Tomatonose

Whoops! I didn't realize that he was the one who promoted her. Which makes it all the more puzzling why his recent emphasis seems to have shifted to technical bravura.

I have a feeling this is what she's been hoping for for a few years now, considering that her husband is in Boston. Now they can dance principal roles together--how exciting for both of them!

Here is a post that I wrote on the thread about the Swan Lake broadcast that has some relevance to this topic:

It's not just McKerrow who felt this push away from artistic emphasis and toward technical emphasis. This is what Julie Kent said in Round About the Ballet: Q: What direction do you think ballet needs to take in the twenty-first century? A: I hesitate to say what I think--the focus should be more on artistic performance, and less on technique. ... Now Kent wasn't talking about anyone in particular, but I think this quote is a sign that she senses a shift toward rewarding technical bravura, perhaps at ABT in particular, perhaps in ballet in general. Given the recent pattern of promotions, I have to wonder if Julie Kent would ever have been promoted to principal under McKenzie, despite her beautiful line and wonderful lyricism. She has never been a powerhouse dancer, but she offers something that many of those powerhouses don't.

That's actually a little disappointing to hear, though I can definitely imagine how difficult it would be to turn like that post-baby. Irina is the best Odile I have ever seen, and part of it was the way she kept spinning out those turns, all the time with this look that said, "You like this? Well here's more! You like it even better now? Well just one more triple to get you completely dazzled and entranced!" What's more, she is the only Odile I've seen who actually picked up speed with every turn. She managed to whip off all those doubles and triples while keeping her devilish irresistable eyes the entire time. It wasn't a conceited or bitchy look (Gillian and Paloma tend to go for those). Rather, it was the smug confident look of someone who tortures men for a living and knows exactly how tempting she is.

Just one more thing that popped into my mind: in the short hair wig, Ferri looks so much like Liza Minelli (at least it seems that way from the back of the orchestra).

There are times in your life when you just feel so lucky to be where you are, doing what you are doing, at that moment. That's the way I felt watching last night's performance. This is the first time that I have seen Manon, and I think it just might be my last time. I fear that no other performance of this ballet could ever match the magic on stage last night, and no other performance could move me the way that Ferri and Bocca did. I can't even imagine two other dancers in the lead roles; it's as if the ballet was created for Ferri and Bocca, and for them alone. They own it. Next to Ferri and Bocca, everything else was just decoration, a frame for the masterpiece that was this pairing. Before I get to the leads, I just wanted to point out that last night I finally realized what a great comedic actress Gillian Murphy is. I've seen her mostly in "serious" roles and always had gripes with her expression and musical interpretation. But after seeing her in Coppelia and again last night as Lescaut's mistress, it's clear that she's one of the great comedic talents around today, and this type of role is where her strengths lie. Her timing and priceless expression of foolish entitlement were a joy to behold. Now onto Ferri and Bocca. This was supposed to be Julio's moment to shine, and he did shine, dancing with his whole soul, giving a performance more impassioned than I have seen from any male dancer before. But Ferri managed to outshine him even on his greatest night. The feet! The legs! The extension! The legs! The back! The legs! The arms! And did I mention the legs? But the highlight was not Ferri or Bocca, but rather Ferri AND Bocca. If they were acting, I didn't catch it. What I saw was two longtime partners who are cherishing every minute they have left on stage together. They bared their souls not because their jobs required it, but because they are at a point in their partnership when holding back with each other would be the most unnatural thing to do. Their interpretation was so raw and honest that at one point I felt slightly voyeuristic, like I was spying on a special moment between Manon and Des Grieux rather than watching a carefully choreographed dance. In the Playbill article, Ferri says, "I don't want to think about these being our last performances together; it would be too sad. We've gone through so much together." And when the curtain went down on Manon and Des Grieux last night, it was clear that the two dancers didn't want to snap back into reality. They remained holding each other, desperately trying to postpone the inevitable.

I had the great fortune of seeing Diana Vishneva dance the role with Angel Corella last year. While Angel was his normal spritely self, I much preferred Diana's pairing with Malakhov. Both of them are great storytellers and connected in a way that Angel and Diana didn't. Compared to last year, Diana's mad scene has definitely improved. Last year I was like, "She's not mad, she's drunk." This year, she was believably mad. A great highlight for me was the peasant pas de deux by Stella Abrera and Gennadi Saveliev. Either they've practiced this for ages, or they just really connect with each other. The moves were so coordinated that it really was like a flowing conversation between two likeminded people. All their steps were secure and precise, especially Gennadi's double tour en air's. Stella is someone whom I feel would really be better at NYCB. Her straight back and precise positions are tailor-made for Balanchine, and I think acting is more of a challenge for her than it is for someone like Irina Dvorovenko. That's not to say that she didn't do the role justice, but just that if she were at NYCB, I feel like she really could be one of the company's best in some of the Balanchine roles. I just don't understand why Michele Wiles is a principal dancer. Know when someone has so little personality that it actually makes him or her look like s/he has a slightly off-putting personality? I wouldn't go quite that far with Michele, but it's awfully tempting when you compare her to some of her colleagues at ABT. Granted, I've yet to see her in a lead role, but from the three times that I have seen her dance, she didn't leave me begging for more. Her Myrta lacked the defiant command of Part. She didn't look like a confident no-nonsense leader to me. Moreover, she tends to have these spastic and jerky head movements at the end of move sequences. And anyone think she looks like a combination of Tonya Harding and Miranda from Sex and the City? The production itself didn't adequately contrast the living and the dead Giselles. In the second act, Giselle just walked onto the stage nonchalantly from the side rather than rising up to join the Wilis in the afterlife. Such a shame, as McKenzie had at his disposal perhaps the most elegantly dramatic Giselle/Albrecht pairing in ballet today. Despite these complaints, I left the theatre feeling so lucky to have been able to watch Vishneva and Malakhov dance with such soul. This will be a performance that I'll remember for a long time.

That's wonderful news! I'm so happy for her! Does anyone know who her husband is--also a dancer?

What I've always admired about Amanda's dancing is that it feels personal. There is definitely a place in dance for flashy ballerinas who project to the entire audience and bring hordes of people to their feet in excitement. But there is also a place for people like Amanda. When she dances, it feels that she's dancing for you because it's so understated and introverted. That may sound like a paradox, and perhaps I'm not explaining it well. What I mean is that, with Amanda's characters, it feels like a shy and introverted girl is baring her soul, and she's letting you see her in that vulnerable state--because she trusts you to know, not because it's something she would share with anyone and everyone. Sometimes it does seem that she's dancing for herself and not for the audience, but that's what creates a sense of personal trust in her performances. Her characters look authentic and genuine precisely because they're dancing for themselves; you don't get the feeling that her characters are putting on a show to make you think they're something particular. I love show-stopping performances, but it's also refreshing to see an understated interpretation, and unfortunately I think dancers like Amanda are falling out of fashion.

Please don't get me wrong, I love the fact that there's ballet on public television! I first got interested in ballet from seeing it on television. It propelled me to buy my first tickets to the ballet, and I've been going back ever since. So I hope this showing of Swan Lake will convert some people into ballet fans. I think an underlying 'complaint' of some comments here (including mine) is that this casting decision seems to be the result of 'technical showiness' rather than a true reflection of the artistic epitome that dancers strive for. I don't think it's mere coincidence that the powers that be (maybe McKenzie, maybe PBS, maybe the sponsors of the program) cast the dancers who are the most technically awe-inspiring at ABT. It's easy to impress people unfamiliar with ballet with triple fouettes or high jetes. It's less easy to impress them with gorgeous extension, great chemistry, or elegant subtlety. People here like the pairing to different degrees, but I think almost everyone agrees that Murphy and Corella do not have the greatest chemistry among ABT couples, and that neither of them are the best conveyors of emotion. What they do have, though, is athletic prowess and flashiness. I totally understand this casting choice, and any pairing would have been vulnerable to criticisms and would have made some people dissatisfied. But an important issue needs to be thought about, and that's the way ballet wants to market itself in the future. If highlighting technical prowess supercedes other considerations, will the artistic goals be altered, and if so, is it necessarily a bad thing? Is this just the natural evolution of an art form? Although almost everyone agrees that commissioning new works is a good thing, and many new works emphasize this athleticism, should the classics also be kneaded to do the same? Moreover, how do you balance between doing what's necessary to stay financially stable (and thus preserve ballet for future generations) and doing what's necessary to stay true to the art when those things might work against each other?

Just finished watching it! I'll write my thoughts while they're still fresh in my mind. The corps was better than I've ever seen them before, and certainly better than they were in Sylvia. The second act swans were heavenly! Can I just say again how much I love Marcelo? What a great 'evil'! Now, for the principals. Individually, they're both exceptional dancers, and their styles are both athletic and dynamic. But I saw ZERO chemistry between them. Angel actually had more chemistry with Julie Kent, who is very much his opposite in terms of style. Speaking of Angel, did anyone else think he looked kinda different? I've seen Gillian dance in several other roles, but not Odette/Odile. Based on what I had seen, I expected her to be phenomenal as Odile but less so as Odette. It's surprising that it turned out to be the opposite. I found her Odette tender and vulnerable without appearing wimpy. She was innocent, sympathetic, and graceful. Even her final suicide conveyed Odette's earnestness. It was actually the best 'suicide' I've ever seen . She hesitates before jumping, making her decision look like an absolute last resort rather than an impulsive move. Rather than belly-flop, which is what most dancers do and which looks ridiculous IMO, Gillian maintained a graceful pose in the air and actually looked up, as if imploring for someone to understand her plight. Murphy's Odile, on the other hand, was too bitchy and rude. The role of Odile requires a dancer to be scheming and conniving, yet flirtatious, seductive, and irresistable. She has to make Sigfried want her more and more even though he knows he might be making a mistake. She has to draw him in and wrap him around her little finger and give him only reasons to want her. She can't turn him off, and that's what Gillian's Odile did. I was sitting there wondering what Sigfried could possibly see in someone so unlikeable. When I saw Irina Dvorovenko in this role two years ago, she was so enchanting that she even got the audience on Odile's side, even though we knew she was the bad one. Irina's Odile was like a drug that you can't get enough of even though you know it's bad, while Gillian's Odile was like a gadfly you can't wait to get rid of. Furthermore, Odile has to be similar enough to Odette to make Sigfried believe that they're the same swan. Other than the physical (obviously), I didn't see any similarities between Odette and Odile. Angel played a lovestricken but betrayed Sigfried very well, but in context, Sigfried looked foolish rather than earnest.

I saw the 6/14 performance with Gillian and Maxim and with the pleasure of sitting next to the previous two posters, canbelto and richard53dog (HI!!!). The highlights for me were not the two lead roles, great as the dancers were. Rather, it ended up being the supporting roles that I remember most. Oh Marcelo! The first time I saw him dance, it was as von Rothbart. Now as Orion, he's again proven himself to be a great villain. The evil look in his eye! The deliberate malice in his steps! Oh, and thumbs up to the costume designer for letting us see Marcelo's biceps. Herman Cornejo couldn't dance the role of Eros as originally planned, and I applaud Kevin McKenzie for giving the role to corps member I hadn't heard of before, Craig Salstein. Sometimes principal dancers become so accustomed to dancing the lead roles that they look like they're just going through the motions because the novelty has worn off. But Salstein treated it like the wonderful opportunity it is. Salstein really poured his heart into the role, completely immersing himself in the character and energizing all his steps. Eros/Cupid is often portrayed in popular culture as a one-dimensional figure, but Salstein made him human. He perfectly captured the energy and playfulness of Eros, yet imbued him with earnestness and, when 'negotiating' with Diana in the end, maturity. There was a sweet moment during the curtain calls when he came out and someone threw him flowers. He had this wide-eyed look of amazement on his face, "Wow, flowers for ME?" :blush: The other highlight of the performance, for me, was Arron Scott as the goat. Scott has such a natural comedic gift. His steps were sprightly and not the least bit sloppy or contrived. Ballet is designed to show off the woman most of the time, but it was Scott that I couldn't keep my eyes off of. (I'm not suggesting that Anne Milewski, the female goat, was bad by any measure. I'm just saying that Scott was spectacular.) The goats could easily have been an annoying and unncessary addition to the ballet, but Scott turned them into one of the highlights.

I noticed that Nina's picture and name were not in last night's program. She's still on the website, and there's a note saying she'll be back in early 2006, so I'm hopeful that Nina hasn't decided to stop dancing. Is it normal for ABT to take a dancer's name off the program if they're gone for the whole year but planning to come back? Irina's name is still on there, but her leave isn't as long. Also, Misty Copeland's name was listed in all capitals yesterday in the program, though she's still in the corps, according to the website and the full roster listing in the program. Has there been any news of a promotion or something?

Yes! I just got back from it. Here's a review while it's still fresh in my mind: Le Spectre de la Rose: Herman Cornejo, Xiomara Reyes I don't remember much of Xiomara since it's a minor role, but Herman definitely impressed me. This was the first time I've seen him dance in a lead role. I was surprised by how small he is, but since Xiomara is even smaller, it didn't look weird. Herman has quick and nimble feet, but the best part was his double turns en air. For the sequences of two double jumps, he actually did the first double jump in one direction, and then switched directions for the next one--all without the slightest stumble! His Spectre was mischievous rather than mysterious, charming rather than haunting, and it worked really well. Swan Lake Act II PDD: Julie Kent, Vladimir Malakhov It's hard to believe, but Julie Kent was actually better than when I saw her a few years ago before she had the baby! That time I saw her paired with Angel, but I think that Vladimir is a much better partner for her because their styles are more compatible. The two of them were the epitome of classic elegance and maturity. Julie's long neck and arms truly made her a swan, and she and Vladimir have great chemistry. Everything was so secure and sincere. Absolutely beautiful. Polovtsian Dances I found this number very refreshing. It's more folk dance than ballet, and it was performed really nicely. The orchestra was absolutely fantastic, as were the costumes. Savion Glover dance Savion Glover was AMAZING!!! I have mixed feelings about the piece though. I understand that the idea was to mesh two different eras and styles. (He danced to a Smetana opera while wearing a regular untucked dark button down shirt and black pants. The stage was bare except for a square in the center on which he did all the dancing.) I admire the desire to take risks and try innovative things, but I just didn't feel like it worked this time. Rather than creating synergy, the two styles clashed in an uncomfortable and awkward way. Still, Savion is the best!! Carmen PDD: Alessandra Ferri, Julio Bocca Even in a profession where all the women have beautiful legs, Alessandra's manage to stand out. Her legs are probably the most beautiful in ballet--long, gorgeously extended, with a great curve in the foot adding to the line. Most of Alessandra's dances are in long skirts (R&J, Giselle), so you don't see that as much. It's so unfair--How can a 40 something year old with kids look so great in a leotard? Anyway, about the performance: She and Julio have great chemistry. They dance with maturity and confidence that can only come with many years of experience dancing together. I really can't see any other couple doing this piece so well. Don Quixote Suite This was a smorgasbord of DQ sections, arranged in a really odd order and featuring many Kitris and many Basilios. 1. Act III Classical Ladies Don't have much to say about this. Pretty much what you would expect. 2. Adagio from Act III PDD: Diana Vishneva and Jose Manuel Carreno Diana Vishneva is heavenly! Long arms and legs, great extension, complete fluidity in every single move. That said, I don't think this is the best ballet to show off her abilities because she's not a firecracker. I was reminded by a great line from Julie Kent about why she has trouble with Kitri: (paraphrase) "I have no Latin in me; I'm just too white!" I thought the same thing about Diana. I think the lack of "Latin fire" was made more evident by being partnered by Jose Manuel, who does have that Latin fire and was superb as always. That said, she still managed to impress me a lot; I can't begin to imagine how great she'll be in Swan Lake! 3. Basilio and the Flower Girls from Act I: Maxim Beloserkovsky, Erica Cornejo, Maria Ricetto Don't remember much about this. It was really really short. It's hard seeing Maxim without Irina--I miss her so much and hope she's ready to dance again in the fall! 4. Kitri Variation from Act I: Gillian Murphy Gillian Murphy, along with Sofiane Sylve, are probably the two most technically proficient ballerinas in NYC today. Gillian lit the place up. Her footwork was blazing fast, and her jumps were so springy. She is definitely a firecracker! This is a great role for her because it showcases her excellent technical ability without requiring the qualities I feel she lacks--namely, maturity in interpretation and total-body fluidity. The piece was very short, but it made a huge impression. Can't wait to see her in the full version! 5. Mercedes and the Toreadors from Act I: Carmen Corella I was disappointed to learn that Veronika Part, who was listed on the program, was not able to dance tonight. Carmen did a great job though. This role requires a lot of confidence and a certain attitude, and Carmen definitely had that. 6. Espada Variation from Act II: Marcelo Gomes This was listed on the program, but it never happened, and Marcelo never danced tonight. 7. Kitri Variation from Act II: Paloma Herrera Paloma was fine tonight, but something seemed to be missing. I've seen her do DQ with an enormous amount of fire. Tonight she quite frankly looked bored and lacked that infectious energy. She didn't do anything wrong, but it just wasn't as exciting as her past DQ's. 8. Basilio Variation from Act III: Carlos Acosta This is the first time I've seen Carlos Acosta dance, and I wish the piece had been longer, because I didn't get to see enough to form a strong impression of his dancing style. I do remember that it was very well executed and had nice jumps. 9. Kitri Variation from Act III: Xiomara Reyes Xiomara's dancing was very good; it was crisp, clean, and secure. Likewise her interpretation: she was cute, playful, bubbly, and charming. The thing that bothered me was that Xiomara looks SO young. From my seat, it looked like a 12 year old was trying to be flirtatious and act grown-up, and that made me a bit uneasy. 10. Coda: Michele Wiles, Angel Corella et al Michele did a double or triple pretty much every other fouette. I admire and respect Michele for trying so hard and giving 150% in the performance, but it looked like she might have tried too hard this time. She lost her footing at one point, and her fouette's traveled around the stage in a big serpentine pattern. At one point I was afraid she would fall into the pit. Her form (particularly her shoulders) also suffered as a result of her being so fast and trying to do so many. I would have been more satisfied if she had done 32 solid singles, as we know she can do, rather than throw in so many doubles and triples. But you're not going to get better if you don't try, so I still give her props. Angel was amazing as always. He sort of danced like he could do it in his sleep, but he was fantastic nonetheless. Angel is wonderful. Edit: I just remember a weird moment in the last DQ piece. Jose Manuel came out as Basilio and danced a short while, but then Angel came in and replaced him. It was just weird--as if Angel wasn't ready to go out when the music started playing, so Jose Manuel covered for him for 10 seconds.

Did anyone catch her quote of "I was married to her nephew for a while." I was ROFL with how casual she makes it sound!

If I were a corps dancer, there's no place I'd rather be than NYCB. Much much more than ABT, NYCB treats its corps dancers as individuals. They get to dance solo roles in many ballets, and they are recognized by fans as individuals. We all have our favorite NYCB corps members. We know their individual dancing styles, their strengths and weaknesses. When they dance solos (which is quite often), we cheer for them as we cheer for the principals and soloists. Can we really say that about the ABT corps? When an ABT member gets promoted, they suddenly gain a lot more recognition and generate a lot more attention overnight. But for NYCB, I don't really think that's the case. It's not like we'll suddenly be talking about Janie Taylor much more now that she's a principal, or Teresa Reichlen much more because she's a soloist. We were interested in them before, and we'll be interested in them now, and if there's an increase, it's because we might see them dancing more, not necessarily because their titles changed. Creating another rank might be fairer in terms of salary. If some corps members are given the responsibility of carrying whole acts of a ballet, as they sometimes are, shouldn't they get a salary that reflects that? But on the other hand, they are getting more exposure, which has potential monetary value itself.

I found the article very offensive and off-putting. Ballet is an art, a skill, and while facial beauty can help a ballerina reach the top, it's certainly not a prerequisite for being a great dancer, and it can't make up for artistic deficiencies. For me, the physical beauty that is important is the proportions of the body and the carriage and extension exhibited. I'm downright puzzled about Rockwell's list of 'past beauties.' While many of them had a classically beautiful face, I think that they were no more beautiful than the current ladies at NYCB. In addition, there have been fantastic Balanchine ballerinas who do not have a classically beautiful face--Merrill Ashley jumps to mind.

This is my first time posting on this board. I was referred here by my sister, who is a regular poster. I look forward to talking about ballet with all of you! That's an awful lot of promotions at once! I have seen Reichlen several times, and she's never failed to blow me away with her jumps, extension, and command of the stage. I've spent a long time wondering how she was still in the corps. Janie Taylor's promotion is also very well deserved, IMO. She has great extension and line. I've liked de Luz since he was with ABT. The only promotion that I disagree with is Fairchild's. From what I've seen of her, she's a pleasant and technically secure dancer with exceptionally crisp and clear steps. But her arm movements need a lot of work. They seem choppy and brittle at times, and when the steps get fast, her shoulders start to slack sometimes. Overall, I think her dancing lacks maturity and fluidity. I don't see her being able to dance a wide range of roles and command the stage the way that other principal dancers can. I can think of many corps members who have shown greater maturity and polish in their dancing. Korbes, Arthurs, Reichlen (now a Soloist) and Edge come to mind. And among the soloists, van Kipnis is a far more versatile and refined dancer. This isn't to say that Fairchild isn't an extremely talented dancer--she's only 20! But I feel that promoting her to principal with less than a year of Soloist experience is premature. In time, she will undoubtedly become a world-class dancer, but right now there are other dancers more deserving of a promotion.