Thalictum

Sarafanov's coach is the very powerful Gennady Selutsky, who also coaches Kolb, Korsuntsev, Andrei Yakovlev, and perhaps others.

Natalia, no one would think you were participating in a bash fest. I do believe that when a dancer agrees to be cast/exposed to the degree that Sarafanov has s/he loses the right to receive anything except the most honest criticism. We must make an attempt to maintain standards, even when the companies themselves have trouble doing so. If this is gossip you'll delete, but I believe that Sarafanov himself has received nothing in the Kirov but praise, praise, praise from the management. [Natalia notes: I just removed one sentence. The first sentence makes the point, thal. Constant casting substantiates the obvious: in any troupe, whoever is cast a lot is in favor with that troupe's direction!] Oh, I forgot. They put Dumchenko/Lobukhin together in Romeo in December. Mayitchka please proceed with caution.

I would have loved to see Dumchenko/Vishneva. But who in his/her right mind would put an artist of Dumchenko's stature next to a cub like Lobukhin, who would be right at home in a tractor ballet. Nor would Kolb, as wonderful as he can be, be at all suited for Bhakti.

Thanks, Natalia, I'll be in touch.

Natalia I hate to say this, but when he danced Lankedem opposite Sheshina last summer the partnering was not very strong; I think she was nervous as well. But your point is well taken.

Very good analysis, Natalia, but I don't totally agree. To me his face is All-Ukrainian juvenile. He also has a big head which makes him look even more childish. He wouldn't bother me so much if he weren't being upheld by the Kirov as their greatest male dancer -- upheld by virtue of the exposure he's given. I have to say without exaggeration that he is considerable damage to the company, as well, natch, to other deserving careers. The Kirov has lost its mind; I hope it's temporary insanity.

I don't notice any deep musicality in him. I certainly saw no understanding of Stravinsky in his Rubies. I think he has been drilled to be spot-on in classical solos, but he is very mechanical, again IMHO. That is why he has so much trouble adjusting to tempi that are erratic -- not easy for most dancers, of course. I'd like to see those tapes.

But that's entirely the trouble with the Kirov now! We are stuck with the same half dozen wrong people!!

I take issue even with calling Sarafanov a "spectacular soloist." A big jump and strong pirouettes mean nothing without rhythm, phrasing, modulation, musicality, epaulement, all of which, IMHO, he is severely remiss in. It's not necessarily bulking up that he needs; he simply does not at this point have an aptitude for the mechanics of partnering. His particular musculature may not have the right type of responsiveness. There are men as skinny as he who are first rate partners.

But Fokine's Carnaval could be reconstructed, also.

We need to remember that this is the same critic who for years was saying that Linda Rondstadt should sing grand opera. She tried a modern La Boheme at the Papp and it was hardly stellar.

Believe it or not, a friend saw Herrera dance Giselle with Gomes several years ago and said she was quite good -- and this is not a Herrera fan by any means.

In Washington, it was the soloists who were the best thing about La Valse: Iosifidi, Merkuriev, Sologub, Selina, Scherbakov all wonderful and steeped in the spirit of the piece. They performed it Saturday afternoon 1/22 in DC and then four days later at the Festival. A rough schedule, but I am getting tired of making excuses for the Kirov. The principal roles in the Washington "spectaculars" were almost uniformly badly performed by some of the company's darlings, who are so over-exposed and over-indulged that their performances have a bit of a vanity flavor by now. They know that no matter how badly they dance, they will be cast and cast and cast.

Andrei I agree with you. "Natural" walking has at best a limited place in ballet -- look how graceless Plisetskaya's padding around on her heels looks.

Thanks rg, I didn't even known the 8th Waltz footage was available commercially. There is perhaps one minute of La Valse including the glove incident (unless my memory is playing me false -- I'll check this week) filmed by Ann Barzel in Chicago and now at Lincoln Center library (along with a minute of Le Clercq's Dewdrop). I remember how excited I was to see it. For me the problem with Lopatkina and the gloves was that you saw her tense before it -- I'm not sure she had rehearsed it enough to feel comforable. She knew what it was supposed to be but wasn't sure it was going to work. At least that's how I read her.

Lazer Canary,I believe the dancer you thought was Zuzin in La Valse was actually Kulaev, because there is nothing meant to be evil about Zuzin's character, rather in his interaction with the waltzing couples and the three fates he is a catalyst to the onstage revelry. Kulaev played the Death character.

Could Rockwell be more smug and defensive? Interesting that most of his defenses of his position come from examples in music. We are now beginning to see the full ramifications of what the Times has wrought, bringing in a man who has a Dance 101 understanding of the art form to be chief critic. It is going to be a bumpy ride. Even his musical examples are dilettantish. If Sutherland had been singing Berg, yes, she WOULD have lost her bel canto technique.

I am still in a state of shock over those galas. Btw, Natalia, do you really think Le Clercq was bubbly all the way through? Long ago I saw a snippet of footage of her with the black gloves, and my recollection is that she was apocalyptic. Iosifidi was magnificent as one of the three Fates. Enormously tall as she is, I'm not sure if she is taller than Lopatkina. She understood the ballet almost more than any other woman on the stage. I would love to see her do the Le Clercq role.

At least the company danced wonderfully in Cinderella. At the galas many of the principals looked amateurish. I'm in shock that the Kirov could to this to us and to their own reputation.

Natalia you are right: Corsaire was on the level of a school recital piece or perhaps it would be fairer to characterize it a competition routine that flopped. In La Valse, I was disturbed by the casting of Zuzin. Yes his pirouettes and attitude turns are smooth, and his jete entrelace impressive if forced, but he has none of the needed stage presence and romantic intensity; he remains a gauche young boy happy to be in front of an audience, and as you said, smiling non stop. Unbelievable - UNBELIEVABLE - that he was recently given Melancholic in Four Temperaments, in preference to other dancers who actually are expressive, eloquent, and theatrically sophisticated. Ari, Sarafanov's Rubies was certainly immature, and I've got to say it's downright disgusting that he now dances the role more than anyone else there, but in my opinion the role certainly can be interpreted in many ways and does not have to be performed with an emphasis on macho. The Kirov must have thought they were putting on its heaviest hitters -- something has gone wrong in the company.

I don't think I was harsh at all. I said he's a good writer, and if people want to give him a great deal of leverage that it their business. Perhaps now I should be calling myself a sports writer -- why not? I like watching tennis. Quiggin you are absolutely spot on.

I would say the overall aesthetic is middlebrow, which is fine except it homogenizes and freezes a very unadventurous inquiry. And it crowds out less safe, more venturesome approaches. Need one be a balletomane to be a good mainstream dance critic? Not necessarily. But let's face it, the Time would never have made a ballet/dance writer their classical or pop music critic, would they? -- Even with a three month crash course. Ltraiger, you are absolutely right!!

I think he is going to fake his way through this assignment, and the Times will be perfectly happy that they could assign someone already on payroll and not have to add another salary. And when Anderson or Dunning retires I doubt they will be replaced. The Times has already demonstrated, by the radical shrinking of lineage, that they do not think dance deserves extensive coverage.

Well his first review is up -- the Kirov's Cinderella -- and if it is any way prescient, we can expect graceful prose, a lot of historical filler for ballast, rudimentary technical or choreographic analysis and a heapin' of of exacty the kind of middlebrow sensibility and sentimentality that the Times adores. He certainly writes well, and on a tight deadline. The picture is mis-identified: it's Tereshkina on the left, and Sheshina on the right.

I was in no way meaning to decry Van Vechten's writing; I was saying that he was the music critic for the paper and was moonlighting as a dance critic. The Times would never in its wildest dreams have thought of hiring a designated dance critic at that point. A decade later it did.