg--and, as already noted, she is preparing her debut in Ashton's Romeo and Juliet for next week in London. I don't blame her, though I could very much wish she had felt able to decide otherwise. (And her schedule often does seem decidedly ultra packed.) I do think Cojocaru is a good choice as replacement--one of the best Aurora's in the world I should think and a dancer of comparable or indeed greater fame--though many of us with tickets for both performances might not necessarily have chosen to see her twice in the role in one week (at least not given the ticket prices--and, for some of us, hotel room prices).
  5. I am coming up to NY for Sleeping Beauty and have tickets for both of these performances. I know "casts are subject to change," but it is terribly disappointing, especially as I see so little ballet these days and seeing Osipova has been one of my greatest ballet joys (indeed life joys) these last couple of years. I was even eager to see her take on a role I know is one she is still developing. (I also know Cojocaru is a very fine Aurora--I have seen her in the role with the Royal and am looking forward greatly to seeing her again; but I confess I am still very, very disappointed.)
  6. I knew nothing about this wedding until, around the time of Prince William's marriage, I read a short article on an apparently very nervous future princess's introduction to the press, but this thread inspired me to look it up on Google. Wow! What movie thriller potential--an (alleged) attempted escape by the bride who had to be dragged back from the Nice airport; rumors she is being drugged and a body double had to be used for one "royal" gig; more illegitimate children from the groom. I especially enjoyed the Palace spokesman saying the even if "a third or fourth" illegitimate child came into play he/she/it could not be Albert's heir--when no-one has gone public about a FOURTH child. I know I should have some compassion for the new wife Charlene or not pay attention to any of the gossip (the proper attitude of course--and she did have a very pretty wedding dress)...but reading about this was seriously entertaining in a guilty pleasure sort of way. It rather surpasses sleazy.
  7. I tend to agree with the need for sensible compromise on this issue, but I do want to correct one impression that may have been created by the discussion--that for non-smokers who catch a whiff of smoke outside, the discomfort passes"very, very quickly." If I catch a whiff outside, I likely get a migraine -- extreme pain and nausea that passes in 3-4 hours if I'm lucky, 24 hours if I'm not so lucky -- and in either case involves a lot of heavy duty medication that it's better not to take. I happen to be migraine prone and in much the minority and I do NOT think public policy should be dictated by my peculiar constitution. I also think smokers should be allowed to smoke outside, but it does bother me a bit when people assume that the "irritation" to non-smokers is just a few minutes unpleasantness. If we non-smokers are not always sufficiently conscious of becoming "moralistic" and "judgmental" etc., then I think it can fairly be added that smokers (and their advocates) sometimes are not always sufficiently conscious of the levels of discomfort involved for passers by. As for Nanarina's original post--she was not commenting on something she saw the dancers do in private but something she saw on film, a film they knew was being made. I think it likely that as you (Simon) commented earlier, they did not give a second thought to lighting up, but anything one does in front of a film-documentary crew is something that may reasonably be commented on and reflected on by the public who sees the film (and from all different perspectives as this thread attests). Censoriousness about smoking is not the only kind of censoriousness that can get out of hand.
  8. I will be crushed if Halberg does not dance in Sleeping Beauty (I'm coming up to NY for that performance), crushed because I wish to see him, but also because I was disappointed that after his remarkable performances with Osipova last year, this Sleeping Beauty was the only performance they were scheduled for in New York this year. A remarkable partnership is nothing to waste, and last year's performance of Romeo and Juliet suggested they belong in just that category. Of course, as dancers with different companies they do not have many opportunities to develop their on-stage relationship--I hope they don't miss out on this one.
  9. I think that is a moment that in its own terms works rather well in Mckenzie's otherwise lame Act IV-but it's also an off-kilter moment for me, because in the Blair version and the versions I've seen done by the Royal (all of which I understand to be closer to the original) that music signals Siegfried's arrival on stage--I have an especially vivid memory of Anthony Dowell running onto the stage in agonized desperation; the music seems to express the full power of the prince's love as he comes to re-unite with Odette despite his betrayal. Odette does not just appear--he has to seek her out among the swans (as alluded to by another post above); it's a sort of quest to compensate for his error. Now, he has to find her and only her. Batsuchan--you asked if someone could tell you "about more satisfying versions" they had seen. I don't have the kind of memory that would enable me to describe the Act for you in any detail -- but certainly I always loved Siegfried's entrance and, in those versions too the whole world of the swans/swan maidens is much more vividly present as well as Odette's place in it (she expresses her emotions to the others before he appears). I suppose if you like ballet on video (mostly I find it boring) you might check out a video of the Royal in, say, Dowell's production or perhaps a video of ABT's old Blair production. I believe there is one with Makarova--it may even be on youtube. (In the productions I am writing of there was/is an intermission between Act III and Act IV.)
  10. Somebody is paying for the water at the State Theater; at least I have a water bill, so I'm guessing NYCB does too. And, no, I am not saying they really should charge for water! Just that they are running quite an expensive operation in ways we never give a thought to. Basically, I don't think their problem is that they have given too much attention to their bottom line -- it's that their costs are astronomic and they have failed to generate enough revenue to keep up with them no matter what bottom line approaches they have tried. Martins ballets? Martins' career as a choreographer has been a disappointment to most of us but I assume his ballets cost the company much, much less then hiring outside choreographers each year would do and I have to think that NYCB would have felt like a very different company without regular premiers these past years. Did the company need so many of them? Well...uh...no... Still, I don't compare Martins' directorship too often to what I would have ideally liked to see, but to what I really feared to see (for an idea, think: Ashton at the Royal Ballet; for another idea imagine a company from which Wheeldon never had the chance to emerge and for which Ratmansky was never invited to do Russian Seasons). So he looks better to me than to others. I also think that Whelan at least may have benefited from the attention given to her in his works early in her career. It's harder for me to speak about other dancers because I did not see the company often enough... Anyway, I think everyone is bummed by the new plans on ticket prices--including me. But I most certainly believe that the company has a real problem -- that it's not a fiction or an excuse to give up on its audience.
  11. Texting while driving (as with cell phone use) might become, or perhaps already is, an exception to this. I have certainly seen public service announcements on the topic.
  12. Smirnova looks very intriguing...but what a trip Asylmuratova is--the loving mother you can never satisfy.
  13. I have not seen the Kudelka Cinderella and can't evaluate it--it's been interesting and fun to read a defense of it on this board since the critics rather seem to dislike it. I do love the score of the ballet--dark as it is!--and although I know most people are somewhat bored by Ashton's Stepsisters (though they don't seem to have been bored when the roles were danced by their creators--Helpman and Ashton), I think Ashton's version as a whole is very fine: much of it a kind of light-handed twentieth-century translation of Sleeping Beauty. Actually at times in the second act it almost seems mere Sleeping Beauty pastiche to me: but not the first Act Seasons sequence where he really creates a wholly new classical vision from deep within the tradition. However, I really started to think that it could be a good choice for ABT after seeing the company dance Sylvia -- three performances in a row with three completely different casts, every performance lovely. As with Bright Stream, ABT really looked like a company dancing Sylvia (even if the dancers did not all look like Ashton dancers!). That's the context in which the Ashton version makes sense for me (and, please, a revival of Fille). I do see, though, that now that Ratmansky is with the company it might make sense to get his version (which, however, I have not seen, so it's hard for me to have an opinion)... P.S. When Darcy Bussell's Cinderella made a tender farewell to the 'sweeter'of the two Stepsisters towards the end of Ashton's version--that moment alone made the whole stepsister shtick worth it.
  14. I wonder where labor would be included under expenses? (Also, marketing)...
  15. Thanks for the heads-up! I'm going a bit off topic here, but I vote for using some Scriabin music in choreography! And I've always thought the final movement of Shostakovich's violin concerto #1 would make for interesting dance music, though the rest of the concerto might be difficult. I have a distinct memory that Arlene Croce once wrote she had never seen a good ballet to Shostakovitch's music...wonder if she will change her mind. (I had a mixed reaction to Ratmansky's Concerto DSCH--but Bright Stream made me regret all the ballet scores Shostakovitch never got to write...)
  16. Well I agree that it's "their business" if they smoke, but if they smoke in a film being made about their lives, that film is a public document (as they know) and their smoking on film is a choice that the viewers may well comment on and wonder about. For myself, I often like to express myself strongly to other fans without necessarily thinking that those feelings merit being mailed directly to dancers involved (or that I should be needled about doing so). Principal ballet dancers are de facto role-models to young ballet students, but it's hard to say what kind of responsibility that imposes on them--probably not much. Kirkland felt compelled to append a few lines to the credits for the Wolftrap video (in which she appears with Baryshnikov) in order to criticize her ultra thinness and urge young dancers not to follow her example; she points to him as the better example (unlikely as that may sound to a reader of her first book). But she has come to see herself as having a kind of mission in the ballet world, and that is hardly typical...Moreover her point had a bearing on the quality of dancing specifically--she tells young dancers you can't dance well when you are that thin. Though of course anorexia is not good for non-dancers either! Like others on this board, I have noticed a lot of dancers smoking, doubtless for a variety of reasons (weight and stress presumably being among them). I also think the ultra-restrictions on it in the U.S. are out of hand--it would be more honest to make it illegal than to ban it in outdoor spaces. (I write as someone who has never smoked and gets migraine when exposed to second-hand smoke; I am also appalled by its long-term health impact.) Oh...and I do think smoking almost always looks strangely attractive, even sexy, at least when I can't smell it and no-one is coughing.
  17. ...I am curious just how well the Balanchine black and white week sold--and whether it sold at retail indeed. I had also assumed that the reason NYCB is scheduling more full length works is that those are the top sellers even if they are not the works I (and many fans) most want to see them dance. When I read on this board that it's Swan Lake that's selling fabulously at NYCB, I have to ask if the audience really IS what it WAS at NYCB not when it comes to this or that individual (I consider myself an 'old timer' as would many on this board), but on the level of numbers that make a real economic difference to their bottom line. That said, I think it is very unfortunate that the company has introduced such an abrupt change and caused such distress and anger; and it may not serve them well. I do think the issue is not profit, but sustainability on their current scale (size of company, length of seasons, range of repertory, production values, costs of State/Koch theater, pay-scale for dancers etc. etc. (I guess they might cut staff or staff pay w/o the audience noticing--much--but that's only a small percentage of costs). It has been a long time since this has been the City Center NYCB...but perhaps adjusting the scale would be a better solution than making it impossible for the less well-heeled to attend. It's hard for me to say since I don't know just how greatly it would have to be adjusted and I don't know what the contract issues are. And I remember the anguish when the company laid off a handful of dancers a few years ago. In that context it's also hard for me to make a serious economic/marketing analysis of what the company is thinking (whether I would agree with it or not): perhaps, depending on what Dan Wakin can find out (probably not much), certain questions could be addressed: is the company's "loyal" audience all that loyal as a group or has it been dropping off in recent years anyway? Was a bigger audience in the expensive seats more or less subsidizing the cheap seats for years--and now, has that subsidy dropped so that the cheap seats are becoming harder and harder to sustain? Do they have hard data about where their audience is growing and does that play a role in the changes etc. etc.? Regarding the Met: There may still be 'cheap' seats at the Met but I believe they are substantially further away (and I would say worse) than even the 4th ring at NYCB...much worse than the 3rd ring.
  18. Like Volcanohunter I adore this ballet. But on the whole, I am reading surprising little love for Coppelia on this thread. I confess that while I'm not shocked at the lack of love for ABT's Coppelia or for any particularly ragged performance of the same I am a wee bit at the skepticism regarding the ballet altogether ("no idea why it's still in the rep"-- well, the score for starters...) So, I can't quite help myself from responding... Many ballet lovers consider Coppelia ballet's great nineteenth-century comedy. I have already remarked on the quality of the score. (If memory does not betray me, Delibes was one of Balanchine's trio of greatest ballet composers: Tchaikovsky, Delibes, Stravinsky. At all events, we know he chose to stage this work despite being no fan of preserving the past for the sake of the past.) It also has a story that's merry on the surface with deeper resonance that productions and performances can draw out in slightly darker directions--or not. I've seen it done successfully both ways. In any production it puts into play 'classic' oppositions like the natural versus the mechanical, ideal vs. real, young versus old, outsider vs. community. It also gives us the ballerina as intrepid, flesh and blood heroine AND, yet simultaneously, through her Act II deceptions, as dangerous muse. Choreographically this means plenty of dance contrasts as well (character classical, pantomime) and Swanilda's Act II tour de Force itself is, in effect, a kind of commentary on the nineteenth-century ballerina run amuck. The choreography considered in the abstract?: In any number of more or less traditional productions I have always found it quite enjoyable with classical and character highlights in Act I--and a remarkable encounter of two counter-forces in Act II (whether played for comedy alone or comedy with a bit of tragedy), and memorable variations and grand pas de deux in Act III. Well danced the whole exudes gaiety and charm but also a certain waywardness, maybe cruelty or, at least, cruelty as one of the byproducts of everyday life. The style is not Sleeping Beauty grand of course, but gentler almost more 'romantic-ballet' in tone (I think, but I am writing as an amateur): the dancing is airy and buoyant and, for example, the sheaf of wheat episode gives us a kind of melancholy, but tender picture of the uncertain lovers--not a show stopper, just one episode, followed by other happier, more festive ones even as the seemingly harmless lovers' quarrel continues. Act II of course suggests that their quarrel may not be so harmless--until Swanilda saves the day. In short, Coppelia has lasted in the repertory for good reason. Which, of course, does not mean that anyone has to like it let alone think that this particular production or these performances were successful. (There is lots more on the ballet elsewhere on this site--especially in the forum devoted to individual classic works.) I saw the Franklin production at ABT a few years ago and thought I recognized it as more or less the same as the one he did for the National Ballet a few decades ago and that I assume dates back to the touring Ballet Russes versions as mentioned already above by Faux Pas. Mckenzie danced with the National Ballet and must have known this production. I remembered it as seeming magical in my childhood when I saw it with the National--especially Act II and Franklin's own wonderful Coppelius--but when I saw it at ABT, I thought it looked thin, probably for reasons already discussed above by Faux Pas and others (too few dancers, inadequate character dancing etc.). But even so, I found much in the production to enjoy. I can, of course, imagine that shabbily performed it can be dismaying and all the commentators here are pretty consistent in pointing to the faults in ABT performances so far this season. But whatever the flaws of this production and these performances, Coppelia is a major work of art, one of the ballet's masterpieces. One may not like it, but it remains in repertory for good reason.
  19. Cubanmiamiboy: it really took this movie to make you want to go to Paris? Well, whatever the reason, do go!!
  20. I was able to see the opening and thought the ballet was terrific--very much agree with what has been said already--though I'm afraid the funniest moment of the evening for me occurred when the woman behind me explained to the two young (very well-behaved) children with her that the hammer and sickle looming over the stage stood for "hard work." Gee...I guess capitalism really CAN co-opt anything. As for the ballet: completely delightful. A wonderful score, fantastic energy from everyone on stage, choreography and mime engaging at every moment. I would have very much liked to to see it again--and there were some details in the synopsis I did not quite 'see' on stage (especially regarding the young girl and lecherous accordion player). It would also be a real pleasure to compare casts in such a richly characterized work with so many wonderful roles. Unfortunately, that is not in the cards for me and I'm now back home (not New York). The first Act is a lively festival of dances following on the arrival of visiting ballet dancers to a collective farm and including, if I'm not mistaken, a sort of mock battle of 'reds' and 'whites' culminating with the ballerina's circle of grande jetés around the stage as if she were the very symbol of the revolution. But everything in this ballet is done with a light touch and (something Canbelto alluded to) the irony seems as much at the expense of Soviet ballet as the Soviet Union. Though it's not a sour irony, rather a loving, laughing one. The second act is almost all cross-dressing farce (including a barking dog) with adulterers and lechers being put in their place, but no-one getting (too badly) hurt. I found it laugh-out-loud funny with lots of great dancing--but I also rather suspect that with familiarity, the laughs would thin and one might even find some of it a little long. The ballet has a very short finale--with everyone massed together, different groupings alternately raising their arms against a backdrop transformed from images of rural agriculture into a grandiose modern cityscape. (The Soviets did collectivize the farms partly in the hope of getting more food to the cities though I'm guessing Ratmansky did not mean his allusion to operate on that level of policy detail...If the same transformation took place in the original Bright Stream in the 30's--well, maybe...) Opening night received warm applause, but not as much of it as I expected. No front-of-curtain bows at all...I think a longer, more dance-spectacular grand finale would have made a difference, but I assume Ratmansky was following the score/libretto as it was originally set in the 30's--and also maintaining his lightness of touch. Earlier in the act, in the pas de deux for Zina disguised as the ballerina and her would-be cheating husband, the music reaches a grand climax and at that moment...he runs offstage for a minute; it turns out he is getting her a bouquet of flowers and she is left standing there. It's a characteristic playful/ironic detail playing against expectations and, in a way, the structure of the whole ballet follows suit. The only comment I heard as I left the theater was a rather resigned sounding "well, it's a farce" from an older women I infer was a subscriber. I can read that everyone commenting on this website (so far) loves the ballet and I did too, but I am very curious if the ballet has gotten a more resounding reception at other performances--and whether it really will be a hit. Please report. The four principles I saw were Herrera, Murphy, Gomez and Halberg. For me the dance high-points of the evening came from Herrera and Gomez. I thought she was wonderful. So often criticized for a dull or disconnected upper body, she danced here with beautiful fluidity, lines radiating from tips of her head and fingertips through a supple torso and gorgeously arched feet. Murphy was excellent--engaging pantomime and authoritative dancing--but next to Herrera's supple, lyrical lines she looked a bit dry and colorless. When they danced in parallel on stage, my eye kept drifting to Herrera and, as a longtime Murphy fan, THAT is something I would never have anticipated. Halberg hit what seemed to me a pitch perfect combination of goofy and gorgeous in his disguise as a Sylph tricking an old man--and I was delighted by the choreography's sometimes quite detailed parody of the elusive, romantic ballerina. For me, though, Gomez was the star of the show. He danced with such extraordinary warmth and musicality--the music seemed right inside of him at points--and in the pas de deux he lifted Herrera as if she were a feather-weight. It's really not partnering when it's done that well, just two people dancing. I have always liked Gomez but never been entirely in love with his dancing--this makes me an outlier I know; well, I am an outlier no more. All of the secondary dancers were very good, but I will join others in singling out Salstein's accordion player--he really did almost steal the show. No mean trick when the show is this good. I could hope that the energy and engagement all the dancers brought to this ballet would spill over into their performances of the classics. But I rather suspect it won't. Still, what a pleasure.
  21. Wonderful that you got to see Osipova in both performances and two ballets in which she is fabulous...I wish I had been there, but from a more abstract perspective, I can't help wondering if it is the wisest thing in the world to cast a ballerina--even a strong, young ballerina--two nights in a row in contrasting major full length ballets. I would hate to see Osipova's career stymied by injury as has happened to several other major talents.
  22. I also wonder if more could not be done to make these programs sell better and I was surprised not see more "fuss" whether in advertising or special features about an evening featuring premiers by the two choreographers usually considered the best classical ballet choreographers working today. Of course, it would have been good for ABT had the NYTimes, say, had a big Sunday feature on their "Premier" night. (I should add that it's entirely possible a Times writer or critic lobbied to do such a feature and was turned down by the editors.) But I also think casting can work wonders, which Vipa also suggested. What about a classics to premiers evening that included "Other Dances" with Osipova-Halberg alternating with Vishneva-Gomez? That would be artistically substantial and a crowd-pleaser. Macaulay's own suggestion about pairing a short work with one of the shorter, two act "full length" works is also shrewd. ABT's "audience" may be happy with the current Met seasons--but that does not mean they would not also be happy if the company developed its strengths in repertory programs (or, for that matter, improved the quality of their full length productions). By featuring just one repertory program for four performances in the middle of the week, it's as if the company is actively discouraging audience interest by showing its own lack of faith in that kind of program. The Met season is the company's "big" New York season so what they do there matters and there are a number of short works that, historically, have played there very well including ABT classics such as Rodeo and Fancy Free. I don't think the ABT Met season need or even should radically change--far from it--and I hugely admire much of what Mckenzie has done. As the director of a ballet company only in fantasy, my job is a lot easier than his! Still, I can't help but think that at least a full week or week and a half could be managed of two different programs or varied mix and match repertory with shrewd audience-pleasing casting. I also suspect that having more repertory programing would generate more interest in that programming, as it would show audiences that these programs are an integral part of the season, and that the company itself has faith in what they are doing. To say something a little more directly on topic: in one or two articles I have thought Macaulay sounded as if he simply wished ABT were a different company and for me as a reader those are not his most interesting moments, but in his review of the recent premier evening I did not think that was the case and he does seem to put his finger on something at least some ABT fans care about...which is part of the reason it has generated this discussion...
  23. I agree and I would add that Guillem's high extensions did not involve straining her body or distorting her line (at least not in the Swan Lake I saw). I will leave Skorik aside because this was a rehearsal video and, indeed, completely decontextualized from any performance in which a particular pose or moment can be fairly assessed in its full impact, but generally speaking when dancers distort the classical line to get a high extension in a nineteenth-century work, it looks not only unharmonious to me, but strained and awkward. I think I understand what Angelique is seeing in the Skorik video--but when I have seen the torso shift like that in the theater for a high side extension in a nineteenth-century work, what come to the fore for me is the sheer mechanical shifting of weight. At its worse, it can look ungainly. Certainly, in some twentieth-century or twenty-first-century works an ultra high extension with a slightly distorted classical line may seem acceptable or even effective especially when the emphasis is not so much the position as the quality of movement (energy, power, etc.). At New York City Ballet, I don't necessarily get as concerned about proper alignment. And I myself some years ago defended a Dvorovenko "six o'clock" arabesque penché at the end of Giselle against some sharp criticism on this board--I thought she made it suggest her aspiration heavenwards. So, I am not the purest of purists... I am also sure there are dancers of such poetic genius they can make you go along with any quirk (Skorik and Somova -- neither of whom I have been fortunate enough to see -- may be that for some) but those kind of quirks should be the unexpected exception, not the rule. Unfortunately, many of us feel that these distorted and strained lines are becoming the rule even in nineteenth-century ballets and, depressingly, nowhere more so than in the company that, for many of us, once was the embodiment of classical purity--a living and vital classical purity. Like Helene, I find the claim that this style of dancing is a response to what "western" audiences want to be very unconvincing. There have been Western ballerinas with unusually high extensions (Guillem, Bussell) though they had less distorted lines than we are discussing, but they were/are not the "western" norm. Farrell danced an entirely different repertory and would seem to be an inappropriate comparison. More to the point, as far as responses to the great Russian companies go...could Somova be taking more of a pasting from the public in the U.S. and Britain? Even Guillem has never been fully 'accepted' in the United States as the great artist I believe she is or as a popular "star" (like Osipova) and I distinctly remember that when Zakharova was unveiled early in her career, with no-holds barred extensions in Sleeping Beauty, she, too, was criticized whereas the less over-the-top Vishneva was warmly received and has many American fans. (Of course, now she dances with ABT which adds to her American fan-base.) The "audience favorite" guest artists with ABT this coming season are Osipova and Cojocaru--both of whom have clearly been trained to press their extensions, but do not do so remotely to the extent of Zakharova and Somova. I think it can hardly be said that these are dancers who are not popular with wide ballet-going audiences. And in the generation just prior to the current generation, who was a bigger Kirov/Mariinsky star in the West than Assylmuratova? Now: is there some larger phenomenon going on--a "gymnastics-ization" of ballet that has in different ways affected top companies across the globe including the Mariinsky? That is a thesis I would find easier to take seriously...though it is an argument that needs some nuance as well.
  24. Excerpt based galas are the ABT standard, but this was my thought exactly. Still, I have to add that, on paper, I had thought this gala looked dull even for a gala. I'm tempted to add that that was evidently Macauley's thought too, but of course I don't know why he was not there. But it was certainly Sulcas's response in the theater. It does seem as if everyone enjoyed Vishneva-Gomez in the Manon pas de deux.
×
×
  • Create New...