Alexandra

Thanks, Jeannie. I'm sorry if I implied that Lacotte was revising without the proper notation in the program. I didn't mean to. I think we've all acknowledged that the productions are popular, but I do think the point that Doug raised, that it's a question of marketing, is a good one. To coarsen his point a bit (sorry, Doug) we know that champagne sells, but we're not allowed to market ginger ale as champagne. In ballet, that rule doesn't apply. I do think there is an element of trying to piggyback off Petipa's name. If I, a bad painter (and I am a very bad painter, or at least was the last time I tried it, in third grade) can't sell my portraits either because portraits are out of fashion or they're no good, but can wiggle into a niche because, say, everything Leonardo did burned and now exists only in descriptions by writers, I might not have a market for my own "Girl with a Smile," but would get a lot of attention for: "Revived! Years of painstaking historical research and mixing original Renaissance paints: Leonardo's Mona Smiles Again." Except it wouldn't look like the "Mona Lisa" -- and wouldn't even if I could actually paint. I don't have any problem with people liking the revivals. (And I don't think anyone was trying to say that.) If I'm given Kool-Aid and I've only had water, I'll love it. If somebody says, "Psst. Have you tried champagne?" I might like it better. I won't know about the champagne if I'm only given the Kool-Aid. Of course, I may well prefer the Kool-Aid, but at least I'll know. [ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Ken, you always go right to the heart of a political question I think your analysis of the audience aspect is part of it. Commercial theater by its nature is aiming at a general audience. I like to think of Balanchine as a kind of (benign) balletic Tito. He kept all those warring factions together under one Big Tent. The 12-tone people, the abstract expressionist painter fans coexisted happily with people who wanted "Swan Lake" without all that silly mime. Both could sit, side by side, watching a program of "Agon" and "Scotch Symphony," say -- and, for good measure, he'd throw on "Stars and Stripes," for Aunt Edna and little Billy who were visiting that weekend and either didn't know anything about ballet, or hated it. The other model is Diaghilev's -- cater to a few rich patrons who'll fund you -- and I'm not sure that's better. I don't think many of those rich patrons, despite their education, were any more sensitive to art than Aunt Edna. Diaghilev had to appease them by constant novelty, something we're still paying for today. I don't know that Europe is doing multimedia extravaganzas, but ballet there is very middlebrow, I think. Either story ballets or quasi-modern dance that really isn't new, but is marketed and bought as such. And endless productions of "updated" 19th century ballets. I think the commercial theater problem is self-fulfilling. We need an audience! Quick! What do they like? Westerns? Okay, we can do that. The Lion King? Great idea. etc. This drives out the people who would be drawn to a more serious repertory. Now, define serious. Some of the "downtown dance" that Baryshnikov programmed for ABT was, IMHO, schlock. There was no content to it and nothing to recommend it except that it was something the company hadn't done before. He divided ABT into two companies: the 12 people he used over and over and over in the modern dance pieces and the Weekend Rep group. There were dancers who spent 10 years in that company as spear carriers -- I never could find them in a solo. The new pieces didn't develop dancers (and neither did the spear carrying). One model I think worked, and would be possible to revive (not that it will be) is the old French division between the Opera and the boulevard theaters. Each place was a separate world, catering to a different audience. Often, the boulevard theaters would put on a knock-off of a hit at the Opera -- often mocking it. There was a definite class warfare (not something I'd want revived) and the boulevard people made as much fun of those hoighty-toighty (sp?) folk at the Opera as the Opera goers made of them. The boulevard shows were laden with special effects, and the productions were simplified -- little mime, lots of pretty girls, stories with the subtexts stripped out of them. Kinda like we get on a regular basis today! I'd like to have the choice to go to both the high brow and the middle brow, for lack of better terms. Back to the younger Mr. B, I think a European's lament that ballet has become commercial theater may well refer to the fact that there is no time given to develop an audience, no time allowed for a ballet to find its public. Having to put on six casts to keep people coming back, or shuffle in 8 new pieces regardless of the quality so that subscribers don't get the same program two years in a row.

During the recent Miami City Ballet engagement, a dancer took a bad spill. She was dancing BIG, really going for it (in the proper Balanchinean way, IMO) and went down splat. Instinctive reaction, the audience gasped. At intermission, as I wandered through the crowd, I heard several references to this, and all were very negative--it was seen as a mistake, and a sign that this really wasn't a very good company. Is this a generally shared perception, or did I just hit the wrong half of the hall?

I'm with Doug and Drew on this one. I think Doug hit it with his comments that planting Petipa's name on something is mere marketing, and I agree with Drew that the "notes" (steps) are integral to the work. What goes on in ballet could not go on in music, not merely because music has a more accessible notation, I think, but because the music audience (including critics) is more educated. Dance people -- fans and critics -- get sold the Brooklyn Bridge month after month, it seems. Ashton's "Fille" is one example of a revival that's rechoreography. It doesn't pretend to be Petipa, although it doesn't pretend to be completely original either. (Much of the "stage business" is from prior productions.) But Ashton was a choreographer, and his ballet could stand on his name. Same with Balanchine's Nutcracker and Coppelia. (I don't know if the Royal still has the Ivanov reconstruction, done with John Wylie, that did use the Stepanov notation in rep or not.) Otherwise, the interest in these "revivals" is because of the desperate need for new classical choreography. If the same energy were put into that as in the new Faux Classics, I think we'd be better for it, but I think the revivalists aren't skilled enough to do that. Hence they dig up the past. There are ballets from the past that I would adore to see, but not through the imagination of a less-than-master choreographer guessing just which four-note theme Beethoven may have used open that lost symphony -- to go back to Drew's reference to Acocella's article.

I'm with Doug and Drew on this one. I think Doug hit it with his comments that planting Petipa's name on something is mere marketing, and I agree with Drew that the "notes" (steps) are integral to the work. What goes on in ballet could not go on in music, not merely because music has a more accessible notation, I think, but because the music audience (including critics) is more educated. Dance people -- fans and critics -- get sold the Brooklyn Bridge month after month, it seems. Ashton's "Fille" is one example of a revival that's rechoreography. It doesn't pretend to be Petipa, although it doesn't pretend to be completely original either. (Much of the "stage business" is from prior productions.) But Ashton was a choreographer, and his ballet could stand on his name. Same with Balanchine's Nutcracker and Coppelia. (I don't know if the Royal still has the Ivanov reconstruction, done with John Wylie, that did use the Stepanov notation in rep or not.) Otherwise, the interest in these "revivals" is because of the desperate need for new classical choreography. If the same energy were put into that as in the new Faux Classics, I think we'd be better for it, but I think the revivalists aren't skilled enough to do that. Hence they dig up the past. There are ballets from the past that I would adore to see, but not through the imagination of a less-than-master choreographer guessing just which four-note theme Beethoven may have used open that lost symphony -- to go back to Drew's reference to Acocella's article.

What a wonderful proverb! And how apt Thank you, Katja. I wonder, is Baryshnikov's anti-ballet stance known about in Russia? Is it talked about there? Although he has been making statements that ballet isn't creative, and he never really liked it, etc. etc. for some time now, Baryshnikov also wrote a beautiful introduction for Robert Greskovic's Ballet 101. There is still love for the art there, I think.

Welcome to Washington, Terry! You really travel a lot to see ballet I'm glad you could be here for such a special night. I forgot to mention Guillem (not that she'd notice ) To me, "Marguerite and Armand" on opening night looked like a run through. Timing was off, I thought, and the ballet didn't look taut. Last night I thought the ballet as a whole was much tighter. And I loved Guillem tonight. I liked her with Cope. I didn't see a lot of passion; I thought he was young and restrained, but I hadn't seen it in LeRiche either. (Passion may well be in the eye of the beholder ) I thought Guillem was fresh, I loved her playfulness, I thought her dancing was light and beautiful. There is one small change that makes no sense to me. If any of our British posters are reading this, perhaps you could tell me if there was comment on this in the British press? At the end of the scene in the country, Armand was tired after his solo with the whip (not to mention the pas de deux) and went to lie down. They embraced several times, and Armand began to fall asleep. Marguerite sat with him and watched until she was sure he was asleep before leaving. Neither LeRiche nor Cope did this. Both watched Marguerite leave (which makes no sense dramatically. She has promised his father she will leave him, but she cannot let him know, or he'll stop her. The whole point of the white pas de deux is for Marguerite to convince Armand that nothing is wrong -- which I thought Guillem did beautifully. She runs off when he is asleep so he will think she deserts him.) Having him wave bye-bye to her makes no sense. On to Fille, I believe that Howells (from the Les Rendezvous pas de trois which I also liked very much tonight) is the one so many people in England were excited about as Alain. If that's right, he'll be doing it Friday night, and the buzz was that his interpretation -- not at all like Alexander Grant's, but very, very good -- revived a part that is too often played a bit over the top. (If I'm mixing him up with someone else, I hope someone will correct this. I don't want to raise false expectations ) [ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I don't have any problems with what Baryshnikov is DOING now, but his constant bad mouthing of ballet grew tiresome, to me, long ago. It was interesting to read our Young Dancers board around the time he got the Honors. People were very excited that ballet would be on TV, and thought of Baryshnikov as a hero, a big star. And were disappointed and didn't understand why ballet was barely mentioned. (I don't blame them.) I agree with liebs about the protesting too much. I think he's angry at ballet because he can't dance it anymore -- I've known other dancers to feel this way, and I can't blame them. Someone who has had total control over his body, who could do practically anything physically, would very naturally feel betrayed. Maybe when he's 70 and can't do anything much anymore, he'll remember his roots. On the other hand, I can't disagree with his comment that ballet in America is merely commercial theater. That disease has spread to Europe as well. I don't think there's any escape from it -- it's like McDonald's, and Coke. mussel, there was a falling out with ABT, but I don't know the details. I think it was one of those situations where there was a lot of gossip, but nothing official -- but someone else may know more than I.

Tonight was the expected "surprise" performance by Sibley and Dowell. They got a lovely reception -- many people had come down from New York just for this. "Soupirs" ("Sighs," and my title is an attempt at a joke on Balanchine's La Porte et le soupir) is a very sentimental pas de deux, even for Ashton, and I don't think it's up to the "sitting solo" he did for Fonteyn, where he reprised all of her roles in snapshot moments of head, arms and shoulders. Two former lovers meet on a park bench and discover they're reading the same poem -- a poem they had both once loved. They dance (she wore heels). They part. Dowell saved it from being completely sentimental, I thought, by looking embarrassed (having his character look embarrassed, to be clear) at having let himself get so emotional. Their hands, their gestures, their expressions were lovely, and Sibley still has a gorgeous backbend. Dowell (on tape, I'd bet) introduced the duet by saying that Ashton had told them to keep dancing, and make any changes in his choreography they needed to make. "And, Fred, if you're looking down on us, we're taking you at your word!" For devotees of curtain calls, they got a spontaneous standing ovation. The house could hardly have been more warm and loving. Lots of flowers (two bouquets for her and a wreath for him, then more flowers, and someone threw a bunch). AND a good old-fashioned "walkie" -- Dowell led Sibley across the stage to the other side of the house for a bow. Jonathan Cope danced Armand tonight, and I liked his characterization -- more from the book than after Nureyev (young, naive, sincere). He also danced the first solo quite slowly, and walked into rooms instead of dashing, so perhaps that is part of the new revival? (If so, why?) I've always thought him a wonderful partner, and did so tonight. (Friends thought him dull; I did not.) I thought the duets had more passion and looked less awkward, that he handled her very well. I also liked "Les Rendezvous" and "Symphonic" tonight. (The man behind me referred to "Symphonic" as "Symphonic Vibrations," a great title for a new dance.) I honestly don't know whether they have found their stage legs, or I've gotten used to them -- several friends whose first look at the company was tonight had the same impression I'd had on opening night. I thought "Symphonic" was more gentle and more musical, and held together very well. I thought "Les Rendezvous" less frantic, and I loved Yoshida's solo this time; the arm movements were beautifully fluid. Many of the dancers are new to me, and I find the company very appealing. But it's hard for me to get past how different it looks, and I don't think the level of principals is what it once was (either technically or, for lack of a better term, in presence. Aside from Guillem, there are no etoiles. As for Ashton style, when the company was last here, Lesley Collier danced The Dream, and several people commented that she was the last real Ashton dancer, the last to have his style. She was never my favorite, and I don't think she was a great ballerina, but I'd agree with that. I thought Cope was dancing in Ashton tonight, and Sarah Wildor was also, in "Symphonic." Otherwise, it looks like an international company, which is what the management has wanted. On the way out, I heard an interesting comment from three young women. The only ballet they really liked was "the first one, with the polka dots." One liked "Marguerite and Armand," but another said, "Yes, but we saw that last night." I had to ask what they meant (inquiring minds, you know) and the answer -- "Moulin Rouge!" Maybe Dowell's timing of that revival was better than we thought. [ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

There is an article in Dance Now by Jane Simpson (who posts regularly on ballet.co and more than occasionally here) about "Ondine," much of it taken from a reading of Henze's diary when he was doing the music. I haven't gotten my copy yet and have only been given a precise from a British friend, but I can't wait to read it. It's a revision of the usual view of "Ondine," I'm told (which is that once again, Ashton was making an old-fashioned ballet instead of a wonderfully exciting modern one, and the score was too modern for it). Well, turn that around. Ashton was taking a myth -- which are supposed to be timeless -- and using a contemporary score. Exactly what Petipa did for Swan Lake, one might say. The designs were old-fashioned. Of course, I'd hate to suggest that the Royal commission new designs for it, remembering the Crooked Sleeping Beauty Anyway, if you live in a major city, you should be able to buy Dance Now -- a quarterly put out by David Leonard that is VERY well worth reading. It covers both contemporary dance and ballet, has features and reviews, centered in London, but has an eye on the rest of the world as well. There is a condensed version of the ballet on video with Fonteyn and Somes, and a slightly-too-old Alexander Grant as Tirrenio. I believe it's on the "Evening with the Royal Ballet" from 1956, with "Swan Lake Act II" and "The Firebird."

Thanks for posting this, Estelle. I'm not surprised at the lack of Ashton, but I am at the near-disappearance of MacMillan. This seems to be the kind of repertory the old London Festival Ballet would have run in the 1970s (with the substitution of the hot young choreographers of that time for the current time, of course). MacMillan has been so important to this company for the past thirty years, it seems odd they can't find room for him. (I'm not a fan of either his Romeo or Manon, but I think some of his one-act ballets are very interesting, and suit the company, and are certainly more taxing than anything I've seen by Mr. Duato.) Of course, that's only an American view. How has this news played where it matters, in England?

I love the Distinguished Service award. Do they give Purple Hearts too?

I second, very loudly, Juliet's "put away the darts." And I'll leave off the "please."

I put this on Links, too, but thought one should go here to flesh out this discussion. Sarah Kaufman on the Royal's opening night in the Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...0-2001Jun6.html

I thought "Symphonic Variations" was better tonight than last night, softer, the dancers more into the ballet, inside the music. It wasn't very cleanly danced (Yoshita-Casidy, Hatley, Kobborg, Tapper, Essakow) but if I have to choose, I'd pick this night. I thought the ballet looked more like itself. (I would point out that several people I know have commented that the current RB production isn't as well-danced as the one ABT did, with Michael Somes' guidance, not quite a decade ago.) I also thought "Les Rendezvous" looked a bit less rushed. Whether I'd gotten used to the designs, or they're not as obtrusive seen very close, I don't know. Actually, I think I blocked them out I thought Gillian Revie did a very nice job with the leading role and liked the pas de trois girl (Laura Morera) as well. Yohei Sasaki had some problems, but overall I thought did quite well in the leading man's role. The audience seemed to love "Thais," and, again, I did not. It's not that Benjamin isn't Sibley; no one would expect her to be Sibley. It's that Sibley (or the role) is of a dream, of someone who's not concrete, perhaps even an idea or ideal. To me, Benjamin is very concrete, very much a dancer, and that's the "perfume" that's missing. Others? I know there were a few who said they'd go (and I hope you know you're encouraged to disagree )

So has Sean Connery (And the late Audrey Hepburn) Among current celebrities...I can't help here (Dirac, I love your definition of moves like a dancer. Very apt.)

The "is it as good as" problem is probably as old as ballet. It's not as black and white as it's often made out to be, however. When someone (or, in this case, a duo) that's Really Truly Transcendentally Great, people recognize it. Until that happens, there are a lot of "perhaps not since..." or "just as good as, doggone its." When I started going to the ballet I found it very frustrating to be constantly told that something I thought was sublime was, well, perhaps not quite as fine as when so-and-so did it, and I can honestly say that when I was confronted with the comparison, I can't think of a time when I didn't realize the person was right. This doesn't mean that I didn't long to be 55 (at 25) and able to say, "Ah, but you didn't see Gelsey Kirkland in the role" ) I figured I could either ignore the comparisons, or learn from them. I totally respect the attitude of, I only want to see what's in front of me (unless the person is writing for a newspaper or magazine ) And I also understand that someone who thinks that John X and Mary Y are THE great partnership, if they got to see Karsavina-Nijinsky, or Fonteyn-Nureyev, or Sibley-Dowell may well find the "great" pair wanting. But I've often found that this issue makes sense to people only when they finally see something they thought was perfect done imperfectly, especially if it receives a standing ovation. Like many things, if you don't experience it, it's not real to you. On the question of great partnerships in general, as I wrote on the other thread, they happen. The companies could probably do more to encourage them -- like not shuffling dancers back and forth, but letting them develop a partnership -- but if the magic isn't there, and the repertory and atmosphere that puts a value on partnerships, it won't happen. It's also interesting that the question of rapport -- whether or not a partnership has a sense of connection or rapport -- seems to be very much a matter of personal taste. We read differences of opinion on that issue constantly here -- one person thinks the stage is on fire and another yawns -- and I imagine many of us have been in an audience where we're either caught up in the drama and other people cough, or the audience leaps to its feet screaming at the end when the couple comes out to take a call, and you wonder, "what did I miss?" I don't think this is just a matter of comparisons, of what database you have to draw on, but simply chemistry. [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I'm very fond of "cringeworthy," Katharyn. I may steal that sometime

I'm not aware of a videotape (not saying that one doesn't exist, just that I don't know of one). The pas de deux from Esmeralda is performed quite recently and there are videos, one with Asylmuratova on, I believe, the Kirov in London, is quite wonderful. The ballet is the story of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and the libretto is quite similar to the script for the Hollywood film! (There must have been a play in between there; I can't believe Hollywood cribbed a ballet.) The only substantial reference I can think off offhand wouldn't be on the web, but in a book, Cyril W. Beaumont's "Complete Book of the Ballets." Many libraries would have this one.

A note on "Les Rendezvous." The choreography was changed for the 1937 version as well. I believe that's when the "little girls" were added; I don't have Vaughan to hand, and that's from memory. But the sets and designs and choreography were very much of a piece in that version. I can well understand that the designs might look different in different parts of the house. Looking down on them might show a swirl of color, and the patterns would be more clear. When they're literally "in your face" (I was mid-orchestra, left side center aisle) they really get in the way of the choreography. I've seen designs that were literally such a barrier. If the idea was to make the ballet more contemporary, I'd have preferred they come out in whatever they would wear to a park these days -- kneepads and helmets, bluejeans, hot pants, I don't care. It was adding something on the surface to compensate for something they realize is missing from the dancing. On reaction, my sense of the audience was that it was quite patient and happy, though certainly not ecstatic (from the orchestra and from comments at intermission.) As often happens, people who had seen a lot of Ashton were less happy than people who hadn't, BUT there were also quite a few people I talked to who were comparing Ashton to Balanchine and Ashton came up One Big Loser, a position about which I cannot be objective nor particularly polite. (i.e., like hell he is.) I was the only person I talked to who did not love Cojocaru. Helena, I think your comparison of M&A and Spectre is very apt. I've read several really angry comments -- not only by critics, but by dancers -- written in reaction to glowing reviews of later casts of that ballet and saying things like, "A ballet purporting to be Spectre de la Rose was danced last night..." [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

Jeannie, I think your "guppy mouth" is partly a tic, and partly trying to breathe. There was a girl in my acting classes in college who did guppy mouth. They tried everything to break her of it, at first gently pointing it out to her, then yelling GOLDFISH!!!!!! whenever she did it. Nothing worked. She was quite beautiful, and quite accomplished (when she forgot she was a fish).

I think great couples happen. There were a lot of complaints in the Fonteyn-Nureyev era that companies were scrambling to try to MAKE great couples, which I don't think you can do. Samba, would you object if a critic wrote that Hamlet had forgotten to do the "To be or not to be speech?" Or that pointing out that the substitution of "Like, you know, I'd like to just blow the old brains out on a day like today" by an actor is not the original text? I think a distinction has to be made between saying, "The way X blew the kiss can never be duplicated" and what's in the actual choreography. If doing so ruins, or mars, the viewer's experience, I don't think shooting the messenger is quite fair I'd also suggest if we want to get into great partnerships -- which would be a very interesting topic -- that someone start a new thread. Unfortunately, while I can move entire threads to a new forum, I can't move individual posts out of a thread without cutting and pasting. Back to Opening Night. (I put up a web review on the main site at http://www.balletalert.com/reviews/r01/Royal1.html [ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: alexandra ]

I was disappointed with last night. An all- Ashton evening for me is Seventh Heaven, but....to me, the company has lost its Ashton voice, and its distinctiveness, because it was Ashton that gave it its distinctiveness. This could have been ABT (on a well-rehearsed day) or the National Ballet of Canada -- Ashton isn't its native language any more. In "Symphonic," especially, they looked as though they were thinking, hard, "have to do those whacky arm things now." Ashton's ballets are -- or were -- very tightly knit, and have a specific musicality, and except for Jamie Tapper and Johan Kobborg in "Les Rendezvous" (both of whom, I believe, were trained in systems that "hear" music the same way Ashton and the Royal once did) I didn't see that phrasing. My sense of the audience was that it was warm and very patient (the intermissions were quite long) but I didn't hear any whooping or hollering in the orchestra. There was a slow standing ovation at the end, which Mlle. Guillem graciously accepted. (I love Guillem for, among other things, keeping the tradition of the Great Ballerina alive, right down to the "flowers? for me" byplay during the curtain calls.) I thought the sets and costumes for "Les Rendezvous" were absolutely ghastly. They destroy the atmosphere of this slight ballet that was set in a very specific place (a park, with a fence around it and a gate, all of which were used in the choreography) and time. There's no distinction left between the couples and the four "little girls" who are too young to have dates and are rather outsiders. As noted above, I thought Jamie Tapper, in the pas de trois, and Johan Kobborg, in the leading male role were excellent. The dancing of the ensemble was fine technically, but, to me, not musically, and Miyako Yoshida was, to me, just plain dull. In "Symphonic Variations," I thought Cojocaru was too wispy for the leading role. She's a lovely dancer, but doesn't yet have the authority for it (and could hardly expected to have it). I would have liked to see her in something else (perhaps "Thais.") I thought the six cast members danced well, and it was certainly a respectful staging, but perhaps too respectful -- there was no juice in the dancing, to me, and there were times when the changes in arm position looked quirky and jerky instead of natural. There was only one place, in the men's dance, where I thought they were in the Ashton "groove" musically. (I often think, watching Ashton danced, that it's like listening to a phonograph where the needle has slipped out of the groove, just a bit -- sometimes a whole lot, but often just a bit -- and you hear the music, but it's just not quite right, and you don't notice how off it is until the needle slips back into the groove and all is well.) "Thais" is so associated with Sibley and Dowell, it's hard for me to imagine anyone else in it. Dowell was so "exotic" and their partnership was so magical. I wasn't caught up in "Thais" last night (Leanne Benjamin and Adam Cooper) and thought this pas de deux looked like just another number on a Tribute to Pavlova evening. As for "Marguerite and Armand," I saw very little left of it. (Where was Liszt in the denunciation scene?) It's not a narrative ballet, but a succession of quick scenes -- the "life flashing before her eyes" idea. There was absolutely no urgency or passion last night. I hope it was just that the dancers were tired, but watching LeRiche was as exciting as hearing Al Gore discourse on agricultural subsidies. I didn't see Nureyev in this until he was 37 and he had about ten times the energy and tension. This ballet is a distillation of the Romantic Era when death was a constant thought, everyone thought they would die before the age of 25, and many did. I didn't get that at all from this cast. They just acted out pretty little "I love you" scenes. The scene between Marguerite and her father -- the kindly, implacable Michael Somes when I saw it -- looked like two people caught in a garden with nothing to say to each other. The gestures looked futile -- it wasn't a mime scene, but a suggestion, a remembrance of a terrible day. Some other small details that were missing -- well, not so small. Fonteyn dug her knees into Nureyev's chest in the final scene, as though she were using his body to climb to heaven; Guillem stretched her arms. Nureyev made the sign of the cross over Marguerite's dead body; Le Riche managed a few sobs. Armand cannot bear to leave Marguerite at the end of the "white" scene; they kiss goodbye a dozen times, and she can't leave him until he's sleeping. Guillem dashed off on musical cue, and LeRiche watched her go. I liked Guillem, although she's the wrong body for the role -- it wasn't made for a tall woman with long legs, and those legs made the pas de deux look awkward. I thought her portrayal was a bit superficial, less the innately good woman who'd found herself in an unsavory situation but kept her soul, as Fonteyn portrayed her, than a shallow woman redeemed by love, but I found that acceptable. There were other places where I can just imagine she hadn't been told what to do. Fonteyn was absolutely broken by Armand's anger, and the hobbled walk on pointe -- that seemed to take ten minutes -- showed that; I didn't get that from Guillem at all. I found the whole evening tepid, and I hope it was jet lag. I don't think it made a good case for Ashton as a great choreographer, and that saddened me. In past seasons, this company has gotten better with each performance, and the more they dance Ashton the more they find him in their bodies and spirits, and I'm very much hoping that's the case this time. But if they're listening to the music in ways that he did not (ONE, two, three, four-and-a-ONE....) his ballets will never take flight.

Dale, I like your "balance-off-balance, supported v. nonsupported" comment, which makes it NOT look like "Swan Lake," in Farrell's performances. I only saw Mazzo in my first two or three seasons watching NYCB, so I certainly wasn't seeing all the subtleties, but I remember her as being surprisingly large. I didn't realize how short she was until the calls. She really spread out in her dancing, and so the off-balance steps were very off-balance, but I don't remember this seemed daring, but natural. My memory can't do better than that, I'm afraid. Did anyone else see her in this part?

Great topic! Thank you for starting it. I don't know how much leeway conductors have, and it may vary from company to company. There are some stagers who set the tempi (choreographers, too, of course; there's a story that Stravinsky was furious with Diaghilev for coming into his rehearsals and dictating tempi -- wrong!). And there are dancers who have been accused of conducting the conductor (Nureyev, Makarova). And some conductors can be mean. I saw a "Theme" in Copenhagen where the conductor speeded up in the middle of the man's solo (the air turns solo). The victim thought it was because he had complained to the conductor during dress rehearsals that the tempi lagged.) Your "Theme" example sounds harrowing -- I would agree that if the tempo, whether slow or fast, gets in the way, it's a problem. But whether that was the conductor, the company or the dancer's wishes, I can't say.