Drew

Mckenzie has been quoted as saying, too, he wanted a version distinctively ABT's -- for this ballet I think that includes the scenic elements. I was mostly disappointed in some of the drops and the grand transition scenes, though I liked the backdrop for the vision scene well enough. I though many costumes were beautiful; others I had to get used to, and I am not sure they added up as a whole in every stage picture. I also agree with critics who point out that Aurora's very first appearance is slightly muffled by this set, at least from several angles--yet another moment in the production one could see much better from the left side of the audience. But the choreography and dancing? The production as a whole is at once being faulted (as was the Mariinsky reconstruction) for being too pedantic and not pedantic enough...If a time machine could take me to the premier (sitting next to Bakst please-who was there), then I would go--but of course I don't expect ANY reconstruction to look exactly as the original did in every detail. Intentions? The production has clear intentions in honoring certain aesthetic qualities that bring us closer in spirit to the essentials of what makes Petipa Petipa....It has to be an interpretation (eg where the notations are lacking and for that matter where dance historians and artists may disagree) and at least to some degree an adaptation. It would be absurd (for example) to expect dancers to try to dance in completely unfamiliar pointe shoes, a recipe for injury probably. But does that make it absurd to ask them to hold their bodies differently or perform a lift from the original notation? Everyone will draw the line differently...but I don't think so.

Thanks for posting. The images of Spuck's Anna Karenina make it look as if it bears some resemblance to Ratmansky's...

I think there is room for middle ground here...with different productions making different choices. (I'm not an expert, but K. Sergeyev's Sleeping Beauty seems closer to Petipa than, say, what video shows Nacho Duato has done with the same ballet.) When it comes to the past it need not be all or nothing--in fact, it can't be for many of the reasons already discussed or, to put it in general terms, because ballet is a performing art. By going as far as he did in what he demanded in order to revive a somewhat past aesthetic, Ratmansky does get a very distinctive look from the company. Some people love it, others like it, others are merely intrigued, and others bored, irritated etc....I should say that, as far, as non-ballet-fan ballet-goers are concerned, I have found that Sleeping Beauty in whatever production is often something that they find "boring" in sections. I also think a more modernized look in Sleeping Beauty does sometimes genuinely interfere with or even come close to destroying the beautiful geometry and fairy-tale fantasy spirit of the choreography. The super high extensions in the opening of the Rose Adagio -- not just Zakharova (whom I saw in the theater) or Somova, but Novikova and even Obraztsova in some videos -- seem to me unharmonious and oddly immodest at that moment in Aurora's self-presentation. It does start to look like gymnastics to me. And Cojocaru, too, whom I have seen dance Aurora with both the Royal and ABT, sometimes pushes the extensions a bit more than I think she should and I consider her the finest Aurora I have ever seen. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy higher extensions than one typically saw in Ratmansky's production. In fact, Vishneva and Murphy in the vision scene variation wisely let their leg reach high enough that the foot was about on a level with their shoulders, and it was very beautiful (Vishneva's variation was especially legato in quality). Lack of attention to the upper body is another problem in some modern productions. I also like the inclusiveness of this production and attention to mime. And all the fairy tale characters. Sleeping Beauty is partly an allegory of how passages in life seem threatening, even potentially traumatic (in this case, primarily girlhood to adulthood, a transition very faintly echoed in the prince's story since he has to take on adult responsibilities and seems a bit reluctant) -- even as the threat is partly averted and altogether made bearable and the passage finally ends in joy. (I think this is more or less a standard interpretation...) The fact that Tchaikovsky's music often has undertones of melancholy even at its most celebratory seems to me to capture something about that underlying allegory and the way that adulthood/marriage can be experienced as loss. The fairy tale characters at the end all embody similar themes and also, by their presence at the wedding, magically show us a world in which the dreams and fantasies of childhood never entirely have to be left behind because they are always with us. I think the ballet as a whole offers something of the same pleasure to its audience. But even if that's so and not overly fanciful/pretentious etc., the real issue remains how it translates on stage in the theater: is it dull? or, perhaps, just too long? Some 'modern' productions can get to be a bit of both -- I have occasionally gotten a little weary when watching this ballet over the years even though it's one of my absolute favorites. But in this production I enjoyed every single divertissement at every performance I attended (weaker dancers here and there notwithstanding), though I can't deny it makes for a long evening. I don't know enough to break down how the choreography or other elements of the staging worked so well for me--though the fabulous masks for the Ogre and Ogress and some other costume elements played a role and I know the music played a huge role including, probably, the tempos. But I think Ratmansky also showed the dancers how to bring these episodes to distinctive life. Of course one can't talk people into enjoying something they find dull! I can only report what I felt and thought and try to explain why.

I had mixed feelings about the repetition of the same steps bluebird does...Aurora is supposed to be a summation of all the qualities bestowed by the fairies, but it's odd to see the Prince echo the fairy tale pageant. I also feel the low leg in pirouette looks better on the women than on the men. But I accept that I am learning some things along with the dancers.Whiteside (whom I had never seen in a 19th-century ballet) did make it work. I thought part of his success too was the speed combined with an almost macho forcefulness that I thought (somewhat similarly to Volcanohunter above) should have looked wrong, but combined with the speed actually made it kind of exciting. The others I saw all very obviously lost steam towards the end, though Gorak came closest to showing the beautiful beats clearly and really dancing the variation in the graceful, elegant way that seemed most obviously called for by the choreography. I continue to regret missing Cornejo. Stearns gets my vote for looks best in red velvet coat and Gomes (no surprise) for knowing how to gaze at his ballerina as if he were genuinely in love with her.

Very enjoyable to read about this program... I feel for you on the Sacre front, but it sounds like you saw a terrific performance.

The dancers definitely had to give themselves to the overall style and some were more successful than others--but many qualities were gained even as a few, some that I am very used to and very used to liking, were lost. But the most successful performances up and down the ranks seemed to me to 'stand out' very effectively, even if still within the parameters of the production. Performance after performance lingers in my memory. I do think that some climactic passages are not as viscerally exciting in this production as in others--or I did not find them so--but, at the same time, huge swathes of the ballet seemed to me more deeply engaging than I usually find it including the mime and the fairy tale divertissements. I certainly wasn't bored. Was my enjoyment all the effect of novelty? It is possible, but I don't think so, and not least because this was a company event. For example: watching four different dancers take on Diamond...with every single one of them having something special to offer, though certainly I enjoyed some more than others...and every single one of them distinct yet part of a clearly framed larger 'whole'...that was a pleasure. I love the K. Sergeyev Sleeping Beauty--at least I did when I saw it rather long ago--and except for some hugely exaggerated extensions value the Mariinsky tradition in this ballet. I unabashedly love great ballerina showcases and, not having seen Cornejo, I'm also more intellectually on board with the new Prince variation than I am aesthetically. (And even intellectually I am pretty convinced Petipa would have come up with something different for Gomes had he watched him dance the 'new' variation.) But I also love Sleeping Beauty--the whole beautiful, harmonious ballet and the ballet as a beautiful harmonious whole and I think that's what this production, despite punting on some scenic effects, aims for and, however imperfectly, achieves. Edited to add: I was typing at same time as Ilya and our views partly overlap. Glad he made the point about the ballet's history.

Would love to see more Ashton. Also, if financially possible, one or two more mixed rep programs than usual with some aggressive promotion/packaging attached. I liked the Ratmansky Sleeping Beauty, but would not want to see ABT become a reconstruction specialty company. I would though welcome the Ratmansky Pacquita since it is a rarity in any case (or, maybe, an Act III divertissement staged by someone with experience of the Kirov/Mariinsky version) and, in the coming years would love to see a new Swan Lake somewhat more respectful of its traditions than the current version (including Act IV) perhaps in the spirit of David Blair's. Ratmansky's Flames of Paris is very different from Messerer's; I still would dislike it a lot as a choice for ABT. A new Ratmansky ballet would be very welcome. Still think a full length Napoli might be an interesting experiment for the company and it might complement without repeating the work done with Sleeping Beauty in forging a company spirit and bringing out subtler pleasures in 19th-century rep. Happy to see fewer potboiler full lengths such as Manon-or none- but in view of skepticism expressed about 'rent a Russian' ballerinas in these ballets note that Vishneva has had spectacular success in this rep (she is an ABT principal but some seasons has danced only a role or two) and Osipova was much praised in Manon by British critics and fans. I read wonderful things about Obratzsova's Juliet and obviously Osipova has admirers in the role to say the least. New York is scheduled to see the former next week. One can be opposed to having guest artists or Russian stars, but they hardly have been failures in this rep even if not everyone likes them. In fact these ballets need charisma almost more than they need anything else. I can't imagine sitting through most if them without a major star--Russian or otherwise. (Though hardly then either.) Completely agree with what has been said re the company having more coaching and rehearsal time for dancers at all levels. I recognize that takes money and may be easier said than done.

Thank you for writing this up--I did check out your longer review and found it quite interesting, especially your discussion of the music. I can't honestly say I'm breathless to see the ballet (as I rather am about some of the Bolshoi's other new productions), but it was interesting to read about ... I am also wondering what they plan to bring to London next year.

I was impressed by the range of casts being fielded in the featured roles from performance to performance. I saw the production four times and each cast did have somewhat different strengths and weaknesses. But in every performance the production offered many pleasures and the company seemed to have something to sink its teeth into as a company. I would be happy to see this Sleeping Beauty again assuming the company 'tends' it properly. It certainly has brought ABT respectful critical attention of a kind it doesn't often get. Though I saw Vishneva a different night, I completely agree with Abatt about her ... Of the four Auroras I saw (Vishneva, Murphy, Seo, and Boylston) I thought she did the most to characterize Aurora through her dancing, the most to tell a story in which Aurora develops from birthday girl to bride. She also danced the most serene rose adagio--and had the inestimable benefit of Gomez as her prince for the Act 3 adagio and fish dives...I loved Part's dancing as the Lilac Fairy in the same cast and the 'simpler' variation she performs is, as I understand, a variant drawn from the notations. I do think it is less interesting than the one I saw danced by Abrera and Teuscher. However, the latter variation looked a bit difficult for the sake of difficult for my taste even with Abrera who negotiated the steps, as best I could judge, successfully, but looked like she was concentrating. Teuscher had noticeable difficulties--though I was impressed by how she pulled off the long dress and giant feather headpiece later in the ballet. (I did like the way Teuscher danced the first fairy variation at a different performance.) But I thought Part's dancing of her prologue variation, notably her epaulement, was simply gorgeous, slightly marred the first time I saw her do it by a bobble at the end, but (in my eyes) perfection on Wed night when she danced the Lilac Fairy to Boylston's Aurora. I allow that it may take a Veronika Part to make the variation she dances seem compelling; her mime is also beautiful. (Wed she did take a very unfortunate tumble into the boat at the end of the vision scene...so no performance I saw her give was completely ideal, but I am very happy I got to see her Lilac Fairy.)

Don't know about class -- though, according to accounts I have read, his classes changed over the years -- but he has been quoted or referred to as saying he preferred dancers not to do more than triple pirouettes in performance because as soon as one did 'the audience starts to count.' I'm afraid I don't remember the interview/article where I read this, though the phrase stuck with me...

Short feature on next month's Bolshoi premier of Possokhov's Hero of Our Time -- in Russian but with English subtitles and a few glimpses of rehearsal:

Re Kochetkova's height--from a feature in a 2011 Pointe Magazine: "When I was 13, I never could be in the first row because I was taller than the others. Then everyone kept growing and I stayed 5'." http://www.pointemagazine.com/issues/aprilmay-2011/too-fat-too-thin-too-tall-too-short

"Curate?" Perhaps what they mean is more or less the same sort of thing NYCB docents do with their "first position" introductions to some performances? At least I can picture Copeland doing that for a performance in which she wasn't dancing or not dancing the lead. And her admirers still get to meet her 'up close and personal.' Mastercard and ABT have some sort of promotional deal where you get to watch a performance from the wings. Kristen has written about it on this site. This seems to me to belong to the same genre--but personalized, obviously, around a particular dancer. ABT and ballet generally can certainly use some new forms of promotion...As for individual dancers, if Copeland gets the opportunity and is cool with doing this sort of thing, then why not? It's not the most high-minded use of a dancer's time, but few promotional (or fund-raising) activities are. The hotel and her team will find out whether it pulls people in, creates excitement etc.

And yet mysteriously the Met is an organization with an aging audience...Seriously, it's as if they were aiming to be out of date--

Although I like this production, I agree (w. Vipa above) that I wouldn't want it to be my only Sleeping Beauty or recommend that it be anyone else's ... But I'm also quite glad that we now have this one which I think will also come to change the way I see other productions (including some elements that I probably prefer 'modernized'). Sorry I didn't get to see Lane's Aurora.

I did a cursory search and see Helene quoted Doug Fullington saying Violente was supposed to signify electricity--something I had forgotten; in that case, at the risk of being way too literal, I suppose the bent elbow could recall the zig-zag of lightning. In the theater I found it made the "pointing" seem more playful and perhaps even flirty (but not, to my eyes, what Natalia called "goofy")...and with Giangeruso's performance one also felt the full force of a strong and charming personality which I really loved. Generally, I respect the all-out effort to take us, as Lopukhov might say, "forward to Petipa" and I am not uninterested in ballet history, but I assume a certain amount of intuition goes into any reconstruction that is also a living work of art. Which this is.

Oh yes to every word! Giangeruso was fantastic and really made the case for this version (more than Abrera who did not pull it off in the same way). So full of life--and I have never particularly liked this variation - it never even really made sense to me - here you could see the gift of 'temperament'!' Confident, playful, distinctive. And fast. Without any fudging or loss of subtlety. She is just the most fabulous girl in the room. (Two non-ballet going acquaintances there with family both told me their interest in the prologue really perked up when Giangeruso started dancing.)On a different thread people have been debating tempos in Petipa - what you lose and what you gain with slowing things down etc. What is appropriate, what not etc. I think this whole production makes the case for the faster tempos WITHIN a classical style (as opposed to the speed of NYCB's Sleeping Beauty which looks like NYCB putting their own stamp on the ballet, not molding themselves to it). But the dancers don't always altogether pull it off. Giangeruso did!

I don't find it implausible that Mckenzie and/or his staff don't think Lane is principal material. One may agree or disagree (strongly) and so-called politics may be involved, but I find the suggestion that it MUST be politics -- it couldn't possibly be that ABT's management sees Lane's gifts differently than her admirers do -- puzzling.

Based on tonight's performance I would say Boylston is a dancer with many wonderful qualities, but she is not a wonderful Aurora. She might be able to do more with her strong attack in a different production, but I am a little skeptical ... She's not lustrous. I am not typically one of Stella Abrera's biggest fans, though I do like her dancing, but she was gorgeous as Princess Florine and together with Blaine Hoven, who was also terrific, danced the best bluebird pas de deux out of the four casts I got to see. I thought they were the absolute highlight of tonight's performance. Sleeping Beauty heaven. In fact, the staging of this pas de deux is one of my favorite things in this production--one certainly does see her listening to him and aspiring to fly--including the costumes which I had been dubious about when I caught a glimpse on 60 Minutes...and I thought all of the casts, certainly all of the Princess Florines I saw (Trenary, Lane, and Copeland in addition to Abrera) danced well. But Abrera was outstanding--fluid and dancing, as it were, with imagination. THAT is what Sleeping Beauty should look like. (I was also particularly pleased with Trenary in the role. She definitely danced with the grace of a potential Aurora; Simkin and she looked adorably, sincerely in love and very joyful. I also thought I had never seen Copeland look as good as she did in her variation this afternoon. Liked her better in the role than as Fleur de Farine which is the fairy she dances with some other casts.) Alas, this is it for me ABT-wise for a long while, though I may try to write more about the production and the dancers. This Sleeping Beauty is certainly something for them to take pride in...

I was at the matinee as well and uh...reports of Seo's incompetence (which had been close to my own view, too, after a decidedly unimpressive Gamzatti a few years ago) seem to me GREATLY exaggerated. She was lovely throughout and in selected passages just gorgeous. I was notably impressed with her airy diagonals in the sequence right before being pricked by a spindle and several beautifully fluid and eloquently shaped passages in the vision scene especially as she shifted between develope front into a supported arabesque penche (can't figure out how to do accents on my tablet...). And she really did dance like a beckoning vision. She danced beautifully throughout the grand pas de deux as well. I also think her rather gentle stage persona is better suited to Aurora than Nikiya. In this production, at least, she has to glow, but she doesn't have to impose herself. (And, of course, her teacher Alla Sizova was one of the all time great Auroras.) If you go to Sleeping Beauty for the balances in the Rose adagio...well, she bailed early on the first set and was hardly very secure in the final set though she made it through decently. I have definitely seen worse. (I also don't remember her doing the changements on pointe Vishneva and Murphy did--though perhaps someone may correct me on that.) I am not suggesting people rush out to see her in whatever role, but this was a lovely performance. Credit is due...

I believe the pile on of additional characters such as Scheherezade in final act is an allusion to the Diaghilev production inspiring the physical look of much of this production. Those characters made more sense in the context of a Diaghilev season, but I appreciate this production's love of its multiple pasts even if it ditches some elements of the ballet's twentieth-century performance tradition that I love. Tuesday night's fairy cavaliers danced in their costumes rather more crisply than Monday's which won me over. Sleeping Beauty should be something of an excessive spectacle and it is the dancers who need to and CAN come alive in that context. Just watch Skylar Brandt as one of the Lilac Fairy attendants. Some of the dancers are still finding their way, but they have been given a way to find--which is something for ABT. That is, this production gives the company a Sleeping Beauty that really marks them as a company--with its own vision of a major classic that is not just being tinkered with or idly modernized. I don't love every detail, and I wish they had considered how important scenic transformations were for this ballet in particular, especially conceived of as nineteenth-century spectacle. But on the whole, I am very pleased. And I anticipated disliking the knee length tutus--instead I thought they were lovely. The Mariinsky, NYCB, and the Royal (to restrict myself to major productions I have seen relatively recently) aren't going to ditch their versions--I am happy to have this as ABT's... (I will say that so far I have only seen it from the parterre and with experienced ballerinas...today I will see it from downstairs with less experienced ballerinas. We will see if that changes my perspective...)

I have seen the Ratmansky production twice now with two entirely different casts -- one led by Vishneva, Part, and Gomez and the other by Murphy, Abrera, and Whiteside. I was disappointed in some of the scenery and scenic effects, and am not crazy about one or two other aspects -- but basically I enjoyed it hugely and some things I was not sure about the first time I saw it, won me over by the second. If the dancers are getting used to Ratmansky's staging, then I think some of us in the audience probably are too, but the pay off is real. I would call the production an obvious labor of love by everyone involved, but -- though some of the dancers may still be internalizing the style -- it doesn't look laborious. Lots to say about the dancing, but will restrict myself for now to remarking that in different ways both Vishneva and Murphy were wonderful as Aurora...

I feel a little timid saying this since I know I am an outlier, but the only time Abrera has strongly made the kind of 'ballerina-material' impression on me she regularly makes on her many admirers was when I saw her dance Queen of the Wilis in the Roosevelt auditorium in Chicago. A few weeks later, in the same role at the Met, she did well but (in my eyes) didn't make anything like the same impression....so I tend to agree: The Met is great for grand productions and can be an exciting place to watch ballet, but it seems to have some disadvantages for developing dancers and/or needs principals who can project like so-called stars.

I attended this afternoon's performance--and quite enjoyed it. Miller seemed to me to start off a little less than strongly, and never looked entirely comfortable with her 'cavalier.' Ask La Cour was replacing Russell Janzen and that may have played a role. But as soon as she danced on her own, she seemed much freer and more responsive to the music and the moment. She was also charming with Bottom and I especially liked the tender and loving way she led him off stage at the end of their pas de deux--the manner of it is 'in' the choreography, but she brought a lot of charm to it. As Oberon, Huxley danced with wonderful space covering energy, showed off swift beats, and had the appropriate arrogance--with a touch of real nobility too--but towards the end of the scherzo the choreography got away from him and he slipped noticeably though not disastrously several times. His split leg jumps are also a little less...well...split than is ideal in some of the choreography. But he seems to me to have the makings of a very fine Oberon. Bouder was poise itself in the beautiful final act divertissement, but my favorite dancing of the entire afternoon came from Sterling Hyltin as Hermia in her great Act I 'monologue' -- one felt waves of incredible nervous energy pouring through her in a pure dance expression of agitation and confusion. Hyltin is a fine comedienne too; very glad I got to see her with this afternoon's cast.

I don't think I ever knew that about Sarafanov -- Kiev is also where Cojocaru got much of her training, yes? (though I assume with a different teacher); I was thinking that I would love to see them dance together someday...at least when he is dancing the way he danced last night. (Cornejo WAS fabulous with her, though as others have noticed elsewhere, has lost some flexibility in his big jumps.)