Drew

In the ROH broadcast I thought the first act did feel--and was--long with a lot of storytelling gesture dominating the act, as mentioned above, but for me the first act packed a big emotional punch at the end that brought everything home--so there was a payoff. On that basis alone, I decided I would like to see the ballet live if possible, though the most memorable dance sequences happen later in the ballet. (I will know next week whether I'm seeing it or not.)

Just the mention of Kirkland and cancellations brings on my balletomane PTSD. She is still my favorite ballerina of all time. I hope Lane is feeling much better and gets some other opportunities to practice and develop her art as she would like. Huge sympathy to everyone who went to Houston to see her. I know I would have been crushed.

I also was not particularly bothered by Jaffe and Wheeldon's comments--"story ballet" (esp. full lengths) has not usually been my favorite genre for 20th and 21st century ballet, but ABT does need to differentiate itself from NYCB and "story ballet" is an obvious way to do so in a single phrase. (I know NYCB has some story ballets in its repertory. It's still not their calling card.) Since Jaffe plans on reviving Etudes this fall, I'm not all that concerned she will be giving up on classical showpieces and the like. Personally I would like the 19th-century classics to be a big part of her vision as well even if here and there tweaked along the lines of the Dutch National Ballet's traditional-but-tactful Raymonda. And I suspect they will be. But to return to Wheeldon's comments: choreography that tries to make every part of a work cohere dramatically is a time-honored aesthetic in ballet--albeit one that has been hard to sustain. Wheeldon talks as if he were positioning himself as the heir of Noverre, Fokine, and Tudor. I'm speaking of his language and not his achievements--I haven't seen LWFC and reactions to it seem to vary a lot. I do appreciate that with Like Water for Chocolate, he is looking at a 20th-century Mexican novel for source material and bringing a fresh narrative to ballet. Concerns about cultural appropriation are not unreasonable but Esquivel's blessing for the project carries weight with me--and though I don't remember the article mentioning it, she has been involved in promoting the ballet in both the UK and here in the U.S. There was a time New York could support two major companies even though both of them had ups and downs in the minds of fans and critics. If ABT is going through a transition--artistically and financially--then I can only hope they pull it off successfully and NY remains a home to two major companies. The alternative--a fate like that of New York City Opera--would be far more depressing to me than anything being talked about here.

I was just referring to Gottlieb in the discussion thread on New York City Ballet (the subject was programming). A compelling figure in many spheres--may he rest in peace.

Over and over, when I study the different programs on offer, I find myself sort of squinting at them in puzzlement. (Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but as much as I'm looking forward to the Fall, I'm afraid I even squinted over some of the choices and configurations for the all Balanchine programing.) At first when I noticed the issue, I thought the company must be deliberately trying something 'different'--as if to say that 'just because Ballet X was always an opener 30 years ago, doesn't mean it has to be an opener today.' And, in principle, they should be trying different things. Fresh juxtapositions can lead to revelations or at least welcome new perspectives. But I haven't gotten the impression from reading professional reviews or comments by long-time fans here that new perspectives are being generated. Just concern about how programs are put together as programs. Perhaps the company could benefit from a new Robert Gottlieb type figure?

Hello @KateLibby and welcome. London is a fabulous place to see great ballet and dance. I am always happy to read about what is happening there. Your website sounds like quite an undertaking.....

When Balanchine created his one act Swan Lake, showing only one act of Swan Lake -- the first lakeside scene-- was the norm in the United States. People went expecting to see that scene only and in the context of a mixed bill program. That's pretty much all that was on offer for many years after Balanchine's production premiered. (And, as I understand, the Petipa-Ivanov production originated in Ivanov choreographing a stand-alone Lake scene--what we now know as Act II or Act I, scene ii, and its success spurred the development of the multi-act ballet.) Insofar as Balanchine re-choreographed some material and brought in elements of the final act, his was a different approach but it was still the expected one Lakeside Act. The norm now is different even at NYCB which has been regularly presenting a full length production. That latter fact is the reason I think it might make sense to signal in the title of this version that it's not the whole ballet. One may groan--after all it's obvious it can't be the full length ballet if it's one work on a mixed bill program. But since the company is rightly trying to pull in new audiences and not rely on old-timers or knowledgeable ballet fans I think some signal might be in order. Swan Lake (the Lake scene) or Balanchine's Swan Lake or some such. Honestly I doubt very many people are entirely confused but it could be worth addressing.

Thank you for the clarifications—that adds a whole other layer of meaning! The ultimate allusions still seem to me there. Why build a new great gate if not partly in hopes of building the connection between Hartmann’s Russian imperial present and the Medieval past? Hartmann also is a figure associated with Slavic and specifically Russian cultural revival. Presumably Ratmansky does not want anyone confusing his interest in this material with a Russia-centered version of Slavophile culture. Hence the appearance of the Ukrainian flag. It strikes an odd note to me, especially since I think Kandinsky is a very interesting mediating figure here. As some reading this probably remember, I am a huge Ratmansky fan (have been known to say a word in favor of The Tempest). And of course he has the right to change his works. This change sounds discordant to me, though @abatt suggests the impact is minimal. And I hope to see the ballet again soon and I will see what I think then. Ratmansky’s artistic and personal journey is what it is ... I have not forgotten Bright Stream: though not without irony, it is a delightful farce set in the era of a horrendous, Stalin-stoked famine in Ukraine. He would not make that ballet again today—at least I think not. I assume Marina Harss’s book will address some of these issues.

Its being a matinee may have been the main reason. Ratmansky’s support for Ukraine has largely cast him—to my eyes—in a highly sympathetic and admirable light, but this seems problematic to me. Much of his career has been spent both lovingly and critically exploring Russian culture and history. Pictures at an Exhibition is an example. It can’t retrospectively be turned into a tribute to Ukraine. Not convincingly anyway. When Mussorgsky celebrates an image of the great gate of Kiev, surely the reference is to Kievan Rus —heck according to Wikipedia the composer traced his roots to Kievan Rus—and like Kandinsky’s radicalism (though for different reasons) it has nothing to do with being a standard bearer for Ukrainian nationalism. And the whole spirit of Kandinsky’s abstractions and Ratmansky’s own witty, choreographically ‘colorful,’ abstract adaptations of the source material is undermined with the literalism of a flag. If the argument is that the folk traditions recalled in the ballet have Ukrainian provenance, not just Russian, then add a note in the program discussing the issue. That would be a fine idea. Ratmansky has created more recent work in which incorporating the Ukrainian flag might be appropriate and I would happily applaud if he carried a Ukrainian flag with him during a curtain call for any of his ballets, but the backdrop is no trivial part of this ballet and changing it at the end seems to me to change the ballet. Of course, it is his ballet and he can do with it what he will but, writing as an admirer of this ballet, I wish someone had talked him out of the idea. (No, I do not support Putin. I think he is a war criminal.)

Thank you @angelicaand @nysusan —it sounds like I will keep this seat for the pleasures of a closer look at the dancers without heads in front of me albeit maybe missing some sections of stage. If it were my only performance, then I would be more wary since I gather that it is a ballet with scenic effects and that Wheeldon makes full use of the stage, but I will stick with this seat.

Thank you! I have given it a try — unfortunately the views they show from seats closest to where I would be all show the stage with a scenic curtain down so it is harder to judge.

I seem to have bought a “partial view” seat for Like Water For Chocolate at the Met. I did this more or less by mistake (don’t ask) but I am thinking it may not be ALL bad as it would take me closer to the stage than I can usually risk in an orchestra seat. And in my distant youth I did sometimes enjoy oddball seats. Anyway, I would be in the front row of Parterre Box 7. Has anyone sat in that box (or 8 across the horseshoe)? Any impressions to share? I am prepared to buy another ticket if it sounds like am going to lose too much to enjoy the dancers. I am a little less concerned about scenic effects because I will be seeing the ballet from a much better seat at a different performance. I have this seat for a dancer I am particularly eager to see. How much of the stage gets sliced off? (I am familiar with much of ABT’s full length rep, so reference to it would be meaningful to me.) Thank you.

Im' curious about a number of those dancers and where they may end up. I wonder, too, if this means that Simkin will be seen more with ABT if only as a guest?

Deleted

The inclusion of a moment in which the whole nation is summoned to pledge allegiance to the monarch and his descendants did rather catch my attention. It's ostensibly meant as a democratizing gesture -- where the "peers" once plead allegiance, now the "people" will. From the BBC website: "The order of service will read: 'All who so desire, in the Abbey, and elsewhere, say together: I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God' "It will be followed by the playing of a fanfare. "The Archbishop of Canterbury will then proclaim 'God save the King', with all asked to respond: 'God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May the King live forever.' Link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65435426

The solo in Square Dance was created for a dancer with "deep deep surrendering backbends" and a notable Melancholic in Four Temperaments--Bart Cook. Having seen Cook in the role--and also later, in a rather different performance, Peter Boal--it has always felt to me an incredibly important part of the ballet. I'm glad you got to see a performance that could bring that home to you--even if only as a one time event.

Hello and Welcome. San Francisco looks to be doing some great ballets next year!

Stevenson's version was even danced by Margot Fonteyn back in the day. From an article by Anna Kisselgoff when ABT had the Stevenson version, briefly, in their repertory (link follows): "George Balanchine was especially taken with this version and had it restaged in the mid-1970's at the Geneva Ballet, where he was artistic adviser..." https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/19/arts/dance-the-man-behind-the-much-in-demand-cinderella.html

Wishing her great success...

Thanks for the heads up....

In addition to what's been recommended already, I'd also put in a good word for Balanchine V--Serenade; Orpheus; Theme and Variations. Serenade and Theme and Variations are two of Balanchine's greatest ballets --both set to Tchaikovsky who was one of the composers most important to him and yet very different from each other. Serenade was also, in a slightly different version, Balanchine's first ballet in the United States so it has a special place in ballet history. in my experience Serenade is also cast-proof. So if you haven't seen those ballets, then it's a great program. Orpheus is, in some ways, an unusual work in Balanchine's oeuvre and hard to pull off, but it is always super striking visually because of the Noguchi designs and at least gives an example of one of Balanchine's collaborations with Stravinsky. It's also a narrative work so that breaks up the program a bit ... I also like @volcanohunter's suggestions especially Program IV because both Concerto Barocco and Symphony in C are also "must see" ballets. And Prodigal Son is another work with designs by a major artist (Rouault) and also a narrative ballet sitting between two non-narrative ballets. The company seems to have designed the programs to feature variety across Balanchine's oeuvre--in some cases that makes certain programs a little too split personality for my taste, but I think both of these programs look great as programs.

That's a wow ! I have seen and admired PIckett's work, but Crime and Punishment is a heavy lift, and Pickett's work has not been much seen in New York, so she doesn't have an established reputation there. I think an ambitious commission of this kind is a risk worth taking.... but it is a risk. I will definitely try to see it!

Farrell and Martins were a great dance partnership. However, when Martins became director of the company, he did not keep many of Balanchine's past ballerinas/muses around to coach and lead rehearsals. Farrell was working with the company in a very limited capacity but shortly after an interview she gave the New Yorker indicating some of her frustrations with the situation, he fired her and she did not work again with the company until after his departure as Director. Since Martins appears to have not wanted other leading Balanchine dancers to work with NYCB or, at least, not often, I doubt the interview was the only issue. I have heard and read people defend Martins' reluctance to involve Balanchine's former leading dancers to continue working with the company (Not just Farrell but, say, Patricia McBride) on the grounds that different dancers remember different versions of the ballets; plus other issues arise with having former dancers around to coach -- everyone's Balanchine is different, personality issues; Martins' need to establish himself as the company's leader etc. etc. But I fear a lot of knowledge was lost to the company's traditions when dancers who had worked closely with Balanchine for years were not regularly working with the new generation of dancers after his death. When, after Martins' departure, McBride returned to coach the role she created in Rubies, dancers talked about how differently she 'counted' the music and how difficult it was to adapt...that's not trivial. Those of us who saw Farrell's now-defunct pick up company at Kennedy Center know what remarkable things she could do when staging ballets--even with dancers not always at the level of NYCB. Here is a link to a NYTImes article published at the time of Farrell's firing: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/04/arts/city-ballet-breaks-off-its-long-relationship-with-suzanne-farrell.html

Errante was the name of a ballet Balanchine created for Tilly Losch when he directed Les Ballets 1933 —the company that introduced Kirstein to Balanchine—so when I saw the name I wondered if someone was trying to reconstruct it. But such a project did seem very unlikely. A renamed Tzigane makes more sense and I understand the reasoning behind the name change. (The ballet is still what it is, but if the name change keeps it in the repertory, then ...). I hope Farrell will also be working with dancers on Diamonds and some of her other roles.

For 2023-2024 Atlanta Ballet's is co-producing with Hong Kong Ballet and Queensland ballet a full-length work by Annabelle Lopez Ochoa --Coco Chanel: The Life of a Fashion Icon. It actually has already premiered in Hong Kong -- I found one rather mixed review of the premier but most of the review was behind a paywall so I only read the opening paragraph. On Pointe Magazine also had a short feature article about the ballet a few weeks back that I read this evening. The author of the article seems to loathe Chanel, and that takes up a lot of space in the article, but I imagine this ballet will be a draw and I'm hoping it will be a reasonably substantial work that also manages to garner a lot of publicity. (Atlanta Ballet danced Requiem for a Rose by Lopez Ochoa during McFall's tenure.) I'll put the link to the On Pointe article below along with a link to a Hong Kong Vogue feature that talks more about the ballet itself and a video feature with Lopez Ochoa that was posted on Hong Kong Ballet's youtube channel, but here is one interesting bit for Atlanta audiences. "When Atlanta Ballet produces the work next February, the company will partner with the William Breman Jewish Heritage Museum to explore the harmful impact of Chanel’s antisemitism and collaboration with Nazis, while providing educational resources and hosting discussions on combating antisemitism today...." (I support this idea.) https://pointemagazine.com/coco-chanel-ballet/ https://www.voguehk.com/en/article/art-lifestyle/coco-chanel-hk-ballet-interview/