Alexandra

Ah, but how could he resist giving, to the ages, The Vilar Definitive Multinational Jewels? Better than a building. Buildings get bombed, memories remain

I don't know or care whether he likes Balanchine or not. Great patrons of the arts are always on the lookout for imaginative ways to show their support. This impending centennial offers many opportunities

Oh, leibling, amen to that. I think of that so often when watching local TV news. We have one station here that does THREE HOURS of local news. They cover the laundry better than they do the arts. (There's a "lively arts" critic who covers TV and movies. Wow. When he does stick a stubby little toe into ballet, he's embarrassing, a real "I'm a real guy and drink beer and everything so I don't get this icky stuff" type. Just think of turning on the evening news and getting two minutes of ballet, opera, dance, theater news. Not just the competitions, or who got a grant, or new works. I'm greedy. How about "Vishneva was ravishing in "Rubies" last night, while Korsakov, subtituting for an injured colleague, once again nailed the "Emeralds" pas de trois." Do you think if we picketed, it would help?

Hello, Alymer, good to see you again Yes, I know the story -- I've assumed that's what everyone has been referring to when referencing "the rivalry." But what goes on backstage doesn't have anything to do with what went on in the choreography. I've never read anything that indicated that "Pas de Quatre" was a cat fight. If the Trockaderos do it, that's funny, but when it's worked into a serious production, I find it annoying.

Tonya Harding must be weeping. All that wasted effort kneecapping her opponent when it could all be settled through protests. Lose, scream, win. I thought the Russians have handled it very gracefully -- I haven't seen them. (Now, I haven't been glued to the tube, either, and so may well have missed them.) I haven't seen grace in the Canadian pairs' behavior, nor sportsmanship. But I'll be glad not to have to see them again. IMO, the synchronized swimming error was one thing; a typo. This is quite different. A judge's marks stand. Afterwards, you can fire the judge, throw the judge in jail, fine the judge a lifetime's wages IF they're found to be corrupt. The issue of whether one judge was pressured obscured the reasoning behind the votes of the other four. I think this will have a long-term negative effect, because the judging is so subjective. We've just brought the "yeah, well I landed four quads" "Yeah, but we are the true artistes" front and center, and it will be endless. There will be jokes about marks, judges will be afraid to give high marks for skaters from their own countries, etc. or second-guessing themselves and each other. I also agree with Giannina -- if there was pressure, then everyone involved should be booted off. But this isn't about truth, or getting to the bottom of anything. It's about solving a bad situation quickly so the games can continue and we can forget that all of this happened and make lots of money.

I agree wholeheartedly, dirac. And it has happened -- the Canadians have been awarded a second gold. I just posted another thread on this announcement. (I wonder if the Russians will give theirs back?)

There will be a press conference at 1:00 p.m. CNN just reported that the Canadians will be awarded a gold medal. The Russians will not lose their gold. CNN's take is that the Olympic Committee just wanted this over.

Ah, but with my hat trick, Vilar could spread his angel wings and benefit ballet as a whole I'm all for a Balanchine Celebration, Juliet. All the ballets, revivals of lost ones, films, videos, chats with ballerinas. But I still want to see "Jewels" danced in the native language of the music

Bless you, Juliet Danseurs nobles are the fashion models of the ballet. They can wear a hat -- even a curly wig. Pavel Gerdt could wear that costume!

USAToday, not surprisingly, has terrific sports coverage. There's also a little video of Timothy G (can't remember his last name) doing a quad. All the links to Olympic coverage are on the home page, which is: http://www.usatoday.com/

Ari, I'm glad you got in. It's nice to know there is at least one area left in life where persistence pays off. I was in the right front orchestra, and there were several empty seats near me. Whether they were turned back to the box office, or just no shows, I can't say, of course, but others reading this who are ticketless should take heart: call often Jeannie, I do find it fascinating. Sometimes it does matter where one is sitting -- if you're very close, the expressions can seem fake; if you're very far away you may not be able to see any expression at all. But I've also had different impressions than people sitting next to me, or in front of me. I have a friend who also felt that Pavlenko was too -- perhaps not cold, but distant and external, not feeling the music from the inside, not responding to the music in the same way that Farrell did. (The dancers in this ballet are always going to be compared to Farrell, Verdy and McBride, because they were such individual dancers and the ballets were made on those qualities.) I didn't really think Pavlenko was too warm, just too Odette I forgot to mention another celebrity in the audience -- Mimi Paul, who now lives in Washington and teaches here, I'm told, although I don't know at which studio. She's been at both "Jewels" performances.

I forgot the most important thing! I didn't see her, but I have it on very good authority that one of the Kennedy Center's most illustrious board members was in attendance last night: Bo Derek.

Here's a Washington Post commentary on the Great Skating Controversy to get the blood going: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2002Feb14.html

I think we have talked about Gergiev's directorship on prior occasions. I certainly agree (at least in theory) that it's best for ballet companies to be directed by artists -- if not a choreographer, then a balletmaster with an artistic vision and the means to carry it out. It's almost impossible to judge the state of a company's health in a one-week tour. We're not getting all the dancers, we're only seeing two ballets (one in a touring production). One can ceratinly make judgments and comparisons -- comparing what we're being offered to other companies -- but I wouldn't dare try to make detailed comments on the health of ballet company without seeing it many times over several seasons. I think there's a crisis in directorship generally, and the reason is that there's the artistic equivalent of a power vacuum. Previously, there was always an obvious choice: the promising young choreographer, the star or balletmaster who was respected by the dancers. Now, it seems that boards and search committees are making the decisions and that means that favoritism, cronyism, power plays, and well-meaning, though perhaps ill-informed, choices are likely. Arlene Croce wrote that the great crisis of the 1990s was the collapse of what she called "the great fortress companies," the five to seven (depending on who's counting) great institutions that once had very distinctive, individual profiles. I second that. What's replaced them might as well be called the Wall-Martski Balyet. Is this a trend? Like political nationalism, will tribal warfare break out in the world's rehearsal rooms and, after dreadful power struggles, a new artistic order emerge? Or will we keep on going down the road of Just In Time Inventory (rehearse? they danced it last year) and Out-Sourcing (do what you see on the video). Back to the (real) name issue, I wonder if Kirov-Mariinsky is the first step in trying to break free of the marketing power of "Kirov." I think this is a good sign. A company that cares about its name still has some individuality running through its blood.

For Balanchine's 100th birthday, could you please give us a present? How about bringing "Jewels" with Paris Opera Ballet doing "Emeralds," New York City Ballet doing "Rubies" and the Kirov doing "Diamonds"?

Thursday night It's a shame we only get the company for one week -- they're settling in (and the audience is settling in ) Tonight was much warmer, I thought, on both sides of the proscenium. "Emeralds" was tighter, though still a bit airy. There are complaints that Ayupova isn't witty enough, or French enough, but I still liked her very much. There's a beautifully creamy quality to her dancing, and her arms are ravishing. Part was a bit disappointing. She had some nice moments, but doesn't seem completely comfortable in the role. "Rubies" had much more energy tonight. I liked Vishneva a lot here. Her dancing was very confident, very frisky (I wish she'd bring a little bit of that to her Aurora ) The men in this ballet seem to be taking reviews of Villella as a macho man with his gang a bit too seriously. The dancing is Very Masculine Indeed -- to the point of being cartoonish. "Diamonds" was danced by Pavlenko and -- I don't have my program -- was it Korsuntsev again? Pavlenko was much softer than Zhakarova, and the ballet could have been an Alternate Universe Swan Lake Act II. I don't think this is the ballerina's "character" (I posted this on another thread; Farrell was invulnerable, surrendering only to the music, and very queenly). Taken on its own terms, there was some very beautiful dancing, although Pavlenko faded after the pas de deux; the solos were a bit smudged. The finale of "Diamonds" is quite wonderful and the company danced it at full power. At the risk of being pelted by our NYCB fans, the Kirov men win, hands down. We don't have a company that can field 16 men so elegant and so beautifully trained. I hope the company can get a lift from its two nights of "Jewels" and carry over the energy here into "Sleeping Beauty" for the weekend.

I thought about this tonight, watching the Kirov do "Jewels." They make a story out of "Diamonds" -- it's a courtship and a wedding (why else would the corps women put on gloves?) Tonight, with Pavlenko, more delicate and spiritual than Zhakarova, it was even more specific: This is Odette's wedding. She found every feather, every piece of down. I don't object to this; I found it interesting and, at times, very moving. But it's different. Is this merely a difference in interpretation, or a change in the nature of the work? There are some other differences, too. It's not that I'm looking for a Farrell clone (I also loved Kistler in "Diamonds," and she did it very much her own way) but there are some qualities of Farrell's that are key to the role: a specific musicality, a queenliness, an invulnerability. If she is a captive, she will never be broken; she surrenders only to the music. Both Kirov ballerinas were still princesses, I thought. I enjoyed both performances very much and I make these comments only to address the pending question. Both Zhakarova and Pavlenko lack Farrell's weight, and I think that comes not only from youth, but from a lack of plié. The company as a whole has a very shallow plié (perhaps because the new aesthetic calls for slender thighs?). This makes an obvious difference in "Rubies" (where there are several very deep pliés in the choreography). But it made a difference in "Diamonds" as well. I'm influenced by tales I've heard about Vera Volkova, who emphasized weight -- feeling the floor, pressing into the floor -- and the importance of plié. What are the necessary and sufficient qualities of "Diamonds?" Where is the line? (Lest Kirovians feel picked on, the tables could be quickly turned to NYCB's "Sleeping Beauty." Of how much importance is classical refinement, épaulement, a sense that the dancers are luxuriating in the movement. Or, if a company is known for its speed, can speed be substituted and still retain the essence of the work?)

I just noticed that my ticket for last night read "Kirov-Mariinsky Ballet." The company once tried just "Mariinsky" (right after glasnost) but brand names being what they are, "The Kirov" has stuck. Since we have so many posters from around the world, I wondered two things: First, what does the company call itself when paying a call in your home town. And second, will the company ever be able to get back to "Mariinsky" (which I gather is its goal) and does it matter?

I think Kaufman may have meant that the New York season (all performances) were the American premiere of the ballet, and the performance she saw was danced by Asylmuratova. It wasn't clear, but sometimes thoughts get squished together in daily reviews, when two sentences have to become one because of space That's just a guess, of course, but I've boxed myself in similar syntactical corners. (She wrote: "The Kirov presented its American premiere of this version two years ago in New York, with the glorious Altynai Asylmuratova in the title role.")

I've often wondered why there weren't more historical ballets. I think we took a turn away from them in the 19th century. The 18th century loved them -- gods, heroes, war. Bournonville made several historical ballets, several of which stayed in repertory until 1929 before being flushed. It's odd. We love realism -- two hobos fighting in a city dump might make a ballet. But two kings, or presidents, or secretaries of state -- it can't be done. I think it would look awkward to us to see, say, John and Robert Kennedy dancing classical variations while mulling over whether to nuke Cuba (until somebody does it so that it doesn't look awkward, of course). But why not go back a bit? How about William Wallace? Courage, rape, murder, betrayal -- all by men wearing kilts. (I didn't see Braveheart; my Wallace is Jane Porter's "The Scottish Chiefs.")

There are some performances (some wonderful footage, IMO) and some interviews. It's a "portrait of the artist" and not a standard biography. My memory is that it's about half-and-half (dancing and talking) but I won't swear to that

This is a toughie, but I thought it worth a try. When a ballet company with its own traditions and style tackles a foreign choreographer -- the Kirov dancing Balanchine, say, or, to turn the tables, NYCB dancing Ashton (which it did in times past) -- how much latitude does the company have? Same thing with a company with no developed style, I guess. ABT dances Balanchine and will be dancing Ashton in the spring. Do you want to see something that looks like you're used to seeing -- a copy of what the home company does? Do you want to see them bring something of their own to the work? Do they get to dance it any way they want? Where's the line between individuality and The Work?

Jeannie, thanks for the info about the conductors (and getting last-minute tickets). Ari, I AM SO GLAD YOU'RE POSTING AGAIN! A very warm welcome back, and please stick around

Mussel, there's no Panorama scene, and they don't play the music. The story that the scenery is bolted to the stage, or can't travel for some reason seems odd -- does every other production at the Kirov use the Panorama scene? If it's permanently affixed, what do they do with it when they're not Sleeping Beautying? There is definitely a gap in the production because of it. No fighting off evil rats and nasty fairies (but this Carabosse is barely there anyway). Just one minute, we're in the forest somewhere, and the next, we're in a room somewhere else. They don't have their orchestra. They have the Kennedy Center orchestra. It's not a real orchestra, but a group of musicians brought together to play for ballets (operas? musicals?) and that's just what it sounds like. I don't have my program and so can't give you the conducotr's name -- I'm sure Jeannie will know it

I put this on Links, but thought I'd place it here as well. Sarah Kaufman's review of "Beauty" opener in today's Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2002Feb13.html