Drew

Accocella interviewed Ratmansky's friend Mikhail Baryshnikov for the piece:

"He loves Russian music, and for him everything comes from music. When he talks to me about ballet, it's always about music. Or Tchaikovsky, or Prokofiev, or Asafiev. 'I live in that country for so long,' he tells me. 'I do what's first. When I will live ten, fifteen years in the United States, I will do American music.' " Baryshnikov thinks that the reason Ratmansky created "The Bright Stream" is that its score as by Shostakovich, and he couldn't bear to see a major Shostakovich work retired. (He has set seven ballets to that composer.)

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...)

Surely if Aurelie Dupont, Marie Agnes Gillot or any other dancer or indeed person wishes to smoke it's their business and theirs alone. But if you truly feel so strongly about it why not write to the POB and take it up with Dupont? I'm sure she'd be delighted.

www.operadeparis.fr

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.

I took advantage of a discount program to get seats to black & white at $55. I know when repertoire is not going to sell at retail.

...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.

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.

Cubanmiamiboy: it really took this movie to make you want to go to Paris? Well, whatever the reason, do go!!

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.

Giselle with Alina Cojocaru - I've been going to the ballet for more than 40 years. This was one of the greatest performances I've ever seen. I don't even know where to begin. I'll write more tomorrow -maybe.

Please do!

I have to eat my words. Both performances---Giselle on May 26 and Coppelia on May 27---went on with the announced casts. Osipova was spectacular in both. 24 hours after an unbelievable "Giselle" which, in my opinion, surpassed her performance two years ago with ABT, she was fresh, effervescent, and full of energy in "Coppelia". There were indeed cameras in the theater for the "Coppelia" performance on the 27th, probably as a backup for the live broadcast planned for May 29th. Ivan Vasiliev's house debut in Giselle went very well.

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.

In terms of a mixed bill selling I think that there is PR and there is also choice of ballets. ...

...just trying to make the point that a program could be put together what would sell with the right hook and a little PR push.

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...

Now, there ARE those exceptions in which the dancer is just such STRONG technician that some extensions here and there seem to be just a justified part of a whole-(Guillem comes to mind).

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.

I've seen this kind of excerpt-based gala before, and find them almost always deadly as evenings, even when (as with the Curate's Egg) "parts of it are excellent."

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.

News of the Koch theater:

http://other98.com/david-koch-theater-rebranding/

No (political) comment from me...

I'd love to hear your impressions about the programming concept Balanchine Black and White Week -- and, of course, its execution.

These are the works that made me fall in love with ballet. It's thrilling to see so many great works presented in rep over a week. No other company in the world would (or could) attempt this.

[ ... ]

This week has offered the kind of programming fans on this site regularly have clamored for (especially in years past) -- often complaining about Martins' (at least claimed) lack of attention to the Balanchine heritage; nor has the casting been lacking with regard to the company's most talented dancers. I, too, would very much enjoy hearing more about the performances and, insofar as one can tell, if the programming is indeed attracting audiences.

Thanks for links (and again for photos): I very much hope to see this ballet -- and would certainly love to see it with the Bolshoi--though as Natalia suggests, Mckenzie must have his eye on it for ABT.

A photo gallery of the new Ratmansky ballet "Lost Illusions" at the Bolshoi Theatre. Premiere on 24 April 2011.

Lost Illusions.

Thank you Marc: I opened this thread in order to ask if anyone had seen the ballet or knew about critical responses to it so far...

I also saw him when I was a child -- My Mom took me and I was very excited.

He did do some goofy joking around on stage that I thought seemed 'young' even for a very young man--I was a bit younger myself, but sort of an 'old' young--but I did very much enjoy the concert--the music and Fodor's good looks...not very high-minded of me, but he WAS good looking.

Although the program had its share of flashy music, if memory does not betray me, it was also the first time I ever heard Bach solo music for violin. A favorite ever since.

It is a sad story, but there do seem to have been some post drug arrest ups as well as downs.

Thanks for link. I was rather pleasantly surprised at how much they got to do and thought all the dancers performed with considerable elegance under the (less than ideal) circumstances.

I was worried someone had hacked into my account and posted something so heinous I had been banned with no recourse. Seriously--that's what popped into my head, followed by increasingly complex scenarios that I will spare you. I then asked a friend to see if she could get onto the site from HER computer and we discovered that it was a more general problem with the site...at which point my friend told me about a Law and Order episode in which a site was suspended because one of the people who worked on it had been murdered...

Very pleased to discover the problem was more banal.

Perhaps I should give some thought to the saying that when you hear the sound of hooves, you should think horses, not zebras. (It applies to those of us in North America at any rate...)

I am still a little puzzled at Burlaka's departure--I just reread the opening of thread and Natalia's original report said that it was his wish. But that report took a long time to come to fruition and did so amidst the stickier situation the company faces now.

The company I saw in London this past summer was simply brilliant and I was not alone in that opinion. And the recent scandal did not have anything to do directly with Burlaka. So I continue to be a little puzzled. If this was his wish, then has he anywhere given his reasons? If not, then what about his directing--say, his repertory/casting choices or personal leadership of the company, or relationships to the higher-ups--made it impossible for him to be 'allowed' to continue?

Yanin: one of the finest character dancers I have ever seen; Osipova and he together in Act II of Coppelia will go down among my all time ballet-going highlights. Plus he must get some credit along with Burlaka for the marvelous state of the company I saw. So...as far as the 'scandal' part of this goes, I can't help myself in either direction: I'm kind of curious and kind of would prefer not to know anything.

Filin: I remember as an elegant Romeo to Stepanenko's Juliet in Washington some years ago. Certainly, to an outsider he sounds like a promising choice...

(Angelique: I realize you were making a joke of sorts, but still...Osipova looks nothing like Natalie Portman...)

Do I notice a STRONG resemblance with Kirkland...?

I thought that as well, but when she tilts her head sideways, I think of a young Audrey Hepburn (who was also trained in dance)

I also thought of Kirkland watching this clip, not overwhelmingly--but a bit...Hope to see Obraztsova live one day (though I think it unlikely I will).

Delighted to read these reviews.

Ambonnay: you mentioned the view from the middle-right side of the front row was excellent--can you see the dancers' feet properly from the front row?

"Contempt in which she held the art form"--There are many things one could say about Kirkland, some of which I would agree with and some of which I would disagree with, but from her performances (those great and those troubled) and her writings, one can tell that she held and holds the art form up to a transcendent standard which can scarcely be achieved. (In fact, given what one can infer of her character, that may have been part of her difficulty). And her obsessiveness in rehearsal, which has been criticized, hardly suggests contempt. Nor does her decision to found a ballet academy and reports of her success (some in this thread) as coach and teacher.

That she was self-destructive and that this led to weak and cancelled performances, that she had the problems of an addict (though not, as far as is known, at the time of her performances for the Royal), that she has been conflicted about many aspects of the profession qua profession, even that it's likely that she sometimes deceived herself (few addicts don't)--yes, that's part of the record. But I find this particular comment to be outrageous and, to me, it is deeply offensive--whatever one's opinion of a particular performance.

Casting change: Alina Somova and Tereshkina were switched.

http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=showEvent&event=BLBSF

One might almost suspect the management of having a sense of humor--though I realize there could be rational reasons for this. Where are the kremlinologists ... ooops I meant Mariinskyologists...when you need them?

The performance of the State Ballet Theater of Russia in Atlanta has been canceled (weather related problems).

We have all had dreary experiences with touring companies, but I at least have also had a positive experience and I would not assume by any means that all of these companies give shoddy performances as a matter of course. For myself, I was quite curious to see the Voronezh production of Swan Lake (Soviet-isms and all which may bother me less than Cubanmiamiboy as long as I know to expect them).

(I also wonder if the rather low key ballerina entrance he described may be the company ballerinas' response to dancing in a different theater for every single performance--some with good floors, some with bad; some with good wing space, some with bad, etc. etc. It's only a guess on my part, but they may have decided discretion was the better part of valor.)

A website called Artsalive.ca (which Paul also may have discovered in his searches) attributes it to Blasis--along with the use of enchainements in the classroom, but the site does not give a specific source. I have tried doing searches on one or two of Blasis's treatises on googlebooks, but so far, no luck.

Sorry to reply to my own post--further googling of google books also came up with various historians saying Blasis though it was hard to tell if they were really saying he invented barre work or merely codified it...(I assume it's impossible to know who was really the first to USE a barre)--Again, I realize Paul you may already have poked around in these immediate digital sources.