Cygnet

This is indeed most welcome news! May she be given the chance

to reclaim her roles on regular basis!

Happy New Year to everyone!

I found this on youtube but one, they look considerably better than what I saw in NYC, and two the angle obscures her lurch when she comes off pointe. Still I don't see them as model turns . . .

Model fouettés consist of the working leg giving the illusion of a whipping (not kicking) motion. Fouettés aren't supposed to bounce either. She has very long legs, hyper extended knees and weak feet, so it's hard for her to complete the rotations and fully extend the working leg to create that whipping motion. By the time she fully extends her leg, it's time to begin the pirouette again. She barely gets through doubles and triples. I've seen her a few times in "Swan Lake" she can only just complete the standard singles -and these with the minimum of momentum. If you want to see exemplary fouettés on YouTube, input other dancers, especially Maximova's or Terekhova's Kitri.

Somova's appearances are unique precisely because they're attention getting in all the wrong ways. Likewise, they're "entertaining" for all the wrong reasons. She's the Maryinsky's newest Principal Dancer, and we're discussing technical survival issues and the other "incidentals" that make up her stage persona. And that's the point: These shouldn't be issues in light of her promotion. It's these incidentals and technicalities that are impossible to ignore or overlook, particularly in a performance. You can't miss them; they're so in your face. I agree with Natalia that it's surreal that not only her appearances are controversial, but her stage persona "package" is as well. She's allowed to go onstage without sanction re her appearance with carte blanche, and it's mums the word. Personally, I think we're eyewitnesses to an international classical ballet conspiracy (or) ponzi scam. Draw your own conclusions.

The Maryinsky opened a six performance "Nutcracker" run last night at the Dorothy Chandler Pavillion, at the Los Angeles Music Center. This "Nutcracker" engagement is the Maryinsky's first here in 13 years, since the Vainonen production's last showing, and 16 years since their Los Angeles debut of this production. Significantly, in 1992 the Maryinsky gave that debut engagement as a gift to the city, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the ballet's premiere. At that time, dancers such as Larissa Lezhnina, Victor Baranov, Irina Zhelonkina, Elvira Tarasova and Zhanna Ayupova were on roster. Yesterday evening, Yevgenya Obratzova and Vladimir Shyklyarov danced the premiere to a sold out house.

Obratzova was a diamond of technical brilliance. That said, her acting was full of nuance and minute detail. But even this is an oversimplification. Masha is one of her signature roles at this stage of her young career. It poses no challenges for her, yet happily for the audience, she doesn't finesse anything and leaves nothing to chance. She dances, as Preobrazhenska said, " . . . for the balconies." Obratzova has that rare gift that the great interpreters of this role, such as Maximova, Kirkland, Lezhnina et.al had, over and above brilliant technique: Plausible, childlike vulnerability. In Act 1 Scene 1 Yevgenya was truly a child; truly believable. In Act 2 in the midst of her dream she was as diaphanous as the moon itself. In Act 3 she was the princess of the fairy tale, full of dignity, taste, delicacy, grace and majesty.

In contrast, In Act 2 Shklyarov was surprising last night; he was very tentative after his transformation. The pas de deux was well executed, the lifts and grand jetes were wonderful. But Yevgenya seemed to be the only one of the two who was "on." When he completed the high demands of the opening pas de deux before the Snowflakes, at the very end he overbalanced while kneeling, before he kissed Yevgenya's hand. He saved himself before he went forward and recovered well enough, but the "moment" was (a little) marred. I have to note that immediately before this, he had held Yevgenya aloft in an extended one arm lift, upon the final bars of Tchaikovsky's Snowflake intro, which was greatly appreciated by the audience with cries of "brava." He woke up in Act 3, with a daring rendition of his variation, and presented his ballerina with the utmost care and enthusiasm.

The Maryinsky corps of 24 snowflakes were wonderful. However, Shklyarov's slight mishap, lead to another slight mishap: At the beginning of the waltz, in the first circle of the pattern series, one of the ladies slipped and nearly went down. Not only did she stay on her feet, but neither she nor her colleagues broke rhythm, formation or line. This can happen at anytime, on any stage, anywhere to anyone. The whole is as great as the sum of its parts: This is a testament to the training and professionalism of this great corps de ballet. Well done for a good save to the anonymous corps member - otherwise there might've been a chain reaction. The Two Snowflakes, Lilia Lishuk and Svetlana Siplatova were quite good terre a terre and airborn, but their landings were very audible.

Young children from local ballet schools were employed for the opening segment and the battle scene. They were well rehearsed and truly joyful to be apart of the performance. Pyotr Stasyunas (Drosselmeyer to Lezhnina's 1992 Los Angeles appearance), and Elena Bazhenova were the doting Stahlbaums. Stasyunas also doubled as a malevolent Mouse King. "Luisa" was uncredited in the booklet, but this little girl really projected. Vera Garbuz' "Franz" was the typical bad little brother. Olga Balinskaya and Andrei Ushakov's grandparents were stiffer than required for their segment. Yulia Kasenkova's Doll was adorable, and Denis Firsov's Clown and Raphael Musin's Blackmoor were very energetic. The Spanish Dance of Yuliya Slivkina and Sergei Kononenko was well executed. Bazhenova's Eastern Dance was one of the highlights of Act 3: She cast a spell over the audience in a dance which IMO is probably the least imaginative of Vainonen's production. Kasenkova and Mikhail Berdichevsky were outstanding in the Chinese Dance. Lira Khuslamova, Natalya Dzevulskaya and Ilya Petrov danced the Trepak with the requisite passion and fire.

The Pas de Trois (Flutes) saw the welcome return of Maya Dumchenko. It was wonderful to see her onstage here, and she danced beautifully! Yet she seemed (to me), like a "stranger in the wrong paradise." Dumchenko is a high caliber ballerina: This extremely minor assignment simply doesn't do her any justice; she's wasted in it. It would have been wonderful for her have been assigned one performance as Masha during this run. I'm simply grateful that she was onstage at all, and allowed to make this tour. Elena Evseeva and Vasily Tkachenko were her exceptional counterparts. The Flower Waltz was well executed, graceful and stately. Obratzova, Shklyarov and ensemble received a 5 minute standing ovation . Thursday and Saturday's matinees will be lead by Irina Golub and Alexander Sergeev. Friday evening will be lead again by Obratzova and Shklyarov, and Thursday and Saturday evening will be lead by Ekaterina Osmolkina and Igor Kolb. The supporting casts remain unchanged.

The Music Corner: Pavel Bubelnikov lead the Maryinsky Orchestra, and conducted the score with style, attention to detail, lyricism and passion. Once again, Bubelnikov was attired in his favorite black silk pyjamas, only this time he also donned matching cowboy boots ( ).

Other Trivia: Before the Act 3 divertissement began, one of the male Flowers had a loud conversation with another colleague just as they put down the pink block stools for the ladies to sit on. That's a no no during a performance. There should be absolute silence onstage, in the wings and backstage. The stage craft was rather poor in the darkened segments: You could actually see the scene changes, as well as dancers and stagehands moving props. One could also see Obratzova run back to her bed and lay down just before the end of the performance. This wasn't the case in 1992.

May he rest in peace.

This just in - breaking news from Petersburg. The Management has just announced Somova's debut Dec 7 in . . . (wait for it),

Fokine's "The Dying Swan."

Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.

Albert Einstein

I saw it last week. I think it's an acceptable sequel to "Casino Royale." It ties up most of the loose ends of "CR," and

connects some dots. IMO "CR" is the superior film. You have to view "CR," before "QOS," otherwise you'll be lost. The special effects and the action sequences were a little OTT. For example, the "falling through the glass roof," "upside down trapeze act - get the gun in time to kill the thug," and the " 'drive' through the mountains" segments were a little too much to believe. How could 'Mr. White' or anyone survive impacts like that in a car trunk? Craig suffered serious injury during filming: I can see why. There were subtle nods to the Bourne trilogy such as the shattering glass, outrageous chase scenes and some fight sequences, but nothing too identical.

However, Bondophiles will notice major similarities with other Bond films. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. For example, the girl "Fields" is smothered in crude oil, just like the girl that was smothered in gold paint in "Goldfinger." Plus, both ladies are laid in the same position on the bed. In "Goldfinger" Odd Job probably killed the girl first, then shelacked her with gold paint. That's a plausible explanation of how she ended up in that condition. How did Greene's crew drown Fields in slippery crude oil and place her on the bed - all without leaving not a drop of oil anywhere? Obviously, they followed her after Bond and Kurylenko left the party. So are we to believe that they abducted her, tortured her to get the suite number, killed her, then doused her in crude at a refinery before Bond, "M" and MI6 arrive? How did they do all of this - and so quickly? They give the impression that all of this - including Giannini's death happened in under 30 mins. Plus the suite had no windows and only one entrance. What? Greene's crew carrying a (let's assume concealed) body dripping with crude, and MI6 just happened to miss each other in the elevator bank? None of this is plausible.

Here's something else that's unlikely: Fields trips Greene's henchman. He falls down a staircase, his toupee comes off - and he's apparently uninjured and still alive. This becomes the motivation to kill Fields, who said "please excuse me, I'm so sorry." I've heard of ruthless, but this is ridiculous. Greene's organization is supposed to be more subtle than this. They have no legitimate interest to draw that kind of heat or attention to themselves, so why does Greene bother with Fields in the first place? Greene didn't fall down the stairs; his henchman did. This minute subplot isn't justified nor fully developed in the script. "M" asked Bond, "Why her?!" I ask the screenwriters the same question. It would have made more sense for Greene to have had Korylenko drowned in crude oil, either that or Bond rescues her at the last minute. It would have been better if Bond would have gotten together with Korylenko - two "lost" spies. This follows the Bond film formula where two or more women split the love interest and efficient, femme-fatale spy duties. This film however lacked a female villain like Grace Jones' 'May Day,' Barbara Carrera's 'Fatima Blush,' or Lotte Lenya's 'Rosa Klebb.' Bondgirls' "names" would be the subject of a totally different thread. "Fields" becomes a minor footnote - the excuse for the obligatory love scene. Korylenko's "Camille" was a more fully drawn character; and her storyline was better developed. Her fight sequence with the General was better choreographed and most of all, more realistic than the poor imitation "Bourne sparring" that Craig did.

The plane/parachute segment is a nod to the final scenes in "The Living Daylights," "Octopussy," as well as the prologue from "Goldeneye." IMO there were two major plusses, the first being Dame Judy Dench. She single handedly saved this movie. It's always a pleasure to hear her speak. She's the female Olivier. The second is MI6's giant interactive intelligence tracking system. Such a system makes "Q" Branch and their gadgets obsolete. Q" and his toys are missing, but it works. The gadgets usually make the action even more unbelievable. What are the odds that the right situation would arise, at the precise moment to use the right gadgets in the correct setting - and they actually work? Astronomical. Daniel Silva's 'Gabriel Allon' novels are more realistic.The screenplay was dark like the short story; there were no jokes and minimal tongue in cheek in the script. "

I really loved the "Tosca" scenes, even if there were a bit of a rip-off of "The Godfather".

I agree. The "Tosca" segment (and its space age staging), was very interesting. But really, who holds a conference call meeting during an opera? Even Bond mentioned this absurdity in that segment. IRL there would be alot of 'shushing' going on, not to mention ushers shining flashlights in faces threatening eviction from the opera house. If this organization is supposedly "more clandestine" than the other intelligence agencies, it would make more sense to have a virtual meeting on a secure system in private. 'SPECTRE' did it 45 years ago in "From Russia With Love." Anyway, this scene could be the 21st century's inferior answer to the opera scene plot twists in "Godfather III" - sans the dramatic intensity.

IMO the biggest problem with this film is the non-theme by Alicia Keys. It's running neck-in-neck in The Battle For The

Worst Bond Themes Ever with Madonna's "Die Another Day," Sheryl Crow's "Tomorrow Never Dies," and A-ha's "Living Daylights." The soundtrack was throwaway and forgettable. Does anyone out there remember the tune or the title? I can't. It

was nothing like "You Only Live Twice," Garbage's "The World Is Not Enough," Gladys Knight's "License To Kill,"

Tom Jones' "Thunderball," Louis Armstrong's "We Have All The Time In the World," Bassey's trilogy "Goldfinger," "Diamonds Are Forever," or "Moonraker" (and that movie was bad), Sir Paul's "Live and Let Die," Carly Simon's "Nobody Does It Better," or Duran Duran's "A View To A Kill." What this film needed was a Bassey style ballad or something comparable, sung by Dame Shirley, or someone comparable.

This is very sad news! The end of an era. May he rest in peace.

. . . Yet it is strange that an unfinished artist is promoted before the remarkable pair Obraztsova and "Big Red" Kondaurova. But then, as mentioned many times elsewhere on BT, Part and Reichlen are yet to be principals. It isn't only in Russia.

Reality check time: Somova didn't even make annual as a First Soloist. She was "upgraded" for the April City Center engagement. This "promotion" simply doesn't pass the smell test. Also, if the Maryinsky had considered seniority, (and they didn't), the First Soloist who should have gone forward would've been Ekaterina Osmolkina; then Novikova, then Obratzova, then Kondaurova in that order. Usually, in the MT, (what's supposed to happen - in theory and practice), is that if a Principal retires, (male or female), then those "set" to move up, move up a notch. Of course, this procedure has been subject to

change in extraordinary circumstances - only for unprecedented & exceptionally gifted talents. Somova doesn't live in that zip code.

Compare Osmolkina's study list to Alina's - there's no comparison:

Company trouper for 9 years. Prize-winner at the Vaganova-prix competition (St Petersburg, 1998). Prize-winner at the International Ballet Competition (Seoul, 2004). Repertoire: La Sylphide (Sylphide, The Sylphides); Giselle (Giselle, Monna, Zulma, Pas de deux); Le Corsaire (Gulnara, The three Odalisques); La Bayadère (Gamzatti, Jampo, Grand pas classique), revised version by Vakhtang Chabukiani & the reconstruction; The Sleeping Beauty (Aurora, Generosity Fairy, Silver Fairy, Diamond Fairy), Konstantin Sergeyev, Aurora in the 1890; Le Reveil de Flore (Flore), revival of the 1894 production; Swan Lake (Prince´s friends, Two Swans); Raymonda (Clemans, Henrietta); Don Quixote (Kitri, Flower-sellers, Variation); Pertoushka (the Elegant Lady´s friend); The Fountain of Bakhchisarai (Maria, Young women); Romeo and Juliet (Juliet, Juliet´s companion); The Legend of Love (Shyrin, Shyrin´s Friends, Gold); The Bedbug (Zoya); Serenade; Piano Concerto No 2 (Ballet Imperial); the roles in Apollo, The Four Temperaments; Theme and Variations; Jewels (Emeralds & Diamonds); Etudes; Manon (Lescaut´s Mistress); The Nutcracker, the Vainonen & Chemiakin productions, (Masha, The Nutcracker´s Sisters, The Canteen-girl, China Dance, Waltz of the Flowers), Princess Pirlipat, or worthiness punished (Spanish Rat dance), production by Chemiakin, choreography by Kirill Simonov; Cinderella (Dance Teacher), choreography by Alexei Ratmansky; The Vertiginous Thrill of Exactitude, The Magic Nut (Frog); Ondine(Giannina), choreography by Pierre Lacotte; Aria Suspended (soloist). Moreover, Osmolkina's repertoire is slightly larger than both Novikova's and Obratzova's.

Unlike Somova, these ladies, and many others in the lower ranks don't need a flashlight, microscope, rubber gloves, a seeing eye-dog and tweezers to get through a ballet. Somova continues to nurse the few roles she's been given for the last six years. Her (now legendary) inconsistency is entirely another matter. Compared with the established Principals, Osmolkina, Obratzova, Novikova, including Kondaurova and other Second Soloists, Somova's study list is severely wanting. Not only that, compare the documented critical literature between all of these dancers. Somova's 'critique output' is conservatively 80% negative - 20% positive. That's a landslide of officially negative opinion. So, to describe Somova as "unfinished" is putting it mildly.

I'm sorry everyone, but IMO this situation stinks on ice.

OMG (Insert exclamation points to infinity here) . The Vazievs leave for Milan, and The Accidental "Ballerina" is elevated to Principal Dancer? >> A position she is neither (a) worthy of or (b) QUALIFIED FOR?! And before Kondaurova, Obratzova and Novikova?!

I am sorta hoping that this was done to get her out and off to La Scala as a principal. Not that I wish any evil to La Scala, mind you.

Vous pensez 'quid pro quo?' Je pense, oui. I guarantee that Somova will follow them to La Scala as a frequent guest "artist."

She will headline La Scala's "Swan Lake" and "Bayadere." DVDs are next. Zakharova should start getting worried - uh, NOT.

" . . . a day that will live in infamy."

"

It's the end of the world as we know it."

Here is my guess as to casting for DON Q. It will be fun to see if I end up being correct or if I bomb . . .

LOL!

Hey, it may still end-up being what I predicted -- only three Kitris (Novikova, Tereshkina and Somova). Bets are still on the table until the curtains part and we really-TRULY see Vishneva or Obraztsova jete onto the stage. Even the printed playbill can't be trusted with the Mariinsky casting folks. That said, I hope that the announced casting will remain.

With my luck, my three performances -- Tuesday night, Sat matinee & Sunday matinee -- will end up being Three Somovas! Come to think of it, I will most likely get Somova at least twice as Dryad Queen, even if she is not one of my Kitris. Fingers and toes are crossed.

p.s. to Cygnet - Don't taze me, sis!

LOL ! Natalia, you'll probably get The Dryad three times LOL!

Slightly Obratzova recently added "Raymonda" to her resume Sept 19, with Shklyarov and the Ufa Bashkir State Ballet in Bangkok. The Queen of Thailand was in attendance, no less . Obratzova was in London, danced one "Tchaikovsky Pdd," then rushed back to Petersburg for the Oct 18 "Cinderella" at the MT. So, Genichka and Shklyarov continue to make lemonade from lemons, in spite of the "Maryinsky Whatever Nasty Reasons" you mentioned earlier .

Here is my guess as to casting for DON Q. It will be fun to see if I end up being correct or if I bomb . . .

LOL! Great call Natalia! I'd book for Thursday night, and the weekend matinees ! But, there's probably

not one available plane ticket or hotel room in Washington DC for that week. If you're lucky enough to book

the trifecta, (performance, round trip flight and hotel), no doubt, there'll be alot of price gouging.

Of course, things can & will change. . .

I have a feeling that if Dina (and/or Genichka) do not come, Alinashka will somehow get opening night at Kennedy.

Novikova opened Chicago and Orange County. Somova is overdue; plus it's the capitol.

Not only does Lopatkina respect the classics, but she is one of the late Natalya Dudinskaya's greatest products.

Dudinskaya was taught by Vaganova; so there's a direct line back to the source. Lopatkina has voiced her

opposition to Vikharev's Petipa reconstructions, "Bayadere" and "Sleeping Beauty." To date she has refused

to dance Lilac Fairy in the 1890 "Beauty." She has only danced in Konstantin Sergeyev's production, (who was

Dudinskaya's husband). I believe one of the main reasons she's so beloved and influential, is that she's loyal to

her late teacher and Sergeyev's work.

I've met Sarafanov and he is rather tall, certainly above six foot, I imagine it was his very youthful looks that made people imagine him to be a little chap. I think he's grown a bit over the years too.

I agree Mashinka: Per "alexaa1a,s" link, he has indeed picked up height. Alina has always been long and

lanky. She's an amazon. When I first saw Sarafanov & Somova together in the Le Corsaire pdd in '04,

(one of her first assignments in the corps), she was taller. Corsaire was the first pdd they were assigned

together, then came Don Q pdd, then she was given the first variation in "Paquita," then Odette/Odile.

Another PD, Irma Nioradze was paired with Sarafanov in the full length "Bayadere" in '04. Based on the pic,

he's past her now, because Alina is definitely taller than Irma. When Somova's Kitri debuted last year, my

Petersburg friend confirmed the difficulties Leonid had with the overhead lifts in Don Q Act 1 and other sections

of the ballet. Kitri is a soubrette/virtuosa/comedienne/allegro role. Somova may be a borderline soubrette, (?)

but because of her height and long limbs, "virtuosa" and speed do not come easy for her. Conversely, because

of her long limbs she should be good in adagio. Although her Odette and Nikiya are less coltish, she hasn't

yet delved into nuance, explored dramatic development, nor mastered legato and phrase completion.

When she graduated in '03 she was fuller. Today, she's extremely fragile looking, although I must concede

that her spotting with piourettes and fouttees vis a vis general placement has improved. For example, her

regular fouttees and Italians still bounce but are now sur place. IMO I believe that it's her arms

which are out of proportion to the rest of her body, that and her over-extended knees. Of course,

she can't do anything about that, but great ballerinas find ways and means to conceal physical boondoggles.

However, bent wrists, petrified fingers and long nails which accentuate them do not enhance line. For example,

Mezentseva's arms were also quite long, and she was built almost the same as Somova, albeit her

torso was more compact than Somova's. Of course, (no comparison with Alina), but Galina's

port de bras, epaulement, hands, fingers, placement, technique, artistry, and dramatic skills, in short -

attention to detail, was impeccable. Maybe this is what they see in Somova, and are trying to bring

forth. (?)

I think, if they must cast her in classical roles, obviously she looks best with the tallest men, but with men who

look like grown men (in the face), such as Kozlov, Fadeev, Korsuntsev, Kolb & Ivanchenko. These gentlemen are

danseur nobles. Of these, Somova's been paired frequently with Kolb & Fadeev. Kozlov & Korsuntsev are Lopatkina's

main partners, and Ivanchenko's services are widely used by the female leads in the company. Sarafanov and another frequent partner of Somova's, Anton Korsakov, aren't danseur nobles, but both have been assigned danseur noble roles. Technically Sarafanov and Korsakov can do these roles, but artistically they're unconvincing in them. Of these

two, Sarafanov is the superior technician, MO.

October 23, 2008 - Happy Birthday Ulyana Lopatkina!

When "Giselle" is performed with love, care and attention to detail, it's an event. It remains forever new because of what individual dancers bring to the leading roles. This afternoon's (Oct 12) final matinee performance of "Giselle" at OCPAC found the Maryinsky in excellent form. Ekaterina Osmolkina and Evgeny Ivanchenko were a young couple who were truly in love. Carla Fracci once said that the most important thing about this ballet was, " . . . how you look at one another." Osmolkina's peasant girl was human and trusting, and thankfully without mannerisms. She also projected to the back of the hall such an innocent personality: You believed that her whole existence revolved around that yard, and that she had never in her life been too far away from her cottage. Evgeny Ivanchenko's Albrecht adored this Giselle. Ivanchenko's Albrecht was an aristocrat who really wanted to break free from his royal existence. He wanted escape and he found freedom with this Giselle. He conveyed this by blending in with the villagers, and exhibiting his carefree youthfulness, while masterfully concealing his nobility and true identity.

Osmolkina & Ivanchenko were totally happy and content in one another's presence. Osmolkina's and Ivanchenko's acting in Act 1 was particularly praiseworthy. The acting blended seamlessly into the dancing, and the dancing blended seamlessly into the acting. The action of the mime passages were successfully linked with the dancing, and therefore real and spontaneous. Osmolkina's method was especially effective here: We have no idea she has a heart problem, until she simply stops, and slowly touches her chest, then slowly falters. She backed slowly away, eyes locking with Ivanchenko, then gradually catches up with the corps as the make their round rotation.

I can't find enough superlatives to describe the Maryinsky's corps de ballet! In both Acts, they were simply perfect. This afternoon they dressed their lines, moved as one and executed the choreography in unison and with musicality - marvelous! Technically, Osmolkina was light, airy and precise. She had exemplary Romantic ports de bras. Her feet were very articulate in Act 1's variation. Throughout the ballet, she had wonderful ballon; she just seemed to bounce, then float to silent landings. Ivanchenko was well matched with Osmolkina in this respect: He too has articulate feet and precise ballon and his elevation and technique matched her's. Tatiana Gorunova's Berthe was a concerned and over-protective mother. Maxim Khrebtov was Albrecht's neurotic sword-bearer: He was full of worry and anxiety about his master getting caught in both Acts. Elena Bazhenova's Bathilde is every inch the elite noblewoman; Vladimir Ponomarev's Duke of Courland was as majestic as a king. Valeria Martynuk and Alexei Timofeev performed a correct but juiceless > (?) Peasant pas de deux. These two seemed to be phoning in this segment. It was well danced, yes - but by rote, and that included the fixed smiles. Konstantin Zverev's Hans was a selfish, obsessed and jealous stalker. He wants to prove to Giselle that he has her best interests at heart, and that he is the one who really loves her. He was spiteful and vindictive when he revealed Albrecht's true identity and he did it with a sneer on his face. Zverev's Hans enjoyed this immensely. Here's a Hans who hates the "other man" with a visceral hatred. He really didn't understand the tragic consequences of his actions until the curtain fell. When Albrecht ran off the stage, Zverev fell to his knees at Giselle's feet screamed, his head in his hands, his body contracting with sobs.

Osmolkina's mad scene is a measured descent into insanity. She's already laid the foundation. Then slowly but surely, Osmolkina builds upon it, until her 'tower' comes

crashing down. When she's confronted with the truth, she sparingly acknowledges her surroundings, and the people around her. She takes her time, reprising the details of her fateful day. At the conclusion, Osmolkina comes full circle back to the reality of her humiliation, and she flies lifeless into Ivanchenko's arms. Very effective; very believable. One of the best features of her mad scene is the blankness of her large eyes. Osmolkina uses her eyes here to great effect. Ivanchenko realizes what he has done. He runs off in grief.

Act 2 - This afternoon introduced the frightening Wili Queen of Victoria Tereshkina. Her entrance was eerie and most effective. The bourrees were seamless, moving steadily towards the center, then towards the pit, then exiting stage right. Each bourree was (seemed) identical, as if she were standing en pointe moving on a slow moving conveyor belt. IMO she's the best Maryinsky Wili Queen of this generation, as Terekhova was in the former generation. Her opening variation gave the illusion of a spirit in the distance, swinging back and forth like a pendulum in slow motion. Her center work was executed as if it were child's play. Tereshkina has large piercing grey/blue eyes. The lighting was very effective here. I noticed that when she first began the act, her eyes were half closed, as if awakening from the dead for another night. As the night wears on, and as she summons the rest of the Wilis, her eyes opened more. Then, when the ballabile begins her eyes are wide open, like a zombie's. This gave her a slightly crazed expression. This gave me the impression that here is a vampiric and vengeful Wili Queen, with a technique that drips blood. Her authority, elevation, batterie and ballon are just unbelievable! And how were the General's lieutenants? By comparison, Yulia Kasenkova's Monna was rather stiff and earthbound compared to the rest of her deceased sisters, and we could hear it too. Maria Shirikina was light and fleet as Zulma. I almost wished that Shirikina could have doubled as Monna.

Osmolkina's spirit was ecstatic to break free from the constraints of her grave: Her variation illustrated this. Her centerwork adagio was traditional and "old school" as in, no 6:00 p.m. penchees or developpes. She let the dance speak eloquently for itself. The pas de deux was the culmination of their love in Act 1. Ivanchenko gave Osmolkina dream quality support. It was a sublime communion of souls. He loved her to the end. Well done!

The Music Corner And Final Trivia

The Maryinsky Orchestra played the Adam score with sympathy and care, paying special attention to all of the dramatic accents. The uncredited maestro was Pavel Bubelnikov, who (apparently) was in complete simpatico with Osmolkina for the highlights. So, thanks to the program book omission, Mikhail Sinkevich and Pasha Bubelnikov were both here but "officially" not here. The pit microphones seemed to be on 'low,' compared with Thursday night's bombastic amplification for "Don Quixote." I noticed that the inverted name errors of OCPAC's program book included not only the corps de ballet, but the Maryinsky musicians as well. There was a 'noises off' moment during Hans' confrontation with Albrecht & Giselle before the royalty arrived. Something quite large was dropped backstage. Fortunately, no one onstage was phased by it. For this performance, Bubelnikov wore his best black silk p.j.'s alá Gergiev. Osmolkina, Tereshkina, Ivanchenko & Co. received a + 7 minute standing ovation. Brava Maryinsky!

I just got in. Victoria means "VICTORY"! Tereshkina triumphed, I mean ROCKED Kitri tonight ! This is a milestone role for her. Tonight was just one of those nights at the ballet where everything, and I mean everything cooked: She believed in the story, and she danced like there was no tomorrow. Both she and her ardent Basil - Yevgeny Ivanchenko displayed spectacular technique and the kind of pyrotechnics we've become accustomed to in this ballet. And now, for something completely different: The fouttees were doubles and triples, but this combo was executed while fluttering her fan in front of her chest, and then above her head. Take that! Tereshkina is truly a Principal Dancer; she deserves every bit of that title. What energy, what technique, what style! From her first entrance I was perched on the edge of my seat. Her authority, elevation and lightness reminded me of Terekhova's precedent setting Kitri of the former generation. From Act 1 to Act 3, Vicky danced as if fire was under her feet.

The Dream sequence was beautifully executed. Tereshkina's Dulcinea was indeed the Don's ideal and unattainable love. Tereshkina successfully conveyed and projected this. She was light and diaphanous, combining superb classical technique with lyricism. Her variation was faultess, exhibiting marvelous physical control and stamina.

The corps de ballet remains a flawless delight to behold. From the espanolada of their character dancing, down to the expert handling of Act 1, and Act 3 Scene 5 props (fans, goblets & castanets - no one dropped anything ), to the passion of the Gypsy Dance in Act 2 Scene 2, and the pure academics of Act 2 Scene 3 and Act 3 Scene 6, everyone was on their 'A' game tonight. As always, Vladimir Ponomarev was oustanding as Don Q; Stanislav Burov was hilarious as Sancho Panza; Nikolai Naumov was a strict but doting Lorenzo; Soslan Kulaev was a Project Runway Mr. Gunn of a Gamache; Karen Ioanessian was a magnificent Espada - he also dances a mean Fandango. He was replaced in the Fandango, by an uncredited dancer tonight, although he was listed for both parts. I would LOVE to see him step up to Basil. Katya Kondaurova was sleek and seductive as the Street Dancer; Yulia Kasenkova and Yana Selina were perfectly paired as the Flower Sellers - they moved as one; Elena Yushkovskaya was a delicate and fleet Amour; Yulia Slivkina was a spirited Mercedes; Alisa Sokolova and Mikhail Berdichevsky were passionate Gypsies; Elena Bazhenova's arms were graceful and spellbinding in the Oriental Dance; and Katya Osmolkina was bubbly and precise in the Act 3 Variation.

A++ EVERYONE - EXCELLENT !

When I read the cast list, and noted the line-up for Act 2 Scene 3, I resolved to have an open mind, hoping, no, - praying for the best. This was a new day; a new opportunity. I pulled Wonka's golden ticket: Somova was assigned Dryad. She's now in her 6th season and a 1st Soloist. I've seen her live (and canned), a number of times in different roles since she was first fast-tracked in 2004. I'll to cut to the chase: In short, ". . . our situation has not improved." (Sean Connery to Harrison Ford in "Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade").

Dryad is a soloist role, and the level of difficulty, well, (IMO) is somewhat low compared to the requirements of Petipa's full-length roles. If one commands a strong technique, and sensible artistic temperament, Dryad shouldn't be too difficult - in theory. Having said that, it's problematic when a cameo role devolves into an attempt to try and upstage the ballerina, and becomes a fire-sale, as in the "everything must go" approach to the academic rules. For me, this was a first: A sexually aware Dryad. Somova employed come hither eyes to the errand knight and the audience throughout the scene. Kitri is supposed to be the center of attention in this segment; the Dryad Queen should be authoritative but maintain a subtle presence, and do this without being too conspicuous. Therefore, her interpretation was at best inappropriate in this context.

The Entrée: Her working leg in the supported lifts at the beginning of the segment had a ginormous sway back. The visual effect was the illusion that her left foot might actually touch the man from La Mancha's helmet. The variation was an ear and nerve whacking experience: "Martha Graham, Martha Graham, Martha Graham, Martha Graham, Madonna, Madonna, Madonna, Madonna!" (Robin Williams to Nathan Lane in "The Birdcage"). The concluding series of Italian fouttees were sur place, but still - there was too much foot to head action. She hit 6:00 p.m. with every developpe, cutting a swath through the air - in half. I heard several people in the hall audibly gasp, (to my ears it sounded like shock rather than awe), and a few said "whoa!" Indeed. And inexplicably, the crowd went wild after her variation, and when she appeared at the Act 2 curtain call.

But why may I ask? Somova didn't mark time, or keep up with Tereshkina, nor did she even try to mirror her in line or execution. Somova was on her own mission. They're supposed to dance together. Tereshkina conscientiously shaped and etched her line with every step. Somova's adjacent arabesques (behind Tereshkina), were on the upbeat, not the downbeat, and they were turned-in penchees - each hitting 1:30 p.m. to Tereshkina's 93 degrees, after Tereshkina had completed the phrase. Tereshkina's grande jetes had wonderful elevation, and reverberated in the hall like three gun shots. Somova's grande jetes followed close behind like Hell follows close behind the 4th Horseman of the Apocolypse . She had good elevation but distorted (double jointed?) legs. Complete line distortion. There was just no comparison.

Unfortunately, based on this latest viewing, I remain baffled re Somova's position in the company. Of all the female 1st soloists Somova has the least credits in her bio. One would think that by now, she would have at least as many credits as her contemporaries, i.e. Novikova, Obratzova, Golub - not to mention the elder women in that rank. These ladies are competing in, (and for) many roles, demonstrating their versatility in the classical and modern rep, (the latter, such as it is at the Maryinsky). A few of them have logged in over a decade of service in this rank. By comparison, Somova continues to nurse the few roles that she has been given over the past five years, yet she's relentlessly showcased and promoted. My questions are: 1) At this stage of the game, shouldn't she be coming into her own, competing at (or at least), approaching the same technical and artistic level as the other 1st soloists? 2) If not now, then when - (if ever)? and 3) Has anyone in authority noticed this paradox?

The Music Corner & Other Trivia - The Maryinsky Orchestra played Minkus' score with panache: The musicians took us to Spain! For some strange reason, the Maryinsky conductors on tour aren't credited in the program book. I could see that the maestro for the evening was Mikhail Sinkevich. He gets most honorable mention here for conducting with insight, instinct and finesse. Also, the program book luxuriated in the error of putting the corps de ballet's last names before their first names. They didn't do this with the soloists or Principals. For OCPAC, that's another first. I apologize for the length but I'm still excited by tonight's memorable performance! This was a keeper -

one to remember for years to come.

>>>>Standing 'O' for Victoria, Yevgeny and Co. over 6 mins. Brava!!!! !!!!

They open tomorrow night, and I'm seeing both . But if I had to choose one, I'd choose "Giselle."

Now, there are sections of Lopatkina's Odile which I think she finesses, but on the whole, she does only what she knows she can do well, and on this point, she doesn't deviate.

Cygnet, this is a very interesting observation. Can you develop it a bit more for those of us who are not familiar with her work? (On the face of it, it seems to be quite damning when applied to a serious artist.)

Hi Bart! I'm sorry - I didn't mean to imply that Lopatkina isn't a spontaneous artist - quite the

opposite! She's a ballerina with alot of variety and versatility, who accomplishes maximum effects,

but with a great economy of means. She's a spellbinding traditionalist, who approaches O/O and her other

classical roles the way a scientist might apply his or her knowledge of the scientific method in a controlled

experiment. Here was my first impression of her O/O during the 2006 Fall U.S. tour:

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...st&p=191401

It just isn't rond de jambe en l'air the way she does it, any more than if she put her foot next to her head and fluttered it about, it wouldn't be petit battement. Of course, textbook perfection is not required on the stage; one may sacrifice many things for the sake of expression. . .

Hi Hans, I think I understand where you're coming from; we don't disagree.

but what is she expressing when putting herself in such an awkward physical position other than that higher is better, full stop?

My guess is that perhaps this may be the way she's found which gives her maximum control, (not necessarily to express anything, per se, in that segment of the variation). For me, the common denominator of Lopatkina's interpretation is total control of her limbs. Perhaps her height is (another) unknown variable that effects how she executes the ronds > (?)

She has released a studio dvd called "Lopatkina Lesson," (2007, TDK-Japan). In Russian, (with Japanese subtitles), she explains her roles, taking us through Nikiya's Act 2 lamentation, Raymonda's Act 3 variation, "Paquita's" variation, Dying Swan and O/O. Dying Swan and O/O are covered in the last segments .

I watched Asylmuratova, Makhalina, and Mezentseva, and they all do the ronds at 90º and then raise the leg.

Hans, I think you're on to something. This may be, (but not necessarily), simply a matter of coach's influence. These three women were coached by Olga Moiseyeva. Moiseyeva currently coaches Olesya Novikova. If Novikova ever makes her debut as O/O, it would be interesting to see if Moiseyeva trains her to do the ronds at 90º

In today's Russia, Lopatkina's interpretation is considered to be the platinum standard for this generation. She's a cultural icon. Her coach is Ninelka Kurgapkina, whose approach is as different from Moiseyeva's as night and day. Both coaches are sticklers for by-the-book technique, but Kurgapkina seems to be more liberal in letting her students find their own way in a role. Moiseyeva is like a diamond cutter; Kurgapkina is like an architect. A good example of this is Obratzova who is also one of Kurgapkina's pupils. Now, there are sections of Lopatkina's Odile which I think she finesses, but on the whole, she does only what she knows she can do well, and on this point, she doesn't deviate.

Lopatkina's version seems to me another example of technique sacrificed to extension that is all too common these days--the thinking that higher=better.

IMO Alina Somova, (who btw, is Olga Tchyentchikova's masterpiece), would fit your definition, sans the technique .

I'm having trouble visualising that...do you mean that when she does the rond de jambe en l'air, she doesn't fully extend her leg before doing the rond?

Lopatkina completes four ronds de jambes per leg, each time, fully extended on the beat.

I've seen it live and canned. She has this down to a science. It's no fluke: She's technically perfect

as Odette. She has complete control of her limbs, and at the same time she is a supreme mistress of

nuance. From first entrance to final curtain she is the Swan. The only other ballerina I've seen execute

four ronds per leg in this variation, (live or canned), was Maximova on tape. Lopatkina's Odile is of the

Asylmuratova School of Odiles: A quiet storm - subtle and technically brilliant, but without femme fatale

fireworks.

Mayerling is a much inferior story . . .

Bart, I agree. He tried to cover too much. MacMillan crammed drug abuse, deviant behavior, sexual obsession, political activism & revolutionary intrigue, oedipal tendancies, sexual assault, body-snatching/fraud, and other things, that quite frankly, are just too much to digest in three acts. It's based on historical cover-up/scandal/conspiracy and deals with people who actually lived rather than fictional characters. It's like a "Nixon in China" of the ballet - historical facts vs. legend and speculation. I've always thought that this ballet was more a danseur actor's ballet than a ballerina's showcase. It's one of the few ballets where the male is the tragic lead. After all that's come before it, the offstage gun-shots at the end of the final pdd always seem to me like anti-climax. You say to yourself, 'thank God it's over.' That said, the prologue and epilogue at Heiligenkreuz cemetary is just too macabre for words. In my experience, only Seymour/Wall (the originals), Ferri/Jeffries, then Durante/Mukhamedov successfully pulled this ballet off. It's not a work that one wants to return to over and over.

Manon, which I've seen several times on stage, is somewhere between those two. . . A major problem is the score. The stitched-together, sort-of-familiar Massenet music seems like something added afterwards to support the action. Or vice versa. Somehow, it makes no difference. By the time Manon and DeGrieux find themselves in the swamp, where she relives her life and meets her fate, I find myself feeling that everything has already gone on too long.

"Manon" stands and falls on the leads. If the Manon and Des Grieux do not grab you with their instense passion for one another in the very first pdd, it's a marathon to the Bayou. I remember that one of the earliest criticisms of "Manon" was that the music, though beautiful in certain moments and segments, was piecemeal and rhythmless for dancing. If you listen to the Bonynge CD, it doesn't seem completely cohesive as a ballet score. It sounds more like a movie soundtrack before the film gets to the cutting floor. Contrast the Manon score with the Tchaikovsky works put together for "Onegin;" - there's a huge difference, but it's also a comparable tale, derived from great literature, that's just as powerful and tragic. Massenet didn't compose for the ballet; Tchaikovsky's general output as a composer always seemed more conducive to dance, being rhythmic, lyrical and dramatic, ("Onegin" & "Anastasia," etc.). This is true

as well for Prokofiev ("R & J," "Cinderella," "Ivan the Terrible," etc.), very rhythmic, syncopated and non-syncopated, lyrical and dramatic.

(Zhanna Ayupova and a very young Larissa Lezhnina) dance the Rose Adagio, and I would really like to hear from someone who knows more about how this role is generally danced at the Mariinsky because while both ballerinas were extremely courteous with their partners throughout, they both distinctly looked away from them during the balances. Is it just a matter of different characterization?

All of the Maryinsky ballerinas that I've seen (live or canned), look away. My guess, (and I stress this), is that it's company tradition. Aurora is being presented to her court on the day of her coming of age, in that very old fashioned sense of the word "debutante." In that sense, the balances may be Aurora's 'curtsies' to each Prince. Consider the era in which this ballet was created: Debutante events were the norm for young women of royalty and high birth. As a debutante Princess it would have been considered forward or unseemly to look her suitors directly in the eye. So, my theory is that the balances are her

special display of both regal modesty and pride. MO.

I REALLY hate to say this, but you folks might want to check up on the ticket refund policy due to this issue:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...in-Ossetia.html

Because of increasing tensions between the USA and Russia over the war between Georgia and Russia (not to mention the fact Mariinsky Theatre artistic director Valery Gergiev has a personal interest in this conflict!), there's a chance that the fall 2008 USA tour could be cancelled. That's a bummer, because I have tickets for the October 15, 2008 performance at Zellerbach Hall in Berkeley, CA. Good thing I bought those tickets with a Visa card, so Visa can assist me in getting a proper refund if we do have a cancellation.

Ditto that Sacto1654! I received mine yesterday. When I booked I brought this scenario up with the sales rep.

Not to worry. If relations continue south and they cancel the tour, he stated " . . . OCPAC will forward

a letter and a Center refund check."