Simon G

Miliosr, I really have to take exception with the notion that Graham's genius, contribution and repertory aren't great, nor the work of a true genius, that it was Graham's personality not choreographic genius that was the main draw. But yes, I do agree that the company is in an atrocious state. Macauley unkindly suggests that her last three decades of achievement were worthless but in that time she choreographed "Acrobats of God", Phaedra, and many beautiful works such as Acts of Light, which demonstrated that while the main thrust of her creativity was spent, she still had it, she knew how to construct thrilling, beautiful, technically demanding dance that leaves many of the dancemakers today in the dust. I last saw the company in 2003 and they were bad, the quality of dancers was mediocre to downright poor and it's sad that Janet Eilber seems to not trust the legacy of Graham enough to speak for itself, but trusts Richard Wilson, the egregious Richard Move etc to provide the main body of an evening while programming around them second rate Graham works. Macauley also takes out of context De Mille's "Wagner Picasso" statement, in that the argument is that Picasso & Wagner created out of an existing art form, progressing it to the next level, whereas Graham literally remade the world in her image precisely because there was nothing there. It's a tragedy that Graham's contribution to the world theatre is so underappreciated now, but the Graham technique which provided the cornerstone of contemporary dance training for decades trains dancers in matchless core strength. Also the main body of Graham's rep is just a catalogue of beautiful, riveting, awesome dance - it's just a pity that no one is dancing the works, or at the very least with no awareness of what they actually are. Seeing old films of Heretic, Frontier, Appalachian Spring, Diversion of Angels, created on those matchless dance personalities her genius is irrefutable, the works speak for themselves, the tragedy is that now they're entrusted to dancers and a company so battered and flailing for identity they lose all meaning. Someone asked why Graham's works aren't controlled by a trust, they are just as Balanchine's, the sad fact is that no one wants to dance them anymore, no ballet company wants to train its dancers to dance Appalachian Spring, Diversion those works which could be staged on ballet dancers (Paris Opera, ABT both once danced selected works). Because Graham technique is hard and ruthless but absolutely magical and beautiful. Even in Graham's lifetime people complained that from about the mid to late 70s on, the ascension of Protas, that Graham dance and dancers were losing their identity, but if you look at the company then they're all virtuosos, albeit very balletic, as compared to that pale imitation of Graham we have now. I don't disagree that the company is now a sad pale shadow, but I absolutely disagree with anyone who may suggest that Graham was anything less than one of the greatest dance geniuses who ever lived. Her contribution to what we have is beyond immense and her best work are masterpieces. However, seeing what they are now, makes me realise that Cunningham's decision is the best one, rather than have his company and work head down this same route.

The essential thing is though, that you can't get angry with someone just because they don't share one's knowledge or appreciation of an art form, or rather you can but it's at that point that an allegation of snobism holds weight. The technique of ballet has evolved over the past twenty years to the point where gymnastic ability has overtaken artistry in many cases precisely because to attract new audiences spectacle is demanded. It's a hotly debated topic on these boards about the loss of artistry in ballet for gymnastic pay off. The problem with preaching to the unconverted is the central question of why do you want to convert them? Yes, they're wrong the head balance to Tchaikovsky isn't ballet, but you'll never convince them of this if they don't wish to be convinced, or have no inclination to discover what the art form is all about. If you want to try and make them aware of what ballet means to you, and this is the issue really, then it's mandatory that you take a softly, softly approach and come from it from there point of view. You really don't break a butterfly with a wheel. I love ballet and the art of ballet, but I know that if I want to talk about it with like minded people who come to it from a similar point of view I'll come and chat here. But if you want to talk about it from a standpoint which is the antithesis of yours then it's vital that one sympathises with the opposing view point, to acknowledge what the acrobatic act means to those posters on other boards. Launching into an argument about the nature of art never works well, I've learnt that to my detriment and above all not to lose one's rag with people who don't have your appreciation or knowledge. My own feeling is to pick one's battles wisely, I know from experience it's often not worth the brain damage incurred in enterting the internet message boards fray, people fundamentally don't like changing or revising their views on any topic, never mind ballet, just take a softly softly approach. It really does pay dividends.

Avesraggiana My first instinct would be for you to tell those who attack you with the same old chestnut of being "elitist" etc when you make a perfectly reasonable statement to just sod off, nothing you say will convince them otherwise, just like there are millions out there who won't be told that Natalie Portman isn't a ballerina. I suppose the best way of dealing with internet shenanigans is to toss them a bone, then hit them with your smarts. I've seen that clip and you could start by waxing lyrical over the accomplishment and technique etc and say that what this is is an acrobatic act that takes as its inspiration & starting point the classical ballet, also that the female acrobat has a ballet training as she works on pointe. The first most obvious thing I suppose is that it isn't ballet because they aren't dancing. It's totally static as it has to be to try and ensure that she doesn't break her neck, ditto him, which is another thing, dance or pas de deux between man & woman is equal here all the man is is a plinth. Indeed she could easily have done this by herself on a fixed pole as many acrobats do, but they added a man and the ACT 4 Swan Lake music for frills and prettiness. Also she isn't actually doing any steps, what she is doing is taking the extreme extensions of certain ballet types not and extending it to its absolute limit. People don't understand that ballet is a language made from steps, that without those steps it's not classical ballet. That a classical ballet has a structure which makes it so, or that much contemporary ballet isn't classical ballet but a ballet using the classical lexicon. But then nor would they understand the distinctions of someone like Forsythe making classical works pushing the extremities of classical form. And sadly most people just don't care. Which is why for your own sanity I'd advise not to bother with arguing your point. In my experience you always, always get into trouble when discussing art/emotions etc with people who don't know what ballet is - it's sad, galling but true that the moment you talk about art many people's brains go into attack mode and you're accused of elitism, snobbism or the worst internet insult of all " A Jealous Hater " ( I especially love it when they spell it as "Jelus Haterz ". But if you want to illustrate it, why not post the acrobat video and link it with an actual video of several actual PDD from legitimate Classical productions of Swan Lake & you could also link a vid of a William Forsythe piece (Sylvie Guillem in In The Middle is rather schizztastic) about how contemporary ballet choreographers actually push the classical form in a way that acrobatics doesn't. Maybe videos are the best way to argue your point.

Do you know what Stecyk, I really think if you go in with these thoughts you're asking for trouble. I mean, what if you hate it, Balanchine didn't choreograph Serendae thinking that it would be a signature piece, or masterpiece or that it would still be performed some seventy years later. It was a piece made on 17 women with indifferent levels of technique who were only able to turn up to rehearsals sporadically when he was at the start of a career in the USA which he really didn't know if he'd be a success. Certainly he can't have known about just how successful his vision of ballet would be become nor how much of a statement piece Serenade would become and of course over the decades it's changed markedly. The back story only means anything because it's been performed over 70 years tens of thousands of times throughout the world, but all it is is a 20 minute plotless ballet, all plot about woman becoming ballerina is extraneous, its place in ballet history you could argue is accident rather than design. To enjoy and appreciate ballet all you need is an open mind and if you've not had much experience in watching ballet or indeed any art form the most important thing is thinking what it means to you, not what you've read about it or what you should be thinking. And there's nothing wrong if it isn't a visual feast, or if you find it banal, unmoving, inconsequential or can't see what all the fuss is about. I often think that appreciating an art form fully starts with just "not getting it" on first view, coming away thinking "what's the point" or "i've just wasted an hour of my life watching this dross, sixty minutes which I will never get back". A bad reaction is just as worthy and important as a positive one. The biggest love of my dance viewing life is the Merce Cunningham Dance Company but I had to see the company about six times before I really clicked with it, the first time I hated it and couldn't understand why anyone would enjoy it, but that hatred and confusion were important because it kept me coming back.

Gippo, The RB simply don't tour in the UK, they only tour internationally. There was talk and indeed movement to build a new opera house in Manchester to accommodate the RB, which died a death - which is hardly a surprise the idea was ridiculous but many of Tony Hall's "ideas" on how to make ballet a more catholic art form in the UK are depressingly out of touch with the majority of the UK's demographic and circumstances. This is a huge bone of contention in the UK arts, as the ROH is funded by public funds (as well as private) taxpayers money however they serve only UK and indeed given the price of the tickets (the highest of any lyric theatre in the world) just who they are serving which sectors of society is again questionable. Don't get me wrong I love ballet, but you have to turn a blind eye to the politics surrounding the deal the ROH gets compared to any other company in the UK. Also touring domestically loses massive amounts of money, more so than touring internationally, major producers are interested in prestige events for a Hochauser the Met, the Mariinsky are viable business opportunities in prestige venues, the Edinburgh Festival Theatre, Birmingham Hippodrome or Salfor Quays are not. It is normal for a new three act to have a short run. If it bombed then the RB would lose millions had a long run been scheduled, it couldn't then replace performances with a Swan Lake or Giselle at the 11th hour and they'd been stuck with a turkey with limited seats sold. I read an arts admininstrator at ABT say that in order to schedule a new work you're looking at 80% Swan Lake scheduling to make it financially viable. The RB claim that the event sold at almost 100%, I don't think it was quite the runaway success they're making out. The Telegraph was offering seats (at full price) for the whole of the run, also a blind phone call to the box office (or several blind phone calls I wanted to see it wasn't a one off) I was offered seats at all prices on several of the days. How it works in co productions is that the National Ballet of Canada gets the production next, meaning the whole production will be shipped to Canada and Wheeldon or repetiteurs will stage the ballet in Toronto. It'll go back and forth as long as it makes money and people want to see it. If it bombs completely in Canada who knows they may just cut their losses and let the RB have it.

Seated modern angst. But sheriously, folksh. Ek is a modern choreographer and each choreographer forms their own language and steps, often borrowing from other styles and dance forms. Mats Ek likes this pose and position and uses it often. The closest you can come to terminology is a deep plie in second position from ballet, though he bastardises it by having the dancer stick his/her bum out slightly so it's as if they're sitting on an invisible chair, while the arms do all kinds of shenanigans, either resting on the inside of the knees, pointing towards another dancer etc Very few techniques acutally have an official language or names for the steps and exercises: Graham, Cunningham, Humphrey all have deeply codified techniques and lexicons, Holm, Mattox, Taylor etc have definite movement techniques but the names of positions are more fluid. Though when modern techniques borrow from ballet the translation in class terminology is often literal. A second position in ballet is a second position anywhere in the basic form, though what a modern choreographer lays on top is unique to each one.

Yes it would. But Britney Spears? Isn't she long off the charts? I can see you must be living right, since you have even less familiarity with that segment of commercial pop music than I do. On the other hand, I had almost managed to forget Spears before I read your post. No thanks to you for reminding me. KFW, I really have to take exception to this, Britney, forgotten??? Off the charts???? Passe???? And here I was thinking Balletalert was made up of a community of the most clued in aesthetically minded culture vultures. May I just point out Britney's recent discography, a veritable banquet of poptastic riches: Albums: Blackout (2007) Worldwide Sales 3,100,000. US 2 UK 2 Circus (2009) Worldwide Sales 4,000,000 US 1, UK 1 Femme Fatale (MARCH 15th 2011) Singles: Gimme More (2007) US 3, UK 3 (US Platinum) Piece of Me (2007) US 18, UK 2 (US Platinum) Womanizer (2008) US 1, UK 1 Circus (2009) US 3 If U Seek Amy (2009) US 3 3 (2009) US 1 Hold It Against Me (2010) US 1 Documentaries: Britney For the Record (2009) World Tours: The Circus Starring Britney Spears 2009 - March 3 - Nov 29th 500,000 tickets sold grossing $131m Currently the fifth biggest recording artiste in the World. However, I do have to agree with Helene that Lady Gaga would be better suited to the Graham roles in the rep. I can see Britney's special qualities of lyricism and vulnerability would be better suited to the roles once inhabited by Ethel Winter, Helen McGhee & Yuriko. For the granite magnitude of the roles originated and danced by the likes of May O'Donnell, Mary Hinkson & Jane Dudley who better than Beyonce to step into those (barefooted) shoes. Beyonce would surely smize it fierce in full-on Sasha Fierce mode. And Justin Bieber for the Merce Cunningham roles? Jay Z for the Hawkins?

I can sympathise, Mashinka. By the time the credits rolled I was ready to shoot myself in the head.

Hey rg and yukonhoo A little bit of sleuthing came up with this. The person who uploaded the video decided to substitute the score with tracks by the Pet Shop Boys, but is this the choreography?

Don't forget Leigh, our Black Swan is with cygnet.

In fairness to her Leigh, she was rapidly exsanguinating from a shard of glass embedded in her abdomen so you can forgive her for some short term memory loss.

Did anyone else notice that in Millepied's reworking of the cygnets they suddenly broke rank and started doing a pseudo tribal war dance type jig with splayed hands and raised arms which turned around and faced upstage?

I think the biggest distinction here is that those male dance superstars of the past were known for their dancing and the dance was the means which propelled them to stardom along with the period in time both politically and artistically in which they lived and created. The soon to be Mr. Portman-Millepied is in that rather ephemeral cateogory, one which is more traditionally associated with women, of showgirl marrying a more famous/powerful/socially accomplished star and piggybacking up the slippery greased showbiz pole on the lustre of their superstar spouse. Not that I'm for one second intimating or suggesting that theirs is nothing less than a love match, two hearts beating as one, a meeting of minds, souls, dreams, intellects, shopping trips for Tiffany baby rattles, hashing out the nitty grittys of a pre nup with showbiz lawyers etc I think it's a wonderful sign of equality and how much we've evolved as a society that now it's not only women who can tell OK magazine "Reader I alimonied him." NB: Apologies if this post seems a tad breezy and gushy, I was just caught up in the spirit of that diabetes-inducing saccharine NY Times Article. Maybe my real calling in life is a showbiz gossip columnist?

Hey Rg That Peri in the clip is Lifar's version

Thank you for posting that Innopac. What a bloody infuriating self congratulatory load of word salad. That seems to wilfully ignore some pretty key facts: 1. The Royal Opera House and the Royal Ballet are not the only schools of ballet and venues for ballet in the UK and narrative ballet was what Balanchine dedicated a life's work to reacting against some 70 years ago. 2. Contemporary dance is NOT ballet. Modern ballet is NOT contemporary dance. Akram Khan & Javier de Frutos are NOT ballet choreographers, nor full length works created by contemporary choreographers are ballets. 3. Spalding incensed me by totally ignoring the history of contemporary dance. How can you even begin to discuss narrative or anti narrative within the modern dance tradition without talking at length about Martha Graham. The history of non narrative contemporary dance dates back to the 50s as a reaction to her theatre, indeed Doris Humphrey was creating non narrative contemporary dance in the 40s, ditto Sakolov, Dudley. 4. He further annoyed me greatly by totally ignoring the work of Robert Cohan, Robin Howard and London Contemporary Dance Theatre dating back to the 60s as establishing a contemporary dance school, tradition and heritage within the UK. He says that contemporary dance in the UK has floundered without bringing up the enforced closure of LCDT by the ARts Council in 1994, though Crisp could have brougt this up to, he being a huge fan of LCDT and author of a book of LCDT in 1987. 5. To argue that Chroma ushered in a new age of ballet in the UK is specious. Chroma didn't sell to a young audience because of the choreography. It sold because Joby Talbot from the group the Divine Comedy composed a work which incorporated passages of music by the White Stripes - and the most expensive seats in the house were only £25-£30. One swallow does not make a summer. This is what really saddens me about the attitude in the UK to modern/contemporay dance. It is an art form in its own right, it's not an adjunct to ballet, it has techniques, schools, traditions which don't rely on or are not derivative of ballet. If there's one reason why I "hate" (strong word, I know, but it's how I feel) te work of Mattew Bourne, it's because he's done nothing but borrow the glamour and names of narrative ballet for modern dance purposes. And it's cheap modern dance, no steps, no technique, just wafting. He comes undone by the music of those great ballet scores, and in the end makes a mess of both ballet and contemporary dance. There are so many venues within the UK where quality contemporary dance still occurs, Chisenhale, Laban, The Robin Howard Theatre, Greenwich, The QE Hall where contemporary dance as a rightful tradition in itself is still performed. Though with the lion's share of all dance arts funding going to ballet the tradition that Robert Cohan started of contemporary dance being performed in the Opera houses and grand theatre's of the UK is tragically long gone. (ditto the tradition of Graham performing on those same grand stages, and Limon, and soon Cunningham will be added to that list too.) Cohan actually stated about his greater vision for contemporay dance, for all he achieved and the parlous state it is in now "I had a vision of taking dance out of the studios and onto the stages of opera houses, and I did, but now it's back in the studios." Perhaps I'm overreacting, it was after all a tidbit conversation for an FT podcast and intentionally scant of detail and generalised, but I do think for such knowledeable people whose lives are devoted to dance to be so cursory and homogenise all dance forms into the cover all of ballet is a bit wrong. Interestingly Rojo was by far the most lucid and pertinent in her comments, being a ballerina and rooting the conversation firmly in ballet which is what this was all about. I expected an interesting coversation about new short modern ballet works vs full lengths, what I got was a bit saddening, contemporary dance is its own unique entity, it deserves the respect of being treated as such even in passing conversation. If Crisp & Spalding don't make distinctions how can a casual listener be expected to. And meanwhile Matthew Bourne warms up for his 10 millionth sell out, cash cow season of the "ballet" Swan Lake.

Don't knock Showgirls, it's a classic.

I really wouldn't be overly bothered by what Taylor writes, or wrote, he's a rather sanctimonious silly man who writes for the Express, one of the most reactionary newspapers in the UK. He also contributes to RoyalBallet.co.uk What I dare say that was about, was that Dancing on my Grave came out at the same time as her SB performances and was the book everyone was talking about and Taylor may have felt his fragile sensibilities so traumatised that he felt honourbound to rubbish a series of performances which every other critic thought transcendent. I'd also put her performances in historical context, this was 1986, the RB was in a deep deep mess at this point, Guillem was another couple of years away, Ferri had left, Brind was imploding it was not a well company at that point, for Taylor to have been so pompous about the "sanctity" of ballet, when was on stage was pretty grim is bathetic. I quite like his deeply precious wording, like a maiden aunt who's about to suffer a conniption. Ashton loved her performances of SB, saying "no one had done what she did with that ballet in years. Ashton or Taylor? I know whose opinion I'd credit with weight.

Do you know what, to give the devil her due, having watched this (and can I state for the record I share all the same reservations about Somova as everyone here) Somova wasn't half bad. The improvement in her from a few years ago is dramatic and quite impressive. I dont think she's a ballerina, or a top flight one, and certainly not deserving of the huge onus the Mariinsky places on her as a prima, but and this is a big but... her dancing and technique have improved beyond all recognition. Her security in the pirouettes especially, those fouettes hardly travelled at all and she was including several doubles and trebles, of course there are moments when she seems just unable to help herself from reverting to her old bad habits, those crotch detaching battements and developpes, which then knock her off balance, but in other areas she was keeping the leg classically placed (almost), using her feet better than I've seen her do. She still breaks her wrists and splays fingers a la Balanchine pastiche and her use of turn out is indifferent, because she doesn't have much and overcompensates with her abnormal flexibility. But she is trying to dance in the classical form at least and her musicality has improved too, she's actually listening to the music and tempo. Again, can I say, she's not a favourite of mine, those stylistic and technical glitches are still there, (albeit reined in) I don't think I'd ever pay to see her but she really really has come on leaps and bounds and is almost unrecognisable from that Aurora that does the rounds on Youtube. She seems to have made a huge and concerted effort to improve and deal with many of her issues and for that she deserves some plaudits and respect.

Seymour did as well, in her memoir, "Lynn", many years ago, and she was very candid about her anger that she had sacrificed her marriage and Macmillan caved not only to the pressure of giving Fonteyn and Nureyev the premiere, but also allowing her to be dumped to fifth cast, although she did one of the earlier performances replacing the injured ballerina. What's interesting here is that Jones flat out states that Fonteyn & Seymour didn't get on. Even in her autobiography Seymour was still very gracious and kind towards Fonteyn. I think that's one thing not touched upon very often in any biography or account, Fonteyn's voracious ambition and protection of her position within the RB. I think of all the ballerinas I've ever seen interviewed the only one to ever be directly critical in interview was Nerina. (Privately, when I was a dance student, there were a couple of ex ballerinas from Seymour's generation who were my teachers who were really not backwards in coming forwards expressing their dislike of Fonteyn as a person, if not dancer, though they would never have said so publically.) Of the ballerinas of Seymour's generation, who themselves were all pretty much relegated to second position by Fonteyn, only Seymour was equal because she was totally different, or if not equal was a ballerina Fonteyn couldn't compete with because she too was a muse, of a choreographer chosen by De Valois to replace Ashton, also Ashton created ballerina roles for Fonteyn, and Seymour was the only ballerina NOT emulating or in the Fonteyn mould. She couldn't be, and so she became absolutely unique in her own way. R&J does seem in retrospect to have been a concerted effort to displace the pretenders to the RB throne in Seymour, Macmillan & to a lesser extent Gable. Soon after the debacle all three left the company, though Macmillan & Seymour returned and indeed Seymour had some of the best years of her career from 70-76 their positions had been tainted. It's amazing to think that Fonteyn went on dancing seeing out not not only everyone from her generation, but from Seymour's too. The Fonteyn image was so indelible to the extent that I don't think the RB ever really recovered in finding it's own identity without her. The doldrums set in until Guillem came along, and Guillem's image has been equally influential in shaping the image of the modern ballerina. Especially in the RB, of course. I think that's why Seymour is such an immensely important ballerina, she really stood for individuality, but for new ways in approaching an art form, of being a part of a company and style yet still retain absolute integrity in one's own uniqueness and talent.

Here's an interesting interview. Colin Jones, photographer is holding an exhibition of his work in London. Jones was once a dancer in the Sadlers Wells Ballet (pre Royal Royal) he was Lynn Seymour's first husband, and a part of the Golden Age of the Royal Ballet in the 50s & 60s photographing the dancers. What's most interesting is he's the third party in the Seymour/MacMillan "affair", the father of the baby Seymour had terminated to devote her career to R&J and ballet, while he was on a photographic assignment in Leningrad. This isn't gossip BTW, he talks extensively about the abortion, the effect being shut out of his marriage had and he talks about Fonteyn, Nureyev, De Valois, Macmillan etc very candidly. What I love about this interview is the total disregard for protocol or discretion that comes with age, after all the main protagonists are now all dead. He also drops some rather juicy tidbits, I'll leave you to read them. Enjoy. http://www.theartsdesk.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2876:qa-special-photographer-colin-jones&Itemid=80

I'm not in any way excusing Martins or making a case for DUI, however it's a sad fact that during that two week period of Xmas & New Year drink driving incidents are 66% higher on a daily basis than at any other time of the year. It's that deadly combo of seasonal bonhomie, parties, reduced public transport and relatively empty roads. I've no doubt that he won't do it again, and it would appear that he was stopped in a police checkpoint/dragnet set up to catch seasonal DUI. I suppose the best way to look at it is that no one was hurt, no accidents occurred - and a sobering reminder that it can happen to anyone and to either appoint a designated driver or book a taxi.

This was in today's Guardian (UK). They took several British ballet stars, movers and shakers to a preview and this is what they made of it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2011/jan/05/black-swan-natalie-portman-tamara-rojo Predictably Tamara Rojo was very scathing, but she does have a slightly "precious" attitude to ballet as "sacred" art the others however took it in the spirit of it being a Hollywood thriller and a melodramatic bit of fluff. Which is probably the best way to approach it.

Balanchine certainly publically stated his distaste for a star system, but his actions, especially his actions regarding his own vision of ballet and ballerinas were pretty much the opposite of that. He definitely had no problem with rubbishing the abilities of "star" or great ballerinas from other companies whose style and ethos were the antithesis to his, which is as much as saying that his way was the right way and in his actions towards certain ballerinas, his muses, the parts he made for them, the lion's share of the rep he saved for them and the way he promoted them, it's pretty clear who he thought was the "greatest" ballerina at any one given time. Though of course he had no problem relegating the "greatest" to the side lines once a new "greatest" came along.

That's the essence of what a "real" ballerina is, exactly. I remember there was a poll on these here boards a while back about whether it was necessary that a ballerina do the hands in fifth balance in rose adagio to be allowed to perform it, if I remember the majority vote was that "yes" if she couldn't do it, she had no place performing it. And I think so much ballet performance has become so generic, what we get to see is so much of a muchness that if that technical gloss isn't the same we feel cheated or rather demand that this generic technical transparency applies to each and every ballet dancer taking the ballerina roles. But then come those really rare dancers who just are ballerinas, they are real artists and suddenly it just doesn't matter anymore. As Helene pointed out Mearns' attitude turns were gorgeous, the last one in particular where Mearns obviously hit that right note where you pull off a stunning feat, and it was a slight surprise to see her fouettes weren't as secure, if we saw say an Osipova or Nunez pull those attitude turns out of the bag we'd know we were in for doubles, triples fouettes with multiple pirouettes to finish - Mearns gave us 27 fouettes travelling and put in a soutenu action to cover up the fluffed final few and it didn't matter. What you got was a ballerina fully in the role of Odile. In fact she reminds me a bit of Veronika Part, in her expansiveness of movement, her lush dance qualities, her curvy muscularity and the fact that whatever technique she may "lack" in comparison to the dynamos around her she still dances every single one of them off the stage, just a pity Part had a far rockier road before her talents were fully appreciated. I do think that as dance and ballet becomes more homogenised and globalised where ballerinas from top companies can pretty much be dropped from one company into another with very little jarring because style is so generic, real ballerinas like Mearns who just stand out because of what they are, are wonderful are rarer than ever. It's what ballet is all about.

Hey, don't you go dissing Kate Jackson: she was the smart one. I found Pennefather dull the few times I saw him dance. Sorry Helene, I got carried away you're quite right, Sabrina was the dark, intelligent heart and soul of the Angels, the motivating force and essence Pennefather is just mediocre and out of his depth, like Shelley Hack, though at least they had the guts to terminate her contract after one season. Pennefather is set to run and run.