kfw

Thank you very much, Ambonnay. Having only seen the rehearsal, I have only a much shorter synopsis given to ABT supporters. I'd be grateful if someone would transcribe the program's synopsis for Act 2.

Yes, in her bio she describes it as .

Sarah Kaufman's Washington Post review is here, along with a photo showing those villagers.

I can understand your reaction since you've seen the Bolshoi version in the theater. I've only seen their televised performance, and I was very pleased by what I saw at the Kennedy Center. The simple white tops and headscarves on the women villagers, for example - uniform and lovely.

Without venturing an opinion on how ideal or not he was for the role, I will say that I'll never forget seeing him dance it in Chicago in '79. Noble is not the word I would have used!

Thanks, VirginiaB. Alastair Macaulay saw both casts as well:

But how about the hammer and sickle on that red banner with harvest motifs above the stage? Given that D.C.'s a political town, I had to laugh.

Cornejo danced in the dress rehearsal this afternoon. And he didn't mark it either.

There were only 15 when I discovered the program was streaming, 10 minutes after it had begun. It's possible that some weren't actually watching, but just had the website up as a reminder to watch that evening (as I did), and weren't at their computers. A few of the others may have seen my alert, although judging from the number comments on the alert thread, probably only a few. In any case, I'm so glad the programs are archived!

I know what you mean, but the quality was no worse than what I've seen before during streaming events. Of course most of those have been jazz sets from clubs, so the visual component was less important. The most I noted during the afternoon was 61. Both figures strike me as amazingly low.

All you have to do is go to their website at 7:30 and it will begin streaming by itself. I happened to have the site up so I wouldn't forget tonight, and discovered the stream from the 3 pm event when I turned my speakers on to stream something else.

Title says it all. I guess they'll stream it again at the announced time of 7:30. Go here

I don't understand it but this/or something on Giselle is streaming now.

By laughing? Ugh. There was some of that when Suzanne Farrell Ballet danced it in Washington this past November, unfortunately.

Aha! My own few days have just begun.

Yes, and romance is about ideals. The idealized woman isn't real, but the ideal is.

Christian, you might want to pick up a copy of Nancy Goldner's little book, Balanchine Variations, which has wonderful essays on at 22 Balanchine ballets including La Somnambula. I easily found copies through the Amazon link at the top of the page. I'm looking forward to your impressions of the ballet once you see it.

The hierarchical angle is unfortunate of course, but women obviously look beautiful on pointe, and courtesy is beautiful as well. Do pointework and partnering have to represent a chivalry born of sexism? I prefer to see partnering that shows off the woman as representing a man's love and respect for her, and her gracious appreciation of it, not from a point of weakness and inferiority, but of strength, both physical and spiritual. I prefer to see pointework as glorifying a woman's beauty.

Hah! Pretty funny. If I've seen a photo of him in a Stetson, I can't bring it to mind. Another answer would be that since, as you say, he was a true patriot, and since he'd escaped from communism and was a conservate, McCarthyism made him want to show his patriotism. Or maybe he just felt it more and the ballets proceeded from that.

Wow, that's the first time I've seen anyone suggest a causal link there. Very interesting. Are you just speculating, Mel, or can you elaborate?

For me too. I look forward to finishing the program at dinner this evening. But this year as always, the dancing in those grand spaces, and on the staircase no less, left me cold. To each his own.

Somewhat Incidentally, since we're discussing criticism, I see that the NY Times blog Paper Cuts has now posted seven separate articles on "why criticsm matters": Critics on Criticism.

What you wrote is that (emphasis mine).In any case, I'm sorry to misunderstand you and I'm glad we agree.

For starters, anyone who judges someone else a foolish person for one bad artistic judgment lacks the sense to be given a public forum. I have to disagree. Johnson gets paid to say what he means, and to say it exactly. He doesn't get paid to speak off the cuff. papeetepatrick is exactly right to liken the comment to blog writing, and Lord knows, blogs on the whole haven't exactly raised to tone of public discourse.

I read "idiot" as "stupid jerk." Others may read it differently, but it's a strong insult in any case. I cannot imagine why the writer or his editor would find it reasonable or acceptable to go ad hominem because of an artistic choice. He could have focused on the choice, even calling it a dumb choice if he felt the need to vent. But to attack Ratmansky personally?