cubanmiamiboy

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.

I love that aria.

ABT's design.

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

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

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

So maybe is Lane...

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.

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.

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.

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!!

Just to all men, and specially for those who are blessed to be fathers, wishing you a wonderful, wonderful day!!

It's awful....

I don't know the dancer. Any clips...?

I find interesting how similar her photo's makeup is to that of brother's Rose...

Bak'st design for Aurora's wedding tutu. Lubov Egorova wearing said design. Richard Hudson's design for Aurora's wedding, 2015. Aurora's wedding's design, ABT 2015.

I was seriously thinking on a quick trip just to see Osipova's Nikiya. Glad I never buy tickets in advance for any performance.

Here's a better photo.

Thank you, Artem, for the updates.