papeetepatrick

You meant 'no non-dancer is likely to know who Sascha Radetsky is', not 'not likely'. Because it is indeed not likely that they would know. Until this fame-inducing article, I have heard of him once or twice on the Tattoo Thread here, most memorably Leigh mentioned 'you could make carrot salad on his abs' (debatable even without seeing anybody's, it depends on the knife.) Never heard of the movie either, nor plan to see it or ABT any time soon. The nature of the difficulties is surely American though, isn't it? This is a far cry from Russia's public sensibilities about ballet, and in France and Italy and several other European countries, there are some macho standards but also much less rigidity in determining behaviours and mannerisms that constitute straightness. I'm only sure of France, and about that I know, Switzerland too. Men don't cheek-kiss here and all sorts of style have long differentiated--in Mediterranean countries, it's considered quite masculine to show off the sensuality in a way that is not the case in the U.S., never has and never will be except in urban enclaves--and even then it's more often associated with gays. Except that even among gays the flamboyant clothing (I don't mean effeminate drag-queen stuff) seems to have become subdued, although I try to keep doing it--never would hold hands though--too twee for me, but I certainly don't object. I think I probably think this is ordinary and went through all the agonies years ago about any of it, and don't feel persecuted about anything, but then again I live in the West Village and don't have to pay any attention to what anybody thinks. People have to make their own way, and in this sense it really does have to do with toughness and survival of the fittest. I didn't read the article and probably won't, preferring, it seems, to get my news of Radetzky from BT, but I don't really care that he wanted to make a point of saying he was straight. I see it as all individual circumstances, except for the cultural differences of nations. The U.S., I seem to have learned since joining BT, has a lively arts culture all over it, but the very highest institutions of almost any of them seem to be in Europe still, because of long tradition. Maybe the Met is the one exception, NYCB used to be when Balanchine was alive and working, but it's not anymore from what I can gather about RB, POB and Kirov. That's a bit rambling, but finearts cultures that are more integral to a society than will ever be the case in the U.S. are bound to be thinking less of absurd stereotypes of 'what makes masculine'. But that's the breaks. Fight against it when possible, but I think non-prejudice against gays is more often practised when a formal discussion like this has to be initiated than before and after it (if it weren't a daily problem, there wouldn't need to be any despairing about it. Same with racism and sexism--it's necessary to have the forum about all these things for the very reason that they really do exist.) Hans, you really mean 'other gay men' are disparaging about ballet? I've never heard of one who was, unless just a rustic sort of sensibilility with the beer cans, etc. My brother says stupid things about ballet once in a while, but I don't care what he thinks about how his wife and granddaughter couldn't even stand 'Nutcracker', not knowing that some people do find the first act boring, so they hadn't waited till the entertaining-for-kids Second Act. Opera is surely at least as disparaged, and classical music too. This has more to do with money and class than anything else. Lots of people who came to the U.S. for opportunity still haven't found it, and they have to bow to peer pressure a lot. You don't have a ballet-friendly whole culture in the U.S. Nobody knows who even the most famous dancers are, when Farrell got the Kennedy Center Award a few years ago, I saw an article about how nobody knew who she was but the tiny world of balletomanes. And that was accurate; they did know who Tina Turner was. And in the ballet world, not knowing who Suzanne Farrell is seems unthinkable. There are not any famous ballet dancers now the way Nureyev was. I can see the problem existing pretty much as it always has, with some variation in each new generation. But there a million things to call boys 'sissy' for, and ballet is not nearly the most frequent one. On an individual level, it's as important as elsewhere, but I doubt that problems of that sort are more than they used to be, surely they are less. Gay rights of a mundane sort have made their way into the mainstream. You still have to have a lot of confidence to be 'outrageous' (and I don't mean effeminate), but I don't see that things are that different from the essentially reactionary sensibilities of the U.S. than they were in previous decades, in which everybody was in the extreme closets. One thing I think I picked up since joining BT is that far more of the big male ballet stars are straight than I had thought before. This may have been more the case as well in previous decades. Whether it is also true that the corps boys are in about the same gay/straight proportion as the general population is another thing, I don't know about either one really. But as I got to know a lot more names, it did seem that the big companies' principal male dancers were far more often straight than gay. Anyway, there may be a certain kind of sense of the feminine attached to an art that is so obviously luxurious and came from courts and imperial theaters and French kings, etc. I can't really see why anyone would expect it to be treated as if in the more all-American things like baseball and football, although they are right to fight against this. Point being, only individual basis will ever be the problem-solving place. The general population is not concerned with ballet.

Thank you, Rosa, I know I can get hold of the Ferri one, and will try also to get the Mezentseva, as I am a notorious fan of hers!

Since most object to the directorial intrusion, I challenge anyone (in friendly spirit) to recommend another Giselle which has better principals and dancing and a better orchestra. I can see what all of you are talking about, but since I am no Giselle purist, I am just glad I was able to see a production that really excited me about the ballet, which I usually find interminable and boring. I also usually hate the costumes (as Makarova's on the DVD with Baryshnikov, and she's nowhere near as pretty as Carla Fracci--this may not be the most important thing, but for this part I should think perhaps it enhances it a bit more than usual) and both men's and women's were so much more charming and Breughelish than what one sees in the current ABT Swan Lake, you wonder what's happening in terms of costume fashion. I can't stand the costumes in the Mackenzie Swan Lake, think they're all unattractive, unsexy and garish. The dancers in this 'Giselle' all look very naturally sensual. Makarova's costume made her look like a giant little girl IMO, whereas Fracci is just perfect. Only DVD I've liked as well was recently watching the 1989 Kirov 'Sleeping Beauty', and that's more impressive because it was a live performance and still flowed forward almost like a film, without getting all chopped up. Plus film looks a lot more magical than videotape, which a lot of these videos must be. Most of them don't look like 16mm or 35mm film. Not trying to be tiresome, and respect people's dislike of the director's 'creativity', but it still is the first time I've ever enjoyed Giselle. But I'd be glad to hear if there's another good Giselle DVD. If not, I'll wait for POB or RB to come here. I'm not enough of a balletomane to believe I'll see anything I like at the current ABT.

Oh well, I must thank canbelto and aurora for pestering me on 'Giselle', because whatever may not be thought wonderful about filming matters, this is the first time I've ever been sold on 'Giselle'. To me, it is close to perfect, and light-years beyond anything I ever saw in person or other DVD's. I got it out of NYPL because aurora said look at clips of Fracci's Giselle, but I avoid the terrible quality of YouTube except when unavoidable, and I think this is just gorgeous. It, of course, reminds one of some of the Zeffirelli opera movies like 'La Boheme' and 'Cav/Pag' with Domingo. The Orchester der Deutschen Oper Berlin, conducted by John Lanchberry finally makes the score sound convincing as a simple rustic accompaniment to all those country girls and their swains. I'm not even through with anything but the much-maligned 1st act, and have fallen in love with 'Giselle' purely on that. Well, this is the prettiest ballet partnering I may have ever seen, so that now Ms. Fracci becomes one of my 3 or 4 favourite ballerinas, and I already liked her a lot. Had she the best pirouettes on the planet at one point? And I can imagine that other people, upon seeing Erik Bruhn dance for the first time, may know the sensation. Well, he goes all the way to the top of the Most Handsome Thread for me, but I'll leave it be. I much prefer this to Baryshnikov/Makarova and so here I finally get to see real Golden ABT. I saw Martine van Hamel with ABT in this, and, as usual, a big rambling barnlike feeling at the Met. None of the lethargic moments allowed here, they treat the Adam score and all the endless corps things as if the Holy Grail, and it sure did pay off. But since I'm always complaining about bad ballet orchestra, this unfortunately (and some Kirov Orchestra too, and POB and RB) does vindicate me, because the plink-plonk sounds have to be PERFECT or they sound tacky. Here, it sounds so good, the music becomes an integral part of the whole ballet so that I can now understand canbelto talking about the 'emotional punch' of the ballet. But if they do not get this very simple melody focussed and concentrated in the performance, the performance doesn't work for me, because Adam is no Tchaikovsky or Prokofiev (even the pickup orchestras at the Met at their worst can't quite ruin some parts of those scores, but they sure can ruin this one.) Interested to hear other remarks about this film as I continue watching it. Very surprised there are only a couple of comments for it. Ms. Fracci and Mr. Bruhn are just dreams.

I just watched the Kolpakova SB from 1983 and she's ravishing, beautiful in every way, but I don't find this performance, although Sergeyev too, I believe, anywhere near (for the most part, there are some wonderful things in it, including Hans's favourite Boat Scene) as satisfyiing as the 1989 Maryinsky with Lezhnina. It's not the seamless whole of a performance that that one is. I think this one has Fedotov conducting the Tchaikovsky too, but it's either too plodding or, as in the 3rd Act, plainly neither clean nor sharp, even sloppy. The 1989 has a much more spirited, Olympian authority to it--as if you can't argue with it--but this is nice numbers and scenes that stop and start, they don't flow into each other to make this whole big unified work (at least I feel that way.) The applause is also very noticeably distracting, and should have been edited out, as it really cuts things up. There is great madness in the audience for Yalina Yevtyeyeva (I think that's who it was, but I can't find her in a search here or elsewhere) as Princess Florina, who must be very famous and I'm just discovering her. I still prefer the Marche de Salon in the 3rd Act the very brisk, spirited way the Royal Ballet does it much more than any I've seen elsewhere, but I don't remember how they do it in the 1994 version.

Do you think there is any possibility they'll record 'Wuthering Heights' and 'Caligula'? I'd like to see both of these, but especially the former, loved the few clips I saw.

Thanks, Bart, for articulating what I've often felt about a lot of Sondheim, not just Company. I think this is especially true about Merrily We Roll Along, as well--on the "macro" end, the reverse-chronology concept is poignant, and on the "micro" end, the songs are moving and brilliant ("The Way it (never ever) Was" song, for one). But the "middle" level--the book, the plot, the narrative, whatever you want to blame--just isn't interesting, and I think this is what people notice about Company--as much as I love it--and other shows such as Little Night Music. There are exceptions, of course--Follies, maybe? Anyone else want to weigh in, or 'nuff said? Also--Ned Rorem in one of his New York Diaries, takes SS to task for his orchestrations--anyone remember where, and what he was talking about? The orchestration is part of what I like about the production in question--I find that playing the instruments adds a layer of seriousness to the performances. Unfortunately, as many here are noting, it perhaps drags down the pacing (i.e., that turgid pre-"Barcelona" dialog!). No, not quite 'nuff said, even though I've already said. I'll here get to take the opportunity to disagree with you both--I do not think 'Company' fares better with its songs out of context. The problem is getting back that context that made the original production so great, and nobody has been able to do it. It should be treated as a period piece about Manhattan in the early 70s and left that way. Nobody thinks to put 'Oklahoma!' in modern-day Oklahoma after the Murrah Building, and nobody thinks to put 'South Pacific' in Iraq. Probably, the milieu of the original 'Company' still seems too 'modern' not to just ruin it completely by putting it in the 00's, but without giving it any 00's context to speak of. The book is not perfect, but it is neither weak nor slight. It is more about being alone or not (which is profound and valid) than it is about marriage (which it emphasizes a bit too strongly, but there were limitations as to how many comparisons to personal loneliness could be made in a Broadway show which has to be reasonably Broad anyway, and the demand that getting married is the only cure for loneliness would have been equally dated in the 40s or 50; by the 70s, people were not doing it all that much without loopholes for divorce potential; and many were just 'doing it'. ) The orchestrations look like they are more than they sound--you see the instruments, including the ones that make rude noises, but it's probably not even half of the instrumentation for a full production of 'Company'. All of the numbers are too slow and plodding in tempo in this production. But since the city is now more electronic than electric, perhaps some can find some sense or 'relevance' in that. I also saw the original production of 'Follies', and it had a lot of glories, but as a whole piece, I much preferred 'Company', which I'd seen a year earlier. I don't remember what Rorem said in his diaries about Sondheim, but there is a NYTimes article about their discussion of each other at YMHA, I believe. I may have linked to it on the Musical Scores thread or the Sweeney Todd thread, but you can find it quickly in a Times search. It was mainly 'I do this, and you do that and mine's better', or 'I do this, and you do that and mine's just as good', etc.

Mon dieu, indeed, but more inane than big. 'whole wide world' sounds a bit Coney Island side-show to me. Should fit the famed ABT SB sets perfectly, let them do it at Epcot Center maybe as an encore. I also like the 'Recent Heralding', and wonder if the website can provide us with an exact date for such plaudit. One can only wish for more 'Recently Having Been Heralded'both for oneself and for others as well...

Cristian--you should also get An Evening with the Royal Ballet, which has only 'aurora's wedding' act iii on it, but the Marche de Salon and all the Fairy Tale Characters are maybe my favourites I've ever seen. The music is more exuberant and pomplike and you get to see all these old Royal Ballet stars like Antoinette Sibley, Merle Park, Brian Shaw (he does the Bluebird hands the fastest-waviest I know of), and the entrance itself has more energy than even the Kirov and much more than that later Royal Ballet DVD with Viviana Durante. But the whole DVD is gorgeous, and you'd be able to compare the Royal's Sylphides with the cuban Ballet (they're both great as far as I'm concerned) and Nureyev and Fonteyn in 'Le Corsaire' as well as Nureyev especially gorgeous also in 'Sylphides'. I usually don't watch after the Fairy Tale dances in this Act III, not being too crazy about David Blair, but the opening always excites me--and especially after you saw one in which the orchestra wasn't able to get the music right (such that that tiresome critic even called this adorable music 'charmless'. Oh well, we know the papers will hire almost anybody, and probably sometimes they do it for the wrong reasons (whatever they are, they are not very good, most of them). Well, the RB Orchestra even way back in the 60s sounds like pure magic here, and you should get this one as well as the other one I recommended and several others that the others recommended too 'Sleeping Beauty' is always worth everything you spend on it. And how could I forget? There's this GORGEOUS 'La Valse' of Frederick Ashton with all these 50s sets and ice cream coloured costumes and sexy costumes too. This is like a dream and you should see it if you haven't.

I think that's exactly right. Ballet tickets are part of consumption just like anything else paid for, and since it's no longer a purely aristocratic affair, there's no way it could not be affected since people are well-known already to be cutting back on things much less luxurious than ballet. I expect to see much less attendance, particularly in light of the job losses report.

Totally agree. We discussed this at length on the Larissa Lezhnina thread when I recently discovered it. I love it so much I would easily choose it as one of perhaps two most-required ballet DVD's I've ever seen (the other being perhaps 'Robert Schumann's Davidsbundlertanze' or one of the 'Choreography by Balanchine' DVDs).

I'm glad he was fired, that can have nothing to do with not keeping the post itelf, since they could have if they had wanted to. Free-lance writers on the occasions of real events, of which LABallet definitely is one, are an improvement on a critic who writes such crap as that piece linked in the year-old thread. And the testimony of several witnesses who are aware of his attitude on a more regular basis only convinces me more. But even if the post is lost, firing him is worth it IMO. Nobody who writes about ballet in so scornful a way as he deserves much more than being put out to pasture. If he has been important in the past, was gifted and eloquent, then fine. Let him look for work. THIS, from carbro's link, is simply repulsive: "Classical music still shakes us to the core. Classical theater speaks of the eternal issues that define our lives. But too much antique Western classical dance doesn't even function as metaphor -- it simply buttresses a sense of white Euro-privilege by dramatizing how colorfully nasty things are elsewhere. And as the audience for this kind of ballet continues to die out, so should the works dramatizing this offensive world view. When they're gone from the repertory of major companies -- available for study on film or video or reduced to their formal pure-dance sequences, they'll no longer be the living embarrassment they are now. In their place, a new, powerful, inclusive classicism or neoclassicism just might emerge" Classical music and theater don't 'still shake us to the core' necessarily more than 'antique Western classical dance'. And this 'sense of white Euro-privilege by dramatizing how colorfully nasty things are elsewhere' is just unspeakable. It just gets worse with 'offensive world view' and 'living embarassment.' This STINKS. People who love ballet should be rejoicing, rather than thinking some would-be paternalistic figure could determine the future of the LA Ballet, much less the rest of the dance. If he could do that, then the companies were not very strong to begin with. Having seen the LA Ballet recently, I think they will survive quite well without this tedious popinjay. Good riddance.

Yes, that's what will happen. In any case, LA Ballet couldn't depend on its existence to a single critic from LATimes, which has undergone even more disagreeable dismissals in the last few years than even the recent ones listed by Quiggin. Still a good paper in many ways, but they're not the only one in town. Maybe it does, but I doubt that that's what it is, anyway who cares what the Times 'thinks'. The Times couldn't determine that, and anyway, that's an outmoded perception--in fact, so outmoded that Los Angeles cannot even be said to have that reputation anymore. I can never believe some of the things people will say. From there, you would. And you would be wrong. Sophisticated people do not see Los Angeles this way anymore, unless they just want to spout archaisms. Note: there's a thread from last year some time about Segal, with many complaints about his writing about ballet, I believe there's an article to which people took umbrage, he was talking about a general irrelevance of ballet, or something like that. If anyone remembers, please refresh. Maybe Andre Yew can tell us something.

This interested me more because I don't actually remember a time that they didn't thank everybody and his brother. Would be interested to know if they've stopped thanking God and their mother specifically, which was a trend in the late 80s, and one of the reasons I stopped watching, along with political pitches from Buddhists and star drunkennesses. Well yes, but his point about that was good, as have been our own. It does not 'make any sense' logically the way they have divided for the reasons given by Cavett and the rest of us, but they are not trying to make sense, it is part honours, part pageant. It would be enlightened of them to straighten out the Foreign Language Film thing, but it might not still have the Hollywood Provincial Charm if they did. The last thing they want anybody to be thinking about is the Cannes Film Festival. I do, except for one or two points, find this article disturbing, though--less about the Oscars than that it's barely discernibly different from things we read 40 years ago about 'how bad the Oscars were'. Slightly better-written than those were, to be sure, and if you enjoy the show, well and good; but it's not really important that they be 'a good show' (they probably never have been, and are mainly just to be serviceable.)

http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/29...r/index.html?hp Dick Cavett's roast of the Oscar show. Includes thoughts on Foreign Film, but better on Director Nominees not getting Picture nominees.

It does seem clumsy and unnecessary to keep the Best Foreign Language Film, then. I am quite sure it makes no sense now, and it is very obvious that it is done to favour the old base. Otherwise, if they insisted on keeping Foreign Language Film divided off, they should lengthen it, with Foreign Language Director, Actor, Actress, etc., and all other categories divided off, even if they didn't put it all in the show, like the Grammies, which have those very many more awards. If Golden Globe divides up in its little ways, with comedy and musical separated off, and the Emmies with their many divisions, then the Oscars could eventually give up this provincial way of doing it, because that's all it is. The marketing and hunger element would still be there, but it really doesn't make sense for there to be some Foreign Language categories eligible for the General Awards and one alone, for Best Picture. Including foreign films for Best Picture in all cases would be better even if they had, say, 8 nominees, which could prevent the Hollywood Establishment from feeling too threatened. But it's not a serious matter, I only point it out because I think that's why something that illogical would be kept. It will probably be left this way just like Blue Laws which nobody wants to bother pulling out and deleting.

Do you know if there have been any Best Director nominees for films in foreign languages? There might have been, but that was the one category I couldn't remember offhand. And the 'marketing' aspect is definitely clear when it goes into the smaller areas of supporting actors, songs, short subjects, documentaries, I think; I mean, I don't think those and several other categories get any foreign language nominees (certainy they get very few, but I'm not sure if they get none, so maybe you know.) Was interesting to hear that 'Il Postino' had been nominated for Best Picture, I hadn't known that, and it must be one of the very few. None has ever won it, though, and not likely to do so unless some really unforeseen freak circumstance emerges.

No, they definitely put it as 'Foreign Language Film' if it's not in English, and that, in fact is the Oscar 'Indochine' won. It's fairly sloppy the way they do it therefore, but my intuition is that even for actor and actress, it's not done routinely, but only when the film or performance has gotten some reputation during its original run. Sophia Loren would be a good example, because even though 'Two Women', her win, was in Italian, she was well-known to American audiences. And Deneuve has made a few Hollywood films and several English-language films. Everybody knows who she is. You don't, on the other hand, see Emanuelle Beart yet quite famous enough, for example, to be nominated and I don't even think Iasabelle Huppert has been, not sure. But for ALL categories, only American and Britain and Commonwealth English-speaking nations need apply...

Yes, and another way of saying this is that it's so authoritative from the first moment, it almost seems as though it had never even had to be choreographed--as though she had always owned it is what I mean, and which paradoxically would honour the choreographer most. She's one of those types that seems to be onstage continuing from thoughts she had while still offstage and which she will continue again when the ballet is over--so that her onstage entry does not seem divided off (in the best sense, not some of the pop senses with which this sort of idea could be confused.)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104507/fullcredits Here's the full cast and crew of 'Indochine', which won an Oscar and Deneuve was nominated for best actress, so from what I can tell, the producers were French. Other than that, I don't know the answers to your questions.

Wonderful article, thanks. Interesting also to see that Mezentseva was considered a legend within the Kirov, and is not to most Western tastes. I must like something about Soviet Style that many don't. ON the other hand, she talks about 'Fountain of Backshisarai' very reverently, and I don't get it. Hans, were those developpes one after another that I am talking about that the Lilac Fairy does in Act III? I forgot to mention that I recently did see excerpts from Kolpakova in SB, but not the whole thing. I liked her, but not nearly in the way I like Lezhnina in it, although I see that IK was her teacher and she 'wanted to be her' at first. Also interesting comparing Zaklinsky and Ruzimatov as partners, fascinating perception about Diana Vishneva (I don't know whether she's 'changed for the better' in Lezhnina's terms or not, but someone will) and also about 'Herman Schmerman', which may or may not have been mention on the 'Naked' thread. Very articulate young woman, though. Edited to add: Now I see I saw the whole SB of Kolpakova, but on VHS which is unsatisfactory because of bad TV sound here. I should try to get the DVD which I use on the computer, but I had not liked that production from what I could tell nearly as well as this one. (just found they have DVD, so will report back on boat scene, anyway need to hear it properly.)

Hans--thank you so much for that superb response. Yes, that is Terekhova as Florine and the very eloquent Queen is Nina Makhailova. I like what you say about the nobility without being heavy. And the 'impeccably neat footwork, brilliant beats and very pure, elegant port de bras' is something that makes as well for an astonishing musicality, both dance-musicality and with-the-music musicality. I frankly have never seen a whole company seeming to be a single organism much of the time to quite the degree I think I see it here. And the 'impeccable footwork,....' etc., also combine to make much of it look as if defying the law of gravity. Before, I have seen this mostly in individual dancers, usually the stars would be the only ones to strike me, and I am still unsure if its my perception that can encompass more that is different, but I think that is less of it. Because things like uninspired corps work don't even exist in this high realm, it seems; none of the less showy pieces are dull. You don't wait for another big solo, because it's all this organic thing. And I have to say that the severity of this company is almost frightening: The very severity that would cause Lezhnina and Dumchenko to be shoved out of the way--with those kinds of talents they have--is also in the dancing itself. It never really seemed mechanical to me, and Lezhnina's youth is one reason why she seems more like Aurora than Dumchenko (who was probably very young too, but not quite as petite, or so it appears at first look), in short more really like a baby princess instead of a long-limbed Swan Queen (I never really thought I'd make such differences, and even if they're off, I still can see now how they'd be very different things). Unfortunately, it does make one not want to see too many other companies' Sleeping Beauty, although I did love the Royal Ballet with Nureyev and Seymour--but not like this. And it does continue to interest me that, while I always thought the Soviet regime mostly maintained old things as prestigious objects, this is perhaps the first time I've thought there could even have been some occasionally advantageous results of a regime otherwise repressive and backward (but this is probably nearly impossible to assess; I imagine it partially from what you said about the succeeding period.) You mentioned that Makhalina was an exception to the pure line, but I was pretty devastated by her as well. There is that part in the 3rd Act, where one leg after another comes up to the hand (pardon my vocabulary lack, ARE THEY DEVELOPPES?) and she appears to brush it back down with her hand that I found hypnotic. Is that an extreme sort of thing? (I've already found I have a taste for 'extreme Soviet style' by way of Mezentseva adoration ...

Okay, BT! Before I start rudely pm'ing experts and/or starting a new post, I will be happy to depend on the kindness of strangers. Maybe shoudl start one anyway regarding Soviet and post-Soviet Kirov 'Sleeping Beauty'. Because when I wrote the above I hadn't yet watched the 3rd Act. Well, I just think this is one of the most marvelous things I ever saw and heard, pure magic. So, of 'Sleeping Beauty''s on tape or DVD, is this one of the gold standards? Because it's the best one I've ever seen IMHO. I just adore it from start to finish, and the only thing I like as well is the beauteous and more luscious Alla Sizove in the movie of the Kirov. But this production is something else. What also then interests me is: Was Sovietism responsible for this perfection? Has post-Sovietism and some of the discussion in this thread by Marc Haegeman and Diana Vishneva and new styles (and why Lezhnina was pushed out of Kirov) produced anything that equals this or surpasses it? I need to know, because if you can see a 'Sleeping Beauty' better than this, I need to see it to believe it. It's probably rude to say it, but my impression is that Kirov must be always known as the greatest of all ballet companies, with exception of certain special periods in certain other special companies. I thought this SB was in a different dimension from anything I've ever even seen live. So tell me, EXPERTS, am I suffering from hyperbole and exaggeration caused by little knowledge (that dangerous thing)? Answers are humbly requested...

Was interested to see this old discussion just after watching Lezhnina, with whom I wasn't familiar, as Aurora on the DVD last night. Exquisite tiny doll she was, and simply mesmerizing and fairylike at all times. I had to remind myself that Aurora is still in a sense a 'mortal' compared at least to the Lilac Fairy and the others, because she is the lightest little thing imaginable. I love this production too, so someone please tell me if they think this is wonderful too--even things like Garland Waltz are better than I remembered them elsewhere, and much preferred to Royal Ballet DVD of 1994 with Viviana Durante. Gergiev makes the orchestra sound slightly sharper than Fedotov, but the music still sounds good here. And the Queen here is wonderful, as she tries to express distaste for Carabosse without seeming snobbish.

This is interesting. Would never have guessed that all that talk about how 'the Oscars could now go on' would be met with no response to speak of, and lowest ratings in history: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articl...e2eaecae3f4.htm