cubanmiamiboy

I just find quite unnerving that now that the modern society has access to the original librettos/endings/scores, one will still be presented with a truncated version of a ballet. Makarova's staging is a winner, for which it tries to conduct the viewer along the original path. She just didn't have access to the modern resources that Ratmansky. Burlaka, Vikharev and others have nowadays.

Hi everyone! I'm vacationing this summer in the hot Spain, in between Madrid and Barcelona. I have tried to catch any ballet performances, but the only offerings are the ever present Russian touring troupes that I see in every European country, with their less than satisfactory productions of Swan Lake. So I have passed. Instead I settled for opera, and last night, while in Barcelona, I went to see a performance of Carmen at the magnificent modernist theater "Palau de la Musica Catalana". Just the building itself deserves a full review, but the highlight for me was the dancing sections, where authentic tablao flamenco bailaores did the honors. I'm usually not a fan of tablao-(kind of harsh for my taste)-but with the Bizetian French perfume, it was very nice to see. Anywhow...now I'm back in Madrid, and I'm planning to attend a performance of a Sarzuela, "Luisa Fernanda". Barcelona is just a LOVELY city. I'm totally sold.

I find this to be a very rude practice. I can’t tell you how many times there have been disruptions that continued into the performance because latecomers were escorted to their seats during an appropriate pause and found people sitting in their seats. I prefer to be on or close to an aisle, and it is not unusual for me to buy a seat that someone in standing room might find tempting. If I buy a seat, I expect to be able to sit down without the hassle of the usher having to argue with a squatter in the dark with their flashlight.

If you don’t want to remain in standing room, and you don’t want to buy an orchestra seat, then you should buy a ticketed seat elsewhere in the house, such as Balcony or Family Circle.

I find even more rude to disrupt a performance once it has started. I admire certain theater policies that have absolutely ZERO tolerance for late seating, so the process of moving quickly to better seats once the doors are closed and right before the music starts is smooth and "legal". On the other side, I've lived thru very absurd policies, as with the Arsht Center here in Miami, where I was told to leave an empty seat in orchestra even though the woman next to me took the time to explain to the usher that it was her husband's and he would not be coming. "It doesn't matter, ", the usher said. "The Arsht Center has the policy of honoring a patron's seat even if said patron is not coming. So get up.."

Eutopean theaters are very flexible about moving to empty seats. It is an extended practice among youngsters with limited pockets. I've even seen ushers fishing such seats for standing people. How nice.

Yes, it does, Cristian. Tipped Candelabri and all!

Ohh, yes...that damned candelabra!!

So La Scala will have two big Ratmansky reconstructions!

Meanwhile, Mother Russia's Bolshoi still deals with Grigorovich horrible versions...

(Just checking the MCB web site, I found no mention of tours. Odd.)

That site has always been a useless disaster.

All this inventions with the finale. Leave the original double suicide/going to the heavens ending, which is way more logical and beautiful.

It is interesting how the score of the adagio is, at many times, cut off after the to climatic two accords, erasing much of the most difficult parts of the choreo-(this is more or less the one after Ivanov). That's why I love Sir Peter Wright's staging, for which it shows off the whole thing-(which is devilishly difficult). There's a video somewhere of Leslie Collier coaching a young couple on this adagio.

Yes...the video shows up in the section dedicated to the "Mao suit". There are some interesting fouettes in there...

I realize I never talked about my last Giselle-(Osipova/MacRae), so even though the thread is pretty much defunct by now, I will still give my two cents.

I have mixed feelings on her Giselle. There's no doubt that her presentation card is being a technical powerhouse, but somehow there were moments where I think she was going just too far. Don't get me wrong...I think she has made her mark in the character, somehow parting with the two main forms the heroine has come to us-(I basically detect two very unique variations on the theme...the very fragile portrait of a nervous Giselle from the Russians, a la Galina Ulanova or Natalia Bessmertnova and the earthier but more restrained portray of the westerners after the likes of Markova, Alonso, Chauvire or Fracci. Natalia Osipova seems to want to imprint her own signature without fitting completely in either mold, so the result is at times very attractive, all this enhanced by her amazing technique, which allows her to do things that I have not seen in other ballerinas before.

Now...this is also tricky, for which I still identify Giselle mainly as a restrained, character, both in act I and II, and there's NOTHING restrained about Osipova's Giselle. She is, at all times, expansive and grand. She really enjoys covering the stage, and she doesn't hide it, which leads to one of the problems when she is dancing. She shadows EVERYONE ELSE onstage...even her partenaire. This was one of the first things I noticed...there seemed to be no real connection between her and MacRae. She was jumping all over the place, and it was hard not to notice that he was no match for her jumping. One time I remember someone mentioning that the video of Nureyev/Seymour should had been renamed "Albrecht", for which he was THE star in tis production, leaving too little for poor Seymour. Well, the ballet is called Giselle and yes, it is all about her, but I had the feeling that what I saw was "Osipova" and not "Giselle". Even in Act II I felt she was opening herself too much, leaving little to the XIX century lithographs inspired tilted torsos and curved necks I usually like to see in my Giselles.

And yes...the turning during the sautes on pointe in her Pas Seul are very amazing, but...should there be such choreographic variations in an iconic diagonal that has been totally straight probably ever since it was created...?

And then her jumping...she seems to be suspended on air at times...covering so much space while doing it. Her ballon is probably the most impressive I've ever witnessed in a dancer, male or female. She does the sequence of entrechats very slowly, so when the jump comes she seems to stay up on the air forever-(as I said earlier...I much prefer the very fast, "a terre" version of them, a la Reyes). So Osipova jumped and jumped and ran and ran...and then she fell, and, as we all know by now, everyone gasped in horror. It was hard to see her limping onstage trying just to walk a little, and then...right after one of the nastiest falls I've ever witnessed, she goes to do one of the biggest grand jetes I've also ever witnessed to get offstage-(and right after two more).

I enjoyed her portray, don't get me wrong. I really think her Giselle is completely different from everyone else's, right in the middle of an era where this role seems to be a carbon copy repetition from one ballerina to her peer, and I really appreciate that. She still has a long, prosperous career to go, and it will be interesting to see how she keeps developing the character. I am really looking forward to it.

MacRae was all about doing entrechats at all times, and I don't remember who danced Myrtha.

"Song to the Moon" from Rusalka is very popular.

I love that aria.

Bakst design for the Queen, 1921.

ABT's design.

Wow! Okay, so the Ratmansky production's wig for the Queen is actually toned down in comparison! What a beautiful image! Thanks for posting.

My pleasure. And here's Bakst's design for King Florestan.

That's funny but maybe Ratmansky was whispering something else in their ears!

Even funnier that, if that was the case, then his whispering was only heard by Lane/Cornejo..everyone else listened to mine! .

Doubtful, the Theme I saw was Lane/Cornejo. Partnering was fine.

If anything, I would make a little whisper in the dancers' ears..."psst..go and perform those fish dives instead...audience actually LIKES them"

Isabella Boylston: Beloved by Alastair MacCaulay as the greatest thing since Anna Pavlova.

Since Cornejo did the partnering in Theme (not easy) and in Romeo and Juliet, without any issues it would seem his partnering strength is fine.

So maybe is Lane...

Regarding Lane/Cornejo doing the fish dives:

Because Lane/Cornejo have done the fish dives in performance before, in the old Kirkland SB for one, without any difficulties.

That could be an argument, yes...which doesn't imply that by now, some years later, Cornejo's strength would be the same to carry them. As I said...we can only guess and speculate.

I went to see this, and it's indeed wonderful. Very interesting to see an imperial gown from the Ming dinasty next to a contemporary dress by Galliano using the same pattern as the original. There is a whole section devoted to the quipao, many of them from the 30's and 40's, from the very modest to the ultra luxurious ones. I really enjoyed the exhibition.

Here's a link to the photo:

http://www.robertaonthearts.com/images/photos/sblanecornejo3ro.jpg

Bakst design for the Queen, 1921.

I've seen Grance Anne Powers ever since she was still a teen dancing with the Cuban Classical Ballet of Miami. Beautiful dancer.

Both Lane and Cornejo danced the older version, where they did the fish dives. I'm not sure if they ever danced SB with each other, though. I know Cornejo performed with Kochetkova.

The costumes and sets were based on the London production.

You don't have to agree with or prefer the choice, but it was a legitimate one for a production where the dancing mostly followed the notated text. Ratmansky didn't even have to allow the fish dives.

Russians don't do the fish dives. They are mostly a western tradition after the London production. When I saw the Bolshoi in London, they didn't have them. I still think they are one of the most expected pieces of choreography from Beauty. Costumes were indeed "based" on the originals, but from the pictures of Egorova one can tell that the wedding tutu was more substantial...even created in wired up tutu form, vs. the soft loose skirt of ABT's design.

Lane and Cornejo were the one couple who opted for the original choreography and did not do the fish dives, but it wasn't because they were not able.

How do we know they didn't do them because they were NOT able to..? That was my impression, and it could perfectly be the reason. We probably will never know. As per the choreography being not original, it is true that the fish dives are not part of the Petipa's original scheme, but as Ratmansky was rather following the London production, and the fish dives were originated by Olga for that very production, it makes sense that they would preserve them. As per myself I don't want to see them substituted by now.

I will chime in a little late here, but I'm sure the performances are still fresh in people's minds.

I definitely applaud Ratmansky's vision for his Beauty. It creates a very organic balance in between historical perspective and contemporary taste. I must say it was a little weird to see all this demi pointe used, and at times one could see that for some the efforts to master the steps was rather a bit strained-(Murphy). The production is gorgeous...costumes and backdrops are winners, and the re insertion of long ago missing mime is definitely a plus. Yes, Lilac is seen here less in pointes and tutu, but frankly...I've seen many awful instances in which Lilac is given just bogus choreographic fillers just to justify something that it had never been created for her originally.

One complaint I have is about the Panorama scene. The original score calls for I think three repetitions of the main theme, and here Ratmansky definitely shortens the sequence. I think the backfrops for the Panorama could had been more imaginative, so here I believe this version looses in relation with Kirkland's. Other than that I certainly enjoyed all the details brought back, like the more extended mime between Desire and Lilac right before the awakening scene, the Precious stones pas and the fairy tales characters variations.

Costumes were very beautiful, although I would had wished for a more substantial tutu for Aurora in her wedding pas. The white number's design is very pretty, but it looks rather too soft and squalid. I think it should had been stiffer, and perhaps a little more elaborated. The one costume I really disliked was Lilac's shiny long number. It had the feeling of a bedroom gown. Pefhaps it would had worked better in a different fabric. I certainly liked the fairies and her wigs. They reminded me of a black and white fragment film I've seen of the Ballet Russes de Monte Carlo. They had a nice vintage aura.

Contrary to what other felt, I found the Valse villagoise very pretty. I DO like to see a filled out stage-(I'm a fan of baroque and horror vacui décor).

One think I think should be reworked is the lighting during the Vision scene. The stage doesn't change too much from the previous scene, and it sort of looks too bright for this segment's mysterious ambiance purpose.

I saw three couples...Murphy/Gomes, Lane/Cornejo and Boylston/Gorak.

Opening night was certainly full of surprises, from the sight of the new production to the digestion of the old style and steps adopted by the choreographer and dancers. Murphy wasn't my favorite Aurora, among the three, to be honest. That prize-(even surprisingly for me)-goes to Boylston. I must say that Gillian looked at times aged for the role. Her technique is still strong, but she didn't gave me the aura of the fairy tale princess.

I didn't like Sarah Lane. I found her unprepared and unfitted for the role, and too shaky during balances-(she even fell off from the seashell device)-as well as during the RA. Finally, she and Cornejo even omitted the iconic fish dives of the grand PDD. I know they are not original from the XIX century choreo, but they were created for the superb Spessivtzeva for the very London staging, so it is very weird to see it omitted from western productions. I have the feeling that Lane and Cornejo were not up to the choreographic challenge. That's a No-No in my balletomane book.

I enjoyed Boylston's Aurora the most-(and I hadn't seen too much of this girl before. I think I had only seen one rather flavorless T&V by her a while ago)-so I was rather surprised. Her Rose Adagio was the most nicely done among the three ballerinas.

I also saw one FLorine with Copeland-(don't remember the other two), which was totally forgettable. I don't think this girl has Principal material to offer, nor Lane.

To summarize, I think this is a winner production. It was very refreshing to see the low arabesques and developpes, and to have a little resting period from the contorsionists of the world. ABT is nowadays in the lead for the restitution of original mime and finales in ballets, and I REALLY love that.

It was wonderful to see all of you at the MET!!