Helene

Jessika Anspach, who was the first graduate of Pacific Northwest Ballet's Eastside school to enter the company, wrote about "The Nutcracker" for Dance Magazine: Surviving Nutcracker

A number of San Francisco Ballet's dancers have recorded short videos about their holiday celebrations in their home cities/regions: http://www.sfballet.org/magicalmemories/index.asp

There's little comparison between a critic appearing on TV in a critical format or for expert opinion or debate with other critics or subject matter experts and a critic appearing on TV to "debate" the object of his criticism. If it were up to Macaulay to decide and not a NY Times policy/guideline/rule, to accept simply because someone might think you are weak is a weak position, and bypassing the "opportunity" just means that someone may think you are weak. Criticism is a job, not a debate. It's not "American Idol" where we get to phone in our votes. Ms. Ringer has been given a platform to respond to his formal criticism, and it sounds like she took the high road, which is no less than I'd expect. For the record, she was my favorite dancer when I left New York, and she remains the one I miss most keenly, regardless of her weight at any point.

I love co-productions: they are a great use of resources. The Met was pretty clear that "Iphigenie" was a co-production. I wonder why not this one. Unless the Seattle showing was like an out-of-town tryout, whereas London getting DC first was like being the post-Broadway tour

Thank you for the link to the existing DVD, richard53dog. It doesn't make sense for the Met to release it. I haven't been paying enough attention, because I thought this was a new Met production I was thinking a lot about "Aida" while at the "Don Carlo" showing. I'd never seen DC before, although I've heard it many times. (The closest I've ever gotten is one of the sets -- I assume the garden set -- that was used for one "act" of Bing's farewell gala.) First in the scene where King Phillip summons Rodrigo and demands that he ask for a favor. (Can't have anyone too independent and not in debt around.) Then in the auto de fe scene, where the Flemish come with Don Carlo to plead for a more just solution in Flanders. Verdi combined the two ideas in "Aida", but he also simplified them greatly, and I wonder whether that was a result of the difficulty of the auto de fe scene in "Don Carlo". In "Aida" you watch Radames lose his one chance to marry Aida by being distracted to ask a humanitarian favor, all with the best of intentions. In "Don Carlo", there are the three people whom King Phillip most suspects or of whom he is unsure (Elisabetta, Don Carlo, and Don Rodrigo) pleading for the same humanitarian aim, and they are doomed: they are singing about the political, but to King Phillip, it is deeply personal. For me that makes it that much more gut-wrenching. It was really the crowd I didn't like.

I hadn't see the article, bart, until your mention. Wow. She has the energy of a cyclone.

Today was the live HD broadcast of Verdi's "Don Carlo". This past week I've been immersed in the Copenhagen "Ring of the Nibelungen" DVD's -- I've watched the first three -- and I think that as a combination of direction, thinking, design, and acting, it is the best production I've ever seen. Director Kasper Bech Holten makes some controversial choices, like having Sieglinde remove the sword from the tree and the Wanderer breaking his own spear, but for production values, apart from the makeup job on Stig Andersen's Siegfried that would have been more appropriate for Gustav von Aschenbach, the side camera (handheld?) in Mime's kitchen, and the Valkyrie wings, which were a bit too "Angels in America" for my taste, the filming and production values are fantastic. As a result, I was expecting to be disappointed by "Don Carlo", and was I ever wrong: I think this is my favorite HD broadcast. I was riveted by the first two acts, and the only miss of a scene was during the auto de fe at the end of the third, which must be a cow to try to stage. In theory there is a vicious and incited crowd calling for blood with religious fervor; however, to keep up that kind of energy for a very long scene would have become tedious, and the music doesn't sustain that kind of action, either. As it was staged, they were very well-behaved and didn't need the guys in armor to keep them in check, but it took the bite out of the scene. I found Bob Crowley's sets evocative and his costumes a knock out. The hats and coats on the ladies at the end of the first scene were divine. The direction by Nicholas Hytner was detailed, rich, and beautifully paced and registered exceptionally well on video. Kudos to the makeup department for making the singers look great. My only quibble was with Alagna's hair: for some reason the hair people let it have wings. Hytner was lucky in having so many talented actor singers, particularly Marina Poplavskaya (Elisabetta), Simon Keenleyside (Don Rodrigo), and Ferruccio Furlanetto (King Phillip). Marina Poplavskaya is simply a splendid actress. Elisabetta is a tough role, easily played as a victim, but Poplavskaya portrayed her as a young woman who's been brought up for duty, and she's planning to uphold her end of the bargain, even if it costs her every day of her life, starting in the Fontainebleau scene, when the courtiers beg her to agree to the strategic alliance and to stop the war. She was determined rather than pious, and she didn't leave her brains or will at the door when she married: in the scene where the King humiliates her by asking why she's unattended because he gave an order that she was never to be alone, she gave an understated but clear snarl when she sang that she would remain silent over the unfair accusation. Her Elisabetta has a spine. Details like this, and the complete lack of chest grabbing and gasping, the default opera heroine gestures, her preternatural steeliness and relative calm in the face of duty, and her willingness to remain still when nothing was called for made her exceptionally compelling. This really came to light in a scene in which she wasn't even present: when Don Carlo meets Eboli in the garden, thinking it is Elisabetta who has invited him, mistakenly proclaims his love, and then, realizing his error, tells Eboli that it won't work, she correctly assumes that he is in love with Elisabetta. She incorrectly assumes that Elisabetta is having an affair with him, and that she is faking piety and fidelity. Eboli sees hypocrisy, manipulation, and cheating, because she is a hypocrite, manipulator, and cheater, and assumes that the rest of the world, and specifically Elisabetta, must be, but Poplavskaya has already established Elisabetta as someone whose behavior was the point, regardless of the depth of her feelings; as Queen, her behavior must be approach, and her marriage, a deal, was one she was going to keep. Elisabetta is nothing like Eboli. It's hard for me to judge voices in the theater, and in the Scotiabank Theatre Vancouver, she sounded like she used a wide range of dynamics, especially in the last act, which was breathtaking, but didn't have that much heft. I assume she sounded richer in the house, particularly in the Family Circle. Rodrigo is usually played as a perfect guy: best friend and loyal to Don Carlo, freedom fighter, etc. etc., and since the baritone is rarely the good guy, I can see the temptation to play him that way. I've heard a number of descriptions that talked about Keenleyside's portrayal as the "gay Rodrigo", but I saw something quite different, which he explained at intermission: Rodrigo is a political zealot, and he has to manipulate to further the cause. This doesn't mean he doesn't have genuine affection for Don Carlo or that he isn't a patriot ready to go to war for his country -- whatever the King through the Church decides -- but that every ball he juggles is towards an end, and sometimes, like when he disarms Don Carlo in the auto de fe scene, to clean up the mess in front of him. What made Kennleyside's portrayal so powerful and rich was that he stayed true to that idea and interpreted with enlivening detail rather than softening the edges and and playing broad and generic; he is a remarkable singing actor. It's also a temptation to try to make King Phillip a sympathetic character, especially in his monologue scene. Listening to what he is saying, though, he has two complaints: he doesn't understand the human heart, and he thinks his wife doesn't love him. He is a man absorbed with court intrigues, international politics, war, and insurrection, all the while with the Grand Inquisitor and the Catholic Church on his back. However, he is the King and the center of the universe -- the most powerful secular ruler on the planet at the time -- and of course he doesn't understand the human heart: he has never had to put himself in anyone else's heart. It's all about him. (Similarly with Wotan, although Wotan has boxed himself in by himself, and he doesn't rule through the grace of the Church.) Why should Elisabetta love him at all? Her father sold her in an arranged, political marriage to end a war; it's not like she would have picked him given her choice. He claims to love her, but he has a funny way of showing it, by seducing her highest ranking lady in waiting. Yes, I know there is a double-standard for men/Kings, but it never occurs to him to look at it from her point of view. What's great about Furlanatto's portrayal is that he doesn't ask for cheap sympathy by downplaying the character's essential selfishness, however understandable it may be. His monologue was beautifully sung. I have to wonder about the men in these operas: with all of their affinity for intrigue, they're not very quick on their uptake. When Eboli realizes Don Carlo is in love with someone else, accuses him of loving Elisabetta, insinuates that they're having an affair, neither he -- not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but he's all Don Rodrigo has to work with, a bit like Gunther to Don Rodrigo's Hagen -- nor Don Rodrigo -- who is excellent at political intrigue -- once thinks to tell her that it's someone else. Elisabetta has an entire chorus of retinue, and Don Carlos is the heir to the throne with a lot of time on his hands. Surely it is conceivable that he's have an intrigue or two with some of the royalty at court. (Likewise with Wotan: why he doesn't just agree to remove the magic from Nothung and let Siegmund fight Hunding as two mortals -- a fight Siegmund was perfectly capable of winning on his own as long as he had some arms -- instead of caving on everything is beyond me. Or maybe not, since Wotan is often an all-or-nothing kind of guy.) Don Carlo as a character is a basket case. It's hard to know what to do with his character. Roberto Alagna did more than a credible job, and stayed away from as much cliche as possible aside from the side-by-side opera buddy duet stance, but there's only so much he could do actively, and of the major characters, his was most broad, perhaps because, as the saying goes, it's like trying to nail jello. He also looked great in those costumes, a period that isn't kind to most men. His big aria at the beginning of the opera was a mixed bag outside his upper range, but he sounded very strong to me after that. I had mixed feelings about Anna Smirnova as Eboli. She was a fine actress, but she didn't grab me until the end of "O don fatale" when she sang big. The one singer who did not fit vocally or dramatically was Eric Halfvarson who sang the Grand Inquisitor. His grimacing during the confrontation scene with King Phillip was so out of place with the acting style of the rest of the cast, and his wobble was wide: he hit the right note once on the way up and once on the way down. It was a performance that seemed airlifted from another production. I didn't catch the name of the singers who sang the Queen's Page and who has a crush on Eboli -- she gave a perky trouser-role performance -- or the ghost of the late King Charles V. In the short role, he sounded wonderful, with a Russian sound. I loved the orchestra. Yannick Nezet Seguin was the conductor; with his short-cropped hair and bow tie he looked a bit like Pee Wee Herman. He was interviewed on one of the intermission features, and his love for music and voices was quite evident in his enthusiasm in the interview and the pacing and shape of the orchestra. It's hard to say how much the beautiful balance between orchestra and voice was his vs. the sound engineers', but I'd bet on him. He mentioned that he had been a chorus master earlier in his career, something host Deborah Voigt let drop, and I can't help thinking that this was the root of his energy and generosity. He seemed very genuine, and the singers' appreciation of him seemed like more than the standard professional air kisses of praise. I hope this comes out on DVD; I would buy it in a minute.

Thank you so much for the update and description, Pamela.

I'm a contrarian by nature, and I am looking forward to hearing about Tereshkina's performances most.

Former PNB dancer Mara Vinson and Karel Cruz will perform in the Goh Ballet "Nutcracker" during the run in Vancouver (17-19 Dec), but this article doesn't list which performances they will be dancing, as they are sharing the leads with Sonia Rodriguez and Piotr Stanczyk of National Ballet of Canada: http://www.straight.com/article-363375/vancouver/young-dancers-pointe-high-goh-nutcracker

Especially after the tour de force that is Dewdrop. She dances it in a modified corset, and the role is one of, if not the most, well-constructed applause machines I've ever seen. Flora, in that huge, multi-layered long tulle skirt to match the Flowers is an elegant role, more in the Romantic mode -- the flash from the ankles down -- although it looks pretty difficult to me.

Also, the 'Block' being visible for all except mods and admins may be correct or not, considering that when I took a look at the older messages from other posters, I saw nothing of either 'Block' or 'Unblock', and this one I sent was relatively new--and in this one, only the 'as yet unread' showed, whether I clicked 'Block' or 'Unblock'. I didn't explain this correctly, because I didn't mean to connect the Block/Unblock feature with this checkbox. The checkbox is only to do a blanket block on PM's, but this doesn't block Mod/Admin emails, which go through regardless of whether the option is chosen, and from the new documentation, Mod/Admin PM's also bypass the "mailbox full" setting. I will check this out, since it's possible that the new functionality wasn't applied retroactively. I dislike this new functionality in so many ways. It's also possible to ignore the counters and to miss the pop-ups, like in the old system, which might be why you're not getting an answer. That or unfamiliarity with the functionality. It takes a lot of poking around to find a way to turn off PM, which is why it wouldn't be my first guess. (On other board software, I clicked a link to a comment, accidentally closed the browser, and it took me two months to figure out that this type of comment was stored and how to retrieve it.)

I haven't investigate much about the new PM system apart from the absurd set of notifications that are not tied together; i.e., if you read a message, only one of the two possible counters is affected. There are at least six ways to be notified about PM's (or "Personal Conversations" in the new terminology): Pop-up with the message (like in the old software) Counter next to the username (used to be in the menu next to the PM menu choice) A little green box (must be turned on manually, and only appears if there are any messages.) On the mobile app By email In the right column on the main page (only appears if there are any unread messages) I never noticed that "Block" wasn't visible for all posters except Moderators and Administrators. The idea behind this is to be able to block specific people from sending PM's. On other boards there have been issues of harassment via PM, and in some software -- I haven't tested ours -- if a poster is put on "ignore", PM's are blocked as well. It is possible to disable the PM feature from "My Settings", which is an option by clicking the down-arrow next to the sign-in name at the top of the page: Settings (top tab) Notification Options (left menu) Under "Privacy Settings", Clicking option 1 disables board email, which always sends the sender's registered email address to the receiver, but the receiver's email address is invisible to the sender. This is why a number of people disable board email. Clicking option 2 is currently irrelevant, because we don't send email blasts. Clicking option 3 disables PM for everyone, except Admins and Moderators, who can send PMs regardless of the state of the checkbox. I need to poke around with this feature.

When Balanchine choreographed "Nutcracker" in 1954, the Grand Pas de Deux took the standard form: adagio, variation, variation, coda. According to "Choreography by George Balanchine: A Catalogue of Works", (The original Coffee was Francisco Moncion, described in the Catalogue as "hookah-smoking nobleman fanned by four parrots"; in 1964 Balanchine replaced it with the solo for Gloria Govrin.) Stowell kept Balanchine's placement for the female solo, here the adult(ish) Clara, but he also added the Prince's solo at the beginning of Act II, with a few phrases of partnering, one for Clara and the Prince, and one for the Prince, Clara, and Pasha that quickly reflected the Pirlipata, Nutcracker, and Mouse King trio. I remember reading somewhere that Maria Tallchief, the first Balanchine Sugar Plum Fairy, was terrified to go onstage for the beginning of the Pas de Deux in the original version, because it would be the first thing she danced in the performance, and she could hear the ovation for Leclerq's Dewdrop and knew she couldn't let down the audience and the ballet after that. The change gives SPF something to dance early in the act. In Stowell's version, the adult Clara has already danced the Act I Pas de Deux during the transformation music and before the Waltz of the Snowflakes, and the pressure isn't the same.

Poll threads appear in "View New Content" at the latest datetime when someone either posts or votes. The last posted info only shows the last post. There is no mechanism for showing the last vote. If the last post on a poll thread is not recent and the thread appears in "View New Content", it means someone has very recently voted.

I thought Macaulay's description was a groaner, but sometimes there's a miss in writing as much as he does. What I think we're dancing around here is an elephant in the room: weight. We can go around in circles as much as we want, and propose different ways to phrase the same thing delicately, but generally we don't ask the same delicacy for other aspects of dance, like whether they danced like adults. I wrote "an elephant", because there's a herd of pachyderms when it comes to ballet (and figure skating): weight, injuries, forcing a body that is not ideal for ballet to do ballet, the number of casualties along the way to get those few hundred who dance professionally, race, economics specific to dancers, how being in a company can crush confidence, the way people in ballet are treated as children, that they are called "boys" and "girls". Yes, dancers talk about loving the art and feeling fulfilled, but the art we love has very big costs, and they are paid by more than the people we see on stage and who are employed professionally by companies. There's a Facebooky think going around in which we chose cartoon characters as our profile photos. If I seem pessimistic, it's because I'm channeling Huey Freeman, who is not exactly Mr. Sunshine.

My stuff came out of storage at the end of September, and I've been working my way through my DVD collection slowly. One that I put away without watching and saw for the first time yesterday was this "Raymonda DVD". I can't thank you enough for the heads up, naomikage, and I'm sorry it's so belated. Zakharova is a beautiful Raymonda, and her performance is far more classical than not. There is an occasional big extension, but no more than I saw Lopatkina do as Lilac Fairy a few years ago in Berkeley, but since it's not a really a jumping role, this aspect is barely there. She was luminous. The role of Abderakman is reduced, but it is also toned down in a very good way: there are few like Taranda who can make the character flesh and blood and not rely purely on Eastern stereotypes, which in this production, he is not. Even so, by comparison, Jean de Brienne comes across as dutiful and dull, and there was only so much Denis Matvienko could do besides partner Zakharova and do a few solos. Only Zakharova and Matvienko are listed in Roman characters in the book, and I liked the dancer who performed Abderakman very much. I also loved the dancer who played the Queen (Raymonda's mother). The costumes were spectacular; the long gowns for the courtiers in the first Act were favorites.

But not the explosive swabber or the choice of body scanner or grope.

I was poking around for dates for the SF Ring, since I'm filling in my 2011 datebook, and I just found in FAQ that OperaVision is being used for all cycles: http://sfopera.com/p/?mID=199 OperaVision is a full screen with subtitles that can be seen from the Balcony. If I had done my reading properly, I would have applied for Balcony seats, since people in the Balcony will have a better view than I from Dress Circle.

And I saw Jaffe many times, and her dancing did nothing for me. Croce summed it up when she wrote that if Giselle herself called Jaffe, she'd get a busy signal. Now that is snark. I generally look for movement quality and like plush. I don't usually care about the body if the way the dancer moves captures me, a la Mark Morris at any weight.

(Sad, but true...) It would have to be a full-length: Act I is where the dancers get to the theater two hours earlier than usual.

I didn't read defensiveness in the weight article, but I think the way Macaulay phrased his weight comments in the review was a miss in tone and point: why would an Artistic Director/Ballet Master cast dancers for an opening night performance if they historically need time at the beginning of a season to get into prime shape? Dancers show up when and for what they are cast.

Thank you, PeggyR, for posting that. I am green with envy that I'm not in SF, and I won't be able to see the Altman/Spalding/Chung/Blanco, Hernandez matinee on the 10th.

That is the obvious way to look at it and ignores the increase in eating disorders among men in general and, more specifically, in dance and in weight-conscious and -based sports like wrestling, boxing, gymnastics, ski jumping, martial arts, etc. That plus the idea that Angle can/should just suck it up, but Ringer only needs defending. And I don't ever see that changing.

I guess men in ballet never have any weight problems. Andrew O'Hehir was crazy about the movie, and he writes in salon.com: The review is titled, "'Black Swan': Even better than you've heard", which amuses me, since better than I've heard is a little better than nothing.