aurora

Yes this was a bad review of Darci, but I believe his review of her in La Sonambula was quite favorable, no? And in a performance that had been criticized by some on this board, which gives (me) the impression he is not being hypercritical just for the sake of it.

I enjoyed tonight very much but I was not as enamored of the performances as the others who have commented. Sorry for bursting any bubbles. I don't mean to seem over critical. Nina acted the part beautifully and was incredibly lovely, but she did seem not herself. Her arabesques were not just "not sky high", they were often below 90 degrees. And her leg was often not straight, which is something I have never noticed from her before. To be fair I thought she improved as the night went on. And I did think she was good. I don't mean to quibble, but while the audience was clearly thrilled to have her back, she did not seem up to her standards. Carreno--he did well in the solos, though I prefered Gomes. His partnering however was really off. Especially in act one. Nina is not a large dancer. and the preparation for the shoulder lifts in act 1 was so radically different from that of Gomes and Part (who, however much weight she has lost is still a tall tall dancer) that I was shocked. With Part and Gomes i didn't even see the lifts coming. she hurtled at him and the next thing I knew she was on his shoulder. Tonight, the preparation was slow, deliberate, and I seriously thought Nina was going to fall during the first lift. He really seemed to have great difficulty. This was true throughout his partnering--he seemed to knock Irina off at one point and from then on it was as if she was partnering herself on him. Again however, I think things improved in act 2. I also thought he looked out of shape, i think of him as a rather lean dancer, not like Hallburg, but not bulky--perhaps however this was just the first tunic he was wearing, as he looked better in the rest of the costumes. On the other hand, I agree that Irina was fabulous. I liked her much more than Wiles. She was so imperious! Both her dancing and characterization were superb. Really I thought the entire cast was excellent. The shades, the 3 main shades...fantastic Sorry for pointing out the negative. I really did enjoy tonight and it was a joy just seeing Nina back again. She is one of my all-time favorite dancers.

I saw that article too. It was incredibly muddled and unclear as to who performed when. I doubt Dunning really was mistaken as to who danced thursday night...I assumed some disasterous editing either on her part or that of a Times editor was responsible for that passage.

clearly they didn't take into account public transportation either! LA on there and NYC not?! what *were* the criteria? Aurora, non-driver

I'm not sure when she first did the role, but Paloma is not 36. I believe she's about 32. I believe she joined the company at 16 or so in 1991

Hmm, I agree about Gomes' total looking really out of keeping with the others. I can't imagine that they would announce the world premiere of Sleeping Beauty as Part and Gomes as a placeholder however. They would have left it TBA, as it was until a few weeks ago. I do suspect you are right that some of Gomes' castings will go away, however. 19 is a LOT more than anyone else...

Well that's why she's accompanied by text--she's retelling the entire story. I don't remember precisely what the text said (sorry) but the implication was that it was a retelling, like a fairy tale--"once long ago lived..." etc/ As for the earlier edward. I believe that was a misguided attempt to explain WHY Edward has scissors for hands. I think in the movie, there is no real explanation except that he isnt finished (he dies when he is finishing hands for edward). But why on earth would you give someone temporary hands made of scissors? So in order to give some psychological explanation (you know, like in the *shudder* live action version of the grinch), the earlier edward loved scissors and died playing with them so his father creates a new edward with scissors for hands. So no, really nothing would have been lost if they hadnt added that

She's kim many years later. I suppose I am fairly familiar with the film (though I can't think I've watched it for 5 years at least), but whatever the flaws of the choreography (it wasn't terribly innovative I didn't think, nor particularly challenging on the whole), I didn't find the story hard to follow. Its certainly more logical than say Le Corsaire. ;) Furthermore, some of the plot devices (earlier edward, then edward scissorhands) weren't in the movie and I didn't find them difficult to follow. Was it great? no. But I actually found it surprisingly enjoyable, albeit more as a "theater piece" than as a "ballet". Then again I like both the story and the music, and anything is better than watching Winona Ryder with blonde hair

Yes, please, what are your collective thoughts? Ok, so anyone who has seen me mention Part knows that I really like her--I state that up front to expose my biases here. I can't imagine that they would have cast her as Aurora for the world premiere if they weren't seeing something in her dancing of late to justify that. It is a big committment for the company--to not just cast her in the role, but twice, and on that most important evening. Maybe I'm being naive, or trusting too much in the judgement of management, but I would imagine they would have to be pretty confident she could do the role (including the balances, and the fast waltz solo) before they gave her the part at all. no?

Did anyone else go? Treefrog, do you have any more to add? I've been so immensely curious as to what murphy would do as juliet, and while fine is better than bad, I'd love to hear more anyone? nudge nudge

the website says the box office opens on April 1st http://abt.org/insideabt/news_display.asp?News_ID=186 (see bottom of page)

while I'm sure that would be nice, it seems to me that there is a reason that there are corps members, soloists and principals in a company. As far as I know, very few of the dancers in ABT have done Sleeping Beauty (at least with ABT) because its been out of the rep for so long (I don't remember them doing it in at least the last 10 years, though I could be mistaken!) thus very few of the principals have had the chance to dance aurora--so why wouldn't they be given the chance first? They are principals for a reason after all.

It really IS great news. If she aquits herself well this season, I would imagine they would promote her. She's slated for the lead in 3 full length works, and this world premier is certainly a coup! I have to say, this is so exciting to me. I've had just about the worst week possible, and having this to look forward to (on my Mom's bday no less) is really fantastic.

Drb, Your response was pretty much spot on how I think about these...but just to be a pain/clarify Can i just say, that having seen Vishneva's O/O at ABT last year, I can see why people might have complained? ;) But I do think it was worth a shot, and she can dance it technically, so I don't see why she wouldn't be able to do it (she just needs work in the part!) I know I'm the one who brought up Gillian Murphy, but I actually agree with what you say here. I don't see her as a natural for R&J for example, but i'm definitely going to go see what she makes of it, no matter what, I imagine it will be interesting! As for Bouder, after seeing her do Sleeping Beauty, I'd go and see her in just about anything!

Surely, some dancers are better suited to one style or the other. For example, Eva Evdokimova, with her ultra long neck and arms, sloping shoulders and feather-light jump, was naturally "endowed" for the Romantic repertoire, whereas Darci Kistler, as was pointed out in another thread, wouldn't be naturally suited to it. I agree with Volcano Hunter-- Locally (for me, NYC), I would consider Alessandra Ferri a dancer who was lovely in Romantic roles (giselle for example), but whose technique was unsuited to classical roles, and, in fact, she was never (or very rarely!) cast in them. I would similarly assume that Gillian Murphy was unsuited for romantic roles (though I find her at times surprisingly good in unexpected roles), in large part because of her physique. To me romantic implies ethereal, and Murphy is NOT that. She's very solidly flesh and blood. This is not to say that there aren't dancers who excell in both types of roles of course. I like Ananiashvilli, for yet another ABT example, in both Giselle and Swan Lake, and the much debated Veronika Part both as Odette/Odile and Myrthe (though I have difficulty imagining her as Giselle!).

Rockwell has been with the NY Times since 1972. Yes, but he was a music critic, not a dance critic, hence the implied "outsider" status--not from New York, but from dance.

hahah! I remember that. I taped it. Somehow its gone missing--but I do hope to find it some time. I'd like to find it, not only for the entertainment value, but it was also a lovely performance (gaff notwithstanding)

Ms Scherr's article is very very odd. I consider myself a feminist and agree that it's inappropriate for John Rockwell to refer to the women working there as "the girls." But that has nothing to do with Alastair Macaulay's appointment. He hasn't adopted that policy so far as we know. She seems to tar them with the same brush just because they are both men. Which is, quite frankly, just as sexist as she states the Times' behaviour is. Quite frankly I don't think any of the reviews in the times are very good. She admits herself that none of the women merit promotion to the top spot, but then suggests having dual chiefs, with one being a woman, even if she has fewer credentials. Why? Clearly women have as many opportunities within the field as men do now, as a run down of the dance critics at the times shows. If none of the women currently working in the field (in NY, another of her requirements) merit promotion to the top spot, you don't promote them. I don't think you do the cause of women's rights any favors by promoting a clearly underqualified and unprepared person to the top spot and then watching them get roasted on the fire.

I don't think tragedy requires *intentional* betrayal. I find the aspect of senseless "fate" more tragic. After all, I think most people would concur that Romeo and Juliet is one of the all time greats of tragedy--and its ALL horrible dumb luck! If the message had reached Romeo... If Romeo hadn't met the apothecary... If Juliet had woken up just a few minutes earlier... That's tragedy (and damn frustrating if you ask me!)

I agree that this would be a perfectly valid goal, aurora, but I also think it would be a reductive one for most choreographers. It depends on what your interests are I suppose. Some choreographers think making a statement about the female body is worthwhile. Might I suggest people look at the website of my friend Julie. http://www.julieatlasmuz.com/ Julie Atlas Muz is a Whitney bienniale artist. She thinks nudity is something worth talking about in her art. from her website about her current piece at PS122 ( http://www.julieatlasmuz.com/divine.shtml ) "Miss Exotic World and Miss Coney Island 2006, a 2004 Whitney Biennial and Valencia Bienal Artist, Muz continues to celebrate the ever political lineage of naked ladies in public spaces as set in motion by Lady Godiva." Please be advised that there is some nudity on her website, if this is a problem, don't look please. I don't want anyone to be offended or upset by this. I just thought it might bring a different aspect to this discussion. She really is fantastic. She is definitely not ballet, but this thread was more generally about nudity in dance so it seemed to me appropriate. I hope this caveat serves to disuade anyone who might be offended from looking at this link, the last thing I want is for anyone to be made uncomfortable.

Before I continue, I want to be clear I'm not suggesting anyone perform swan lake or giselle etc in the nude! I agree that there are works (the entire classical repertoire for example!) where it simply does not work, and would really be distracting and interfere with enjoyment of the work. That said, I actually don't see what you say above as any reason for omitting the nude in dance, especially not in more modern works. Having nude dancers does not need to be merely sensationalist, but can be used to challenge these tastes and norms of beauty that are current in our culture. It can be an artistic statement, and to me art is not just about beauty, but can also serve to challenge an audience and make them think. Using the naked body in this way is, to me, a very legitimate way of challenging an audience and causing them to think about what beauty is, and how it is perceived. You said: "even a "that's interesting" reaction is a distraction from the real subject matter at hand, the choreography" I certainly can see what you mean here, and in some works (where the nudity seems pointless and gratiuitous) I would agree. But you are assuming that the choreography and the nudity are not intrinsically intertwined. Perhaps the point of such a dance *IS* to challenge norms of beauty, and the choreography and nudity are working together to achieve that end...Wouldn't that be a valid goal for art? I'm really not disagreeing with anything you said above, except that I think it an admirable and appropriate goal for art to act to change ideas of beauty. (can you tell I'm a performer?)

Why can't that (the lack of conformation to the "ideal nude"), be a point of interest instead of a distraction? What is wrong in presenting various body types as attractive and interesting? Why can't dance be at the forefront of this, and highlight the beauty that is inherent in various body types? I'm sorry GWTW, but that comment really struck a nerve. Hey I don't expect to see overweight ballerinas anytime soon, I'm not being naive about what the public and community will allow, but to expect ballet dancers to be sticks, and then say basically "ick, I don't want to see that naked!" based on them not fitting the "norm" of physical beauty is just ludicrous.

Not to be obtuse, but why? Donatello's David (the first freestanding nude since antiquity) wears a hat and boots... (people kept mentioning sculpture and I just taught this work today so...)

While I don't disagree that it would be nice to see some of the younger talent at ABT in major roles , I have some major differences with what you said above. First of all, I think ABT cares more about trying to get dancers to act the roles than NYCB does, and often this talent/ability comes with greater age and experience (of course there are major exceptions--Hallberg and Herrera spring to mind). More significantly, I have no problem with older dancers dancing these roles as long as their technique still allows them to do so. I enjoyed Makarova's Juliet with McKenzie when she was over 40 (is this "great performances" available on DVD? I had a tape of it at one point but it's gone missing). And I have never thought Ferri looked in any way age inappropriate as Juliet. She is utterly convincing and probably the best I have ever seen in this role. She appears to be exactly what she is meant to be, a young girl in love. I suppose if I peered through my opera glasses at her face I might notice a wrinkle or two, but it has never detracted from my enjoyment of her in this work. To each his/her own, but I'll take Ferri's Juliet over any one else in the company. Unfortunately this year will be the last.

The trick is, subscribe! Now wait a second--I'm not being facetious here. As a subscriber, you can easily switch out dates for other performances, plus get additional seats before (i believe) they are open to the public. This year we got a subscription and are switching out all the dates on it but 1. Its a good tactic I think Especially as it doesn't pin you in to specific shows, if the casting, for ex, changes.