aurora

People might like it. The cuts should make it shorter, and clearly some of us did here. Despite your utter dismissal of it, some of us just must have an affinity for total shit!

I'm watching it now so I would say signs look good. The link still seems to say it is a live broadcast, which is a bit confusing (or it did when I started it)

I'm watching and I'm loving it. I don't care if carabosse is played by a male or female dancer. This is one of the most delightfully malevolent Carabosses around. So far (She just fell asleep) my main quibble is the lack of roses in the rose adagio! I find that silly that this is what is slightly off-putting to me when much of the choreography is distinctly different. I wouldn't be happy if this was the only version around, but I really enjoyed the new choreography for the rose adagio (I just wanted roses) and for the fairy variations. In the case of the "canary fairy" I actually found it a vast improvement as it didn't look like the "seizure fairy" which is how I often think of her. I'm sure some people on here wont like the very minimal sets. but I enjoy the airy simplicity. And the costumes are gorgeous.

I'll take Steven Colbert over Katie Couric any day, thank you! indeed! Furthermore I will add I thought David handled himself really well. You generally have an option with Colbert (I should note, I like Colbert, I don't really enjoy his interview style)--either just be totally silly and role with it, or be flummoxed by it. David went with neither. He joked along to an extent but really stayed on target and got in a lot of the points he wanted to make, I thought he acquitted himself remarkably well. He was relaxed about it enough that he didn't seem like he was just ignoring Colbert or was merely reciting memorized talking points, but he didn't let himself be railroaded. For someone in a profession where speaking is NOT your main calling, I thought it especially impressive. Don't take Colbert seriously guys, he doesn't, and the joke is on those who do. That is how he got off all those HORRIBLY wonderful zingers on Bush at the white house correspondents dinner in 2006--the republicans thought he was actually conservative (OUCH! and WOW!)

Ok, my opinions on the casts: 03/22-7:30PM -- Kent/Gomes/Part At this point I'm not really a fan of Kent in this, she is a bit stylized for my taste. But she does have some nice qualities and she really is nearing the end of her career. Gomes is a complete win in this (well in anything) and Part is a magnificent and terrifying Myrthe. So while there is (in my view) a weakness in the Giselle, there are some compensating virtues in her as well, and the rest of the cast is stellar. 03/23-7:30PM -- Reyes/Cornejo/Messmer I am not a Reyes fan, though she has won me over considerably in the last few years. This was one of the roles that helped. It must be said that she simply does not have the neck for a proper romantic line (and I am NOT an emploi nut in the least, but she has a short neck and it makes it impossible for her to get those lovely looks in the second act). That said she is really (or was when I last saw her in this a few years ago with Cornejo for his debut) completely charming in this. Not oversmiley and was very touching in the second act. Cornejo is wonderful. And this is a very good role for Messmer unless I am misremembering. It was quite new for her when I saw her and I was really impressed at how she nailed it. I would be surprised if it wasn't even better now. 03/24-2:00PM -- Herrera/Stearns/Abrera For me this is a miss. I do like Herrera sometimes, but I don't see this as her role. I'm still not won over by Stearns who is improving but is shouldering a massive burden at the company and was pushed very hard and while handsome, and tall, is not the kind of talent we see in say Hallberg, and I'm one of the few who doesn't adore Abrera. Maybe she can be icy enough for this but I don't see her as having the authority for Myrtha. It is one of the problems for me with her in a very different part, that of Lilac Fairy (if she is cast against a strong figure like Part, especially). I think her much more suited for Giselle actually. 03/24-8:00PM -- Osipova/Hallberg/Murphy A complete win of a cast. Osipova is perhaps a bit unorthodox but both wonderfully committed to the character and an amazing dancer. Her act 2 is unworldly. Hallberg is amazing in this though no one would ever believe he was a peasant, no matter how well he may act. Murphy is a fantastic Myrtha. The best overall cast of this. As for the debut cast--I don't have any opinion really. I don't even know the myrtha. It could be very interesting, it could be a disaster. I'd kind of like to see it and find out! Can't wait for reviews!!!!

Here are links to the two relevant clips: Interview: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403810/december-07-2011/david-hallberg Performance: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403811/december-07-2011/-the-nutcracker--ballet-performance

A mite harsh, perhaps? She was just a kid. You could be right that I am being too harsh. I just feel like she obviously has regrets from the sound of it, so why did she quit? Can't a young girl enter another school and have a chance at proving herself there and maybe return to the original school? Or maybe still become a professional dancer after attending a totally different school? As someone who quit in despair at age 10 when I wasn't promoted to pointe, there is a lot of pressure, and at that age, things can really seem like the end of the world. For someone in NY, at SAB, it is very possible it DID seem to her like the only option. I was at the Joffrey. I can see that would be a step down for someone from SAB. We all create our own mythologies though... I couldn't stand not dancing, went back to it (at Joffrey) at 14. I got into SAB the next year but I wasn't what they wanted and returned to Joffrey after a year. I LIKED the Joffrey better, but you don't know how hard it was for me to not put a *spin* on that even now, much as she did (saying "I quit") by saying my year was marred with a foot injury etc. True maybe, but I know it was besides the point. Just like the reason I went to college instead of pursuing a career in dance was because I wasn't good enough, but I know I wished I was and for years I described that as a *choice* that I made, when really it was the hand I was dealt... I'm not actually defending her. It was a strange article, and she never explains her behaviour with regards to class and dance, and how she really felt about dancing besides the trauma of losing it. But I can relate to that. When I did finally quit in college, after years of being known as a dancer, it was really disconcerting to find a new identity, both among my friends, and for myself, and I wasn't famous.

It has been a while since I've been to BAM, so I was hoping for some feedback regarding seating I am on a budget so my options for nutcracker seats are a bit limited. of the moderately priced tickets, which is the way to go? I was thinking of the front row of the Balcony but those are listed as partial view...Anyone have any experience or opinion on these? They are still the priciest of the Balcony tickets... Otherwise I'm limited to the very back of the mezz, which seems pricey for what one gets there, or the back of the balcony. I'd rather not go off too far to the side. Thanks in advance

I think there are rules to live photography...well maybe rules isn't quite the word, but guidelines. The camera shoots fast. You get images, like the one under discussion, where the subject is in motion, moving between positions, and thus what would be fleeting, and seen as a blur of motion up to the finished position, now BECOMES the position. It is not any more true to the event than a "good" photograph. Rather less so. I've seen horrible photographs of performers from what were stunning performances. It is the photographer's job to know what is not a good image (from both the standpoint of photography and the art that he is capturing) and to edit those out. And I don't think any of the photographs above really are germane to the discussion--they aren't live photographs of dancers dancing. The Mr B one is sort of an action shot, but its staged, its him showing a position beautifully I think anyway. Nureyev is posing.

It does, indeed. With a lot of suggestive innuendos and beyond, and really condescending classist remarks about trying to fit in with his betters... I don't feel I know any more fact of the matter after reading that than before but I certainly have a bad taste in my mouth. (and I agree with Kekhman's comment about artists not being children, I actually thought the same thing)

I am in italy and i cant get it to work. i get 14 seconds into a commercial and it freezes. It is true my connection isn't very good but that 14 seconds plays fine. Then nothing. Ugh

As we are putting up other versions, I'm very partial to Martine Van Hamel's which, in my view bridges the gap between appropriately princessy (not overly sexy, dominatrix-y) and yet has strong port de bras http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBFzoJDw_oY

thank you! this is one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. It's really stupendous

I should mention that many of these videos also feature Bujones. And for Cubanmiamiboy:

A while back a link to a youtube video of Cynthia Gregory doing the Rose Adagio had been posted on Ballet Alert! As it was well received I thought others might be interested to know that quite a few more (VERY BAD QUALITY) videos of her are now up. Despite the awful quality of the recordings (seemingly all from tv) it was really wonderful to see more of her Aurora, as well as some of her Firebird and her grand pas classique. I've linked to the latter below. You should be able to find the others easily by searching for Cynthia Gregory. They are, I believe, all posted by the same person. Enjoy! (For fellow east coasters, a hurricane distraction)

Oh, I almost forgot: there's the escape clause that casts are subject to change but they won't let you exchange your tickets. This is a ridiculous statement in its tone. You can complain legitimately perhaps about them not exchanging tickets, though if they let people do so on the basis of cast changes it would be a mess for them, but they do not change casts arbitrarily. Cast changes at ABT are almost always due to injury. If you really want to complain about that fine, but it isn't reasonable. They do not engage in arbitrary cast changes (unlike your favorite company) so don't make statements which slyly suggest this is the case. I am interpreting the quotation to mean that a bait and switch occurred, which would not be something arbitrary, but also would not be due to injury. Who would not be upset by such a thing? Exactly, but abt doesn't do that. This is why I said it was a ridiculous statement. I would be upset by it. I was upset when with no explanation my tickets were switched by the Bolshoi once. But ABT is actually remarkably good about such things. It is really almost always do to injury or something else that cannot be avoided like the Osipova snafu this spring. They are not known for bait and switch and to imply otherwise, as was done (you got that implication) is libelous.

Oh, I almost forgot: there's the escape clause that casts are subject to change but they won't let you exchange your tickets. This is a ridiculous statement in its tone. You can complain legitimately perhaps about them not exchanging tickets, though if they let people do so on the basis of cast changes it would be a mess for them, but they do not change casts arbitrarily. Cast changes at ABT are almost always due to injury. If you really want to complain about that fine, but it isn't reasonable. They do not engage in arbitrary cast changes (unlike your favorite company) so don't make statements which slyly suggest this is the case.

St Peter, the wife abuser and drunk driver. Evidence of occasional cocaine use would of course be much worse than those two activities which actually potentially cause injury to other people.

I remember it differently, that she actually had a high fever and was told she couldn't dance but at this point, it's been several years, maybe I am misremembering... I don't think it's the same thing in any case.

Why would it necessarily be negative if she did switch, especially since she'd more likely get greater opportunity there? Besides, New Zealand's a gorgeous place, much like the Pacific Northwest, and very convenient to Australia and southeast Asia. (Not that I think she is doing anything more than guesting, as you noted, like many ABT dancers do.) I don't think it necessarily would be. I would be sorry for her to go, but if she would be happier there, then it would be a positive move for her, if a sad one for ABT. But as you noted, although it could be considered an accurate description, you didn't chose to do so.

Poached her? People guest star all the time, ABT dancers amongst dancers from every other company everywhere, have been doing it for years. It is a great opportunity for her to broaden her rep with a role that she hasn't been given at ABT. If she does well at it I'm sure KM will be paying attention. No, it may not translate to her getting that role at ABT (though certainly its better suited for her than Lilac which I don't think she's right for) but it can't hurt her at ABT it can only benefit her. So good for her. And showing she has the talent and stamina and can remain injury free would go a long way towards that promotion for her that many of you have been talking about. So why the negative light here? There is no implication she is leaving ABT for NZ!

You (and others) are ignoring the fact that many people rent their apartments and many rental agreements now preclude smoking in said apartments. So unless you are rich enough to own abode, you cannot smoke in your "private spaces."

Not to be offtopic, but has there been anything to indicate she was going to cut down her ABT committment significantly or was this just due to the rampant hypothesizing regarding Stiefel's new engagement that has been going on here?

Really? I know they are students but I was astounded at how *UN* synchronized they were. The leader very beautifully and elegantly lifts her leg to arabesque in a continuous movement. Others tendu and lift their leg up at the last possible moment, to I suppose save their strength, and they aren't coordinated at all. Look again and see how few of them are following the first shade or are coordinated with each other... Individually a lot of them seem to have nice things going for them, but as a synchronized group? I don't see it.

On the other hand, I would argue that while NYCB may be a great company it is not a great classical company at ALL. It is a neoclassical company. In fact I thought this was general knowledge not an opinion.