Drew

45 minutes ago, Leah said:

Ratmansky just did Romeo and Juliet for the Bolshoi, I doubt he wants to do it again for NYCB. As he already has his hands full doing full lengths for ABT I would imagine that he probably views NYCB as a venue for his more modern, experimental stuff (as we saw in Voices this season). Didn't Justin Peck do a full length a few seasons back? I gather it got negative reviews, but it seems like he does have some interest in the area and as the Artistic Advisor to NYCB he would probably be the one tapped to make any new productions. And maybe doing Carousel and West Side Story have since helped him in the storytelling department.

I personally have no wish to see NYCB as a home of nineteenth-century ballets or full length ballets — and would probably prefer they commissioned new work if they want to add a full-length work to their rep for box-office. I realize that it is a riskier proposition...(Ratmansky’s R&J was choreographed for the National Ballet of Canada, though it was recently staged by the Bolshoi.)

Edited to add: I would love to see more revivals of rarely done Balanchine like Ballade or this season’s Haieff Divertimento. 

On 2/15/2020 at 6:06 AM, Laurent said:

Yesterday's « Giselle » with Ludmila Pagliero and Mathias Heymann brought tears to my eyes. These two are true artists. They are living on stage "dans ce ravissant chef-d’œuvre  de chorégraphie”, as the 19-th century critics were calling « Giselle », they don't just represent. I was thinking of that great Muse of Serge Lifar, Nina Vyroubova, when watching Pagliero's Giselle. Heymann is a sublimation of masculine balletic art. In the end, if ballet wasn’t capable of moving you profoundly, if it wasn’t lifting you up, it would not be the Grand Art it is.

A beautiful tribute....I been longing to see Heymann especially for many years now. (See in real life that is, not just video.)

Marina Harss has tweeted that Toby Tobias passed away today. She was long one of the ballet critics I most enjoyed reading--and most valued--in Dance Magazine and, later, New York Magazine.  As many reading this may already know, she suffered through a long illness--may she rest in peace.

1 hour ago, kika said:

 

Herman Cornejo did not do the entrechat six in his variation that others did,  but two sets of brises from the diagonal,....

 

That is a traditional version —you probably know this, but maybe not everyone does—and what Baryshnikov used to do to tremendous effect. For a while at ABT that is all I saw. (For example, I saw Corella do it that way —though less effectively than Baryshnikov.)

45 minutes ago, laurel said:

Lane and Copeland were part of a group of five who were promoted to soloist level at the same time (the others were Kajiya, Matthews and Boone), in 2007.  Copeland was promoted to principal in 2015, two years before Lane.

Thank you....I mis-remembered the order of promotions —but still think the phrase ‘pass the baton’ applies to Brandt in a way it would not to Lane.

4 hours ago, Lena C. said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8iCPFEjU_H/?igshid=1iqgx2qny77ny

But...didn't Copeland do the exact opposite when she had Lane step in to do Black Swan for her? Why not "pass the baton" to Lane? This just kind of feels disingenuous to me. 

Lane was promoted to principal the same year Copeland was [edited to add that Laurel corrects me below saying they became soloists at the same time and Lane a principal two years later] and is the same institutional generation; In fact, my memory [still] is that Lane also danced a number of principal roles (eg Theme and Variations, Aurora) before Copland started dancing principal roles. If Copeland were ever to describe herself as "passing a baton" to Lane, then perhaps people would find it a bit patronizing or inappropriate. Brandt is still a soloist and this is her first Giselle. She's a different institutional generation.

I infer that what Copeland was doing with her Swan Lake was trying to split the difference between not disappointing her fans--or any audience members who had bought tickets to see her--and not dancing a grueling role when ill. Two different ballerinas in Swan Lake? It wouldn't be my favorite way to see the ballet, but it is also not unheard of in ballet history for two different ballerinas to dance Odette/Odile.  Giselle...not as plausible, though I know dancers have been replaced mid-performance when injured. And who knows?  Given the criticism Copeland received for the Swan Lake "split" performance, perhaps she wouldn't do that again either. (By the by, I was a mad Kirkland fan who made some sacrifices to see her dance and it was crushing when she cancelled.) 

I think Copeland's post is a generous one that, among other things, publicizes Brandt's debut--which I very much doubt Brandt objects to having done.  Of course a public Instagram page is also a performance of sorts for the public: all of these pages and postings--whatever the topic--are also "self-promotion" ... including Brandt's Instagram.  Allowing for that context--I think this was nice. I also hope Copeland is back to dancing soon.

Oh dear...I hope your healing goes smoothly!

I would definitely like to have seen one or more of Kisselgoff's critical writings included in a collection of this kind.

I enjoyed reading this—thank you @canbelto for posting.  It certainly confirms my interest in seeing Voices too. But I don’t think I agree with Arthurs’ opening claim (which the article returns to at the end) that, until now, Ratmansky’s  work has been “essentially” divided into two kinds, either “emotionally resonant peasant inflected abstraction” or “grand-scale reconstruction”? There is a lot of Ratmansky I have not seen, but from what I have seen live, I can think of a number of major works that don’t fall into those categories as I understand them....Cinderella? Anna Karenina? Shostakovich Trilogy? Whipped Cream? Namouna? to say nothing of his “peasant-inflected” narrative works.  The word “essentially” allows for exceptions, but these ate more than exceptions.

Perhaps Arthurs thinks of most of the ballets I names  (Namouna, Whipped Cream, Cinderella etc,) as grand scale historical reconstructions, but that would be far too loose a definition to be meaningful. And there is no sense in which Namouna, for example (or Bright Stream for that matter) coukd be considered a “historical” reconstruction.   (And if his Cinderella is, then so is Ashton’s and a few dozen others.) From video I have seen, I would add Psyche to the list.

Voices does sound like a musical departure for him, which Arthurs also  writes about. And Ratmansky has frequently turned to reviving neglected, lost ballet scores as well as putting his own stamp on others. Which, I guess, may be what Arthurs was trying to get at with the word “reconstruction.” Once past her opening....I read the rest of the review with great interest....

(I have seen Ratmansky repeat certain steps, partnering moves, and images across ballets in ways I very occasionally wonder about — that is, I have thought he could afford not to recycle that particular movement. I think genre-wise he has shown some variety....)

3 hours ago, FPF said:

If, as we see in this production, Giselle's death is not by suicide, why would she be buried in the woods, rather than the churchyard?

The Church is in clear view, so I sort of wondered if her grave wasn't simply at the far edge of the Churchyard, but perhaps there is another explanation...

3 hours ago, Buddy said:

Although, as you imply, Drew, that it can’t seem to work and perhaps makes no sense ...

Sort of puzzled by this. I definitely did not mean to imply that.

(The fact that I find the reconciliation with Bathilde “incomplete and uncertain” — the part you quoted from my earlier post — doesn’t mean it perhaps makes no sense or can’t work. To me, as I indicated in the post, it means things may never be the same between them or at any rate that the ballet's ending does not, as someone suggested, tie things up "in a bow." Something profound has happened and it does have consequences.)

On 1/28/2020 at 12:36 PM, seattle_dancer said:

California, Drew, for anyone is trying to understand this version's ending, I found this video really useful, starting at 2:18. 

Thank you again for posting the video EricMontreal!  After mulling over our "debate" I still feel she should have been returned to the grave.  It's just too nicey-nice to have the forgiveness sandwich as Helene calls it and Giselle is spared from being a Wili.  It doesn't feel right to have this ballet tied up with a pretty bow.  No, I'm sorry Giselle should be a Wili and Albrecht has to live with that the rest of his life and forever be tempted to go in the forest for a glimpse of see her.  His actions must have consequences, I don't see how he should be let off the hook entirely.

In every version I have seen, I have understood that Giselle is finally freed from being a wili...perhaps more because that is what I read than what a staging can make explicit unless one sees her ascend, like the sylph, to heaven. (And I may even have seen that,) But I have always understood that, whatever the production and wherever she is buried —hallowed or unhallowed ground—her powers of love and forgiveness free her....which, to me, is a compelling idea and true to the ballet I have been watching. For me, too, the traditional Albrecht alone in the forest was most powerful when one saw, as in Nureyev’s interpretation, that he had been through a transformative, spiritual ordeal. (Bruhn writes very interestingly about Albrecht’s growth over the course of the ballet in the versions he danced.) Ratmansky likes to humanize things and I found this ending very ‘’human’ so to speak though as performed by Belyakov more about the intensity of Albrecht’s love for Giselle than deepening self knowledge...And his performance didn’t suggest everything was tied up in a bow exactly—He was so anguished that the ‘return’ to Bathilde felt very incomplete and uncertain especially since it seems a bit rushed....Certainly one can’t imagine things will ever be for him (or her) as they were. I imagine different dancers can and will take different approaches in Ratmansky’s version too....allowing for different ways of reading the ending.

I think one case for returning Giselle to her grave in this version is that the staging does such a great job of clarifying its significance (the cross’s significance) earlier in the act. But for me the totality of the production/performance was so moving that I am more than willing to embrace Ratmansky’s vision as a whole. I hope the Bolshoi is able to sustain its attention to detail within the wonderful sweep of the whole as it performs the ballet without Ratmansky’s supervision in the coming years.

As a fan, I don’t need (or want) every version of Giselle to be identical. I am still grateful we have this one.

16 hours ago, California said:

Another take on this that I've been thinking about: Albrecht wants her to stay around, even if only in spirit form. Putting her back in her grave ends that. Gently laying her down on the grass keeps open that possibility. To his dismay, the earth swallows her up anyway. [...]

This is more or less what I thought--that he was trying to keep her with him and that is why he carried her away from the grave, but she was returning to the earth in spite of all he could do...

3 hours ago, FauxPas said:

The bit where the Wilis form a cross comes after Giselle's wild circle dance when she comes to life - they all circle around her and it ends with them forming a crucifix formation kneeling.  This does not make sense since the Wilis are later shown to be repelled by the cross on Giselle's grave - why would they form a cross?  [...]
 

There were minor technical problems with the transmission at Empire 25 Times Square.  Some regular audio dropouts in Act I, some pixelization in Act II and also red lights that randomly appeared that may have been on the Bolshoi technical crew's end.

I thought, perhaps, the Wilis making the form of a cross could be considered a kind of demonic parody -- the way a "black mass" is a parody of the real mass etc. (Another example would be the way Dante's demons sometimes seem to be parodic images of Catholic doctrines.)

We had the identical technical problems in the theater I attended in Georgia.

Forgot to say above that Smirnova was one of the least consumptive Giselles I have ever seen and that I really liked too -- it was part of what made Smirnova's  performance seem as genuine and fresh as it did...

(I don't know how much leeway Ratmansky is giving his performers and how much is his direction but I assume, from what he said in the interview, he gives at least some leeway.)

Edited to add: And the backdrop for Act II! Especially the dark twisty tree branches along the top--but I think maybe every few minutes I will think of something else I "especially" loved about this production and performance...so I'll stop.

I feel as the others who have posted do. I thought this was fabulous. And with the all of the historical research that went into this production the whole thing had not a whiff of piety about it. (I like Ratmansky's Sleeping Beauty a lot--but it did have occasional whiffs of piety, at least at the performances I saw.) This Giselle felt like new. Every single moment seemed to have been given fresh attention -- every single moment made meaningful.

Was there anything I didn't like about it?...I did think for a brief moment that when Giselle learns the truth, Albrecht is so remorseful immediately and Bathilde so kind it takes some of the sting out of that moment (at least as the scene was played by Belyakov and company today) and I sort of like the "sting" -- but I can accept this as a different interpretation when the whole is so convincingly presented. (Including, in my ballet-going experience, a surprisingly brutal at times Hans -- ie Hilarion.)

Performance-wise, I thought Smirnova and Belyakov showed much more connection than they had in the broadcast of Raymonda (where Smirnova could not have looked less interested in him) and it was a balletic connection, their lines harmonized beautifully throughout which was especially  wonderful -- and dramatically moving -- in the second act. I can't say Smirnova is ever likely to be one of my all-time favorite Giselles, but I did feel Belyakov and she were going full-throttle. Huge cheers from me.

( @cubanmiamiboy -- I think I asked on another thread what you thought of the diagonal at the end of Giselle's Act I solo; I had not thought to see that at the Bolshoi.)

Anyway--I love this production.

I would love to see this! Alas...not this year...but I'm hoping next year and the in the meanwhile looking forward to reading about it.

53 minutes ago, cubanmiamiboy said:

Here's Ratmansky's take on this "lost" piece of Giselle.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157295743974191&id=647664190

@cubanmiamiboy did you catch the Bolshoi Giselle broadcast? In addition to the fugure, I thought you might have enjoyed seeing the straight diagonal of turns (instead of a circle of piques) at the end of Giselle's Act I solo....

The production also flattens the class distinctions of Act I (no contrast between peasants and nobles) and has an ending in which Siegfried survives having to live with his experience....Martins has a jester, but I find it rather different from the Soviet ones--his jester is the only one to add a dimension of meaning to the ballet and not just jumps. He also never insisted his Odile's dance the fouettes--some did, some didn't--I would guess that's the same today.

I only find Kirkeby's designs hard to digest in Act I but it's an abstract design for the lake scenes and a very austere one in the ballroom scene. As I remember, too, some Balanchine choreography is kept in the lake scene--it's not "back to Ivanov."

Back when I saw the production (over several seasons, but all some years ago) the company un-apologetically danced like NYCB, not like an American company trying to recreate a nineteenth-century classic or, for that matter, trying to recreate the rarefied style of the greatest European ballet companies. I think Kirkeby's designs should be viewed in that spirit and, though things may have changed. I suspect that's what you should prepare yourself for in the dancing too.

Wonderful photos...may be rest in peace.

On 1/17/2020 at 12:23 PM, On Pointe said:

I took a look at Misty Copeland 's Twitter to try to understand the outrage her comments seemed to have engendered,  as I felt that the statement she made directly was quite innocuous.  It was an eye-opening experience,  not because of what Misty posted,  but because of the racist invective sent her way by the girls' defenders,  especially from Russians.  I now believe that the "little girls" were fully aware of the racist connotations of their costuming,  and that they found it amusing.  In my opinion,  they should have realized that you're safest when you keep your bigotry under wraps,  among like-minded individuals.  But they were old enough to know that Instagram goes out to the world,  and blowback was forseeable and expected. 

I don’t want to over-rate the sophistication of 14-year olds, but this was partly my suspicion when I saw the photo (long before I knew Copeland had said a word about it and possibly before she had since my algorithms do feed me Russian ballet students from time to time). The young dancers didn’t seem merely excited about dancing in Bayadere (though they may also have been so —probably were)—the point of the photo seemed to be that their makeup was a giant hoot. And it is very hard for me to think that some of the hilarity that the photo projected did not include a touch—or more—of outright racism however little they may have understood the full implications of that racism. It is a little harder for me to say I think they knew there would be blowback—and obviously I don’t think they knew how bad it would be—but when I saw the photo, I at least wondered if it didn’t have a semi “trolling” motivation. I can’t know. My point is simply that  I am not as confident as many posting above that the girls were posting entirely innocently. Do they deserve death threats? No. And...uh...Would I liked to be judged for the rest of my life on things I did and said at the age of 14? No—but I also wouldn’t deny what was wrong or stupid about them.

I also know very well that the history of race and racism in Russia is very different than the history of race and racism in the United States. But I find claims that Russians therefore are not or can’t be racist to defy credibility or to be based on an extremely limited notion of what racism is.  “Pushkin’s ancestor”  or Russia’s lack of involvement in the transatlantic slave trade etc. —these are important but do not encompass a more complex history.

As far as the ballet itself goes, it is worth remembering that Petipa was not Russian. On France and blackface people are welcome to read Fanon on French advertising  or even google more recent controversies. And France of course was very much involved in the transatlantic slave trade and had slavery in its colonies through 1848.

(If Copeland tried to ‘open a dialogue’ with the Bolshoi as suggested above, I think they would, at best, pay no attention to her. At best.)

A lovely rumination...yes, thanks to all. Including our founder -- who still posts from time to time! -- Alexandra Tomalonis....

Somewhat similarly to  @Helene I managed to list my "bests" above and then leave out THE best individual dancer performances I saw this year--perhaps evidence of my not-so-unconscious partisanship for the Mariinsky since what I left out were Bolshoi performances I saw in London.

Best: and probably the single most exciting male performance I saw all year (Kim notwithstanding) would be Belyakov's Crassus for the opening Spartacus of the Bolshoi's London season.

"Best" performance in the sense of most complete artistically of those I saw all year would be the Zakharova-Rodkin Swan Lake also in London. Their romantic chemistry and Zakharova's flowing, organic movement...actually made this the best overall Swan Lake performance I have seen since seeing Lopatkina with the Mariinsky in 2013. And this, despite the fact that I do not care for Grigorovich's production...at all.  (Unfortunately, I can't say youtube video of the broadcast performance Zakharova and Rodkin gave of Swan Lake ca 4 years ago, remotely captures what I saw--or felt I saw--this year.) I haven't seen a lot of Zakharova live in the theater, especially in the last decade, and this was the most memorable performance I have seen from her by some measure -- even if I managed to forget to include it in my earlier post 😳.

Very sad to learn this news....Her work staging Balanchine is a wonderful legacy .... May she rest in peace or, rather, dance in joy ...

I'll stick with ballet in my list. That said, I didn't see a lot of ballet this year and expect next year to be the same--that's my "worst"--

Best:

Claudia Schreier's premier with Atlanta Ballet, "First Impulse," choreographed to a wonderfully chosen score by Eino Tamburg. I suppose I'll have to see it again before I feel more confident of my "first judgement," but on one viewing I found this a terrific new neo-classical ballet and hope it's a harbinger of more to come from Schreier.

Mariinsky's visits to D.C. are always a delight to me when I'm able to see them; this year they came twice,  though not bringing quite such stunning fare as in some years. Still, they were wonderful and highlights included the flush of new talent the company put on display both in Corsaire and in Paquita. Among the performances by at least slightly more experienced dancers, "bests" included Shakirova as the villainess Carducha in Paquita and Kim's extraordinary Ali in Corsaire.