Simon G

Actually Kate, I think they've been asked to stop doing this in light of the $250 a photo offer. If you want to queue up at the stage door you can still get one there.

This was in today's Guardian (major broadsheet newspaper in the UK) regarding the funding of the ROH and other "elitist" arts venues. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/arts/story/...1147015,00.html The main point of contention is that the majority of the UK's arts funding (and here we have this filthy little Orwellian thing called the National Lottery which plays every day now and is otherwise known as the poor man's tax). However, the majority of funding for all manner of public services including, worringly the health service, is now being culled from the revenues drawn in from the lottery. The issue regarding funding for the ROH is that the companies don't tour to the rest of the UK, are London-centric and starve other arts organisations which do serve the needs and political interests of the communities they create in of vital revenue. When seen in this light, as one other poster pointed out, an organisation which is "Royal" ergo funded to the hilt, sending out those crass little begging letters becomes all the more distasteful and disingenuous. I know this is very often overlooked but the political nature of art is of vital importance. Politikus - a citizen belonging to a society. Does not an arts institution which takes its revenue from all strata and demographics of its society have a duty to serve the whole of that society with the art it creates in order to justify its existence? I know this is an ideal but it sure as hell should serve more than only the 1% of the society it currently does and in a greater catchment area than only London. The RB does not have to fulfill the codicil of touring non-Royal arts organisations must to ensure their Arts Council grants. This as the article pointed out is an injustice, but one not likely to change. But given the light of this privileged position it makes the inappropriate solicitation currently in force, just plain wrong.

Actually Ari, no. I've been watching the Royal for quite some time now and have stuck with them through some very bad patches but this current ABT model Royal is I feel its very worst incarnation yet. I don't mind giving to a company I believe in. What I did object to was the crassness of the letter, the tone of, as Jane so rightly said "If you don't give us money the girls go on demi-pointe" then the utter mediocrity of the "bonuses" you get if you give extra. A signed name. The Royal is not in desperate poverty, but the tone of this letter was awfully twee, like one of those awful adults who talk in baby talk and ask for "hugs". I admire the ABT site which has the balls to say this dancer is paid for by such and such CEO. It's honest it says this dancer has high fees we can't meet them and so this Warbucks will. Though of course the worrying implication is that ballet hasn't really moved on since the 19th century when certain "stars" were heavily patronised in every sense of the word. Perhaps that's my biggest grudge against this letter, it was just so utterly not grown up.

Ari, The problem over funding in the UK is huge, and no mistake. However, the Royal Opera House, due to its Royal Charter has not had its funding cut, and although it does not rise in tandem to inflation rates, it still receives over 70% of all arts funding for dance in the UK. Many highly worthy companies with huge artistic integrity such as London Contemporary Dance Theatre have been forced to close over the past decade, but the Royal Ballet is allowed to stay afloat. Most dramatically a few years ago when the company was bankrupt and pulled from liquidation due to HUGE cash injections. Again, I wouldn't mind but for the quality of the work. This current bugbear of mine stems from the triple bill which I was so appalled by and was swiftly followed by the begging letter. I wouldn't mind donating to Merce (including my vital organs, I love his work so much) or several other companies, but when I've paid £66 for a ticket and come away feeling the way I did, bankrupt for a company which appears to be artistically bankrupt, the last thing on my mind is donation.

Jane, what annoyed me is that the letter I wrote was in response to the triple bill of three weeks ago. This coincided with the letter for pointe shoes, so the fact that I paid by credit card obviously bumped me up to the begging letter list whilst this was the performance which made me realise my decision of last year not to attend the RB anymore was in fact the right one for me.

Hi everyone, This is to do with events here in England with the Royal Ballet. I was recently targeted (having spent several hundred pounds over the years via credit cards) by the Royal Ballet marketing department. Asking me to donate money to help carry the costs of pointe shoes. For an extra large donation $400+ I could have the shoes signed by a ballerina (they didn't specify which), and for $250 I could have.... wait for it.... a signed photo of a Royal Ballet principal!!!!!!! This angers me on several levels: 1) The Royal Ballet's ticket prices are exorbitant, the highest in the world, but this is not the issue here, the issue being that these mounting ticket costs, especially with the disparity of the quality of the product onstage (separate issue) should mean that at the very least one can be assured that the basic costs of running a company - toe shoes being the basic fundamental of a ballet company - should be covered. 2) It's deeply tacky to receive begging letters. However, I was targeted due to the fact that I had used credit cards on expensive seats and was therefore considered a safe bet. My visits to the RB have been very rare of late, due to my dismay at the consistent poor standards, but this was not taken into any kind of consideration before I was solicited, rather the sum was seen as making me a safe bet. On one occasion after a particularly atrocious performance I wrote a letter of complaint to the ROH and have to this date received nothing back. It makes receiving this begging letter really offensive. 3) The special price tags to receive "signed shoes" and "signed photographs" (oh the humanity, it beneath contempt. The whole affair has just angered me, and left me with a deep distaste for the current management. I know that similar sponsorship and fundraising drives are in place in the US, but are they so overt, tacky and solipsistic? And do they at least take into account the attendance of the targeted before they solicit you? The main point which disgusts me is that I am obviously on a "has spent more than X amount with us over the past few years" list and this really angers me. More than anything is confirms that the RB as an institution is based on money not artistry.

I didn't inted it to be harsh, just honest. The problem with Watson is the problem with the RB as a whole, or rather the RB as a roster of principals and little else. Each principal is becoming a parody of themeselves, each principal seems to dance to their own rhythm with very little awareness of their fellow dancers or the nature of the choreography. I have a book from the 1950s which discusses the RB, which at that time was considered to be the greatest company in the world AND boasted a roster of stars trained in the school and company. But in the book it spoke of Fonteyn saying it believed her greatest triumph was in Symphonic Variations where the ballerina must tone down her own personality to be a part of the whole, it went on to say that this was truly the hallmark of greatness. Symphony in C is just such an incredible ballet so so so so SO beautiful but it needs a corps who are cohesive, it needs a set of dancers who though taking principal roles are willing to sublimate status and ego to the piece. What we saw Maria the other day wasn't Symphony and its wrong of anyone to judge the piece as Balanchine.

Yes Alexandra, the Boy most likely to join a circus if a vacancy for the rubber man ever comes up. Watson is supple, Zakharova, Vishneva, Kowroski supple. And this flexibility hampers any chance of properly assessing him as a dancer away from that hyper mobility. Lynn Seymour coaching him as Romeo said in the rehearsal room "It's fine just everything seems blanded down nowadays. He's also not a boy any more he's 30 and at the stage where unless a dancer really wants to change their technique is pretty much set as what works for them and this also severely hampers Watson's progress as a ballet dancer. He works very much in the modern rep where his hyper extensions can be seen to effect. His face is a constant blank and it all really falls apart in the classical rep. The problem with that much flexibility is that the muscles are not able to cope with the dense batterie, tours and enchainements that are required in the classical variations. I've seen him screw up the peasant pas de six big style several times. Also his strength in controlling those extensions is not iron clad, he wobbles, a lot. Balanchine's men need an imperious control, they also need to bring different qualities to the dance from the women, for whom Balanchine really pushed the boat out in terms of exploring the extension and its means of expression. Watson being a product of the RB school and one of the few thereof to have actually risen through the ranks gets a lot of attention for this, also his flexibility developed to awesome extremes is his calling card. After two mintues of watching Watson dance though one thinks "Yes, okay, you're loose. When are you going to start dancing?" I'm sorry Maria, but I find Watson very much a one trick pony and that trick has very little to do with dancing.

You're not at odds with me Jane, I thought she hardly lit up the stage with anything akin to the eroticism or ambivalence the role needs. It's interesting seeing Guillem in this late stage of her career, it's as if she's trying to recast herself as a grand tragedienne, especially in roles created on notable great dramatic ballerinas: Petrovna, Marguerite etc. Yet she still seems obliged to pull out the technical tricks and extensions which made her name and what you get is an odd hybrid which doesn't work. There was quite a nice bitchy quote about Gwyneth Paltrow I read in the Guardian yesterday that she is "a reputation in search of a basis" and this I think fits Guillem too, or rather fits the dancer she is trying to become. The Siren is not an easy role, she must encompass a raging sexuality with total ambivalence, she is a cypher, yet at the same time make an impact in her own right. She doesn't do to the Prodigal what she does because she's sought him out, because she's singled him out etc she does to him because it's in her nature, almost like a scorpion stinging; rampant, destructive desire doesn't motivate her - it is herself. On top of that of course you can put a whole wealth of detail, it's a plum role, but to attach any great import of intent to her ironically destroys her as a dramatic convention. Again the problem with the Millennium Guillem - she's thinking too much. Carlos Acosta, really irritates me in terms of his dramatic interpretation. He is to the nostril what Roger Moore is to the eyebrow. And all this BS in every review about his "Latin Fire", all that smoke clouds any depth of interest for me. I saw Edward Villella on film perform this role - his career was kind of over before I was born - and even on film it set a benchmark for me as to how this role should be. You have to care about the Prodigal's downfall and with Acosta I just don't care.

That was Lauren Cuthbertson, Dale. No, she was not so memorable. That's the Farrell section if I am not mistaken? I saw a video of Farrell performing it at Lincoln Centre library and she was blinding. Cuthbertson not so. Much has been made about the deluge of "principals" performing that night. And this was another problem with the night, a lot of principals not evincing much "star" quality. Cuthbertson must get an honourable mention though as earlier in the night her shoe came off and she had to adjust it onstage which can't have made her feel too great about the whole affair. But I do think that casting a young and promising dancer who is still very green in such a pivotal role with such a deep history behind it was a bit of a wrong decision.

I wouldn't say it was an evening of Balanchine, any more than one would say that one of those cheapo bottles of knock off perfumes you buy from street vendors are anything like the real thing. I got what I expected. I said I'd write a review on ballet.co and then I'll copy and paste it here in case anyone's interested. I wasn't that annoyed really, I got what I expected. However, I will say a so-so night fell to pieces in Symphony in C which was extremely bad. The company just didn't have what it takes and it was ill-advised for the Royal to mount a Balanchine production which requires so much technique polish and panache from the corps. If they'd stuck with 4 Ts or Apollo they might have pulled it off as an evening. Cojocaru was atrocious by the way, and with many ingenues who suddenly find themselves "stars" she is taking huge liberties with choreography and musicality. Also the weak feet are getting worse and severly hamper her ability to pull off Balanchine. The highlight and triumph of the evening was Yanowsky. Now there's a Ballerina

A decent observation, and a question I would ask of someone who described, for example, their first glimpse of Danilova. However, I am a pack rat, and have the programs for all the Kirov performances I saw that season. The Old Met was a marvellous place and afforded one the light to make notes or read a score. My notes from that performance survive. Here is from Act I Raymonda: Next to Kolpakova's name - "Look like D. Adams - dance warmer". From which I take it, I thought she looked like Diana Adams, but had a more approachable stage personality. Mel! I was only joking, i hope you didn't take that remark too seriously. My slightly warped sense of humour gets me into no end of shenanigans and no mistake. [snip - lest another misunderstanding arise]

Dear Mel Thank you. May I just ask though, and please do not take offence, but this was indeed a very very very very long time ago, indeed long before I myself was born . Now as a young pipsqueak upstart, I bow to the older generation, and your wonderful powers of recollection, as hazy and coloured by nostalgia as they are. BUT could you have perhaps embellished the memory somewhat due to the extreme antiquity of the sight of seeing Kolpakova? Seriously though, how has the NYCB roster of ballerinas changed from the pre-Farrell era to the current aesthetic? Could this same change in technique and way it is presented find a parallel in the current Kirov crop of dancers? And Kirov boy, two swallows do not a summer make. I was taught ballet by ex Royal dancers and stars whilst I was dancing and unfortunately you find some card-carrying psychopaths amongst any bunch of ex-"Stars". The ones who are the worst offenders are the ones who can never come to terms with the fact that their own lustrous careers are over, the ones who've moved on and want to continue their careers by imparting what made them great are the ones who are real teachers; not hazbeens facing their final most malleable audience.

I'm not clear what you mean by this.

I think that the physical characteristics which "Fille'smother" has drawn attention to are endemic throughout the ballet world today. Historically, indeed until fairly recently, the Kirov roster of stars such as Ulanova, Kolpakova, Shelast, etc did not conform to this modern aesthetic of etiolation. Indeed the one dancer from the golden era of the Kirov Osipenko, who did actually look very much like the modern ballet dancer was somewhat of an oddity amongst her peers. Ayupova is today the only principal within the Kirov whose body shape harks back to that old Kirov style or ballet physique which dominated the majority of the world ballet stage for the best part of the 20th century. In her the epaulement, ribcage do not look as protruding and hyperextended as that of say Vishneva or Zakharova because the whole techinique has been placed on a much less extreme pysique. Also it's slightly wrong to lay the blame or onus on the Vaganova and Kirov tradition. This trend towards etiolation, and hyperextension was instigated by Balanchine, or rather advocated during the latter part of his career, and this gauntlet was taken up and refined by the french school. In dancers such as Platel, Guerin, Loudieres and in its greatest exponent Guillem this trend for length, curvature, hyperextension and etiolation have pretty much set the barre for female dancers around the world today. The principals of the Vaganova technique revolve around the harmonious balancing out of weight throughout the entire torso, the principles of cause and effect. Epaulement is not a thrusting out but a gentle inclining to complement line, port de bras and movement. The current trend we see on ballet stages all around the world is to do with the current aesthetic dominating ballet and of course the selection process which favours girls whose bodies are most likely to achieve this kind of facility.

That may well be the case for you Mel. But I've since heard that the Kirov/Marinksy are restaging a complete four act authentic version of the arabesque, complete with restored mime scenes with authentic arabesque mime notes prised from the hands of Petipa in his grave.

I know that you meant dance companies. I've seen those photos too, wildly distorted bodies ignoring the basics of technique, and I've pointed these faults out to non dance friends who can't see what I'm getting at. But finally I understand why these photos have been chosen. To a dance officionado the image is unaesthetic, to the normal eye it is a stunning, impossible image and sexy and alluring and inviting. It's what advertising is all about. I don't know if you remember Katherine Kanter? A few years ago in one of her very funny essays she posted two photos of dancers in arabesque, one of Maria Semeyonova from the old Bolshoi in an academically correct arabesque, the other of Sylvie Guillem in all her hyperextended hip up, supporting leg turning in, foot higher than her head glory. Kat, of course lauded Semeyonova and lambasted Guillem (no surprises there) but in terms of academic classicism, I suppose she actually had a point. The only thing is, I know who'd sell out an opera house by the image portrayed of their arabesque, technically correct or not.

A number of things occur to me on this. Firstly a dancer's eye is trained to technique, they spot things, which a normal putner wouldn't. On the subject of dance journalism photography, if the photographer is not skilled or experienced he takes pictures of movement, that's what excites him, the most dramatic shot is often not an academically correct one. Moreover, even if they are the final decision as to which picture is chosen is often in the hands of a picture editor or editor on newspapers certainly and their knowledge of dance is non-existant in terms of academic precision. To them it's what looks edgiest. However, on the subject of hoiked hips etc etc in companies who should know better, the answer is plain and simply that whilst academic technique is what a dancer would appreciate it's just not that sexy, or rather it's not as sexy as the distorted extented line that hoiking hips, turning in, hyperextending etc can produce. Remember the object of advertising is to appeal to as wide a catchment area as possible, and to extend the existing number of punters, the extremity of what a dancer can produce when not conforming to academic precision is, to the untrained eye, a very sexy, extreme image, which sells. Great dance photography is actually pretty rare. Because mostly it's incredibly easy to take an interesting photograph of dancers. It's those very very rare occasions when the photo transcends the thrill of the visceral pleasure of what a dancer can do with their body and become an artistic object in its own right. The Anthony Crickmay book of Lynn Seymour photos being a brilliant example of this.

The thing is Jane this was the double bill AND the first night cast too which hadn't been properly rehearsed. Also on the point about multiple casts in relation to Hockey fan's points; I fully appreciate the ethos of NYCB that the choreography is the point of the evening. In the UK at the moment we're not so lucky as to have a ballet company with a hugely diverse rep (or rather a hugely diverse rep that's shown on a regular basis), at the Royal it's three acters, three acters, bit of Balanchine, oh yeah we have to chuck in one Ashton, a naff nod to post-modernism and then loads and loads of the same three acters. So unlike NYCB with the RB for a regular ballet goer you base your decisions on cast, especially for the three act ballets, which is probably why, as Jane pointed out there are too many casts for these huge ballets, to ensure that the main ballerinas all get a look in and that their fans will ensure that the houses are full, or rather the cheaper seats are full. There aren't too many ballet lovers in the top price ranges (currently if you want to sit there you'll pay £66, $90 for a triple bill and anywhere from £76 - £88 a seat in the three act ballets.) In relation to the Farrell critique I didn't think it was too harsh at all, and I would like to see far more scathing criticisms of some of the not-ready for public consumption performances that we regularly see in London. Since the fans aren't served with what they deserve perhaps the RB needs to be whipped into shape by the one force that can make or break the attendance rates - the critics.

It definitely would not have been Diaghilev's original Ballet Russes, that kicked the bucket in 1929. However, several companies subsequently sprung up made up of members of Diaghilev's company. It could have been the Ballet Russes de Monte Carlo, or more likely could have been the Dolin Markova company.

I hate to sound like an old fogey (And indeed I am not, I have but entered into my 30th year and am fragrant, fresh and lusty to look at) BUT one thing I think is very much forgotten by theatre management today is that a ticket is a contract. When one buys it one enters into a contract in good faith that the company will provide a product which is ready for the stage, and by that I mean the product has been tested with lights, costume, orchestra and is ready for consumption. If one were to dine in an atrociously expensive restaurant and the bare ingredients were thrown onto a plate raw and a bill for a fully cooked meal served up at the end one would of course refuse to pay it. The excuse that the ingredients were top quality and expensive would of course not cut the mustard. Yet the excuse of the modern theatre management that costs are so high nowadays that a full rehearsal is not always possible is served up and expected to be swallowed. I'm very sure Essakow was speaking out of turn, as he did that interview shortly before leaving the company, and so was speaking with a candour that the management at the Royal would not have normally allowed. I'm fully prepared for cast changes due to injury etc, but then again not always. A while back I booked a ticket for Giselle with Guillem (£66 about $90) she injured herself and was replaced with a dancer I cannot stand, though I didn't find this out until the night. At certain prices one should be entitled to get what one pays for if one has paid a lot. However, back to my original point. When the product is "uncooked" as it were, I feel very much that the management has reneged on its part of the contract.

Two years ago I went to the ROH to see the Royal Ballet do The Dream and Song of the Earth. These were two ballets I like very much and wanted to see so I "treated" myself to a top end ticket. (NB If you want to actually get a clear view of the stage at the ROH and see all the action you have no option but to "treat" yourself.) Anyway it wasn't very good. Either of the ballets, both danced underpowered, miscast, sloppy etc etc. But I went away thinking oh well state of the art today etc etc etc. Two weeks later I read an interview with Hubert Essakow who messed up Oberon big style when I saw him on the first night of the programme. In the interview he said that the opening night was the first time they had actually danced the ballet on the stage. Nevermind with lights, costume, orchestra. It was the first time they had actually danced it on the stage on which they were to perform. I know the current state of affairs vis a vis budget, time, rehearsal time, money is not great BUT as far as I'm concerned if you are charging money for a product you have a moral duty to present it in as good a state as possible. To charge money to see dancers who are familiarising themselves with the production for the first time in situe is utterly wrong. It's reprehensible. I wondered had I returned to the ROH box office with this interview and my ticket stub would I have been entitled to a refund?

I'd like to pick up on the point about fairy tales in relation to comments by Citibob and the reply by Alexandra. The original forms of those tales are VICIOUS beyond belief. Every single taboo and sordid sexual depravity isn't just implied but acted out within those tales. Sleeping Beauty and Little Red Riding hood are particularly brutal twisted and disturbing. Which is probably why I like them so much (I thought I'd say it before someone else did.) Over the centuries these tales were tidied up by Perrault and the Gimm Brothers however even in their child-friendly forms the subtext still exists. And indeed still does within the ballets, which is probably why in no small part they makes such great vehicles for classicism as dance exists and exerts its power by implication and subtext of movement implying emotion through non-definited semantic art. On a related topic to the modern three act ballet story and Bejart. I saw that Mother Theresa ballet in London and all I could think while watching it was: "My God, My God, My God, this cannot be happening but it is." For the first time in my life I resented the fact I could see.

Firstly Citibob, I think Disney deserves an honourable exclusion from the accusation of simplicity. The cartoons are masterpieces not only of animation, of which they are some of the greatest innovations within the animated form; but in terms of script, character, artistry and the miraculous ability they have in making one care for two-dimensional fantasy characters. Much like classical ballet actually. IN FACT, you have a point Citibob about the modern Disney stuff, it's nowhere near as good as the vintage, in terms of artistry and merit. IN FACT, could this allegation of deterioration in form of modern work as opposed to its classic forebears be not so much a problem within ballet, but across a whole plethora of artisitc forms? (I put in the big IN FACTs because the ideas suddenly hit me as I was typing - I wanted to share the impact of them hitting me as I was typing.) Alexandra, you're right plagerism was too strong a word. I think perhaps I meant that lifted out of context were these movements robbed of power and weight when put into the context of Onegin, and in this case Onegin only. The thing about those incredible Bolshoi lifts is that they come at the end of pas de deux and are limited to make a point. They are the apogee of the pas de deux. In Onegin in which the pas de duex are an ongoing series of lifts, they are robbed of impact. The Grahamesque backward falls. Well, I don't like modern done by ballet dancers it's just a personal aesthetic thing. But I do think that the huge gravitational weight of those delicious deep falls sits badly on ballet dancers whose technique is rooted in killing gravity. On a related point has anyone seen Duets by Cunningham done by ABT. There's a video of it with Kathleen Moore. It's just not that great. When a Cunningham dancer extends it's like they bring the earth with them. Modern three act ballets? Hmmmmmmmmm, well there are quite a few made by smaller scale ballet companies the Draculas, the Peter Pans etc etc and can anyone remember one passage from any of those? The time and attention to making a three act in the classical mode may be outside the budget and time constraints of any company even the huge ones.

The thing is dance embraces such a huge spectrum of style and form. But with the classical three act ballet form as plot has to take precedence. When classical form is eliminated for plot and only plot it all goes pretty pear shaped. In the UK we have Matthew Bourne's Adventures in Motion Pictures. You've had his Swan Lake over there. Bourne is not a classical choreographer or even a ballet choreographer. He makes these three act evening length works which can best be summarised as being musicals without singing, based around classical ballet stories. The problem comes in that his choreographic language is limited and the conceit by which he justifies the evening's work - all male swans, end of childhood etc etc are so obvious that he doesn't add to the subtext of the ballet's original meaning but destroys it. There is a plethora of dance theory literature about the homosexual subtexts of Swan Lake, the oedipal trauma of Siegfried, the destruction of childhood within the Nutcracker, the Cinderella myth and these are implicit within the three act classical format. But for me the problem with much of the modern three act reworking with it's "revealing" of implied meaning, is, that it is much like going to see some major landmark such as Stonehenge, Yellow Stone National Park etc and instead of going all the way to the landmark and taking it in for what it is and making your own conclusions, it's a bit like getting out of the car a mile before you get there and looking at the signpost pointing the way to the landmark and thinking you've seen it for what it is.