chiapuris

Bolshoi ROH London The Bright Stream 10-08-06 Cast: Zina Svetlana Lunkina Pyotr Yuri Klevstsov The Ballerina Maria Alexandrova The Classical Dancer Sergei Filin The Accordion Player Gennady Yanin The Old Dacha Dweller Alexei Loparevich His Wife Irina Zibrova Galya Anastasia Stashkevich Gavrilych Egor Simachev The Milkmaid Anastasia Yatsenko The Tractor Driver Alexander Petukhov Zina’s Friends Victoria Osipova Ekaterina Krysanova Daria Gurevich Anna Rebetskaya Yulia Lunkina Svetlana Pavlova The Bright Stream is that rare phenomenon in ballet, a comedy, blessed with a zestful, melodic Shostakovich score. Its fresh choreography by Ratmansky, along with the tongue-in-cheek designs of Boris Messerer, fill the original libretto created by Fyodor Lopukhov. Its farcical plot- even though stemming from the era of the socially commited Soviet dramballet- centers on the age-old theatrical gag of a husband (Klevtsov) courting his own, disguised, wife (Lunkina), while imagining he’s flirting with another woman. Other time-worn gags, such as cross-dressing (Alexandrova and Filin) to embarass foolish suitors (Zibrova and Loparevich), and a man impersonating a dog (Petukhov) to thwart a suitor’s designs (Yanin) on his beloved (Staskevich) provide additional fodder for dancing and mime that add up to an evening of delightful entertainment.. The scenario has to do with the visit of dancers and musicians to a Soviet farm collective for the celebration of the harvest festival. A local woman was a ballet schoolmate of the visiting ballerina; the local woman’s husband almost immediately starts flirting with the ballerina. Another older local woman is smitten with the classical dancer, while her older husband fancies the ballerina. The visiting accordion player goes after a student, whose boyfriend , the tractor driver, objects. The ballerina sets the events of the second act by suggesting her school friend disguise herself with one of her dance costumes, and ‘dance’ with her own husband.. The ballerina will crossdress to meet with the older woman attracted to the classical dancer. The ballerina convinces her male colleague to dress as a sylph for the tryst with the older local man. The tractor driver will dress as a dog to protect his girlfriend. And there you have the events of the second act.. Lunkina as Zina, the local girl with ballet training, is truly delightful. She is the most elegant country girl you can imagine in her close-fitting, short, white dress. Her mime was truly expressive and her dancing showed a linear purity, ‘love for dance in its own right’ in the setting of a comedy. Klevtsov was a fitting partner, strong, articulate. He has a muscular presence that harkens back to earlier male Bolshoi physiques. Alexandrova showed her exuberant technique and open movements with a delicious flair for the comedic story line. Filin showed a generosity of spirit in his capacity for the farcical. He was truly amusing as the cross-dressed sylph, where the comedy lay in the appreciation of the gender-specific classical foot and leg technique of pointe dancing. In spite of all the prodigious skills displayed by Filin, the pointe work looked truly funny on a man. Alexandrova, en travestie, repeated a variation performed earlier by Filin full of sharpness and ballon, ending with a series of retires passes sautes, on one leg, with changes of direction. The man as dog (Petukhov) was funnier than it sounds. He was a desperate dog. At one point the dog rode a bike to catch up to his pursued beloved. Irina Zibrova and Alexei Loparevich as the old dacha dwellers created wonderful cartoon characters. I especially enjoyed Zibrova’s variations on ballroom moves with delicious timing. The ensemble dances that closed the first act and those of the finale showed Ratmansky’s sure hand in manipulating large groups in interesting patterns. The sets, costumes, and the choreography were all first-rate. The same can be stated for the entire Bolshoi company. And so was the conducting of Pavel Sorokin and the Bolshoi orchestra. A memorable evening.

I couldn't play any rating game. I thought Zakharova was wonderful. I thought Krysanova was wonderful. I did feel that the Krysanova/Gudanov partnership gave a more satisfying 'Cinderella and Prince' duet.

Bolshoi, ROH London, Cinderella 9/8/06 2:00 matinee Cast Cinderella Ekaterina Krysanova The Prince Dmitri Gudanov All other roles same as 7/8/06 performance. An announcement before the curtain: The Storyteller=A Melanin The scenario of Cinderella is a story within a story. The storyteller (Prokofiev) lives in a small planet (Moon?) and has an assistant nicknamed Ptashka, who keeps things tidy for him. The storyteller is writing Cinderella and Ptashka, who reads it, agrees to play Cinderella. He takes her to the Stepmother’s house and the fairy-tale begins unfolding as we know it. Except that the storyteller serves the part of the Fairy Godmother. Actually, I liked Possokhov’s choreography more on second viewing. (Also from much better seats). Ekaterina Krysanova created a very moving portrayal with her brilliant technical facility and her slender silhouette. She shows a clear love for dancing that shines through and lights the stage. Moreover, Dmitri Gudanov was excellent. He seemed to have a much better day than Filin did the first night (7/8/06). He was technically cleaner and a much more ardent partner in the two adages. Krysanova and Gudanov were well matched. I found the final adage was much more moving with Krysanova/Gudanov (than the first night’s), because I felt there was a chemistry between the two of them which showed in every gesture, every contact. Their dancing matched the emotional pitch of Prokofiev’s music. The Four Seasons superb soloists served as the fairies who provided gifts for Cinderella at the storyteller’s prompting. Each season had her own entourage. Spring (Andrienko) had Grasshoppers (K Abdulin, A Vodopetov); Summer (Kurkova) Dragonflies (S Gnedova, Y Lunkina); Autumn (N Osipova) Sunflowers (N Lomakina, N Nagimova, Y Grebenshchikova); and Winter (Kobakhidze) Bullfinches (I Prazdnikov, A Rybakov, R Tselishchev). Cinderella joins in the finale of the divertissement- one of the brightest tableaux of the ballet. In my earlier review I called Woodall’s ballroom gowns bland. I don’t think that expresses accurately what I meant. It’s the bobbed-hair-with-bangs wigs and the gowns that, in my view, make the women dancers not look their best. Chic? Perhaps. Fairy-tale elegant? No. The third act still, for me, remains thin. I figured out the ponies are there as transportation for the prince and his four friends as they travel the world in search of the owner of the slipper left behind at the ball. The Krysanova/Gudanov final dance makes up for any lack. It was simply beautiful. Alexander Vedernikov conducted with distinction. The orchestra was splendid. Performance anecdote: Toward the end of the first act, a dropcloth that was supposed to be lifted got stuck on one side. The conductor stopped the music. Krysanova went up to the problem drop and started tugging with all her might. She pulled it down straight, so it could be lifted. Once she fixed the problem she went back to the storyteller who hadn’t moved all this time and she resumed the scene as the music started again. Heroic rescue. Tremendous audience applause.

I have no disagreement at all with you about the Prince of the performance. And wrote about it too. Especially since for Grigorovich he is the only real protagonist of the ballet.

What a small world Herman. We were sitting in the 4th row center from the stage. We saw the same immobility in Alexandrova's face. I just happened to like it a lot, because her dancing became and remained so expressive throughout the lake scene. Chacun a son gout.

Bolshoi ROH London Cinderella 7-8-06 Cast The Storyteller Viktor Barykin Cinderella Svetlana Zakharova The Prince Sergei Filin Stepmother Maria Volodina Stepsisters Anastasia Vinokur Lola Kochetkova Dancing Master Gennady Yanin Spring Elena Andrienko Summer Anastasia Kurkova Autumn Natalia Osipova Winter Nelly Kobakhidze Ravens Arsen Karakozov, Alexei Matrakhov, Sergei Minakov, Roman Sinachev Blue Angel Anna Rebetskaya Opera Diva Daria Vorokhobko This performance was my only chance to see Svetlana Zakharova in London. I had stood in line for 4 hours one afternoon in case of return tickets for her Swan Lake, to no avail. Possokhov’s Cinderella premiered in February 2006. It is a fairly new role for Zakharova. What it revealed to me was the breadth of her range. She looked radiant, of course, but she looked like she does in no other role. Modest, with a curiosity about her world around her, and moving from the very center of her being, she moved as if she were inventing the means for impetus right on the very spot. Every gesture belonged appropriately to Cinderella, not to a ballerina showing off her wares. I found it a very convincing portrait of a fairy-tale innocent. She is a dazzling talent and artist. Possokhov can be credited for providing choreography for adequately fueling the protagonist’s performance. The overall assessment of the choreographic design, in my first view, is that it leaves an impression of blandness. (I reserve the right to change my mind). The variations of the seasons in the first act are quirky, fresh, and seemed at one with the music. Outstanding were N. Osipova with her buoyant leaps and her impressive ballon, and Andrienko with her concise line and energy. The ensemble dances of the ballroom scene had all the steps you would expect to see in them, and, yet, there is something in the ballroom music of Prokofiev that so far choreographers have failed to capture. I also thought that Sandra Woodall’s 1930’s ballroom dresses were bland. Zakharova makes all frocks glamorous. The third act had for me the least successful integration of choreography to the musical platform. The Marlene Dietrich and Maria Callas ‘skits’ seemed pointless. And I just didn’t ‘get’ the five ponies. (Seemed OK for Broadway). I am grateful to Possokhov for creating a vehicle for an evening with Zakharova.

Bolshoi Swan Lake London 5/8/06 Part II Scenario: Grigorovich’s concept of Swan Lake is a puzzle. The present version premiered in March 2001. In the London program Grigorovich writes, in a choreographer’s note,: “My version of Swan lake was first produced….during the 1969-70 season…The basic principles of my approach have remained as originally conceived”. He further adds that his new scenario moves the ballet…”from the genre of fairy-tale to that of a romantic novella”. Essentially this means that the good-evil dichotomy of the original story is thrown out–where maidens are turned into swans by an evil sorcerer- and instead, we have an Evil Genius who represents (directs?) the inner psychological life of the prince. The evil genius is also the destiny of the Prince. What we’re left with, then, is that the prince is the only real character in the ballet; all the other protagonists are figments of his imagination fired by his evil genius (read destiny). It is destiny, in Grigorovich’s words, …”imperiously luring Siegfried.. to the world of ideal love”. My problem is this: how can an evil destiny lead to ideal love? In a fairy-tale we have the yin and yang of good and evil: good maidens turned into swans by evil sorcerer. In Grigorovich’s words we have the Evil Genius suggesting (introducing) pure, ideal love. Are we ahead of the fairy-tale game of constant struggle between opposing forces? Can pure come out of evil? Analyzing the premise further, who then is Odette? Who are the swans of Ivanov? Phantoms of …nothing? The premise seems to be a path to nihilism. Grigorovich writes further in the London program: …”I retained Tchaikovsky’s structure but divided my ballet into two acts with only one interval. [The one interval idea is good] Each of the acts is made up of scenes that alternate between real life and an ideal fantasy world. There are virtually no time barriers between these two worlds; they interchange and flow into each other, mirroring not only a general state of human consciousness but, more specifically, that of the ballet’s hero, Prince Siegfried”. No wonder you have the mirror-dancing of Siegfried in white and the Evil Genius in black (before the lake scene). It’s the hero and his consciousness. But why is the genius evil? Can any good ever come out of evil? No wonder, at the end of the 4th act, Siegfried stands helpless downstage and the genius, upstage, picks up Odette and drops her—end of story. As a conceptual basis for a ballet scenario this makes no sense. As a basis for an apologia for a life lived, it makes some sense: ‘The devil made me do it’.

Bolshoi, Swan Lake, London, 5-8-06 7:30pm Cast Odette/Odile Maria Alexandrova Siegfried Sergei Filin The Evil Genius Dmitri Belogolovtsev The Princess Mother Maria Volodina The Tutor Alexei Loparevich The Fool Yan Godovsky The Prince’s Friends Elena Andrienko Ekaterina Krysanova Master of Ceremonies Alexander Fadeyechev Hungarian Princess Nelly Kobakhidze Russian Anna Rebetskaya Spanish Natalia Osipova Neapolitan Nina Kaptsova Polish Ekaterina Shipulina Dancing: Maria Alexandrova created an exceptional, unique Odette/Odile. Intensely musical, she makes transparent the phrases, and sentences, and paragraphs of the Ivanov choreography by focusing on clean dancing. As a musically intense dancer, she keeps the viewer interested in every second of her allocated time on stage by the way she incorporates the space around her as part of the dance design. I found it a deeply moving performance. As Odette, she was expressive by strength of conviction, using no mime to fill the elements of the story (a Grigorovich emendation). Employing only the movements of the classical vocabulary, without resource to body language, ‘me’ ‘you’ ‘afraid’, or 19th c. ballet conventions ‘I’ ‘heart’ ‘you’, the meaning of the dance was communicated. Her face as Odette remained a mirror reflecting the textures and tensions of the dance, without once falling into the ‘trap’ of acting. This I found unique about her Odette portrait. As Odile, the eyes flirted, the lips invited, the mouth smiled, and the body beckoned. There was no mistaking this for anything but a dance of seduction. The language of classicism found a true adherent in her coda of fouettes; she started out with three fouettes, then a pirouette en dehors attitude en avant, repeated the pattern four times, then fouettes en suite at an increasingly faster tempo until the end which signalled- not a technical bravura passage- but a declaration of unstinted love. Astonishing. I felt it a privilege to view this performance. Sergei Filin was a worthy partner with his virtues of princely demeanor, handsome looks, and energy in bravura. (Although in his first variation he had trouble with his two, single-pirouette en dehors en premiere arabesque). He didn’t seem to me to respond in any way, large or subtle, after meeting Odette that looked different from his behaviour towards the women who were presented to him as potential brides. (They seemed to lead him into a state of melancholy). His zest in dancing and his comely appearance give him authenticity, but I didn’t ‘get’ his reaction to finding his ideal love. Perhaps I missed his reactions, since I was really concentrating on Alexandrova. Belogolovtsev as Rothbart (renamed The Evil Genius by Grigorovich) was a convincing anti-hero, with his own face visible for a change (instead of a mask or heavy makeup). More about the part when I write on Grigorovich’s choreography. The pas de trois –in the 1st act- is danced by Siegfried and ‘two friends’, Andrienko and Krysanova. This is a delightful divertissement (if I recall correctly not usually danced by Siegfried). The elegant Andrienko and the joyous Krysanova showed the strength of the Bolshoi company in the soloist ranks. Krysanova, to me an exceptional dancer, covered the ROH stage with her fast-as-light pas de courus and her joie de vivre. In the second act (Grig.: 1st act, 2nd scene) the Three (large) Swans, Kobakhidze, Grebenshchikova, and V. Osipova, as well as the Four (little) Swans, Pavlova, Kurkova, Stashkevich, and Alizade confirmed the strength of the demi-soloist ranks of the company. Particularly outstanding is Chinara Alizade with her clean line. In the third act (Grig.: 2nd act, 1st scene) the national dances have been transformed into variations for the foreign brides-to-be. All of them are in white gowns, each with her own ensemble dressed in ethnically flavoured costumes, but all in pointe shoes. (Grigorovic emendation: no mime, no character or demi-caractere dancing). Kobakhidze as the Hungarian princess showed her elegant and attenuated line. The choreography seemed repetitive. Rebetskaya of the beautiful smile, was a bright performer but again the transliteration of the group dances into solos (even with background ensembles) doesn’t work very well. N. Osipova dazzled with her initial grands sauts, but the musical time usually allocated to two couples, wasn’t well-filled for the solo, even with the ensemble sections. The choreography of all the ensembles behind the princesses did not create enough interest as pure dance. Kaptsova as the Neapolitan princess was absolutely captivating as a performer, although her allocated choreography was not, in my view, top notch. Shipulina as the Polish princess brought the magic of her dancing to the mazurka, which is usually reserved for large-scale group. Her cabrioles were nevertheless dashing. What riches of talent! What gorgeous dancing! The Grigorovich ending of the work seems incomprehensible. (More on the choreography in a later post).

Bolshoi in London, The Pharaoh’s Daughter, Tue, 1 Aug 2006 Cast Aspicia Svetlana Lunkina Lord Wilson/ Taor Ruslan Skvortsov John Bull/Passiphonte Denis Medvedev Ramze Anastasia Yatsenko Fisherman Yuri Baronov His Wife Ekaterina Shipulina 1st Var. Pas d’action Daria Gurevich 2nd Var. Nina Kaptsova 1st male Var. Yan Godovsky 2nd male Var. Viacheslav Lopatin River Guadalquivir Ekaterina Krysanova River Congo Anna Nikulina River Neva Elena Andrienko The Pharaoh Alexei Loparevich Ruler of the Nile Georgy Geraskin Caryatids Viktoria Osipova Anna Balukova Anna Nikulina Xenia Sorokina A Monkey Alexander Pshenitsyn Black Slave Alexander Petukhov The second night performance of the Pharaoh’s Daughter in London was a most enjoyable evening, with, in my view, a wonderful, well-balanced cast. Lunkina and Skvortsov are well-matched physically; artistically they don’t seem the types to spell out high-intensity emotional ardor in dance and mime. That is fine by me. I viewed the entire cast as sharing an ideal of classicism as artistic pursuit; which is to say, that all the principals and soloists and corps comprised a finely-tuned ensemble expressing ideals of classical dance. In the first dancing scene, hunting the lion, the hunting female and male ensembles spell over and over again the notion of synchronicity as art. It works too. Yatsenko as Ramze has an energy and precision that makes her every movement interesting. (I just wish Ramze’s wig was more becoming. It is so….expansive). Lacotte’s choreography has considerable petit batterie for the principals and soloists, some of it, moreover, with arms in bras bas position. They recollect Bournonville combinations. Lunkina and Skvortsov looked charming in these sections. Both the principals shone for me as classicists by heeding one of the earliest classical dictums, ‘Nothing in excess’. The Act II pdd was beautifully rendered, save for loss of Lunkina’s verticality at the end of spinning multiple supported pirouettes. It happened twice. The luminosity of Lunkina’s arabesques, supported or not, is outstanding. So spontaneous and evanescent. Lunkina’s unsupported pirouettes were faultless. In one act she started a series of fouettes and added doubles and a flawless triple in the middle. (Once is enough!) My companion thought that Skvortsov’s variation could have used more of the ‘bombastic’. I found it expressive by its measured and contained force. The fishing village scene was led by the incomparable Ekaterina Shipulina and Yuri Baranov (whose biography was not listed in the ‘big’ program; anyone [inga?] have information about him?) as the hosts. Their ‘Bournonville look’ dancing, as well as that of the ensemble’s echoing their steps, on the clearing by their hut, creates a delicate scale that contrasts with the gigantism of the pharaonic living quarters. Denis Medvedev was excellent in his demi-caractere variation at the fishing village. In this section, too, Lunkina and Skvortsov had brilliant little steps ending in the academic fifth position (5th position as origin and destination); neat and harking back to an earlier mode of academic dance. The underwater river Nile scene is altogether a well-conceived dance interlude. The three river variations are showpieces. (All Lacotte? Some Petipa?) Ekaterina Krysanova (still listed as corps de ballet) filled the stage during her Guadalquivir variation with her joy in dancing. What a rare talent she has! Anna Nikulina (also not listed in the ‘big’ program) was elegant as the river Congo. Elena Andrienko was delightful in the river Neva variation. The variation of Lunkina was a poem of melancholy as she longed to return on land to Taor. The supported adage with the four male waterbeings was beautifully coordinated and seemed flowingly at one with the acqueous element. The final adage in the palace, of Aspicia in long white gown and Taor was filled with seemless dancing. The last large ensemble piece, with hand cymbals, had complex design and was performed by the Bolshoi company with whirlwind intensity. Very striking. In sum, an elegant performance by a brilliant cast. Pavel Klinichev made the Pugni score sound rich and refined.

I read several reviews of the Golden Age today, Clement Crisp in Financial Times, Zoe Anderson in The Independent, The Times Review (her name escapes me); all of them extremely negative about the production and the choreography. They all felt sorry for the dancers involved. I still think some of the choreography was good.

Alymer, of course the sickled feet are part of the choreography. That's why I mentioned it. Consistently Zoya's feet were turned in when standing and sickled off the ground. I admired the dancer (X D) for carrying out the choreography so diligently during her entire appearance!

bart, Ismene Brown's review of Golden Age appeared yesterday. I would most definitely put her assessment in the negative column. I'm still waiting for Zoe Anderson's (The Independent), who had strong negative feelings for the triple mixed bill.

Mariinsky London Coliseum 7-28-06 The Golden Age Cast Old Sophie Gabriella Komleva Old Alexander Sergey Berezhnoy Sophie Daria Pavlenko Alexander Mikhail Lobukhin Vladimir Islom Baimuradov Heinrich Dmitry Pykhachev Olga Ekaterina Kondaurova Sophie's mother Elena Bahzenova Sophie's father Vladimir Ponomarev Friend of Sophie Olesya Novikova Friend of Sophie Ekaterina Petina Mr von Klein Andrey Ivanov Mrs von Klein Alisa Sokolova Acrobats Svetlana Ivanova, Yulia Kasenkova, Anna Lavrenenko,Elena Shesina, Anton Boitsov, Maxim Tchashhegerov Good news: The Golden Age ballet that London saw last evening, is not the ballet St. Petersburg saw last month. Reports had it, including the review of Catherine Pawlick, that the work St. P. saw was 10% dancing and 90% mime. London saw a ballet whose first two acts were virtually pure classic/neoclassic dancing, seemingly flowing from the musical sections of the Shostakovich score. The London version has abridged the work: the performance running time was two and one half hours, including two intermissions. The third act appears to remain as the first version; it is somewhat disparate from the other acts, and takes place in an intermediate period (1945) with mimed scenes of WWII historical events for the most part. One can only guess that, in the preparation of a work with two stage directors, one choreographer and one librettist, there may have been questions of differing emphases. After the dozen or so negative reviews in the St P press of the first version, the director/choreographer may have had the chance to introduce his vision for the work: that of a danced ballet, rather than the originally premised mime ballet. Whatever the factual events that led to the change, we now have the first two acts literally packed with dancing, and for that matter dancing of the first rank, suitable for the Mariinsky company. The movements are fresh, allied closely to their aural sources, so they appear inevitable –as good dancing does. There remains a disjunction between the first two acts and the third act, in that the third act shifts focus to larger-scaled events. The third act deals largely with mimed tableaux of WWII events: mass execution of prisoners, deportations. The only scene that deals with cast characters is the death scene of Valdimir, who, before dying, kisses Alexander on the lips to let him know of his same-sex love for him. Alexander, first in shock, wipes his mouth, indicating non-acceptance of his friend's passion. (This scene is one that's way too long. It reminds one of Soviet-era death scenes, as in R&J) The third act closes with a scene of Sophie and Alexander today, some seventy years after their first meeting. The program notes say: “...they discover it is never too late to begin living again”. Better news: Noah Gelber has created choreography that shows the dancers at their best. The duets of Pavlenko and Lobukhin are the soloist highlights of the ballet. Each pdd is a pas d'action that advances the story line and yet remains newly minted classic dance. The first-act duet in the athletic field involved little body contact, but is filled with emotional content (they have their first photograph taken together). The second act pdd has Pavlenko in a long fitted white gown and is full of daring lifts that take the breath away with their pulsive beauty that suggest emotional abandon. Pavlenko is simply an amazing dancer for the full protraits she creates on stage. Lobukhin gives the kind of support in double work that lets you know everything is secure. He is such a self-effacing dance. A true noble. Another most welcome addition to the ballet repertory are the ensemble pieces for the male athletes. They show the men to advantage. The horizontal and vertical attacks of space create silhouettes' afterimages of great grace and power. The use of batterie, quatre, cinq, six, looked newborn after their notable absence in other contemporary choreographies. Bravo Gelber!. (And bravi to athletes Maxim Eremeev, Dmitry Ermakov, Eduard Gusev, Vasily Scherbakov, Fillip Stepin, Alexey Timofeev, Andrey Ushakov, Konstantin Zverev). Minuses: The third act needs to tie better with the personal stories told in the first two acts. The larger matters of the war, of course impact on the lives of the principal characters. Ballet deals better with people than with events. The third act needs work. Pluses: The Mariinsky has two outstanding acts to Shostakovich's Golden Age. Shostakovich's ballet music has so far been denied a major permanent place in the ballet canon. Let's hope this time the third act can be fixed so that the Mariinsky has a contemporary 3-act ballet that does justice to its superb dancers and the 20th c. music of Shostakovich. PS I've left out so much about the dancers, like the wonderful divertissement of the acrobats in commedia del'arte costumes. A dazzling pure-dance piece. The entire company was excellent, including the four children from an SP school. PSS Clement Crisp told me his GA review will appear next Tuesday in Financial Times.

Mariinsky, London (Coliseum) Thur. 27 July Thursday was the second night of the Shostakovich on Stage dance section with a mixed bill of three works. The works were choreographed in 1961 and 1962; I wonder if these were good years for wine. The first work, The Young Lady and the Hooligan, choreo. Konstantin Boyarsky (62), was described in a booklet distributed in theatres and funded by the Mariinsky Theatre Fund, as....”achingly funny, and just as achingly poignant....those performances will......give UK audiences a unique chance to enjoy the extraordinary comic flair of Mariinsky stars Igor Zelensky and Diana Vishneva....world famous for their virtuosity and rarely recognized for their equal talent to amuse.” Unfulfilled promise. No Vishneva. Igor Zelensky was extraordinarily virtuosic and expressive, in what I would describe as a melodramatic and sentimental work. The lady, performed by Svetlana Ivanova, while technically proficient, made little of the expressive content of the role. She offered stereotypical mannerisms instead of any character delineation. One longed to know what Ms Vishneva would have done with the part. Two other solo parts, one listed as A Guide (to what?) danced by Sergey Popov, and The Guide's Girlfriend danced by Tatiana Tkachenko were hard to fathom, and, remained for me, incomprehensible. The choreography for the ensemble was simplistic and uninteresting. I'm ready for someone to tell me I didn't understand a subtle masterpiece by Boyarsky. So be it. It isn't. Zelensky was terrific, nevertheless. The Bedbug, subtitled a one-act comic ballet, I liked very much. A zany pastiche to Shostakovich fragments, it had unflattering, but truly funny, costumes and choreography to match. I thought the 'character' choreography of Leonid Jakobson remained fresh. Xenia Dubrovina as the first love interest of Prisypkin ( Andrey Ivanov) showed lovely line, except that the feet were always sickled. Part of the comedic pulse derived from the repulsive costumes which, curiously, remained uncredited in the program. I admit outright I have no idea what the story is about. But I didn't feel I needed to, in order to enjoy the surreal events culminating in a wedding bed scene. With all the performers on it. I found it truly enjoyable. (For the story one would need to read the play with the same name by V.Mayakovsky}. Mayakovsky himself, played by N. Naumov, appears in the ballet and guides us through the story -whatever that is. What I got from it is, boy meets girl, seduces her and abandons her, boy meets second girl, and marries her. Ivanov in false nose is brilliant as the little guy-hero (anti-hero?) who finds true love the second time around (Yana Selina as Elzevira Renaissance). This is only one opinion. My companion found the Jakobson choreography boring. I liked the surreality of it all. The third work, Belsky's Leningrad Symphony set to The seventh symphony's first movement, commemorates the siege of Leningrad and the city's famous struggle against the foe. Great themes don't always make great ballets. Lopatkina led the women of the city. Her dancing was strong but lacked the 'soul' of her classical roles, and a sense of deep-felt spontaneity of response. The ballet belongs to Igor Kolb whose virtuosity served to create a heroic portrait of national resistance. Belsky's repetitive steps for the ensembles didn't add to the power residing in the score of Shostakovich. All works were applauded profusely. The conductor, Tugan Sokhiev, did well by Shostakovich.

Reading the posts in this Vishneva thread has been very absorbing. Vishneva is a multi-faceted ballet superstar with a wide range of performing resources. The performance I saw of her in the reconstructed Bayadere (2003 Mariinsky Festival) was unrivaled for the gifts she brought to the stage. Aside from the riches of her dancing, her first entrance as she walked in from the temple and stood downstage center was a small theatrical gem, on its own. Some later posts by Omshanti on the placement of the buttocks as an observation on Ms. Vishneva's artistry have puzzled me. He has never made clear whether what he is talking about is technical intention or a genetic dice-throw (see last quote below). I want to comment on some random quotes of Omshanti in this thread. "....most dancers now do not have the highly lifted and light buttocks that dancers of the past had...." "...it is much lower now on most dancers and as a result the dancing looks more par terre...." "...it is more the lift in the whole hip area...." "...I think ballet is an en l'air] dancer....lifted buttocks are closer to how it should be....." "...it is the difference in the level of training and the talent of the individual dancer......" What came to mind is, that, the conclusions of the first four quotes are associated not with buttocks and their shape, but with what is referred to as a dancer's 'center of gravity' (defined as the midpoint of the body's total weight, or as kinesiologists have it: "that point in the body in which all parts balance each other"). Dancers with a high center of gravity give an impression of lightness and mobility (en l'air?); dancers with a low center of gravity give a down-to-earth impression (par terre?). To quote Anna Paskevska [both Sides of the Mirror, p. 42] "The ethereal quality, so admired in classic dance, relies on the center's being located high under the sternum, only occasionally descending below the sacrum". I mention this because I don't think it is a true statement to say that most dancers today have a low center of gravity. On what evidence? Also, I don't believe Ms Vishneva has a low center of gravity. Or else I'm reading Omshanti all wrong.

One book tangential to the subject of your question is Gennady Albert's "Alexander Pushkin". While the book is an assessment of A. Pushkin, the teacher of Baryshnikov and Nureyev and generations of Russian, principally male, dancers, it does provide a perspective and a brief overview of teaching pedagogy and its evolution from the imperial era into the 20th c. soviet esthetic of the dramaballet. The translation is published by the New York City Library, funded by the Jerome Robbins Foundation. It has a forward by Baryshnikov. A very interesting book.

Very astute observations, 2dds, and of wide prevalence.

I think working on technique separately is not only possible but the explicit goal of a class. Another way of saying it is that dancers don't usually role-play or 'perform' in class. Many teachers don't favor familiar 'ballet' music for classroom, for the reason that it distracts from the task at hand. Rehearsals are where the integration of all elements for a performance take place.

Technique, in my (American) experience also, covered the physical mastery of the classical vocabulary. In common understanding, as vrsfanatic pointed out, interpretation, musicality, stage presence were spoken of as issues separate from the mastery of technique. Training for over a year in Paris (Mme Rouseanne, Ana Ilic), the approach seemed to me to be the same: classes were designed for technique, ie. physical mastery.

Bart, hopefully, the Mariinsky may get something new, and their own, with Gelber's Golden Age.

I concur with you on Babilee's Bluebird. But I also liked (in that period) Brian Shaw (England) and Serge Golovine (France).

Igor Schwezoff was one of my teachers at the Ballet Russe School in NYC in the 50's, early sixties. He also taught at the Ballet Theatre School -same time period. He was a popular teacher and I remember NYCB dancers like Melissa Hayden, Jillana, Francia Russell in his classes. He was a wonderful pedagogue, and, as I recall, he did have a Russian wolfhound at this time period. He also was one of the period's American ballet teachers teaching in Japan. His well-written autobiography is replete with ballet and personal history within the larger frame of Russian history.

Thanks Buddy and Natalia, for making your reviews about Daria Pavlenko almost palpable experiences. The next best thing to being there!

The question you pose, DefJef, is an intriguing one. [More so than the interesting but unfocused 'elitism' question]. I suggest the answer to the question has to be seen in two parts: the 'infrastructure' provided by the dancing of the corps de ballet strives for precision and replicability of results between succeeding performances of a work in any one company. The contribution of the soloists in a work strives to present individual 'takes'; interpretations that, in my opinion, respect and adhere to the spirit and intentions of the choreography, while providing leeway for musical perceptiveness, matters of emphasis, and generally the individual artistry of the solo or lead dancer.

Actually, carbro, the Bolshoi Theater closing is not impending. It's been closed since summer of 2005. Performances since then have taken place at the New Stage, the smaller theater on the side of the Bolshoi.