Helene

From Ismene Brown's blog today: Ovarchenko testifies about Filin's condition in the hospital right after the attack in response to assertions that Filin has faked his injuries. Dancers testify on behalf of Filin's character and behavior Pronin testifies that Dmitrichenko was protected in the theater by Grigorovich The latter is pretty critical, since it sheds light on Dmitrichenko's sense of invincibility and Tsiskaridze's insubordination towards Ratmansky, but also how Dmitrichenko used this protection on behalf of his fellow dancers. It also reveals the inner workings of the compensation committee after Dmitrichenko sat in on one meeting.

One of the dancers said that it was the reason for her dismissal:

It depends on the AD and/or the dancer. Where style is important, taking putside class could be counterproductive. There was a quote in the "People" article on Michael Shannon where he says that people watched and tried to correct him for doing things certain ways, but he responded that, no, that's the way they did things at the Bolshoi. From Alexander Meinertz's book on Vera Volchkova, Ninette de Valois forbade her dancers from taking Volchkova's class, but Fonteyn and Ashton went anyway, and Volchkova was responsible for her development in style and technique. Balanchine highly discouraged his dancers from doing a lot of things, including taking outside classes, but some of them did. Many felt his classes were too hard on the body, especially when they were older or nursing injury, since his classes didn't include much warm up and delved straight into whatever he was interested in at the time, and the tendus at the beginning of class were extremely difficult, done at both breakneck speeds and extremely slowly. Melissa Hayden was direct about how she felt his classes during Farrell's prominance were inadequate to maintain jumps, since Balanchine eliminated jumps because of Farrell's knee problems. Stephanie Saland's then-husband for part of her career was the notable teacher Robert Denvers, and she often showed a purer technique with fewer shortcuts than most NYCB dancers, at least of her time. Where class is not a contractual obligation, some dancers might make the trade-offs based on how acceptable it would be to adjust the exercises to work around injury. I know NYCB dancers have talked about taking classes at Steps, but that may be in addition to company class, and it might be in other genres.

According to this Dance Blog post by Judith Mackrell in "The Guardian," from last Thursday's Links:

Dancers weren't contractually required to go to Company Class in Balanchine's time. However, he mostly made decisions about dancers when they were right in front of them, even going so far as to have an optional Monday class on the dancers' day off for a while that was legendary to those who went. (Farrell and Ashley wrote about it in their books.) It was not considered a career move to skip class when Balanchine gave it. Villella and some of the dancers when they were older wrote that they could no longer do Balanchine's class physically later in their careers and stopped taking class. Villella's description in "Prodigal Son" of having to crawl into the bathroom to soak in the bathtub and then having a very long massage in the morning so he could stand upright and walk was frightening. Stephen Manes wrote in "Where Snowflakes Dance and Swear" that there were classes that were essentially auditions for stagers and choreographers. These weren't announced, and dancers lost and gained parts by the impression they made, sometimes unknowingly.

I agree. I've seen Balanchine's Nutcracker from the back of the Fourth Ring, and I didn't miss any of the mime and interactions of the children. The party scene itself is nice to see from far up, because you can see the flow of all of the characters. The first two rows of the Fourth Ring are great seats, but they sell out in a snap. For seeing it for the first time, I'd try for the front of the Fourth Ring, and tickets should be under $100. The used to play around, sometimes with the choreography on New Year's Eve. For example, one of the Harlequin and Columbine dolls would not appear, leaving the partner to kill time and space. One year, Mother Ginger had a "Happy New Year" sign pinned to the back of her dress, etc. ----- Thank you kfw!

PNB got to re-design the costumes for "A Midsummer Night's Dream," Paris Opera Ballet got to re-design "Jewels," and even NYCB updated the "Jewels" costumes. There's always hope. Ginger Rogers' feathers dress did not flop: it lilted and flowed (:drama smilie we don't have:) I think Sendak did a much nicer job with the flowers costumes in PNB's productions, even if Flora isn't as easy to find as Dewdrop, but it's a different kind of role, anyway.

There seems to be a difference between witnesses brought forth by Filin's lawyers and the prosecutor. Smirnova was being summoned by the prosecutor, and I wonder if she has to be listed as Filin's witness to be able to testify to Filin's character, due to the monetary damage part of the trial.

Unlike the high chair, which serves the practical purpose of putting them in the center, but not prominently forward, and high enough to be able to see what's going on, those flowers dresses serve no purpose except to cover the body.

According to Ismene Brown's blog entry with commentary and a translation of an article in ITAR-TASS, noticeably not Izvetsia, senior coach Maria Kondratieva and group of dancers want to testify to rebut Tsiskaridze's characterization of Filin on behalf of themselves and other Bolshoi dancers. The group includes Obraztsova, Smirnova, Rebetskaya, Lantratov, Ovcharenko, and Medvedev. http://www.ismeneb.com/Blog/Entries/2013/11/26_Bolshoi_teachers%2C_dancers_demand_to_refute_Tsiskaridze_in_court.html

The set designer does put Marie and the Nutcracker Prince in a gloried high-chair, though

Ismene Brown has posted translations of the Russian version of the feed from the last two days to her blog: Trial day 10: Dmitrichenko questioned, Tsiskaridze, Vorontsova testify Trial day 9: Dmitrichenko testifies

While kids can be there on any night, there tends to be more of them on matinee weekends.

I'd go to see ABT's, but only because I've seen NYCB's dozens of times, between NYCB and Oregon Ballet Theatre. NYCB's is available in an okay movie version, but one that should give you a gist of the choreography. You might be able to rent it on Netflix or take it out of the library.

It's getting harder and harder to figure out who said what when. I could draw different conclusions from the quotes in the article in "The Australian" and earlier interviews, for example. Whatever the underlying reason(s) was, it's clear from the casting that Womack was being marginalized during this 6-month contract, compared to her first season.

*If* she was hired as a soloist (or a demi-soloist rank that is listed as corps) with the explicit expectation that she'd be doing solo roles and wouldn't be doing corps roles, then I don't think it's arrogant to want to dance what one had been hired to do. If she misinterpreted getting a contract for a great love for her dancing and read something into it that wasn't there, then that is her issue. However, the company was under no obligation to give her what she wanted, and she is hardly the only dancer in the company who is contracted and dances rarely. From the reaction of one of her colleagues on Facebook, and the comments of a Bolshoi staff member (cited earlier in this thread) she had been given a chance to be in the corps roles, but wasn't an effective corps member. Either she was cast in the corps early, and it didn't work out, and later when she asked for corps roles again, the feedback was based in experience, or she was only recently cast in the corps, and she was told it wasn't working out, and she wouldn't get more corps roles. If the latter, it could have taken a while to make the mental switch to learning a lot of different corps roles after being on the sidelines for a while, in a way it wouldn't be for a more experienced corps member. She said that she was told that she doesn't fit into the corps when she offered to do corps roles. That doesn't sound to me like someone who is insisting on doing solos only. What I haven't heard her say in any of the interviews to date is, "They're wrong, and it's only an excuse to keep me out." or "After getting this advice, I spent a lot of time to adjust." Since we have no timeline, she may have left (or not have had her contract extended) before she had a chance, or she may have disagreed.

With perfect delivery, too.

Simon Morrison wrote an Op-Ed piece in today's NYT; from the article in today's Links, he contradicts other information reported earlier or emphasizes one aspect, not the complete story. He states, but doesn't mention the farewell "Nutcracker" performances Urin tried to arrange, and Tsiskaridze rejected. He also states, "To date, though, [Gergiev] has not expressed an interest in overseeing the operations of the Bolshoi. Should that happen, the historical loop, scandals and all, will be complete," when there were reports from Russia that Gergiev wanted exactly that, but that his proposal was rejected, and, as a result, he refused to take leadership at the Bolshoi and give up the Mariinsky. I also think it's pat and dismissive to describe Dmitrichenko as "a mercurial soloist who harbored a grudge against Filin for failing to cast his ballerina girlfriend in choice roles," as if there weren't a number of other professional reasons for Dmitrichenko's anger, whether those reasons were justified or not. A lot of people will read the NYT only and assume this is a complete picture of what's going on in Moscow.

Or to paraphrase Mark Morris in the Jacob's Pillow documentary, when talking about how older generations view younger ones, the younger ones still are having fun, and they haven't realized yet that they are going to die.

If she continues to give statements and more detail to more media outlets, whether she pursued them, or they pursued her, instead of repeating that she'd made her statement to Izvetsia, has nothing more to say, and wants to focus on the dancing she is doing, that was a choice as well. "The Australian" is proliferating her claims of being the first American, which isn't true, but that message is working. They're also conflating Dmitrichenko's claims of financial corruption with Womack's, when she specifically stated that she was not talking about Filin, and she hasn't claimed that Filin's sex life had anything to do with her: the only example she gives is of a would-be sponsoring agreeing to be her sponsor for sex. In "The Australian" quotes, she gives her interpretation of part of Filin's (uncredited) advice, which is that she should corrupt herself, when, given the full advice quoted elsewhere, there is another more obvious interpretation about fitting in socially. Whether this was the paper's editing isn't clear, though.

I don't know what they would have told her that three years of direct experience in the school, where the students perform with the Bolshoi in many ballets, or the teachers that pulled for her, or the people in the company who gave her the few parts she had and championed her couldn't have told her. From her own comment, she thinks the Bolshoi needs an attitude adjustment. I'm not sure US consular officials would have changed her mind from thinking it was her place to tell them how to run their institution.

The political and business equivalent of the actors going into rehab slate-cleaner is "I left to spend more time with my family." I'm not sure what kind of protection she would have asked from US authorities under Russian law. She wasn't being held against her will, threatened with deportation, or forced to do anything illegal. She might have asked a tax expert or US authority to explain the tax withholding situation and to help her work with the theater business people to clarify the withholding issues. From all accounts she wasn't being paid less of a pittance than other members of the corps.

PNB followed Ratmansky's casting choices for DNB by casting actors as Don Q and Sancho Panza for almost all performances. The strength of actor Tom Skerritt's portrayal of Don Q was in his facial expressions, to be expected from a film-focused actor. In two performances, Otto Neubert performed Don Q, and for me, while his kinetic identity might not have been complex, it was strong and unpredictable: he was like a lion who could pounce at any moment, and the element of social danger that one person in the room wasn't in on the jokes -- he took everything seriously and literally -- wasn't playing along with the cliques, and wasn't interested in the social gloss that smooths things over -- he took everything seriously and literally -- was palpable, because his elephant in the room couldn't be easily dismissed, like Gamache's vanity. Daniel Baudendistel in Ballet Arizona's production had a similar force when I saw it at the premiere weekend, if from a different approach: he was the powerful presence of a different era and ethos, a bit like Hamlet's father's ghost, and completely out of place in the ballet's world. It wasn't a movement-based kinetic presence, but in in his most powerful moments the ability to generate power in stillness, and he, and his admonition by example, couldn't be ignored. I think it takes a very strong presence and concept to pull off Don Q, since he comes in and wants to interfere with our pretty little ballet.

I think it's the most wonderful solo Balanchine made for a man.

Oh, that makes much more sense. I can't see Nureyev doing Cook's solo, though, or maybe I should say I can, and I don't think it would have worked: I think the dynamics would have been all wrong. Thank you so much for posting your notes!