aurora

I don't suppose you could report a bit about what was being said in the Russian-language accounts... I'd love to hear more about this debut!

on sunday evening, David Hallberg and Marcelo Gomes (both in the next piece, Pillar of Fire) both came out too! I liked that part as well

I was there on tuesday, I don't have a lot to add but my 2 cents... Ballo: I thought David was fabulous, I'm not as familiar with the ballet as I should be, so I can't say if it was "true to the piece" but he looked fantastic. I cannot warm up to Michelle Wiles. I don't really know why, but I don't enjoy her dancing. I thought the soloists were all lovely, and really enjoyed Leann Underwood, whom I don't really remember noticing before. Flames: Why does Daniil Simkin have to look so young? I know he is young, but while he was stunning, I fear it will really limit him as a dancer. The only major role I can see him taking on is Romeo. I thought Sarah Lane was very disappointing. She really doesn't interact with her partner. I thought she was very underpowered. She fell out of pirouettes and off pointe. Granted the only time I've seen this piece live before was with Osipova, so she had a lot to live up to, but she didn't even live up to her partner. I also thought their mugging for applause after their intro was embarrassing. They got applause, and kept milking it. People were hardly clapping and they just kept on taking bows. I know *I* was clapping just because it was so uncomfortable. By the end they GOT the applause (and largely deserved it, at least he did), but the begging for it was unpleasant. Overgrown Path: I don't have a lot to say except that I very much enjoyed it and would have liked to see it more than once this season. But alas no. It was nice to see the principal dancers Paloma and Julie Kent integrating themselves and being so much a part of what is basically an ensemble piece. Brief Fling: I'd never seen this before, and I'm not always a huge tharp fan, but I really liked it! For one, the costumes are phenomenal! Xiomara is not one of my favorite dancers, but I really enjoyed her here, she didn't mug, as I sometimes feel she does. I've been impressed with Maria Riccetto all season--she's not a big dancer and the smaller scale of city center really suits her I think. Misty was great, as, indeed she was all night. Someone said it was her night and I can't disagree. She danced 3 roles in 3 very different pieces and seemed totally committed to each. I wish I could see this piece again too.

on the upside, at least she's still here! (That said, please let some promotions being forthcoming!)

I would say that would qualify as marking to some extent as well. When you are learning a piece marking is especially useful because it allows you to get the steps into your brain without having to do them full out as many times. Also if you know part of a piece and can execute it perfectly, marking that part allows you to conserve energy so that you can concentrate on the part that is giving you difficulty.

A tiny clip is up on youtube (from opusarte)

There is also Dancers from 1987. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092822/ I haven't seen it in forever, and I don't remember it being terribly good. I wouldn't mind seeing it again though, just for the dancers in it.

I believe you can find it on youtube--portions rather. It is pretty easy to find. And incredibly impressive of its kind.

I often wonder whether anyone ever enjoys some of Henry James's novels such as The Golden Bowl and The Wings of the Dove. I find them almost unreadable, and I tried hard because I really love many of his works(Portrait of a Lady, The Europeans, Washington Square), and I feel like I am missing out... I love his short stories/novellas, and always stop reading his novels in the middle. I don't know why. I *like* them, it is just if I get at all distracted while reading, i can't get back INTO them.

I love Tom Jones, I guess I'm the only one here who did! Hated Anna Karenina though--we read it in HS, and I was just screaming "kill yourself already!!" by the end of it. That, Crime and Punishment and (shudder) Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man were the books I read in school that if I wasn't a neurotic overachiever, I *never* would have finished. Yuck.

What's wrong in principle with finding a ballet, even an often programmed ballet that has lasted for decades, "ghastly," "appalling," "inane", and "twaddle"? Macaulay specifies what he dislikes about it: what he considers its as well as the fact that it There is also what he considers perhaps its .And then there is the .Agree or disagree (the ballet leaves me cold), but he's shown us the basis for his judgment, and in so doing invited readers who feel differently to examine and perhaps sharpen their own judgment. That's what I want from a critic. He may have said all those things, explaining his hatred of the ballet, but NOT in the review I cited. Is the reader meant to recall an earlier (?) review of the ballet by a different company (I assume, since this was his only review of ABT in the piece) to put his comments in a proper context?

Yes, but having reservations about a work is not the same as calling the work "ghastly," "appalling," "inane", and "twaddle." And all that in a review only 1 paragraph long, and mentioning only a single dancer.

nothing ABT did to it. If you read his review of it, he detests the ballet. I don't think it would have mattered how well anyone danced it, he thinks the piece itself is a piece of s__t.

(In 2008: April 29 - June 29. In 2007: April 24 - June 24.) Why? aren't there renovations to the theater forthcoming? I know I read it was to seriously curtail the opera seasons, perhaps that is the reason for the downsizing of nycb's season as well?

I have to say, I was impressed that he included her with the ABT ballerinas, when he specifically did *not* mention several principals and was downright hostile to several others (Paloma and Xiomara). I was also surprised he seemed more willing to be well disposed to her than in the past (I remember the boring comment as well). Given his past treatment of her, his comment on her, caveat notwithstanding, was one of the few surprises of his summing up.

I actually agree. Though if there are so MANY tattoos that they become a look (like full sleeves), i actually mind it less than a few largish obvious ones peeking out from elegant clothing in a way that just sort of haphazard. you can see my tattoo in some of my wedding photos though and I really don't think it detracts from the look (which was Victorian) And yeah tattoos under stockings are ugly. I suppose the solution is to just get backseams tattooed on ones legs! (i know someone with this).

i can understand being taken aback by that. I got my first piercing in england (first piercing which wasn't via a piercing gun in my ear) The piercer was this incredibly pierced woman, who totally intimidated me. She had 60+ piercings. And initially looked scary to me. And you know what, she was really really sweet. And generous and funny. And said that I was much better about the pain than she was! I do know what you are saying, I'm just bringing this up, because in the mid 90s to early 2000s I was really really gothed out. And my liking that aesthetic had nothing at all to do with how other people perceived me--except perhaps in the small sense that it weeded out people who were close minded in a way that wouldnt have appealed to me. But people often thought my look was a sign of some sort of agression, or hostility. I can't tell you how many people told me that I was totally intimidating and "scary" but then they met me and realized i was really nice and friendly. Sorry that REALLY went OT, but they aren't totally unrelated. Sander0 has brought up that he doesn't find body mods aesthetically pleasing or enhancing, but for a lot of us who have such mods, and perhaps in some contrast to more socially acceptable body modifications (say, fake breasts for example), those of us who get them, do it because WE like the way we look with them, not to appeal to someone else's aesthetic standard. Personally I also have a sense of appropriateness about them. If I am teaching, I don't wear my nose ring (though I think my students would really like it if I did!) because it isn't acceptable to my university. I don't agree with this, but I accept it. Similarly, when I'm doing classic 40s/50s style burlesque, I don't wear my nose ring--I'm emulating or recreating images of traditional feminine beauty--and my nose ring does not fit in with that aesthetic. If I'm doing a more modern routine, or a classic routine at a more "alternative" event--I might wear it, because it fits in with the aesthetic, or tweaks things in a way that thumbs its nose at the same 50s aesthetic I'm evoking. I like those too, and at one point was quite tempted to get a pin up girl tattooed on me. I personally don't have more tattoos because I have become known as a performer for my skin (i know that sounds weird and i've certainly done nothing to encourage it, but it is true)--its very white and is one of my trademarks. On me, at this time, more tattoos would detract from a natural asset. But in the future, who knows!

Since Cristian kindly moved this over here, I will comment on it... I don't know if they are best, but it is certainly a major reason why people get tattoos. I do think they are better (personally) if they have some significance for the person. I didn't get my first one to mark an event per se. But it was an image I had been drawing for about 6 years when I got it, which had deep significance to me, and reflected something about how I see the world, being based on something in a book that had a real, great and lasting impact on me as a person. there is nothing *wrong* with getting an image just because you like it, but unless it means something to you personally, I think it is easy to get tired of it--and given the near permanence of tattoos... It is also not that people NEED the image to hold on to a memory--It is a way of marking and commemorating an important event. I know many people who have gotten tattoos that were inspired by the loss of loved ones for example. Some are quite literal (a friend with a portrait of his father on his arm), others are couched in symbolism (a friend who incorporates roses into multiple tats out of love for her mother who she lost at an early age and whose middle name was Rose). I see them as a combination I suppose. But given their permanence they do require more thought than clothing choices! I happen to find many of them aesthetically pleasing. Ideally (for me) they are meant to communicate something about the person "wearing" them. But some people just like the aesthetic. And that is fine too! I think most of us HOPE that we wont receive rude questions or comments about them. But we fully expect that we will. My tattoos are small and rarely noticed--one is on my hip so it is rarely seen, the other is on the back of my neck, so depending on how my hair is or what clothes I'm wearing, it is seen or not. On the other hand I have a facial piercing and used to have a second. And I have gotten many many comments on them over the years (I've had them since 96 and 98--so over 10 years) I personally never mind questions if they are respectful. Often people want to know if they hurt, which gets really boring to answer the 100,000th time. But I try to not be annoyed by it because people are curious, and they want to know. On the other hand if you look at me like i'm something you stepped in on the street, and then ask me, i'm likely to be less than polite about it. And yes, this happens. And no, it is seriously not cool. as far as it being rude to say anything except a compliment--yes, it rather is. People seem to think it is ok to say incredibly rude and offensive things to you if your look is not the norm--and its very offensive. If your friend had a haircut you didn't like--would you just say that to her? no, you'd keep your opinion to yourself. But body mods, or even "strange" haircolors make people feel they can say anything they want in response. I used to dye my hair different colors--and people would often feel it totally ok to say things like "oh i hate that color, i thought the last color was much nicer". Think about that for a minute--would you say such a thing to someone who put blonde streaks in their hair? (And I'm not talking about situations where your opinion is asked for). Of course you wouldn't. But people seem to think if your aesthetic is not the norm, such insulting remarks are totally ok! Offensive? Only if they are an offensive symbol. Ugly and distracting, hell yes, but I think that about a lot of clothes I see walking through the city every day. If its someone else's body I have no call to be offended by it! As for their visibility--Most people i know with body mods sort of forget they have them. They become part of you, like your nose, and you just don't think about them. Personally I almost never SEE my tattoos given their locations, so I forget I even have them. And I really don't see my piercings any more either--they are just there. I might look weird to you, but to me, I look totally normal how is that for a long answer. I hope I haven't gone too OT--as this really isn't about mods on ballet dancers, but there are a lot of recurring questions about body mods and this seemed a good way to respond to a bunch of them in one fell swoop as it were. To bring it back to ballet--my nose ring makes it easy to spot me at the ballet, and come say hi! or run away from the freak if you choose to do so!

I've heard this as a reason for not getting tattoos many times--the fact is, if those muscles/skin are saggy and old. They are going to look saggy and old with or without tats--and just aren't going to look good. So why not get the art and have that as a memory of what once was? I'm very much in favor of only getting tats that are meaningful to the person--not just a whim "I want a tattoo!" there is laser tat removal. It is apparently both expensive and painful, but quite doable. there is also getting a tat covered with a new tat--it is hard to do with a large piece with lots of blackwork, but is doable. I'm thinking of doing this with a tattoo I got at 18 or 19--just because it doesn't look the way I'd like it to. I'm still not sorry I got it. It is one of the nice things about piercings over tattoos, when you are sick of them, or don't feel they are appropriate to you at your current stage in life, you just remove them. That said, I don't regret any of my body mods, and miss the piercings I've lost for various reasons over the years Aurora--tattooed, pierced, and happy with that!

Nina is retiring at the end of NEXT season, not this one. I know nothing regarding julie retiring, but I would imagine it isn't the case. She is one of the longest lasting ABT principals and is married to Victor Barbee (associate artistic director) so if she was indeed retiring, I'm SURE the company would make an event of it.

I don't really think that fair, not with the comments from vishneva's own website saying she was going to try and start rehearsals for Giselle. If *she* was planning to give it a go, why were they supposed to know better? Furthermore, maybe I was lucky, but it doesn't seem like, with the exception of visheva, there have been a lot of major changes in the schedule this year, and injuries happen. Unfortunate but true.

Also interesting is a 2005 performance of the same troubadour variation. It looks quite different!

Since youtube links are now, I believe, allowed, I thought i would mention that available on youtube right now is footage from ca. 1905 of the royal danish ballet Enjoy

I thought much better of Veronika's performance than you did, I think. She got much more smoothly through the scarf section than did any of the dancers I saw from the Kirov in April. I agree with you on Gomes' Solor, but not on Michelle Wiles. She is not a dancer I particularly enjoy, but I usually find her technically solid. Her Gamzatti however did nothing for me. She was fine during the mime scenes, but she seemed to interpret the unlikeability of the character as a reason to dance with a harshness and brittleness that I found unattractive. I think someone mentioned it on ballettalk earlier, but she seems to have developed an odd hitch with her head in her leaps that is particularly unattractive--it looks like the head movement of a strutting pigeon. Her Italian fouettes and regular fouettes were good, in fact her turning was on the whole, but for me there was nothing beautiful in her movements, and the solo in the engagement pas de deux, one of my favorite variations, was incredibly flat. Especially when viewed in contrast with the lushness of Veronika. I know that Nikiya and Gamzatti are very different characters, and that should be brought out in the dance quality as well as the mime, but I did not find this an effective way to do it. just my 2 cents

I don't know when they revived it, but they did it last (2007) fall City Center season. I thought Julie Kent was chilling.