SandyMcKean

Brilliant......that says it all!

Seems to me that this "criticism" could be leveled at any discipline. Every field has its geniuses (thank heaven). My field is physics. I admire Richard Feynman in physics as I do Balanchine in ballet. Every physicist since Feynman uses "Feynman diagrams", does that limit the thinking of new bright physicists? I suppose it does. None the less, following the master Feynman is just what they ought to do, and want to do since they knew they stand before his genius. Newton held sway for a few hundred years, and probably held back some new idea or other (see the incredible film version of "Rosencrantz and Gildenstern Are Dead" for hilarious and apt demonstrations of this). But should Newton's ideas of absolute space and time have been put on the back burner so as not to limit new ideas? I don't think so for a minute. ADs and choreographers don't limit themselves by the devotion they have for a master genius -- they do it because they know no one has fully fathomed the depths a once-in-a-era genius such as Balanchine or Newton hath wrought (edit: originally I said "wroth", clearly I don't know my Biblese). And we be fools to think we had. One of the hallmarks of the next dance genius will be that they are able to overthrow the master's sway without the help of us lesser beings. Einstein did it to Newton, and that's one way we knew Einstein was genius too. Have patience. The man has only been dead for some 25 years!

Oregon is the same.

Seems to me that Kaufman's central argument is really nothing more than: "I like some types of ballet more than others......why, oh why, isn't there more of the kind I like?" OK, I get that you feel that way, and that you even know why you feel that way, but that doesn't make it truth or even criticism. I, for example, don't find too much Balanchine on the program.....in fact, if anything, I wish there were more. That's me. And that's all it is. It surely doesn't mean that today's Artist Directors have lost touch with the genius of Balanchine, or that today's choreograghers are obsessed with telling a contemporary story (with too much emphasis on characterization) instead of sticking to the purity of neoclassism, or that today's dancers have lost touch with their basic art as they search for ever more challenging acting roles. It just means that I like Balanchine a lot. I know what I like, and clearly she knows what she likes. I see nothing wrong with that. Perhaps the real issue is answering the challenge to find something to love in any ballet that has stood the test of time, or that has created a new sensation, in spite of what I happen to like.

Guilty on all counts! I can add a few: 5) Most box office employees recognize you on the phone since you speak to them so often, and have relatively lengthy conversations as you sort thru all the ticket options available for additional performances. 6) Somehow beg to sit in as an observer at class. 7) Never ever miss a post-performance Q&A session. 8) Regularly fall in love with this dancer or that dancer. 8) Follow dancers on Twitter. 9) Go to the company library to study video tapes of one-on-one teaching sessions (such as those done by the Balanchine Trust). 10) Find it impossible to shake the feeling that dancers are somehow on a plane btwn mere mortals and the gods (sort of like angels) when all along your rational self knows they are human like everyone else. [Well, OK.......maybe you can still be a balletomane without doing all these things, but if you are afflicted with a case of true obsessive mania, these sorts of behaviors can be common.]

Good questions sandik . I'll take a whack. The 1st person that comes to my mind for the nurse is Chalnessa Eames, but she was cast as the nurse last time. So who will replace Jodi? (One can't replace Jodi in this role......she will always be the best nurse ever I think.) I'd like to see Jordan Pacitti do it.....but of course that doesn't work either. Laura Gilbreath would be great IMHO, but is she too tall? I like your suggestion of Mara. I also think Foster would be terrific as the nurse if she doesn't do Juliette. If I had to decide today, I'd go with your excellent suggestion of Kari Brunson. I like your idea of Kaori for Lady Capulet. Her performance in Tharp's "Afternoon Ball" as a woman of power was unforgetable. I think her character comes more to the surface the more wild the character she plays is. Arianna already does it of course. If I were Peter Boal, I'd attempt to talk Louise Nadeau into a "guest" performance for Lady Capulet. It fits her like a glove. Failing that, I'd go with Carrie Imler, or your suggestion of Miranda Weese (how much longer will Miranda be dancing tho?). This would be a good one for Kari Brunson too. Tybalt? To be honest I was never a big fan of Casey Herd (a fan to be sure, but not a big fan); but he was fantasic in this role. After seeing Casey, I would want someone equally menacing. Jeffrey Stanton might pull that off. Olivier Wevers could, but if anyone dares to suggest that anyone but Olivier play the Friar, I will picket outside the opera house! How about Barry Kerollis? And wouldn't it be interesting to see either William Lin-Yee or Sokvannara Sar as Tybalt? And I'd like to see apprentice Sean Rollofson in one of the macho roles.

whetherwax, I must disagree somewhat. Your point is a good one, but as stated, I think it excludes too much. Altho it's true that a balletomane is likely to have a great deal of knowledge, I think someone who is in the early stages of his/her "balletomane career" (if I can use that term ) may still be a balletomane even tho they still have a long way to go on the knowledge curve. Rather than emphasizing knowledge level, I'd put more emphasis on how obsessed one is with the subject, and how often (and at what effort) one goes to see ballet. For example, someone who has a subscription and only sees a single performance of each program (and therefore not obsessed with seeing multiple casts) is likely not a balletomane even if they were the most knowledgeable person on the planet.

I too must plead "guilty" to SanderO's excellent description (at least to 80% of it).

I too am excited by the prospect of seeing this R&J again. I think sandik has findered the "sensible" choice with Mara Vinson, but for a long time now I've been hoping against hope that Rachel Foster gets it. The contrast in personality and style btwn Carla and Rachel would be a joy to watch. I too like the idea of Dec and Cruz......and let's not dismiss the fabulous marketing potential of leaking out the juicy story of a real live couple in love, playing the most famous love couple in literature (not to mention the appeal such a story line would have with the younger audience). My list is pretty much like Chocmel's. Ever since I saw Sarah Orza in Emeralds, I've been thinking how how terrific Sarah would be as Juliette. (OK, again...then do you go nutz and make Seth Romeo too?? Pretty cool I'd say.) Chapman certainly deserves it, and would do a great job, but somehow I wonder. She could be a sleeper and blow all our socks off. Then of course I have to put a plug in for my very special Leslie Rausch, but as much as I consider myself her numbero uno fan, I don't think she's right for this role.

FINALLY........I now know that there is a limit to Helene's passion for opera! (Apparently she insists on sleeping!)

Believe me, I wish I had been! And I totally understand why you feel you have to say that. OTOH, you must admit that Macaulay's comment is rather oblique.

Of course I read that line too in his review and was struck by it. But I must admit I have NO idea what he meant by it. I never had the privilege of seeing Farrell live, but from the video I've seen, I consider myself a huge fan of hers. I certainly understand why so many consider her one of the greatest dancers ever -- I've even caught myself saying such a thing! Also I have just this month finished reading her telling autobiography "Holding Onto the Air" which I thoroughly enjoyed (and learned much from it). So I have a genuine interest in understanding what Macaulay might have meant by that intriguing line. Would anyone care to take a stab at enlighting me? (I promise not to expect a "right" answer since every considered opinion would be right.....there are no right answers to a question like that, but there could be illumination.)

The schedule is supposed to be announced on 5/7

I'm going. The next day I will try to muster up the energy post a synopsis onto this thread

I've been putting off taking the time to write something about this program, but given what I saw at the last performance of this program's 2 week run (last Sunday evening), I have to say something. I had bought a ticket to that last performance (my fourth) to see Carrie Imler who has been an inspiration to me for many years now. I number several other dancers among "my favorites", but when all is said and done, and considering how long Carrie has held me in awe, and the range of dance styles she seems to be so at home in, and the absolute perfection of her dancing, I guess she is the one dancer I will always walk over hot coals to see. Well, she couldn't dance due to Bold's injury. I was so disappointed that Nakamura was going to do the O/O role since I had just seen her the night before (Saturday). Sometimes you get lucky! I still wish I had had a chance to see Carrie, but I wouldn't trade the performance I saw Sunday night for anything. I don't really know if it was me, or if it was the dancers, but I saw an extraordinary performance Sunday night. (I see from her comments that Helene was also impressed by the performance.) This "last-performance-let's-pull-out-all-the-stops" quality was particularly striking to me since I had just seen essentially the same cast 24 hours before. There is so much I could give the credit to, but it all centered on the extraordinary chemistry between Kaori Nakamura as O/O and Lucien Postlewaite as Siegfried. They were magical together. They are both such great dancers with total confidence, technique, and dedication to quality.....and this night they just give their all. It was one of the most exciting performances I have ever seen. Somehow or other the competence and energy of this pair infected nearly everyone else in the cast. Practically everyone was at the top of their game.....I will only mention a few: I've been noticing William Yin-Yee out of the corner of my eye, but I've not truly seen his potential until struck that night by his performance in the Czardas in Act III (with the remarkable Kari Brunson); he has such flare and is unafraid to "own the stage". Benjamin Griffiths absolutely nailed the Jester. I never thought anyone could surpass Poretta in that role, but Griffiths brought not only spectacle to the dancing but an elegance and fluidity that just sang. And I can't say enough about Jordan Pacitti. He is an under-appreciated dancer (at least during the last 2 years). He has always been a superb character dancer, but the feeling and insight he brings to such "secondary" roles is stunning. He contributes so much to this company in a quiet and unassuming way. I wonder if our audience knows how lucky we are to have someone of Jordan's dramatic abilities doing these roles. His approach to Wolfgang's "drunken tutor with the girls" dance took what might otherwise be forgettable to a level of high artistry (IMHO, it's a far more difficult role to dance than it appears). And finally, as always, my eyes go to Leslie Rausch whenever she is on the stage. She was poetry as the British Princiess in Act III. She turns into an angel whenever she dances.

Once again Helene gives an amazingly insightful review.......sometimes I think she must have 3 brains since I can't imagine how else she notices and remembers so much in a single performance (viewing). I agree with almost every specific observation Helene makes about this documentary, but I come to almost the opposite conclusion! Helene was disappointed; I was delighted. I thoroughly enjoyed the film. How is this possible? I suspect it is due to expectations. I was hoping for a well-made film that went "behind the scenes" and would give me a peek at the human side of being an young(ish), not-yet-established opera singer; I also hoped to learn something about voices. I got all of that......and I was pleased as punch. So how can I agree with nearly all of Helene's observations and yet see so much that is positive? As in most things it depends on where you are sitting (not literally in this case since I was sitting 5 feet from Helene ). I have no doubt that the film had to be limited to something like 2 hours (that's as long as the general public typically tolerates films). So lots of compromises had to be made -- not everything could be shown. I think they made the right choice in not showing much in the way of back-stories. They used their limited film time actually in the Met Opera House covering the actual semi-finals and finals. Good decision I think. True, the judges portion was too short and incomplete; but I applaud the film maker for being able to show even that much. It was mentioned during the b'cast that getting these judges to agree to having their conversations recorded was one of the most difficult things the film maker accomplished. Imagine having your negative comments about an inspiring singer recorded forever! I was tickled pink to be able to see any of that (expectations again). As Helene points out the film lacked a clear narrative; but that didn't bother me as it did her. I actually sort of liked the "Robert Altman" style of recording "real life" occurring and leaving it up to the audience to piece it together (I had no expectation for a narrative). As for the actual singing.......once again I think Helene observations are on the mark. However, Helene's ear is the best I've ever known; I, OTOH, am still learning the basics. This film gave me a rare opportunity to hear different voices and to hear professional coaching and reaction on those specific voices. I can't imagine how else I might get that exposure. It was more than enough for my level (much like the expectation thing again), and I felt I learned a lot. If I were teaching a film class, I would give Helene's criticism an A (well maybe an A- ). But leaving aside what the film might have been (especially if it could have been a 3 or 4 hour film), I thoroughly enjoyed the film and recommend it highly. AMEN P.S. I too cried more than once during this film.

I'd echo sandik's sentiments (it's too personal a choice). Like her, I'd pick the all Balanchine program (because that's what I like best). OTOH, Coppélia might be a great choice because as helene says you get a "two-for" and it is a brand new production with all the excitment (and risk) that brings. Perhaps a better question would be: "Is there any reason one of these programs would not give me insight into PNB?" My answer to that is: NO. IMO, PNB is excellent in all modes: romantic, classical, neo-classical, and modern. Perhaps the Balachine program would best serve to display this vesatility to you since it contains the range of the 4T's (perhaps my favorite ballet also, excepting maybe Agon) and Serenade.

I wonder why there has been no post-performance Q&A's for this program. Had there been, this would have been a good question to ask. I too am somewhat confused by the level of synchrony within the 6 "Guests" in Act I there "should" have been. P.S. In the interests of full disclosure <grin>, I must admit that I am not what you would call a Kent Stowell fan (choreography, not as an AD).

A lesson well worth learning! I too have been amazed at the difference between dress reheasals and true performances. Your daugther is correct....plus, it seemed to me that Louise attempted a triple at the end, but the landing was flawed. None the less, they were beautifully done as you say. I too felt Karel did a marvelous job. I still think he has a ways to go -- he has the pyro-technics down pat, he can act (IMO he needs more power in this area however), his partnering is solid if perhaps not yet inspired, and he's handsome as hell.....not to mention his height (I'm guessing 6'4"). PNB has some great young men coming along...Karel Cruz certainly among them, as well as Seth Orza, Jordan Pacitti (he seems to be taking off like a late blooming phenomenon lately, and he's one of the best at character roles ever); Barry Kerolis; Jerome Tisserand; Josh Spell; and an amazing crop of apprentice men (all tall). I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think the choreography expects them to be in unison. Each of the "Guests" in Act 1 is expected to have a sort of "fugal" start of a phrase rather than strict unison. Maybe someone else has the definitive answer to this. Here, here! Marie was absolutely superb as the Persian. In fact she's been superb in everything lately. I smell a Principal coming one of these years. BTW, I completely agree that the heart and soul of this ballet is the Swans. It's just plain wonderful that a company of our size can turn out corps dancers and professional divison student dancers of this calibre. How lucky we are.

I understand how injury can affect casting plans. My puzzlement over the casting for Swan Lake is an overall one. Look at all the casts, look at all the partnering, look at who's dancing which speciality roles. Usually I can see why things are the way they are......not this time (except a bit here and there).

So now the only Imler performance is 4/19 evening. Tomorrow I buy additional tickets to that! No way I'm missing Imler as O/O. Frankly, this casting schedule for Swan Lake is somewhat puzzling to me. I wish I was clever enough to figure out what the message is.

As it happens I just read Mazo's book a month or two ago (highly recommended). With this relatively fresh memory, I can't think of a single place that Mazo compares ballet to sport in any way. About as close as the title gets to reflecting something in the book is that Mazo makes quite clear just how often dancers get injured due to the extraordinary physical feats they do on a daily basis. P.S. As has been mentioned, the book was written in 1973 when Mazo "ate, drank, and slept" with the company for 6 months or so (including some remarkable access to Balanchine). As I read it, I couldn't help but wonder how amazing the "Stravinsky Festival" chapter would have been had Mazo been there a year earlier when the Stravinsky Festival was done.

I'm in the same camp as helene and sandik. I loved PNB when Kent and Francia ran it; and I love it now that Boal is running it. OTOH, looking back on it, I do feel that Kent and Francia had settled into a sort of "rut" (to use a too harsh word). I don't blame them in the slightest. It is a generational and historical thing. Times always move on. The company was simply ripe for an envigorating change. Where PNB lucked out is that we got someone of Boal's abilities and vision at exactly the right time. I've been a ballet fan for 45 years (starting at age 20), and I feel as if I were "born again" under the spell of what Boal is doing here. Kent and Francia's failing? Absolutely NOT. But at the same time it is of Boal's doing.

I don't mean this personally, but I must disagree with essentially every thought expressed here. 1. What's going on at PNB? My opinion.....the creation of one of the best companies in the USA. Kent and Francia built the foundation and developed the company to a high level. Now Boal is taking it far beyond to the highest possible level -- beyond anything I ever imagined in my wildest dreams. That's what's going on. 2. Peter Boal oozes quality. His tastes are impeccable; his casting brilliant; his choice of programming inspired; and most important of all, he is growing the dancers to levels that can only excite them, him, and us the audience. 3. I have never seen Boal "push lesser dancers". He pushes dancers to higher levels with an infallible instinct for who is ready for the push (look at Lucien a just few years ago; look at Leslie Rausch, or Laura Gilbreath, or Lindsi Dec, or just this year Sara Orza). I'd bet in a heartbeat my entire ballet watching future on Mr Boal's instincts for quality. 4. It is a travesity to say Boal has held Thomas back. If anything, it has been he who has given her her best chances. (I might mildly agree that Jodie was under-appreciated and under-utilized under Stowell/Russel management, but never under Boal.) 5. Of course we will all miss her. But this is a good move for Jodie and Peter Boal is happy FOR her just as we all are (as was said earler by others). P.S. Peter Boal is the best thing that even happened to PNB. I count my lucky stars every day that I happen to live in Seattle to see the masterpiece he is creating.

.......the TALL ones............