Drew

I'm a little confused. Individual tickets haven't gone on sale to the general public yet. I know ABT has many subscribers, but why would anything be well sold at this point?

That looks decidedly fun --

How exciting about Seo. She is a student of one of the greatest mariinsky Auroras (Sizova) and, when I saw her, a very fine Aurora herself.

Deleted.

As I've written elsewhere, I thought Somova was very good in Little Humpbacked Horse when I saw her dance it at the Met. She exactly caught the goofy, playful tone of the work without becoming too sacharine or coyly adorable--and still managed to look like a fairy tale princess at the same time. (She won a prize in Russia for her performance in this ballet.) I rather think Washington would be cheated if she didn't come on the tour -- and, of course, Shklyarov. But I expect they will. He was really fabulous in the little excerpt presented as part of the final BAM Mariinsky tribute to Plisetskaya program. The ballet also offers a feast of Mariinsky character dancers in mime roles. Overall, I remember thinking the ballet did often look very much like a children's illustrated book come to life.

Sleeping Beauty because it was the first I saw (though on film) and I immediately became enraptured with ballet. Giselle and Coppelia crucial for me and works I got to see repeatedly when still a child. As a very little girl, probably my favorite work at the (now defunct) National Ballet was the grand pas from Raymonda. The curtain would go up and the ballerinas would all be in classical tutus and the chandeliers glowed. That was IT for me. I recently found an old program that said the staging was by Balanchine and Danilova (set on the company by director Frederic Franklin). This is a memory that I sometimes forget, but the recent Mariinsky tour brought it back to me. My first memory of very consciously loving and thinking about Balanchine is a performance of Symphony in Three Movements I saw as a teenager. By that time, I had certainly seen other Balanchine that I liked and I wouldn't see Symphony in Three Movements again for a number of years. Still I think it DID impact my taste because Balanchine's modernist works have become so important to me. (There were other Balanchine/Stravinsky works on the same program--including, I think, Stravinsky Violin Concero--but Symphony in Three Movements is what really blew me out of the water.) I was impacted at times by performances perhaps as much as by choreography. That would require a different thread.

I enjoyed Little Humpbacked Horse when I saw it in New York--and a number of the Mariinsky's best dancers have appeared in it in the past. I wouldn't come to D.C. for a week of it, even if I could, and don't plan to come up even for the weekend to see it next year. But if I had never seen it and it were an easy trip then I would try to catch a performance or two for sure. It's an unfortunate limitation that goes with the wonderful policy of Mariinsky for a week every year in D.C.--just one program is on show. I try to be philosophical but ...

Yes... And a congratulations, too, to the other winning pair Bilash and Chetverikov from the Perm ballet. (They had been favorites of mine so I was quite happy.)

I never met Carbro but think of her sometimes when I think about this site--she is definitely missed.

I have always been curious about this version of Romeo and Juliet...

Almost laughing--in horrified sympathy--at your travel woes. Glad you were able to see the Mahler ballet at least -- and thanks for your account of it.

Interesting to read about the notation etc....I prefer changements well done to awkwardly done entrechats that no-one can even agree really were entrechats or that collapse (more or less) into bunny hopping down the diagonal. And actually a clear change of foot looks very good coming down the diagonal. (I fear that pretty soon younger members of the audience will agree that 32 single fouettes in Act III of Swan Lake is a 'simplification' of an accepted shift to the choreography -- like Giselle's hops on pointe -- added after the premier but become the established text; people already sometimes write apologetically about ballerinas who 'just' do singles. I'd take singles well done any day over poorly done doubles or even doubles alternating with singles in uneven fashion. I do prefer to see Giselle hop on pointe properly down the diagonal in her Act I solo and I like the entrechats in Raymonda when well articulated. But it hardly seems to me crucial to the essence of Raymonda that Legnani's version of this diagonal--as far as historians have determined--takes pride of place over a notated version from the early 20th century. Especially when the latter can look better.)

Mariinsky brought Fountain of Bakhchisarai to the Met in 1999. I had to look up the date (which I didn't remember) but I actually saw it that season with Zakharova and Lopatkina. Honestly, at that time I had little tolerance for that kind of Soviet choreography and was faintly bored especially by the 2nd Act. I would probably like it a bit better now or, at least, appreciate it more. Though there are important differences as noted above, I would say that, as far as ballet tradition goes, there is still a family relation of sorts between Fountain and Raymonda. I also thought the Shurale excerpt was wonderful and would love to see more of Martynyuk.

I also only heard the clanging Sat night--too bad because I was otherwise very impressed by Smekalov's performance.

Hmm...That would have some benefits for travelers like myself too! Anyway, this final program--the only BAM program I saw--was quite a lovely event. I also found it rather suggestive to see the excerpts from Fountain of Bakhchisarai right on the heels of seeing Raymonda in D.C.

If 'Lopatkina and Friends' return (please), then I hope they appear at the Koch Theater rather than BAM--though I know BAM is now the Mariinsky's 'go to' place in the NY area. The former seems to have more in the way of friendly site lines and comfortable (un-squished) seating.

A fantastic ballet--a wonderful production. Regarding the changed story: I was wrong about the importance of the White Lady for those with better memories than I have! And without the White Lady's warning before Abdurakman appears the ballet is less of a religious allegory, but I still think Sergeyev's approach makes a certain psychological sense: Raymonda dreams of her far away fiance -- one she may not have met? -- bringing up thoughts of desire which leads her dreaming/unconscious mind straight to the only man she has met (in this version she has met him) who is openly, inappropriately sexual and desirous of her, and who at the same time embodies her fears of her own desires as he is a foreign figure etc. Uh...I'm not claiming it makes for a great libretto but honestly the original libretto doesn't seem like a masterwork of dramaturgy to me either. The original does seem to be more of a religious and, indeed, moral allegory. And of course that's what Petipa created. (So...Bravo La Scala). But I do love the Mariinsky's version. I thought the corps and demi-soloists were super 'on' Saturday afternoon, throughout the ballet but especially in the vision scene; at that same performance the line of eight woman behind Kolegova in the Grand Pas was also just extra-extraordinary; every one of them looked like a 'Raymonda.' To some degree that was true at all three performances I attended--that is, the whole company looked wonderful at all three--but the matinee just felt that little bit extra sharp and exciting. Perhaps it was just my imagination. I am at least quite confident that, Saturday matinee, during the coda of the vision scene, the two soloists executed a diagonal of turns that were quite the best I saw all weekend in that sequence: silky smooth and super fast. There was even a little ripple through the audience as they were about to applaud that moment and then the scene just swept onwards to its conclusion. Anyway for me, it's at a performance like that, that one feels most acutely "The Mariinsky" with all the delight that name evokes for those who love the St. Petersburg/Leningrad ballet tradition. I had still a different judgment than any yet expressed on the Saturday matinee and evening entrechats on pointe of both Kolegova and Kondaurova -- I'll keep it to myself but just say that I suspect the angle one was sitting at may have had some bearing on just how clearly the step seemed to be articulated. Kondaurova at any rate covered the largest amount of space on the diagonal. Or so it seemed to me. Overall I'd give the palm for the second act variation to the light, playful execution of Kolegova -- with zippy if not always neat chaine/pique turns to cap things off. But in the vision scene adagio I loved Skorik (Friday evening) best, and Kondaurova seemed to me the stateliest and most impressive in the final Act -- though Skorik's appearance of genuine joy in that act was very appealing to me in a human way. In that act, too, Skorik had a couple of moments where she raised her dark eyes up and seemed to look directly at the audience in a way very different from her usual somewhat veiled expression. I remember thinking, 'she should do THAT more often.' But truthfully I enjoyed all three performances throughout. If I'm not mistaken, based on what I have read and what I have heard, I caught Skorik on her best night (by far) and, perhaps, did not catch Kondaurova on her best night. For my taste, in adagio I wish Kondaurova had a deeper plié when she sinks into her supporting leg in fondu--in the vision scene the shallow bend of the knee sometimes made her transitions in adagio look a little stiff to me. And I wouldn't mind talking to a ballet teacher about her use of turn-out in the first scene--which seemed to me a little lacking at times (?). But is she gorgeous! Wow! And aristocratic. Both Kolegova and she had much more expressive faces than Skorik, and Kondaurova's mime as she summoned the waltz corps to dance in Act I was about as beautiful and expressive a 'let's dance' gesture as I have ever seen. I don't, though, find her convincingly spring-like in Raymonda's opening dance. Anyway, basically, three very fine but very different ballerinas in a super challenging classical role. Bravo Mariinsky. To be blunt, I feel Washington got hosed on the leading men. (For terrific male dancing from the Mariinsky, Yermakov, Shklyarov, and--less spectacularly but no less gracefully, Zyuzin, were all making the case up at BAM. Fortunately, I saw them Sunday night.) As a pair, only Korsuntsev and Kondaurova managed to look as if they were in love with each other. For the rest: in pantomime, walking, and, especially sword fighting, Korsuntsev was also the only Jean De Brienne who performed with energy and charisma. (Oh...that's another bravo from me for the sparks that come flying off the swords during the big fight at the end of Act II, all casts.) But Korsuntsev's dancing was scarcely adequate. Ivanchenko I have been known to defend. That won't be happening here. Some of his dancing was, I guess, adequate, but I couldn't get over the seeming sloppiness and carelessness with which he did things like...walk across the stage. And I don't mean aristocratic carelessness. That is the sort of detail that one can reasonably expect to be done well by an aging dancer. His partnering of Kolegova was not noticeably a problem as best I could tell, but he doesn't exactly get prizes for gallantry and grace as a partner at this performance either. Askerov made for a handsome knight, danced his variation very well, handled a stage mishap reasonably well (his helmet didn't come off when it was supposed to during the big sword fight), and -- to my eyes -- partnered Skorik decently. But he was really wooden -- no comparison to Korsuntsev's liveliness and charm. So, pick your poison. I would like to say something about the various soloists, demi-soloists, and character dancers. And Glazunov. But I will hold off except to say something about the two Clemence ballerinas I saw. First, if Chebykina can develop to be as good in more extended roles (and roles involving allegro dancing and 'big' technique) as she was both Friday and Sat in Clemence's exquisitely delicate and dangerously exposed variation, then she could become a major ballerina. Even if she doesn't turn out to have those chops, what she gave us this past weekend was plenty to appreciate. Already in Act I--in her long medieval dress and heeled shoes--she drew my attention; just the curve of her neck seemed utterly graceful...and then how lovely and really believable the distant look in her eyes as she listened to Raymonda strum the harp and moved upstage as if in her own world before being moved ever so gently to dance -- though joined at once by her troubadour. I find the whole magic of the ballet present in that scene when done well. (Kondaurova's pointe shoe abruptly slipped out from under her when she was sitting in the 'harp' pose Sat night--but that didn't spoil the moment anything like to the extent the loud whistles [sic] that went off in the theater during that very scene. It can't have been someone's phone, and after about 3-4 minutes it did -- thankfully -- stop. I don't know if people could hear it throughout the theater. Where I was sitting it was appalling, and Chebykina still managed to keep my attention.) In the Clemence variation Sat afternoon Shapran was controlled and graceful--a lovely performance throughout--but in the variation not quite as easy, varied, and gracious as Chebykina. Also: I don't often think about dancers' make-up, but after hearing some comments about Skorik's I started paying more attention and I think Shapran's make-up Sat afternoon made her look older than she is. (To be fair, I was sitting in Row O.) I may write more later, but this is enough from me for now. Except to say, I'm very grateful to have seen these performances. A big thank you to the Mariinsky.

I thought the final program, and only one I attended, which seems to have been conceived partly as a dual Ulanova/Plisetskaya tribute and partly as just a showcase of Soviet and Russian choreography (plus Giselle which almost counts) was very pleasurable. And we certainly did get a beautiful sense of range from Lopatkina--ghostly, sensual, ethereal, joyful, despairing. And wonderful dancing from the whole company she had with her. Loved all of them.

Arrived as well!!! (Brooklyn--not yet BAM)

Kaysta--I love your point. Even as someone who has been going to the ballet for years, I try to take it 'as it comes' to speak. Even if I do have a few criticisms from time to time. Re 'holy writ:' I remember how astonished a Russian acquaintance of mine was (she had emigrated from the Soviet Union at end of the 80's), to learn that Swan Lake did not originally have a happy ending -- not in this world anyway -- for Odette and Siegfried.

People who attended both Tues and Fri also agreed Friday Skoryk was much better. She may divide opinions, but there was pretty clear consensus about that at least. Also, we have Raymonda experts on this site, few and far between are any fans who have seen the 'white lady' as a major factor in modern productions. The La Scala reconstruction of course is different.

Fateyev does operate under certain constraints--notably Gergiev's leadership and what seems to be the latter's plan to have the Mariinsky at all times in 3 or 4 or 5 places at once. Fortunately, Skoryk's second performance of Raymonda in D.C. (which I saw) was quite beautiful and I am glad to have seen it. (Of course I am very sad that I likely will never see Lopatkina dance Raymonda in the theater.)I don't feel able to vote, but do love the Mariinsky Sergeyev production.

Very enjoyable to meet several fellow fans from BalletAlert at Kennedy Center this past evening. By sheer chance I was sitting next to NYSusan which was very nice. Unable to type at length but wanted to say that I, too, greatly enjoyed Skoryk's performance this evening. I gather there is plenty of agreement that Tuesday was...uh....not her best night. But this evening she danced beautifully and by the end, in the final grand pas, even at times with a kind of playful mastery. The harrowing Act II variation in the purple tutu had one or two moments when she.looked, just for a nanosecond, to have to catch herself -- though I thought she covered about half her diagonal of changements on pointe before cutting it short -- and I could wish her chaine turns were faster, but overall Act II went quite well. And especially in the adagio of the vision scene and the final grand pas I found her, as NYSusan wrote, gorgeous. I know reliability matters, but I have now seen Skoryk twice live and she gave really lovely performances both times. I can't help but be won over. Love the ballet--love the production. Find the backdrops, especially for Acts I and II utterly wonderful -- the best sort of medievalist (that is, 19th-century medievalist) ballet poetry. Like the costumes too--wouldn't mind the shredded romantic tutus for the corps in vision scene if they didn't clash with the classical ballet tutus worn by the demi-soloists. Did have trouble seeing the final departure of the lovers from about two thirds back in the orchestra. Plan to catch two more performances and will try to write again.

Very excited about Nedvigin's future role in Atlanta! He staged Possokhov's Classical Symphony on the company and I'm under the impression from an AJC article about his coming to direct Atlanta Ballet that the hope is that he will develop Atlanta Ballet and its dancers in a way that allows for more ambitious neo-classical repertory along the lines of much of what San Francisco ballet does. (As opposed to what I would call 'pop' ballet, contemporary eclectic, and outright modern dance--all of which Atlanta Ballet does as much or more than anything else.) Atlanta Ballet does dance some neoclassical works--John McFall has brought some fine works to the company including the Possokhov--but it has been a very mixed--and mixed quality--rep and one that hardly seems designed to develop the dancers' classical skills consistently. And would it be too much to hope that Nedvigin's coming to Atlanta might mean the company occasionally performing Balanchine again??? Anyway, on principle I feel for San Francisco fans, but this announcement has also filled me with some rare optimism about my local company.

Well, I HOPE that's how Taglioni felt.