Drew

I actually think the Tchaikovsky program has a fair amount of variety in mood and choreography--it's not like the program is Allegro Brillante, Theme and Variations, and then Piano Concerto Number Two. Mozartiana is meditative and intimately scaled while Piano Concerto Number Two is more extroverted and grand (riffing on Petipa) and Serenade is as poetically and musically suggestive a ballet as has ever been created: the dancing for the corps de ballet offers something like an idealized image of an essential 'esprit de corps' and even, at times, friendship, while other sections of the ballet include images of profound isolation and loneliness. Unless one has a very limited taste for Tchaikovsky's music, I would say this is a great program. I also think Serenade is about the most 'sure thing' ballet I know as it can be terrific even in a second-rate performance though it may only be transcendent in a first-rate one. My memory of Jewels is that without great performances it is decidedly less than great Balanchine, but, I will add that either program will be well worth anyone's time and it's a rare NYCB performance that does not have some excellent dancing. (Bart: my experience taking NYCB 'novices' to see the company is that they usually appreciate great choreography as much as the most ardent ballet fan though poor performances and/or great ones can make a difference to their reactions.)

I attended the two first performances. One caveat: I have been following the very interesting discussion here, but I don't have the same kind of expertise and did not even try to keep track of all the details of production history as I watched. You can consider this more of an "average-ballet-fan" report... I found it an enjoyable production, though it felt long opening night--less so, but still a bit long, the next night. Openings are often just a hint 'off' and I think this was no exception and factored that in as best I could in assessing the performance. My guess is that by nights number 3 and 4--or by the time Natalia, that you see it!--it will be looking better and better. I have to add that I suspect one reason it feels long is that in some ways the greatest dance climaxes come early--two flashy pas-de-deux in Act I and the three odalesque variations and beautiful Jardin Anime (with the prettiest music -- Delibes at least I can remember) in Act II. Ratmansky's Petipa pastiche choreography for the Pas d'eventailles is the only big dance set-piece that occurs in Act III. I thought Ratmansky did a very fine job, but, still, the final dance climax of the evening is not exactly the choreographic highlight of it. Also, in this final classical sequence the heroine dances with a cavalier (not the hero) and, making the scene feel a little odd, she dances with a cavalier in front of her supposed husband, the Pasha, even though one of the ballet's regular jokes is the presence of Eunichs to mediate between the Pasha and his harem. I do NOT substantially object to any of this and am willing to believe anyone who tells me it is more or less authentic, but in thinking about why the evening felt long...well, the overall structure seems to me part of the problem especially on a night like opening night when the dancers were not, in my opinion, really 'sizzling' and the spectacular stage effects of the final scene did not come off. That said, I did enjoy the production, more than the other two Corsaire productions I have seen. A mix of pantomime, classical set pieces and character dancing hinging on a senseless plot which the staging does not, and probably could not, make sense of. The production is, however, visually beautiful: it 'makes sense' so to speak to the eye: wonderful painted sets and even more beautiful (really, truly fabulous--detailed, varied, sparkly) costumes. As always with the Bolshoi I thought the character dancing was outstanding, a true highlight. Merkuriev--a terrific villain (Birbantio) and Anna Rebetskaya led the character dances opening night and as long as they were dancing I was enthralled--this was really the hands-down highlight of opening night for me and one of the highlights of the two evenings altogether--genuinely great dancing. Also, I think I am in love with her! The next night the character dancing remained strong, but not quite on their level. In the classical ensembles, I also deeply appreciated the fact that the company dances like a company; to me, at least, the dancers showed a real unity of style and the women in the corps roles and small ensembles were especially enjoyable for this reason. (Oh, and though Zakharova is one of their stars, the company does not appear to make a fetish of long legged, super thin, hyper-extended dancers. That's a plus.) Since I am most familiar with American Ballet Theater's production of Corsaire, I was struck by the fact that the ballet is really a women's showpiece and, especially, a showpiece for Medora. American Ballet Theater has made it over into a men's ballet. Here, the choreographic highlight was certainly the Jardin Anime--it overcrowds the Coliseum stage and the dancers were cautious, as if worried about a crash, especially opening night--and did I hear them talking to each other???--but nonetheless, at last, I feel I understand the scene's reputation as one of the great set pieces of Petipa. Even with the Kirov I didn't quite get it before. The scene is pure, gorgeous classical dancing. The sets do not include fountains, as does (or did) the Kirov, but the dancing is like a fountain -- one section arises and, as it 'falls' away to an end, another, just as beautiful, arises...by the second night the dancing was approaching to sheer pleasure. I do hope the Bolshoi brings this production to the Met--where presumably they would have the space they need to showcase the choreography properly. I thought all the mime sections were well done--actually so well done that for my taste the effete pasha and, as I infer (and Mel mentioned), the 'stage Jew' Lankedem were a little queasy making, but I have no wish to argue with anyone about it--Gennady Yanin as Lankedem was especially good. I agree with Leonid that classical variations throughout had a few too many bumps and bobbles in finishing--and that fault was repeated the second night as well. But overall, for me, a nice festival of dancing. I especially liked Matvienko whom I found dashing and charismatic (evidently not everyone does) as well as a fine dancer. I also liked the way he partnered Zakharova--at one moment, in an overhead lift of the opening act he seemed to rise onto demi-pointe as if to lift her higher and higher. Zakharova is gorgeous and seemed especially ornamental in her use of her upper body--she also offered some very well articulated gargouillades in the Jardin Anime scene that the next night's ballerina (Alexandrova) did not pull off. The ballet's big tutus are especially flattering on her, and she now seems to have a more controlled relation to her own facility than she used to...but I did suspect she was a bit off. Turns (something she is known for) did not always seem one-hundered percent secure. I thought she was at her loveliest in sections of the Jardin Anime. Shipulina as Gulnare pleased me by her shear security though I did not find her as kittenish as Gulnare seems meant to be (at least in this version). I do not mean the remark about her security as faint praise; whenever she came on one felt one could just relax and watch her dance. The three odalesques have always been my favorite part of the ballet in other productions. Of the three dancers (same cast both nights) only Osipova made a strong impression on me (though the other soloists were better at the second performance). I was sitting in the last row opening night and from there she looked about 12 years old--a little older when I sat closer--with a big smile and stage-filling presence despite her relatively short stature. She seems to have a huge natural jump and a delightful earnest-while-joyful manner of presenting herself. She did a remarkable series of jumps along a diagonal, turning in the air in retire on each leap--very impressive opening night and maybe even more easeful and relaxed the next. I would love to see her in a big part. Among other featured dancers: both nights, Vasiliev put his heart into his dancing in the pas d'esclave, but not always his control and actually I wouldn't be surprised if Osipova jumps as high as he does. However, I know he is very young and would be happy to see more of him. I did very much like the two women who sort of 'led' the featured group of 6 girls in the jardin anime and also led the ensemble in the pas d'eventailles: I think these were Chinara Alizade and Anna Tikhomirova -- and if anyone knows which one of them was the darker haired girl, I would be happy to find out. I was very charmed by her. The male cavaliers to the ballerinas in the Pas D'eventailles did not make a good impression though Shpilevsky, who partnered Zakharova, is big and strapping which I like to see in a male soloist -- the next night the dancer performing the cavalier repeatedly made what I can only describe as outright mistakes (as well as bobbles on his jump landings)-- entering early and even getting in the way of the ballerina at one point towards the end. At the second performance, Tsiskaridze was a very engaging Conrad. I did think that his dancing in his big solos was not so easy and intense as I remember it being in New York (in the Shades scene of Bayadere) a few years ago. And he danced what appeared to be an easier version of his 'coda' solo in the act I pas de deux than Matvienko. But I enjoy his long lines and joyful presence. As most people reading this probably know, he has recently recovered from a serious injury. He was an especially happy Conrad, smiling at his ballerina and happily smooching her when he got the chance, also moving beautifully through his various mime scenes and set poses--which is pretty much what most of the ballet gives Conrad to do. When Tsiskaridze throws up his arms over his head it's an image one can savor--a quality that is especially necessary for the ballet's final tableau. Maria Alexandrova was terrific as Medora: a light, bounding leap and a bounding personality to go with it. Her dancing showed the snap and excitement that opening night was missing She also exuded authority--almost all her solos, including speedy, flashy turns etc., ended with a kind of slowing of the movement as if to emphasize her sheer control as well as the beauty of the steps. She is not a "pretty" dancer exactly, but a very vivid one. Moreover in Act III, she loosened up just that little bit extra and, to my eyes, was dancing with the sparkle and magic I associate with the greatest dancing. As a result too, the Pas D'eventailles looked like a proper dance close-out for the evening. I would say that Alexandrova along with Osipova and Rebetskaya (with Merkuriev) offered the dance highlights of my two evenings. Yatsenko as Gulnare was interesting to me: I am so used to 'leggy' dancing that initially I found her lack of extension, at least as she danced this role, something I had to get used to--that is, she seemed a little constricted to me. But I quickly came to enjoy her musicality. She and Alexandrova are more of a match physically than Shipulina and Zakharova which gives the Jardin Anime a nice 'sister' quality--hardly necessary to it but still enjoyable. Work took me to the United Kingdom--I'm home now, so no more Bolshoi for goodness knows how long, but I will be reading all the reports.

Flames of Paris has a cherished place in my memory. In the 1960's the Bolshoi brought a highlights tour to Constitution Hall that included a "Flames of Paris" pas de deux danced by Yuri Vladimirov and Nina Sorokina -- I was a tiny little girl and my memory (which, admittedly, is not perfect) tells me that my parents did not buy me a ticket because I was...well...a tiny little girl. But other family members had tickets and someone could not attend at the last minute. I was allowed to use the ticket, accompanied by a long lecture about sitting still in my seat and not talking during the performance (which was unnecessary since I was mesmerized by all ballet) and considered myself very lucky to attend. Without question the "Flames of Paris" pas de deux was my favorite -- I was absolutely convinced Vladimirov could fly. About ten years later--when I was a slightly less tiny--I saw another highlights program of the Bolshoi at Wolftrap in which Vladimirov and Sorokina danced the same pas de deux (I'm guessing it was their 'set piece'), but at that time I thought it looked appallingly vulgar, and Vladimirov, in particular seemed heavy and effortful. Although my taste had undoubtedly changed over time, I am guessing the years had also taken their toll on Vladimirov's and Sorokina's technical brio. But the bottom line is that now, much more than ten years later, I am thrilled the ballet is being revived in toto and very eager to see it. I assume from Natalia's allusions to the Marseillaise that the "flames" of Paris at issue are those of the French Revolution not the 1871 Commune--that's something I always wondered about since I have never been able to find a libretto...(?)

Wonderful photos--I especially like the costumes...

I'm planning to see this in London as well. I see practically no ballet these days, and am very much looking forward to it. Even if the production turns out to be flawed I can't imagine I won't enjoy it! Natalya -- if you learn anything about casting beyond opening night, please pass it along as you judge appropriate. (I would have loved to see Bright Stream in London but my work calendar did not comply.)

I saw "Voyage," the first play, in February--I thought the production and staging were gorgeous and I enjoyed the play. But I did find it overly expository without the exposition being particularly substantive or daring. Nor did I think all the exposition was necessary even though I know very little about this period in Russian history. A key problem for me was that Stoppard seems incapable of taking the philosophical passions of his characters seriously, while his satire of those passions isn't all that insightful or funny. (I suppose that to satirize them effectively, one would have to take them seriously.) I also found much of the acting overly emphatic. Admitedly I haven't been to the theater much in recent years, so perhaps I've lost the feel, or even the taste, for theatrical acting. However, Richard Easton, the actor who played Bakunin's father gave a very moving performance. (Easton suffered a heart attack during previews, but returned later to the run-- very fortunately.) I did think the play had a number of emotionally touching moments especially as each act drew to a close and I'm guessing the whole trilogy gathers emotional if not intellectual steam. As historical reflection, I prefer the crazed fantasy of, say,Stoppard's "Travesties" to "Voyage" which is not quite fantasy and not quite history either. That said, I did not feel my time was wasted and if I had the chance might well try to see the rest of the trilogy out of curiousity if nothing else.

sz -- I wasn't sure if your question was directed to my post or to everyone commenting on Gottlieb. So I'll reply for myself. I enjoy posting on Ballettalkand reading what others have to say--but no, I don't think, I have some deep argument with Robert Gottlieb worth his time (or mine) for a private or public debate. (I do think that some so-called differences of opinion are matters of judgment not just personal taste. In fact, that's why Gottlieb is often a critic worth discussing--because he knows something about ballet and presumably isn't just offering opinions)

I bought tickets via the website for a trip to New York in February (my one chance this year to see ballet). I requested Orchestra seats and wrote a note in the comments section saying I did not want to be in the first four rows. (One can't see the dancers' feet and the seats aren't banked at all.) I received the tickets in the mail: second row. Perhaps that was all that was left and perhaps they misread my comments and thought I wanted to be in the first four rows. But I'm unlikely to be buying tickets again via the website until they change the system. I love the company and was able to pick up better seats once I was in the City, but I can't wait for them to fix this.

As ViolinConcerto wrote (and others have echoed): "Jenifer Ringer -- BLAND????" Sometimes reactions to dancers are matters of opinion--but an 'opinion' may also indicate that someone has missed something that IS happening on stage or is just unresponsive to it...I do like to read Gottlieb and take him (more or less) seriously, but I really stumbled over this one... (I picked the weekend that included performances of The Four Temperaments to come to New York for my once-a-year chance to see some ballet and I was disappointed to see such uneven performances of the ballet--which has not always faired badly during the Martins regime--and especially disconcerted by the casting of Sanguinic. So I understand Gottlieb's dismay...but for my taste, too, he was a little too snyde when alluding to the height disparity problem between Gold and LaCour...)

I think the big screen makes a difference. I am often bored by opera on television and have not been the least bit bored by the two productions I have seen in the movie theater, Magic Flute and Eugene Onegin. There is also a bit less of a disconnect between opera--with its over-the-topness--and the big screen than between opera and television. (Of course, I don't think it hurt the Onegin that Fleming and Hvorostovsky seem to belong in the movies.) But still, knowing that a broadcast will be on television very soon is bound to keep people from buying tickets to see it in a theater.

I would be interested in hearing reactions to the Met movie theater broadcast of Eugene Onegin. I enjoyed it greatly, but am far from knowledgeable about opera....

drb--I saw Bussell in Cinderella at the Met as well. I loved her performance and in addition to her dancing I especially remember her very tender mime farewell to the 'nicer' of her two stepsisters. She smiled so sweetly without becoming sacharine...just lovely.

When I saw her in "A Month in the Country" (a little less than two years ago) I was very impressed and even surprized by the suppleness of her upper body--she really looked like an Ashton dancer. The choreography looked utterly 'alive' and filled out. I can't say she had the dramatic "depth" in the role that Guillem brought a few nights later (nor did Guillem have anything like Bussell's supple upper body) but she gave a touching account of it nonetheless. With Bussell I think, in any case, that the depth is IN the dancing. She obviously is not everyone's cup of tea, but I find her a wonderfully compelling dancer. I'm also one of those who thought her performances in Agon with NYCB were more or less the best thing I had seen at the State theater of that time since the retirement of Farrell--and the innocent-yet-erotic quality that invested her dancing was extraordinary. I will add that clips of her in Sylvia from BBC look just terrific.

I am curious what the answer is to Bart's question. (Google turned up articles on "Realtokyo.co" and "Japanreview.net" claiming that Madame Butterfly was initially quite poorly received in Japan for pretty much the reasons we are talking about it here. But I have no way of evaluating these articles.) I was also curious about what people thought of the current Met production by Minghella. In an interview on NPR he spoke about letting Puccini do his thing, but I still wondered if the use of Bunraku puppets on the Met stage would in fact have a framing effect--drawing attention to how the story itself was invented at a distance from its material. At any rate, I assume it's not a scenic effect Puccini ever had in mind...

I was surprized not to see any mention of David Henry Hwang's play M. Butterfly in the article. Hwang addresses the question of Western racial and erotic fantasies about Japan in part by riffing on Madame Butterly. This article is not a particularly good example of the kind of work scholars can do with these questions. But I also feel it is totally legitimate to explore the belief systems (good and bad) that inform works of art from other eras. Actually, I think it's an important thing to do precisely because these works are part of our inheritance as art lovers etc. (I also believe that sometimes people are too quick to assume that "everyone" thought a certain way in past eras. Not everyone in the early-twentieth century, when Puccini's opera premiered, thought the same way about colonialism or race...though certainly certain ideas were prevalent.) Anyway, even though Puccini drew on ideas and images that were prevalent, I don't think that means we should not bother thinking about the place of those ideas in his work. Since racist ideas justified directly and indirectly some pretty ugly events--and continue to do so--perhaps we should have some heightened self-consciousness about their presence in works we otherwise admire. One doesn't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but why not acknowledge that the bathwater smells a bit...The fact that Pinkerton raises one's ire doesn't entirely change things: stories of native nobility and innocence have always been part of colonial fantasy. Does that mean one can't continue to enjoy Madame Butterfly or, say, the Blackamoor in Petrouchka? of course, that's not something that can be dictated to people one way or another. But I do think we may learn to see these works differently and that's not a bad thing. So I'm all in favor of having some discussion of these questions. I also wonder whether for some works of the past, a director could offer a production that indirectly reflects on the question of stereotypes without cleaning thee works up or distorting them...Perhaps some of the people posting here have seen productions of this kind? Although I doubt Puccini is a good candidate for this sort of treatment, other artists might be...

Oh...it's still the best entertainment available!

I don't read much into this--the article is in a British paper while according to the NY Times on January 4th "[Wheeldon] said Mr. Martins gave his blessing" while the Times doesn't quote him discussing Monica Mason's support.

Dirac I love your posts and agree with you on almost everything!! But I must admit... I liked The Good Shepherd very, very much and found it totally mesmerizing. I was a little disappointed with elements of the plotline involving Matt Damon's son which had a number of implausibilities that, I thought, didn't fit with the tone established by the rest of the movie -- and I did think Jolie was just too gorgeous for her role (though not at all ineffective in her scenes and fun to watch). But I still found the whole thing gripping from beginning to end. Usually episodic plots lose me, but here I felt drawn into a whole world of relationships or, perhaps, that should be "relationships." I know a lot of people and reviewers haven't liked it, but for me, Giannina's description is perfect: "riveting." To make things worst: I saw part of the Fiesta bowl--but left while the game was still tied, telling my husband that I thought it was a very good football game, but that a very good football game was still a football game.

I went to The Magic Flute--it was sold out and the audience included lots of (well-behaved) children including quite young ones. However, the website on which we bought the tickets did not make it remotely clear that this was an abridged version. My husband and I were a little disconcerted when we found out--enjoyed it nonetheless very much. (By the by, I do think having a performance of an edited version that is child-friendly is a great idea--though one wouldn't want that to be the Met's regular practice--and I think it makes a heck of a lot more substantial introduction to opera than Nutcracker does to ballet.)

I confess that part of me was a little disheartened that Wheeldon said in the Times article that he wasn't interested in inheriting a tradition...that he wanted to start from scratch (at least institutionally). Of course, I can understand why he might want to do that--for a Wheeldon "fan" this can't be anything but great news. But I feel that ballet and the great ballet companies need choreographers who ARE interested in inheriting traditions and working within institutional frameworks. Balanchine did otherwise--but if he had been offered the Paris Opera Ballet I don't know that he would have... Perhaps. In the Ballets Russes documentary Baronova (I think it was she) says he wanted to be the person in charge... Forsythe (whom Wheeldon mentions) and Feld are more recent models whose work at least stands in some relation to classical ballet--I haven't seen anything of their recent work so I can't say much! But I still find it troubling that the most promising ballet choreographers seem impelled to operate on what one might call a modern dance model: a smaller company centered on the vision of one founding figure. Leigh--are you speculating that Wheeldon might have hoped to have been offered the Royal Ballet position? I would certainly prefer that it had gone to him, as I see him as a ballet choreographer, rather than McGregor (despite the fact that I would not, in fact, describe myself as a Wheeldon fan...yet at any rate). But it's hard for me to believe Mason wouldn't have gone for Wheeldon had he been available, and if he wanted that kind of position why not stay on at NYCB especially since he intends to keep his own company in New York and use a number of NYCB dancers....It sounds to me as if he really does want to be on his own.

My thanks as well volcanohunter --

I also found this, as Andre Yew said, refreshingly frank--and without sounding the least bit sour. And it does seem that one way or another (guest appearances, tap dancing with her daughters, or bully pulpits)) dance is a going to remain a big part of her life for a long time.

The pas de deux that led to the pillow/pregnancy in Tiller in the Fields might be worth reviving--perhaps for a gala in Tudor's honor. Personally, I'm most curious about Echoing of Trumpets with Romeo and Juliet a close second. However, Lilac Garden is my favorite of the Tudor ballets I have seen--including one performance with Kirkland as Caroline. (I found her performance very moving.) The Leaves Are Fading with Kirkland was, as I remember it, a transcendent experience--but from all reports the ballet has quite survived quite beautifully with other casting. I hope they do revive it for the centenary.

I think a strong and powerful Juliet could be effective (in Macmillan's version at least).

I saw Souvenirs as a kid too--with my Mom. It was the closer on a program danced by the Harkness ballet. It definitely had lots of "silly" and we loved it!