SandyMcKean

So If I understand the math, for a 6 performance series of Friday nights in the dress circle, the cost is $2758? Amazing;that's about $460 a ticket.

It's not quite as bad as it sounds. Yes, you did the math right, to sit in those most premium of all the premium seats on opening night it costs a subscriber $460. I suspect most of these seats are taken by wealthy patrons who are giving, or would give anyway, significant donations to the ballet. One could look at it as a way of "reserving" the best seats in the house for these big donors. Also, that extra high ticket price of $460 is not on any Friday night, but just on the "opening night" of that program. The same seat on the 2nd week Friday would "only" be $92 (or at most if you were in the 1st two center rows of the dress circle $232).

My point is not the high price of tickets (PNB like most ballet and opera companies only recoups about 50% of their costs from ticket sales), but that those of us who had the 1st Friday subscriptions, have now been forced, without any action on our part, to pay a far higher mandatory contribution (300% increase -- or even a 500% increase for those in the dress circle) when our night "magically" became opening night, over night.....(to make a pun).

They call the premiere of each run an "opening night" and tack a stiff surcharge on it?

Just to be clear......Seattle is a smaller venue, and we are very lucky to have the quality of ballet and opera that we do; but obviously we can't support the number of companies and performances as can a place like NYC. PNB has 6 programs a year. They are run sequentially at the rate of approximately one per month. Each program normally has 7 performances spread over 2 weeks. So the concept of an "opening night" makes some sense here because one typically waits for 2 or 3 weeks with no ballet, then the next run begins with a brand new program. There is no opportunity to see these ballets again except within the 2 week period that the program runs. So each 1st night does "feel" somewhat like an opening night. Then, for whatever reasons, the ballet levies this extra heavy mandatory contribution when a patron subscribes to all 6 of these "opening nights" in the season if they desire premium seating. Understand that this is only for the best seats (I'd estimate approximately 25% of the seats in the house); the remaining 75% of the seats have no mandatory contribution for any night; and the premium seats for non opening nights have a far less mandatory contribution level. Single tickets do not have any mandatory contribution regardless of the quality of the seat -- we are only talking subscriptions here.

That sounds like quite a racket. You need some more competition in Seattle. I would tell them to take their "mandatory contribution", which is in fact a surcharge, and stuff it.

My guess is that the mandatory contribution is probably better than simply higher ticket prices since the contribution part is tax deductable. To give you an idea of 6 program subscriber ticket costs on "opening nights", here is a sampling (the 1st number is the actual ticket cost; the second number is the additional mandatory contribution required for the premium seats): center orchestra = $549/$775; side orchestra = $549/$385; dress circle (i.e., 1st ring) = $1008/$1750; First Tier (i.e., 2 ring) = $459/$135. The full cost of a season subscription is the sum of these 2 numbers. Mandatory contributions for non opening nights are much less; for example, the $775 opening night mandatory contribution for center orchestra seats is reduced to one of the following depending on which night/matinee you go: $385, $260, $135.

I just got my subscription renewal pack for the 2011/2012 season. What I found was a bit disconcerting....you may be affected too.

I have had the 1st Friday evening series for years. Until this year, opening night was the night before (Thursday evening). As most PNB subscribers already know, starting this year those 2 nights were combined such that the company now typically does 7 performances of each program instead of the 8 performances it did in previous years. This change had the additional effect of making the 1st Friday the opening night.

PNB has had mandatory contributions for what it calls "preferred seating" (the better seats in the house). Opening nights have always had extra high mandatory contribution levels for preferred seating. Well, for those of us who had subscriptions on the 1st Friday that night is now opening night, and starting in the 2011-2012 season, we are now subject to the far higher opening night contribution levels. For example, my near center orchestra seats required a $125 contribution in addition to the ticket cost. This year that level of mandatory contribution is going up to a modest $135 for most nights, BUT since the 1st Friday is now also opening night, my mandatory contribution will now be $385........a 300% increase!

I sit all over the Seattle Opera House (McCaw Hall). I typically go to every ballet program 3 or 4 times (opera usually 2 times). I specifically and eagerly pick different sections in the opera house to sit in......partially to keep costs down, but primarily because I find my perception of the performance varies greatly depending on where I sit. Such aspects such as how high up you are has obvious implications for how one sees the choreography; I am also always amazed how different the orchestra sounds from various locations.

Kyeong & Helene,

Very interesting ideas. I tend to agree with your views. The main thing that seems to weave thru both your sets of ideas is that indeed Don Carlo is a bit of loser, and that the interest others pay to him is primarily to meet their own needs. That makes a lot of sense to me.

One additional situational thing I might add to the comments on Rodrigo (assuming I have the story right) is that Rodrigo, though noble, is not in a position to grant freedom to Flanders; OTOH, Don Carlos could grant such a historical shift once he becomes King. Rodrigo may think that Don Carlos will one day be compelled to grant freedom to the Flemish, regardless of the political consequences, since the Don owes his life to Rodrigo's sacrifice.

I've said it before, and I will now say it again: Peter Kazaras is a brilliant stage director......and double that when it comes to comedy. If you've seen Kazaras speak, you know he has an ever-present, somewhat irreverent sense of humor. Marry that with Rossini's hugely funny "screen play" (to be fair the author of the original play, Beaumarchais, probably ought to get most of that credit), and rest it all on the long proven comic tradition of commedia dell'arte, and you have a potential big hit. Add the performers in this case, and it is a big hit.

Some may be put off by Kazaras' irreverence, but I loved, loved, loved it.......especially the "wind-up doll" antics at the end of the first act. At first I was thunder struck by the "out of character" shift Kazaras had his singers do at he end of Act I, but I quickly heard how every crazy, nutty thing Kazaras did was in the music. I have this image of Kazaras sitting at home listening to the music while his fertile sense of humor envisions gag after gag.....and high caliber gags at that!

Congratulations to everyone in this production, but most especially to Peter Kazaras for keeping me in stitches throughout this entire opera. I can't remember an opera that never allows its pace to flag as this production does so successfully. Go see it!

.....and a dancer I don't recognize by face ( ) (steel blue leotard with black trim, she's in the still)

Looks like Jessika Anspach to me.

[As an aside, IMHO, Jessica always stood out in the corps. I note that recently she is being featured more and more in solo or demi-solo roles (e.g., she was the Peacock in the cast of the Nutcracker I saw this year.....and did a terrific job I thought). We're going to see more and more of her I predict .]

There was a substantial amount of advanced publicity about how Natalie Portman had danced as a teenager....

The original premise of this mini-discussion was that the "early publicity" gave the impression that the film "would have a lot to say about the ballet". The items you mention here don't seem to have much to do with ballet, but rather much to do with how the actress prepared for the role (I believe Micky Rourke also did a great deal of prep for Aronofsky's previous film "The Wrestler").

Perhaps BalletAlert type folks read a lot into the advanced publicity hoping for a film that would be about ballet per se (as opposed to being set against the backdrop of ballet). Here's a fact. I just went to the official Black Swan website. There I found what they call a synopsis of the film. I copied these words from this official web page:

A psychological thriller set in the world of NYC ballet.....Black Swan takes a thrilling and at times terrifying journey though the psyche of a young ballerina.....

Seems like a fair description to me. Nowhere in the entire synopsis does it indicate (at least to me) that the film has "a lot to say about ballet".

We may just have to agree to disagree on those points, though.

Yep. I agree to disagree.

The early publicity I read/saw made it sound like Black Swan would have a lot to say about the ballet.

FWIW, I didn't get that impression at all.....(which is what puzzled me when I first started reading the negative comments about how the film was a poor representation of ballet).

It's a free country, Sandy, so you certainly can.

Perhaps not as free as you might hope.

Walt Whitman was fired from his Dept of Interior job by Secretary of the Interior James Harlan immediately after the publication of "Leaves of Grass". Harlan read it and said he found it very offensive. I presume Harlan also thought Whitman lacked the propriety required to keep his job.

It is a question of propriety, I suppose, admittedly an old-fashioned word for an old-fashioned concept.

If I accept the argument of "propriety", then I guess I could declare the greatest (perhaps) book of American poetry ever written "Leaves of Grass" by the greatest (perhaps) 19th century American poet, Walt Whitman, as interesting but lacking propriety.

I would agree with you that the movie was sold under somewhat false pretenses

Who exactly did the selling; and what exactly was the sales pitch you found misleading?

Doesn't every mother want to hear her daughter gush to 17 million people how much her unwed pregnant daughter and her fiance love sleeping together? Not.

I don't see the problem. Why wouldn't a mother want to hear about her grandchild, and that her daughter is excited about finding a life partner? Check the calendar...........last time I looked it is the 21st century.

Although the un-raincoated dance sections were more upbeat in general, I still wasn't convinced that this wasn't also a convention, and that remaining covered was now the taboo

Very interesting observation. I hope I get a chance to see this piece again with your interpretation in mind. Of course, any good work of art lends itself to multiple interpretations, so both our interpretations are valid. I must admit that I was preconditioned a bit to my interpretation by Wevers' description of the piece in his program notes; specifically, where he says:

"For many, perhaps most, the raincoat becomes part of them. But bit by bit, one or two decide that what they really are is an open, unguarded self"

I'll be very interested to see how I might also see your interpretation next time I see it.

I readily admit to being a "performing arts junkie" (strange perhaps for someone who studied physics, and whose personal passions run toward backpacking and skiing). What is it that brings me back again and again to see artists in ballet, opera, or the theater? First, it is definitely the performers more than the piece.....it is for that reason that live performance is so electric. But as I think about it, it is those moments, not frequent enough, but plenty often for a junkie like me, when a performer rises above (or perhaps outside) him or herself.....those moments of magic when the piece, the person, the training, the concepts, the spectacle all combine into "art" that has me return time and again.

Something is affirmed for me as I watch Lindsi in this interview. She spoke of 3 roles that were transcending for her (see Helene's post above). Something went "click" in the universe as I watched these clips and I remembered how I felt as an audience member when she did each of these 3 roles. I've been a fan of Lindsi's for a long time, but particularly in each of these 3 roles, she created that magic I'm so addicted to. Yes, she has done other wonderful dancing over the years I've seen her at PNB, but I distinctly remember her performance in each of these 3 roles. Each of these times she went beyond herself into what those in the sports world often call "the zone". How wonderful and magical it is that at those same moments when Lindsi was transported, so was I in the audience. She knew it, and I knew it....in those very moments. My physics background tells me such magic is impossible, but it is none the less the existence of that magic has me return again and again for more. Thank you Lindsi for having the commitment and the courage to go to that place where magic defies physics

My reactions to the Friday opening night performance are amazingly similar to those of Helene. None of the 3 pieces stood out for me as a monumental creation, but I thoroughly enjoyed each of them.

"Raincoat" was fun and humorous, or "quirky" as Helene aptly describes it. This quirkiness is to be expected from Wevers since he is well known for his humor generally, and has even used the word "quirky" himself to describe his outlook. Altho this piece was my least favorite, I found Wever's use of the long, hooded raincoats very effective as a prop to demonstrate how we all hide much of ourselves from others, and conversely, the feeling of liberation when we are comfortable enough with another person to allow that shield to be dropped.

"Monsters" was my favorite, and like Helene, I found the middle section (on the monster of "Addiction") the most effective. I am a dyed in the wool ballet snob, but I do enjoy much of modern dance. The Spectrum dancers, Kylie Lewallen and Ty Alexander Cheng, opened my eyes to just how glorious dancers trained in modern can be. Of course given Donald Byrd's style of choreography, a Spectrum dancer must have good classical technique also. Perhaps it was the blended technique that made these 2 dancers so appealing to me. Lastly for this piece, I don't know what made the two motifs Helene mentions so arresting, but these same two motifs had the same impact on me as on Helene. Each was repeated in such a way as to make them easily noticeable, but beyond that each motif had a "humanitarian" impact on a visceral level given the subject of harsh negative judgment some in society impose on homosexuals: the hand in front of the face spoke to me of the undeserved shame many gay people no doubt feel (especially as they grow up), and the nested shuffle created a sense of how 2 gays can at least sometimes feel comfort and safety in the loving relationship they have with each other. I'd give Wevers an "A" in choreography just on the basis on these two motifs alone.

Ochoa's piece had many moments of beauty but overall I didn't get a sense of unity from it (a requirement for me personally to truly be moved by a piece). Perhaps it was Ochoa's eclectic choice of music that bothered me. I loved the baroque piano clearly played by Glenn Gould at the start, but how the piece could go from there to the more contemporary sound as it did was lost on me. It also bothered me that the title of the piece "Cylindrical Shadows" was spoken several times during part of the contemporary music section. In short, I greatly enjoyed much of the movement in Ochoa's piece, especially the tableaux-like presentations of multiple dancers in various configurations, but the piece as a whole fell flat for me.

One bit of potential controversy exists in Wevers' "Monster": before each of the 3 sections, a poem was read over the PA system evoking the concepts behind the theme of that section (e.g., "addiction"). I found these poems to be very effective. I take it from the program that these 3 bits of poetry were written by RA Scion. His words cut into me deeply and were powerfully read (I presume by the poet himself). I'm not normally a fan of the spoken word (or even the sung word) in ballet, but I thought it very appropriate in this piece.

Finally, allow me to echo Helene's praise for Chalnessa Eames. She is a spectacular dancer for works like these. Some might criticize her classical dancing, but almost no one I've seen can make less conventional dance based on classical technique come alive as well as Chalnessa does. I think of her as the nurse in Maillot's R&J, or in Tharp's "In the Upper Room", or in Robbins "The Concert" or more recently as the Spinner in "Coppelia", and I can't imagine anyone else bringing such superb classical technique together with dramatic flair, enthusiasm, jest for life, and most especially, humor.

My subscription seat has been in Gallery Upper seat 9 in row B for several years, and I think it's a great seat....

I agree. Helene, in her usual thoroughness, has manuveored herself into what is arguably the best seat in the house considering cost, viewing angles, and distance from the stage (personally I'd want binoculars, but I always have them with me anyway).

I seem to be in the minority, but I quite liked this film......I can even understand those who might consider it a great film.

As has been mentioned before, a lot depends on your expectations. IMO, one is way ahead of the game if you go expecting a dark, "film noire" type psychological thriller rather than something approaching a documentary on ballet. Don't get me wrong, I also think than one can learn much about the world of ballet, the pressures dancers put upon themselves, and the sociological interactions among dancers from the movie. But it is all done inside this dark and haunting story with the world of ballet as a backdrop. (As an aside, I admit that there is certainly a great deal of stereotyping going on.....but remember, the movie needs to be understandable by a mass audience, not just the typical 2000 self-selected audience members one finds at an opera house ballet performance.)

One of the impressions I got from the movie, which I quite enjoyed (but haven't seen mentioned here), is the way the movie presents the paradox of how a dancer (or any performer for that matter) must somehow merge their real self as a human being with the character they are playing. Nina (the main character in the movie) has no trouble with the white swan since that role matches her temperament, but she struggles to the point of madness becoming the black swan. What I personally most loved about the movie was how powerfully (albeit in macabre fashion) it showed the slow but inexorable taking over of Nina's very being by the black swan character she had to play. The black swan is the dead opposite of who Nina thinks of herself as being, so how should she go about finding a way "to get over there"? In her case, that struggle turns all the way to madness.

I may be the only person who sees the movie in this light, but I submit the following to make my case. It seems to me that any great performance has this aspect of merging the performer with their character. Who is she on that stage? With the lights beating down? In costume? Immersed in the story? Is she herself, or her character? I think all great performances require she be both at once. Performers do this all the time of course, but on further consideration such schizophrenic mental pressure sort of sounds like a prescription for madness, does it not?? The movie does a magnificent job of giving the feeling of a great performance. Nina does wonderfully well as Odette, but the house goes wild over her Odile.....IOW, the closer a performer allows herself to merge, and in the process come close to the edge of potential madness, the greater the performance where character and person are one.

Or is this project a courageous gamble? Meanwhile, power to him, I say, and to his board.....

My opinion is that it is a "courageous gamble". You are right-on about the board. I've talked to a couple of them, and I am always impressed with how willing the board seems to be to allow risky programs. The company doesn't go hog-wild mind you, but it is not afraid to take risks. This season for example, does have "Giselle" which might be "too much" mime for the average audience member, but then again it is still what most folks probably expect ballet to look like (as opposed to say Kylian's "Petite Mort" done earlier this season). PNB is also doing Stowell's "Cinderella" and Balanchine's "Midsummer's Night Dream" making 3 of the season's 6 programs a marketing department's dream (counting "Giselle").

where are the good seats

shopgirl gives good advise on where the best bang for the buck is; however, naturally where one sits depends greatly on what you like. Her recommendations are in the orchestra, fairly (or even very) close, and where your eye level isn't much above the stage. If you have more bucks to spend, and like the orchestra, one can sit more centrally of course (but don't go further back than row W or you will be under a low balcony ceiling). A bit more pricey than shopgirl's suggestions is the Upper Galley (best in seats 1 thru 4); here you can be both close-ish and a bit elevated. The Dress Circle is quite pricey, but is central and at an ideal elevation (altho even the 1st row is too far back for my tastes). The more forward of the 2nd tier boxes can be interesting if you like something unusual and don't mind missing one of the upstage corners.

Perhaps best of all is that PNB has an automated system on the internet such that you can see what seats are available in real time; you can select a seat and purchase it just as if you were spending minutes (or hours ) talking to a box office agent (go here to see an example).

I was surprised to recognize that it was Alan Dameron who played the piano; the piano music was exceptional for this program

One of the most satisfying musical experiences for me ever was to hear Allan Dameron (2 "L"s BTW) playing the Chopin for Robbins "Dances at a Gathering" in 2009 (I saw it 4 times....in large measure just to hear Dameron again and again). He played with such sensitivity and understanding.....if you think about it, it is that piano that gives much of the meaning and mood to that masterpiece of a ballet.

I was equally impressed with Doug Fullington.

Doug is a class act all the way. The more one listens to him, the more one realizes how vast is his knowledge base. He is also a very clear speaker who gets his points across in a deceptively simple and easy to understand way. For those able to attend PNB performances in Seattle, I highly recommend showing up an hour early to hear the pre-performance lectures that Doug gives before nearly every performance. You will be thoroughly entertained, learn a great deal, and catch bits of "inside story" along the way.

Worst for me: the frustrations about the image quality.

I know computers, so allow me to take a stab at this. Images (espcecially video) take a lot of data. Streaming and other websites address this "data overload" situation by reducing the size of the image (i.e., less pixels per inch hortizonally and vertically), or by reducing the information contained in those pixels (compression). The data required to be sent can be reduced 10:1 (sometimes more, sometimes less) with these techniquees. Of course, there is no free lunch, and what suffers is image quality. Compression can make images lose detail (especially if the movement is fast), and smaller images can't be expanded without the images becoming pixelated ("blocky"). One can't do much about compression since information has been purposely lost and there is no way to recreate it; however, lack of clearness due to small image size is best handled by not attempting to make the image bigger than the original (IOW, don't try to watch it full screen). Of course, in a smaller image it is hard to see detail, but you are still better off keeping it small instead of "blowing it up".

.....and to add a bit of a pun....

Among the other many high points was closest to the floor (i.e., the lowest point of the body); namely, Carrie Imler's feet doing moves no modern ballerina ought to be able to do.

Add to that the powerful drama ever present in Carla Korbes dancing, Seth Orza's strength and use of space, and Jim Moore's commitment, and I think one will conclude that the illustrative dance demonstrations alone were worth the price of admission. Bottom line, I learned a lot -- especially about mime......thanks Doug!

Don't miss it if you can possibly tune in.

Jennifer Homans was on PBS' Charlie Rose Show last night, interviewed in the first half-hour. Sorry that I caught this late and could not alert anyone. Hopefully others saw it, too.

This 23+ minute interview can still be seen at:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11376

Homans came across very well, in general, although it may not have been fair to describe Maya Plisetskaya as "vulgar"...at the end of a string of more appropriate words, such as "Soviet brashness."

This is not how I remember what Homans said. If my memory is correct, she was describing the Russian style (as opposed to the French style) when she used those words. I didn't hear it as using the word "vulgar" to describe Plisetskaya individually. In fact, Holmans even hesitated trying to find a word that would convey the more heavy-handed, "weighty" style the Russians added to the French ballet style they inherited. In that slightly awkward moment while Holmans hesitated I spoke out loud to the TV set: "imperial". I thought her word delivered the concept far better than mine would have. At any rate, the word she used spoke to me (and I felt the word quite appropriate at the time precisely because of its "shock" value).

What would be the problem if a reviewer actually wanted to say that so-and-so is an utterly foolish person.

For starters, anyone who judges someone else a foolish person for one bad artistic judgment lacks the sense to be given a public forum.

You must not have read my entire post since the criterion of "one bad artistic judgment" is exactly the point I was making.

Generally the point of announcements is to release a joint statement to which both parties can agree, and this one did not do that.

I see no evidence in the announcement that both parties didn't agree to the statement itself. Apparently, their starting positions were somewhat different, and to the extent the official announcement was willing to share that difference with us fans, I find that refreshing as compared to the wallpaper that is often used to paper over such differences.

I definitely agree with kfw that a serious review should not say 'Ratmansky is an idiot'. Period.

Doesn't it depend on what the reviewer is trying to say?

Dictionary.com defines "idiot" as: "an utterly foolish or senseless person"

What would be the problem if a reviewer actually wanted to say that so-and-so is an utterly foolish person. Seems to me that would be perfectly fine. OTOH, perhaps the reviewer might have wanted to say that so-and-so did an utterly foolish act; in which case, I would think a better choice of words would be that so-and-so did an idiotic thing (as has been suggested above). Seems to me that we all could use a bit of slack when it comes to sometimes not saying exactly what we mean......especially in a case like this since it is so common colloquially to say so-and-so is an idiot when what one really means that the person did something foolish, rather than meaning to imply that so-and-so is consistently and frequently an idiot.

None the less, it does seem to me too that some copy editor should have been more careful to at least ascertain what the reviewer actually meant. (OTOH, we are all familar with situations where deadlines cause certain steps to be omitted or to be given short shrift.)