Drew

It's the dancer and the performance that counts as a whole, not a certain step no matter how iconic.

This is my feeling as well.

(In The Shape of Love Kirkland describes working closely with Sevillano on Giselle.)

Just a pity none of that has translated into Box Office Gold.

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.

There is a big difference between making a profit and profiteering. I believe NYCB is engaging in the latter.

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.

The comparison made between Whelan and Lopatkina caught my attention, but I'm not familiar enough w. Lopatkina's dancing to judge whether it's valid. I am very familiar w. Whelan's dancing, and her claim to fame is not classical, tutu roles, but neo-classical "leotard" ballets.

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.

Greenwich Time reviews Alina Somova's performance as Tsar Maiden in Rotmansky's "The Little Humpbacked Horse":

Mariinsky Ballet loosens up in appealing NY run

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

I thought Carmen Suite was trash. The "choreography", if it can be called that, consists mainly of Vishneva wiggling her hips and standing in sexy poses. It looked like a strip tease act, not a ballet. Why would a virile man like Don Jose wear a hot pink shirt with red polka dots? I don't have my program, but the man who danced the bull fighter role did not have an ounce of charisma. He looked very uncomfortable executing the choreography. Bizet must be turning in his grave. The arrangement of the score butchered it. Awful in every way.

Lopatkina was a dream in the second movement of Symphony in C. She was exquisite and riveting. In fact, the entire cast was wonderful, although Somova lapsed into some of her bad old habits in the first movement with hyperextension of her leg. I thought the tutus were too wide in diameter, and I prefer the all white tutus used at NYCB.

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...

i would love to see symphony concertante Bal/Mozart-- I saw Hamel and Gregory : viola and violin--so many wonderful dancers to dance it now. why doesn't NYCB do it anymore? Anyone know?

Don't really know but suspect it is a matter of just only so much time available. A lot of time that would have gone to Balanchine is diverted to newer works. In theory, I agree with this but in practice it means that a lot of time and money (both finite resources) go to such junk as the Martin and Millepied pieces.

I don't remember Symphonie Concertante having been done at NYCB for some years before Balanchine's death...certainly if it was done, it was not done at all frequently.

I believe ABT can do a lot better than Cranko and Macmillan though I know we are going to get them next season and doubtless for many seasons after. (The one Macmillan I would be curious to see again would be the Faure Requiem.) I am always happy to see Ashton in ABT's repertory and it enables them to showcase a twentieth-century classicism different from NYCB's.

Paquita is an excellent thought and quite a guiltless pleasure as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps also it would be nice to see Tudor's Leaves are Fading again (and if they are worried about box office with repertory programs, let's say Leaves are Fading with Cojocaru at a couple of the performances).

I think the "passport problem" was an official line given by Osipova's manager and ABT. Osipova regularly travels all over the world, and has done so for years. I'm incredulous that she suddenly had a "passport problem." I guess Osipova, her manager and ABT think that the general public is gullible. It would be better to offer no explanation or reason than to insult our intelligence.

I could not say one way or another, and certainly her manager needs to work more effectively with her to iron out all such problems (ahem). But I don't find the story implausible per se, because the US is so strict on visas etc. -- that's how Gelb lost a major European Opera Director for the Met. Are we to suppose he had never traveled before? I also recently had to help a non-Canadian citizen travel from Canada to the US for a short work-related visit--someone who had lived in several countries--and it was endlessly complex and delayed due to visa issues. (That does not mean that ABT does not have a right to expect these things to be sorted out; they do.)

Anyway, I am most definitely looking forward to seeing Osipova in the future!

In today's NYTimes, Macaulay wrote that Osipova withdrew from Sleeping Beauty due to passport problems.

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.

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.)

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.

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).

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.)

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.

I don't know what more to say, as I think this argument reached an impasse or rather several, several pages ago and if my posts have become silly or specious at times it's due to frustration if nothing else.

BUT it won't kill you, it's not harmful that diluted, especially with all the other junk in city air, it's a transient moment and it will be over very very quickly.

I'm not getting into another argument over perceived civil liberties, I've made my feelings quite clear on that we'll have to agree to disagree.

I do think that Nanarina's original post should have been treated far more censoriously, with a quick swift "none of your business".

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.

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.

I have to admit that the moment in Act IV where we first see Odette standing on the rocks is actually my favorite moment in McKenzie’s staging. At that moment, the music resolves from the turbulent, dissonant passage and drum roll into this soaring, expansive melody, and Odette is revealed in all her majesty, bathed in moonlight

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.)

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.

But I've seen no attempts to take LEGAL ACTION on all sorts of addictions to technology, because it's not been around long enough to show just how HARMFUL it is to the OTHER person.

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.

Smirnova looks very intriguing...but what a trip Asylmuratova is--the loving mother you can never satisfy.

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.

I wonder where labor would be included under expenses? (Also, marketing)...