aurora

I noticed that repetition too. My main peeve is that there dancers he can't say a bad thing about and dancers he can't say a good thing about, no matter what. On the other hand he can be insightful, and I believe, is in love with the art.

Speaking of dancers he can't say a bad thing about (and he can criticize them...just very *very* mildly, and with clear love, and then he moderates the nastiness. Just as he qualifies any nice thing he manages to say about a dancer he doesn't like, as in his compliment of Reyes in today's review)...

I found it interesting he managed to review, in today's review, Cory Stearns (his new love), who did not perform, and omit any reference to Puck, a key character in The Dream, and the dancer who performed that role. For someone who cares *so much* about the ballet text, one could have read the review and not known such a character existed...

It was a lovely description of the scenery though.

Hair color, volume, or length are less integral -- though they may be relevant to the particular role and may, at certain extremes, be a distraction.

Re Macauley: possibly he tries to compress too much into his pieces. I do have the sense that he sees and feels performances with such vividness that he doesn't know when to stop. Helene's brillliant analysis of the Kistler farewell piece, breaking it down into its multiple points of view, is an example of just how complex a story he often attempts to tell. This can overwhelm the average reader and (something I care about less) frequently enrages the fan.

I personally think haircolor as a criticism in a review is a bit silly, but if a reviewer thinks its very important that Basilio has dark hair, I can see that for that reviewer it could be a legitimate critique.

That said, the 'looks like a member of the nazi youth' comment regarding Ethan was nasty. I don't know why its even being debated. Maybe some found it so witty (clearly the intention in his wording it thus) that they were willing to overlook it, but it was vile and offensive on several levels, though obviously not meant to be taken terribly seriously. And I don't say this because I'm a particular fan of Stiefel's.

I am not a fan of Kistler. I think she should have retired years ago. And I don't think that one should get a pass in reviews of final performances. Still I found portions of this one gratuitously nasty. All the reviews I read of the performance got across the salient issues. His was the only one that shocked me. And it was not because I was an enraged fan. I thought it needlessly cruel, especially the "wretched" line.

"yes I know Part was never the star in Russia Vishneva was, but as a lead in, it seemed really cruel given the circumstances...We have another great Russian ballerina here and its not you!)"

Can I infer from your quote that you believe Part was a star of any kind in Russia? Or anywhere, at any point in time, for that matter?

Sigh.

For the first, no. For a while I believe she was an up and comer, what could be called a "rising star," at the kirov, then her career there flatlined. I do not know enough about Kirov dynamics etc to speak further, and I am certain you do not either.

As for the latter, I do not see any reason to rehash this again.

I address your "question" (or is it an accusation?) against my better judgment, as it calls attention to the one significant way in which I did misspeak--

I meant to put my statement in the present tense. Vishneva IS a star (in Russia and here), not was Apologies to Vishneva for that!

It's very, very unusual for the NY Times to give the lead review to the second night performance. Perhaps they felt that in fairness to Cory Stearns, who was thrown in at the last minute in a New York debut in a major role, they would refrain from reviewing the opening night. Under the circumstances, this seems reasonable, especially since Vishneva/Hallberg was so incredible.

Had it been in the interest of fairness to Cory Stearns and Veronika Part, they could have mentioned that in the review. As it was, you would have thought opening night was tuesday, featuring Vishneva.

And while I'm certain it was unintentional, the combination of the nearly unprecidented ignoring of Part's opening night performance, while using the lead about how (paraphrasing) in all the excitement over Osipova you could forget there is another Russian star at ABT--Vishneva--seemed an extra slap at Part.

(yes I know Part was never the star in Russia Vishneva was, but as a lead in, it seemed really cruel given the circumstances...We have another great Russian ballerina here and its not you!)

Escpecially, when it is the theater owners, or dvd/distributors who get the 'lion's share' of any profits that are made from viewers rushing out to buy a ticket or dvd after viewing something on YT.

Maybe I don't understand the business model, but apart from foundation grants or donations, how does a film earn revenue besides DVD sales or runs in a movie theater or money from a TV station that shows the film?

If running the video on YouTube increases DVD sales and movie theater ticket sales, however much the distributor or the theater operator takes, that is additional direct revenue generated. Indirect revenue comes from people who buy tickets to a live performance, like the work, and buy the DVD's so that they can see it again or go to see it on a big screen. Or by helping to create a more educated audience, becoming interested in a new art form, or recommending it to someone else (like people do here).

Unless YouTube keeps people from buying the DVD or going to the theater more than it increases sales in those areas, not showing it on YouTube generates nothing.

Additionally a lot of the videos being taken down are pirated live performances (especially common in Russia). There are no "filmmakers" whose rights are being violated. The performers didn't grant permission, nor did the companies (I don't know the technical legalities, but clearly this IS illegal) but ultimately performances that would otherwise not be available to people are. The availability of these videos is not going to stop people from going to see these performers and these ballets. What it is doing is exposing people to them. Would I have gone and seen Osipova as a visiting guest with ABT without prior exposure to her? Yes, probably. Would I have gone to see all 3 of her performances had I not been familiar with her work from youtube? No, probably not.

I'm sorry, but does anyone else remember the NYTimes deciding not to review opening night and reviewing instead the second night of a ballet?

I don't. I'm really shocked...

I adore Part, but is it really "opening night" when the ballet is performed year after year after year? Googling "vishneva swan lake ny times" I don't find a previous review.

It is typically the first night thats reviewed. Such has been the case with *every* previous ballet performed this season and, in my recollection, in previous years as well.

Both Part and Vishneva had previously been reviewed in the role in the times in joint reviews with other dancers, neither one as an opening night review to themselves. (the vishneva one is from 2005, Part had ones in 2004 and 2005 that I saw.

I am all for reviewing multiple performances, but I think it disingenuous to say that it isn't opening night and act as if there is nothing odd about omitting that review.

I'm sorry, but does anyone else remember the NYTimes deciding not to review opening night and reviewing instead the second night of a ballet?

I don't. I'm really shocked...

It's hard to reconcile the opinions expressed on this thread so far and I'm certainly not going to try. All I'll say is that I was at the Monday night Swan Lake and my opinion coincides with that of chiapuris.

As does mine.

I saw no "rattling" on the part of Veronika. This is a narrative--Veronika gets rattled--that I do not, at this point, think has validity. She was strong, secure.

The music for the coda of the black swan was a disaster. The pace of the fouettes was much faster than she usually takes it and the sequence following it, the orchestra had a positive meltdown. And yet she didn't let it fluster her a bit.

I was very disappointed to see Cory Stearns was going to be her partner, and yes I would have preferred to see her with Marcelo, with whom she has a truly marvelous partnership, but I thought he acquitted himself surprisingly well. He seemed totally besotted by her from the moment he saw her.

She played the role of Odette differently with him than with Marcelo--Less afraid, as one couldn't be afraid of him, he was so puppyish and unintimidating. It wasn't the great love of the century, but it worked.

I noticed a few difficulties in the partnering, the hand she put for support in the white swan pas de deux lift cited above, but there was no sense of panic, no sudden movement about it. it was a calm gesture of support, not belied in the position in any other way. and there was a slight flub in the footwork in the final act.

Given the fact they were not slated to perform this together and would have had almost no time to rehearse it together I think it was a very successful partnership.

I would also like to commend Stearns for his characterization during the black swan pdd--he did his solo while appearing still totally enamored of Odile--the character was apparent throughout. I was surprised and pleased.

I too was sorry not to see Simkin, but i think it likely the partnering was stronger with Matthews. Certainly it was one of the most satisfying pas de trois i have seen in a long time. Also, I had seen Matthews in this role a year or two ago, in a very poor performance. He danced very well last night. I am very pleased to see him getting back to form. He was promising a few years ago and then fell off badly shortly after his promotion to soloist. It is good to see him doing well again.

I would also like to second the kudos for the Neopolitan dance of Philips and Salstein--Ideally matched! Neither flagged, as often happens in this sprint of a dance, and really perhaps the most satisfying rendition of it that I have ever seen.

But really, Veronika just shone. I thought it was a gorgeous performance.

I think his criticism of Cojocaru's acting silly ( I was there) and found odd the time spent on what Osipova's performance could become in the future.

I respectfully disagree... at least regarding the first.

I think its clear I almost never (ahem) agree with Macaulay, so I hope it isn't taken as me just reiterating his points, but I have been, since the comments on the last two performances started coming in, trying to figure out how to reconcile my responses with those on this board.

I thought Alina's first act exquisite. Really wonderful. And I thoroughly enjoyed the rest of her performance and am glad I saw it of course, but am not in the raptures that everyone else here is. And it is for (I sense) the same reason that Macaulay was not. I did not feel the character developed. How many times has it been discussed here that the character in act III is a mature version of that character we meet in act I? To me she was the same flirtatious innocent sweet creature. She was charming, lovely, to be sure. But there was not the increased authority, maturity... I didn't sense a development between the three acts.

Osipova, whose act I was NOT as secure though it had incredible moments to it (and yes, she was visibly nervous, a surprising and actually rather charming thing in such a powerhouse), new to the role, gave me more of a clear delineation of the development of character.

Oddly, the one thing I disagreed with Macaulay on was a criticism of David, that his acting was less developed than Carrenos--Carreno gave me way less than David did. David brought life and passion to what is, in this version a pretty rough sketch of a character. (and generally I am of the school that Macaulay goes overboard on David--and I think he did here too at the end--although I do think David is pretty fantastic).

One other thing. I liked Michelle Wiles!

I feel odd saying it, both as everyone else has said how awful she was, and because I generally don't like her. I think if you read every comment I have ever written here, you would be hard pressed to find a nice thing I have ever said about her. But I thought she had real authority. I know everyone loves Stella.

I saw her (Stella) in this role twice--Weds with Part and Sat matinee. I thought she was more successful on the matinee. Partly she danced better. Partly she and Cojocaru were a better match--Part's own authority made Stella's lack of authority more glaring while Alina's sweetness was not a problem.

But although Stella danced well on both occasions, I did not believe for an instant she had the power to control the events, to banish Carabosse.

Wiles had authority. I believed she was controlling events. I wasn't looking through opera glasses and my seats aren't fabulous enough that I could see the grimaces referenced above, so I will have to take your word for it. But from where I sat, she looked serene, confident, and I believed she was powerful and in control. Stella doesn't make me think that. And as such, for a Lilac fairy, I don't care if I think she dances more beautifully than Wiles--it isn't sufficient for the role.

I think I have more to write about the two performances later, but for now, as no one has mentioned Riccetto as Florine in the afternoon... I thought she was lovely. very precise and truly lovely. I enjoyed her rendition of the variation very much.

What was perhaps most touching was how overjoyed she looked to be dancing with each suitor, how much she seemed to be enjoying the scent of the roses as she collected them. She always seems to make these sorts of details look poignant--never stagey.

Fondoffouettes' comment reminds me of one other thing I meant to comment on (well there may be more thing, but I found this very poignant)...

I am not sure if it is the choreography as it now stands (there are so many changes), or if this was Part's own touch, but I loved what she did with the roses. Often the second batch of roses are brought over to the side by Aurora and sort of flung at the feet of the royal couple. While this can read as a moment of youthful exuberance it also does not seem very in keeping with a Princess (thanks for the roses, I'll throw them on the floor now!). Part curtseyed deeply as she dropped them reverently. It was a different effect and much more moving I felt...also more in keeping with the character and the moment. It was beautiful.

I saw the Wednesday night performance and must say that I hated this ridiculous production a lot less than I did before.

Part and Gomes were both absolutely exquisite, the epitome of style and finesse. The Act II was especially enchanting.

I left the theater in a state of high that not a lot of mind-altering substances can help to achieve

I concur with Waelsung.

There are certainly things I dislike about the production, but all the changes have been for the better.

The costumes are generally improved. This does unfortunately, to my eyes, make the remaining cheesy ones stand out all the worse--the King and Queen especially (her costume isn't bad in its lines, but the fabric is just so gaudy!).

I am glad the fairy knights are gone from the vision. And especially that many variations were added back into the final act, I don't even mind them being given to the prologue fairies--it gives them something to do instead of introducing new characters and I thought it worked nicely.

Part and Gomes were fantastic. The vision sequence was especially exquisite, the only downside being loud children (argh).

Her Rose adagio, while not having the longest balances in history (Her balances got longer, longer and more secure as the night went on, with some truly jaw dropping ones later in the night), was secure and joyous, no nerves visible and her gracious acknowledgment of each suitor at each balance (both sets) was in character and lovely.

Abrera as Lilac--She danced well (a few, tiny bobbles but nothing significant) but I do not see her as having the authority this role demands. I did not for an instant believe she had the power to chase off or vanquish Nancy Raffa's Carabosse. She was sweet and lovely, but the role needs more I think, and I didn't see it.

While Bluebird and Florine received much applause and started out decently, they were kind of a mess starting from their solos. Radetsky got some good height but his lines were ugly and he looked like he was gutting his way through it. Boyleston started off her variation nicely (though I thought her arm positions were a bit careless, which matters in that variation) but then had a little difficulty and the coda was sloppy. I was left with the impression this could be a good role for her (she just had some difficulties, it was her debut in the role I believe?). I did not think it an attractive part for him however.

I would be interested in hearing other's opinions however, as from the roar of the crowd, I was not in the majority on this ;) I don't mean to sound harsh!

In any case, the night belonged to Part and Gomes, and they were fantastic. She may not be everyone's ideal of Aurora, but she developed the character through all the acts and was really a dream!!

Seems she should know walking by yourself late at night in any big city is not a good idea. And even more unbelievable to me is that no one (whoever she was with before beginning her solo walk) didn't offer to walk her home.

I've lived in four big cities in a row, and I travel extensively on my own. If I thought walking alone late at night in a city was a bad idea without question or regard to specific circumstances, I'd never get to the ballet or opera.

Comments in the artsbeat blog on the times are now revolving around this issue...

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/...acked/?ref=arts

Osipova attacked leaving the theater...

How about Osipova ? Has she ever danced either of the roles ?

I can imagine her flying all over the stage in Act III !

Osipova does both roles. She started out doing Gamzatti and more recently has been essaying Nikiya if I have the order correct.

Clips of both are available on youtube.

I was at the last performance with Veronika Part as Odette and Gillian Murphy as Odile and Marcelo Gomes as Prince Siegfried...Gillian Murphy is a dancer I'm ambivalent about... I was also a bit distracted because I know she wears a pointe shoe that has a bit of controversy attached to it, so I was watching her feet probably more than I should have (and for the record, she used her feet well and the 'shoe' was really only noticable when she was standing flat and then it gives a bit of a 'flipper' effect).

Actually both Part and Murphy wear Gaynor Mindens--so both wear said controversial shoes!

Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

(What's OT?)

Ahh ok, sorry, just some of the things you had said made me wonder.

As for spell check, well...I don't think spell check has quite caught up to twitter yet

OT=off topic. I was just saying that unlike my other comment, this one wasn't really relevant to the subject at hand, Mme Alonso!

(Moved from the Ashley Bouder Tweeter thread).

....

...but I'm just pointing out that in the past (and probably in the present) dancers haven't hesitated to use foul political connections to get ahead....

Not that much Alonso's case though. Her active career as a ballerina was over by the time she returned back to Cuba in 1960. All her years of glory took place in New York-(1939-1959), while Castro was still a Law student in Havana University.

Two things, the fact that it didn't help her get ahead as a ballerina does not mean she didn't use political connections to get ahead. She used them to found her school and company become a major force to be reckoned with in Cuba, that qualifies as "getting ahead" to me.

Also, and yes, OT, are you deliberately misstating the term? I know you hate twitter, but after reading and participating in that thread, you can't seriously think "Tweeter" is the correct term and using it seems to show a certain intentional disrespect that seems unnecessary, especially here where it is totally out of context.

According to Wikipedia, the Joffrey "Rite of Spring" was performed on PBS in 1990:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rite_of_Spring

They did, on the Dance in America series. It included interviews with Millicent Hodson talking about her process retrieving information about the work and the process of recreating it on the Joffrey company.

I imagine that this may be either the Paris Opera Ballet or the Maryinsky, who both perform the Hodson reconstruction of Sacre and have Petrushka in their reps. Let's see what we can find out...

According to what i saw online, POB didn't start doing the reconstruction til 1991, so if the date is correct, it is not them.

Also there is apparently a DVD of the Maryinsky doing Rite of Spring, but paired not with Petruska, but with Firebird (with Big Red!) on Bel Air Classics.

So a much more recent recording. http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album....album_id=226668

I am therefore still thinking that this must be the Joffrey recording since they did perform and record it in 1990...

Amazon has just listed a forthcoming DVD from VAI with a Petrushka and a Rite of Spring, apparently filmed in 1990. Running time: 76 minutes. No cover art yet.

Does anyone have any idea what this video may be?

Joffrey?

Thank you all so much for your reports. Alistair Macaulay, in today's NY Times, seems to agree with everyone here -- though with a decidedly more acidic flavor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/arts/dan....html?ref=dance

I don't know if I would say that was agreeing with everyone here...it is so *much* more acidic.

He thoroughly disliked everything besides the one piece with Hallberg in it. That really wasn't the impression I got from the reviews here although they were not raves by any means.

What I find most interesting about this review is his call (more than once) for "male centrality in ballet." I didn't realize this was what he thought ballet should be aiming for, but I'm glad I do now. I think it is odd. A balance between the role of male and female dancers? that makes sense....But why are we going for one being central?

OT

Women in ballet are not called, "Ladies."

And I respect everyone's opinions.

Personally I find this nomenclature way less offensive than "girls," which is not infrequently used. Is there some reason it is verboten? I was unaware of this...

Interesting! It's hard for me to believe that Maria wasn't very good. I've rarely seen her not great in this role. However, she might have had an off-night. Also, in general NYCB dancers aren't "actors." They won't necessarily deliver the emotions the way that ABT will (or the Royal etc.). Like a lot of NYCB balletomanes, I really (only) care about the dancing, as the costumes and sets aren't what NYCB is about. That said, it would be NICE if the costumes and sets were great but....

She really wasn't.

She certainly didn't act. There was no emotional connection at all between her and her prince as Odette. So much so that the story became unclear. And NYCB or not, it is a story ballet. And her Odile had no confidence, forget about whether you like a vampy portrayal or not, this was a timid one.

But that was not what I was even talking about, really.

In the first meeting of Odette and the prince, she slipped as he was about to lift her. I don't know if this shook her badly, it was certainly not something she seemed injured by, but he worked mightily to save her and not drop her. After that it was flub after flub. She would achieve a beautiful moment (some lovely balances here and there) and then after putting her foot down, have to check herself because she bobbled so badly.

When she started her fouettes I was concerned. She had seemed so off on everything leading up to them. The started off slow and cautious (there were never going to be 32) despite the fact the music was quite swift. But initially it seemed like she would get through them. Then she started veering downstage and to her right. Until she fell out of them completely. She stepped into an arabesque and then just... gave up... and walked over to stage left while the fouette music was still playing...

she was obviously shaken through a very slow series of pique turns. Her face as she stood downstage while Albert Evans talks to her was, well she just looked to me like she wanted to leave.

I like her. I don't mean to be mean. It was a really painful thing to watch. Maybe the critics saw something other than I did. I hope so for her sake.

So was anyone else at opening night of Swan Lake? No one has anything to say?

I have to say it left me a bit speechless....

I would prefer to not say much until other people have said things...I am not familiar with this production, etc. but in a nutshell I think it is an inferior production.

The costumes are ugly and terribly mismatched (some are very modern, some pretty traditional and thus look like they wandered in from another production altogether, others are somewhere in between, more traditional in style but more modern in the patterning of the fabric), the scenery/sets, such as they are, are ugly and set no mood whatsoever.

But if the dancing is good, who cares, right?

Kowroski had the kind of night no dancer wants to have on stage, even if she is hidden in the back line of the corps. And she wasn't.

The only time she seemed to have any sort of emotion at all was in the final white act, and after the disaster of her black swan, I can believe her distress there was absolutely genuine.

Anyone else?

I know the prior artistic director has compared her body to Sylvia Guillem, but I feel Sylvia was born with musicality that is her genetic gift. Somova would have been a wonderful rhythmic gymnast. But perish the thought that ballerinas the world over will soon be picked based on hyper flexibility and unusually long limbs, rather than musicality and technical purity.

I find statements like that so insulting to poor Ms Guillem, who was, and I suppose remains, controversial in her own right. (I don't mean your statement Jayne! That of the artistic director!)

While her extensions were certainly extreme, especially for the time, she never distorted her line to achieve them as does Somova, and an arabesque, when performed by Guillem, was actually BEHIND her.

She also had, in spades, one of the things Somova lacks: Strength and control. Watch her in the Grand pas Classique video. each time her leg goes higher. It is a conscious choice, not a whacking to the ear.

She also had lovely feet.

To compare those two bodies...that artistic director must have been looking at something completely other than what I see. Or he equated "bodies" with "how high a leg can go"

Instead of watching the Superbowl pre-game nonsense, I sat down with my laptop, and went through clips of Alina Somova to find out what all the fuss is about. My attitude was "everyone on ballet talk must be a snob, she must be really good, or else why would she be a principal?" I was prepared to like her, I wanted to like her, I expected to like her.

I'm going to see The Sleeping Beauty next week at PNB, so I decided to look at Rose Adagios from various companies. Here are the versions I viewed:

I am not sure when Somova's was posted, but frankly, her arms looked like tinkertoys attached by rubberbands to her body. Her developpe (sp?) to the back of the ear was distracting and unnecessary, nor called for in Petipa's choreography. What if everyone just changed the choreography because they liked to perform a specific move? What disturbed me most was the lack of musicality in her dancing, particularly the upper body.

According to the stamp on the video that one is from 2007.

One from feb(?) 2009 recently appeared on youtube. it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OxkSCKSAww

There is certainly improvement, especially in the arms. I found it amazing, however, that she somehow managed to make the balances disappear. They barely exist in her rendition...

There was some debate as to how critical they should be to the success of this adagio in another forum on here, but surely they should seem to be part of the variation, and a climactic part at that.