emilienne

Ballet West on Tour 6 October 2013, 3 PM matinee Auditorium Theater, Chicago, Illinois Orchestra U 405 Feeling disappointment is one thing, but actually writing a negative review is quite another. For days, the only thing I could think to put down was, "Well, it happened and I saw it." Of course, prior to achieving that particular non-reaction, the whole experience had me feeling like Simon Pegg's character in Hot Fuzz, eyes widening and head tilting back in horrified incredulity as the village panto imploded under the weight of its own well-intentioned obliviousness. For reference's sake, feel free to see for yourself. With that said, I don't want this to stand as a condemnation of the company itself. Ballet West's intentions and the foundations (especially their corp de ballet) are good, but the matinee program, both the choreography and the company's presentation of it, threw up sufficient barriers to enjoyment that left me to mark time until I could escape for vodka and pierogi*. When performed in isolation, Rubies is an appealing choice with which to open or close a performance. I compared the third movement on my previous viewing to choreographic champagne, chasing after the piano as it burbles along on double speed. However, there were two movements before that and the soloists complete them shakily. In general, the soloists looked competent but not personable. This may be a function of my row U seats in Orchestra Left, but I was hardly at the back of the auditorium. Experience and coaching in these roles (not that I know how long they have already danced these roles) will help with projection, but in the meantime it didn't make for very memorable watching. Elizabeth McGrath was uneventful as Tall Girl. There were too many limbs flailing in the beginning, as if her torso was not fully engaged in the dancing, but she eventually settled in. Showgirl, hostess, or some permutation of both, she does not have enough authority in her stage presence to stand out sufficiently against the corps. Beckanne Sisk and Christopher Ruud were the main couple. Ruud has an eye-catching languidness in his jumps that contrasted intriguingly with the quicksilver choreography. I did notice that there were a few spots during his romp with the gang where movements looked like they were performed 'as choreographed' rather than towards the intended party, but on the whole he was closely attentive. Sisk in the McBride role faired slightly less well. Sisk dances gently, which can be used to great effect but made this role look slightly blurry. Occasionally the geometry of her choreography looked off. In one particular moment in the pas de deux, Ruud pulls her arms stage right, and what I expected to see was the ballerina's working leg extended parallel to the floor, as if someone else is pulling that limb from the opposite side. Instead, we see Sisk in a full split with working leg pointed to the ceiling. The opposing force has disappeared and instead the moment just looks vulgar. The corp were a treat to watch as they scampered through the choreography. I did want to commend one particular corp artist (by her coloring, most likely either Sayaka Ohtaki or Jenna Rae Herrera — I regret not being close enough to identify her). There is a moment where two members of the corps women pose downstage, facing the audience. This artist did so with notable assurance and sex appeal, rare enough to make me take note and speculate on the prospects of expanding that quality into McBride's role. I group Rubies and Diamonds together as they exhibit similar insufficiencies of performance. Unlike Rubies, however, Diamonds is not as dancer-proof and is particularly exposed during the pas de deux; its success hinges on the couple's ability to convey their understanding of the music and choreography to the audience. Beau Pearson was an ardently attentive cavalier, with what I would say is now a very standard and Russian portrayal. There's a saying that the object of one's regard reflects something intimate about one's own self-image, or at least the image of his ideal woman. If I take this as given, then his regard for Christiana Bennett in Suzanne Farrell's role would suggest that he, like Franz in Coppelia, longs for an uncomplicated automaton as partner. There were no dynamics to contrast one movement from the next. While all of the shapes were carefully and correctly placed, the ballerina did not demonstrate that she understood what the choreography, both in the beauty moments and in the transitions between them, were meant to do. At the moment, this is not her role. Presto, the world premiere, was performed by four dancers to slashing violin music. There are pieces that are fun to dance, and there are pieces that are fun to watch. The two intersect somewhere, but this piece was not it. Like Douglas Adams's bowl of petunias, my only reaction was to gird my loins, think 'oh no, not again' and prepare for the long drop ahead. As the inaccurate paraphrase goes, put a man and a woman onstage and you've already got a story. As with countless contemporary ballets before it, it is a relentless battle of physicality between men and women in shimmering leotards as they dance at each other. If there exists a relationship between the dancers, the closest comes in the duet challenge as the former pose the latter into a variety of shapes in a bonus challenge round. At one point, one of the principal women (possibly Jennifer Lawrence) slipped and took an audible fall. There was palpable concern from her fellow dancers, and I would argue that it made the dancing better as the dancers seemed more aware of each other than they had been. The choreography, however, soon overwhelmed that. The dancers were well-rehearsed and danced very well, but it's difficult to make anything out of the ugly music and the flashy but empty choreography. Truly, it is a piece fit for the CW. I understand why the Chicago premiere of The Lottery merits the closing position by virtue of prestige (and logistics). I would have wished for greater clarity to accompany prestige, however. The Lottery, as I am told by the program, is by Shirley Jackson is evidently a famous short story. It is so famous that my home state (infamous for having the lowest public school teacher salaries in the country) does not teach it to its students. I very intelligently inferred that there was a lottery from the obfuscating liner notes and read Wikipedia for the plot at the first intermission**. The piece's fidelity to the story's structure was problematic both for its pacing and structure. I very intelligently remarked to my friend that this piece aspires to de Mille-ian drama by way of Tharpian obfuscation. Really what I mean to say in that piece of snooty name-dropping is that it aspires to a very American melodrama through interminable and idiosyncratic port de bras. What is possible and even engaging in writing made for tedious and confusing viewing when the same actions were rendered in dance. Similar costuming made it impossible to identify different characters without a working knowledge (as well as good opera glasses) on the dancers themselves. The victim (who jsmu had identified as Katie Critchlow) danced well, but I had no idea who she was beforehand and was unimpressed with the gimmick of her screaming. The Lottery gives all of the dancers multiple somethings interesting to do, and they all dance well, but as a ballet, it ultimately fails as good dance drama. Like a Soviet Swan Lake, it demands too much foreknowledge from its audience (knowledge that was not augmented by the program), and in this case (possibly intentional, though not wisely), the staging does not augment one's understanding of these characters sufficiently to sympathize with the losers. The program sponsors were able to provide live music from the Chicago Sinfonetta for most of this performance (Presto was prerecorded). The Lottery's percussive score was performed very well, but Rubies and Diamonds sounded under-rehearsed and Rubies very sluggish and careful. The woodwinds in particular needed tuning help. *In the interests of getting to my train on time, I did not get the vodka. ** I have seen many analogues in the popular media, but the story was not immediately clear to me by title and reputation.

Quite unfortunately I must acquire seats elsewhere with some friends who are now coming to the Kennedy Center with me on Wednesday, 6 November 2013. My current ticket is located in Orchestra, Row T Seat 121, to the left side near the aisle. Only Orchestra tickets now available for Wednesday online are located in Row U, W or X. Selling it for face value, $65. I have the ticket and will contrive a method of delivery to your satisfaction.

Sorry, to clarify, the quote is not from Hepburn (though it sounds like it could be) but from Arlene Croce in the first issue of Ballet Review.

As a graduate instructor of undergraduates, sometimes in advanced composition courses, I can confirm (over my five years of teaching) that the inability to write clearly, manifest from the brainstorming stage all the way to proofreading stage combined with a lack of awareness that their inability to do so presents an obstacle to their success at university (and beyond), is becoming ever more widespread. Or, to simplify the beast created by my monstrous subclauses: yes, you see a lot more bad writing/copy editing online, but I would argue that the fundamental skills are not taught effectively at a basic level.

Quite unfortunately I will most likely not be able to attend the Saturday night performance of the Suzanne Farrell Ballet. My tickets are in Orchestra, in the center section. My seats are Row W next to the aisle, right side when facing the stage. Ideally I'd like face value for them (70$ plus service cost), but mostly I'd be happy if someone can use and enjoy them.

I went to St Petersburg a few years ago during June (via rail from Beijing). The three of us spoke maybe thirty words of Russian among us (the travel guide saw fit to inform us that "nice arse" is "klassnaya popka" in Russian, so that's space in my brain that I'll never get back). If you have a fairly good map and some help from a concierge or travel service, such as from some of the English speaking hostels (if you're looking for something low key), the city is very navigable on foot or via the metro. We were able to order Mariinsky tickets online and picked them up at the theater with the credit card of purchase. In the meantime, we scrambled all around the city and ate from cafes and grocery stores alike. Petersburg is very European and many of its inhabitants, especially in the more tourist-y spots, are very happy to speak English or put on a pantomime with the tourists. I would advise acquiring a basic knowledge of Cyrillic. PECTOPAN becomes a very welcome restaurant when one is hungry. White Nights does offer a lot more daylight hours during which to see the city, but I think that it makes the jet lag worse by completely disrupting your sensation of "day" and "night" with the amount of sunshine available.

I've emailed the Krannert staff a few times over the years about arranging for other ballet companies, replete with suggestions, but Radchenko once again we shall receive. All but Don Quixote has been performed in the years that I've lived here. I suspect it's rather difficult to arrange for traveling story ballet productions in the hinterlands (we're 3 hours from Chicago in corn country), especially when the Tryon Festival Theater is absurdly shallow for anything dance-related. The good news is that the lack of anything else ballet-related save for the annual Nutcracker very conveniently drives my desire to finish my dissertation, if only so that I can finally have a legitimate and seasonal ballet habit. 22 January: Don Quixote ??? 23 January: Chopiniana/Romeo and Juliet Last performed two years ago. Chopiniana is nicely Soviet. The less said about the R&J , the better. 24 January: Swan Lake A reduced Grigorovich production with rather unfortunate backdrops in the White Acts.

The Royal Ballet has also released a series of "Insight" videos for illustration of simple steps. Unfortunately there does not seem to be a specific playlist devoted to it. Start here for the Fred Step: All of the other Insight videos are accessible through the playlist linked at the bottom.

I'm actually not sure about copyright in this case. While software programs often allow you to install one backup, I'm not sure about modifying purchased media programs. Anyways, to speak in the hypothetical, and we often have need to modify owner-generated media... It's a bit of a headache to edit .VOB files on Mac OS X. I'll outline the steps below... Handbrake is not desirable for the first step. Handbrake compresses any video that it extracts, which you don't want as it'll look horrible once burned back to DVD. Instead I'd recommend something like Mac the Ripper to extricate the uncompressed MPEG2 contents of the DVD to a folder. Unfortunately iMovie HD (also known as '06) does not directly recognize VOB files for editing, so there's an intermediate step to take up more of your precious hard disk space. You'll need Quicktime's MPEG-2 playback component (20$, argh) for importing, or it's already available if you own DVD Studio Pro or Final Cut Pro. Download MPEG Streamclip, then convert the desired VOB clip to DV. Then, import as usual into iMovie, split your source into audio and video tracks, and play "match the musical accent with the leg" as needed. You can then burn the resulting DV via iDVD to a new disk. However, if you want a little more complication in your life... Export the edited DV from iMovie and open it once again in Streamclip. The application should be able to convert the DV clip back to .VOB (or MPEG-2, as it's called). If everything is done correctly, then you can simply replace the original VOB file with the new VOB file, and then use LiquidCD to burn a copy of the complete modified DVD, complete with the original menus! Well, now that I've said all that, I'll sit in this corner and wait patiently for my copper friends.

Are you after a temporary fix or a more permanent one for non-computer playback devices, Jack? It can be done very easily. The process goes as follows:rip the original video segments from DVD, separate the audio and video tracks in an editor, resync them by the correct time offset and finally burn the corrected files to a DVD for your musical enjoyment. I've tried to do this with a Rubies recording that I have (off the air from Dance in America), but I shuddered once or twice at the thought of dictating where on the beat is to Patricia McBride. It's probably less musically dangerous with the Choreography by Balanchine DVDs, as we could use the original, correctly synchronized, video tapes as a quality check.

For anyone interested, the complete HD presentation is on Youtube at Bolshoi's channel. The actual ballet starts approximately 30 minutes into the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnY0cK2lZ7o&feature=plcp

Letters of Note featured a letter from Gene Wilder today, dated to when he was filming Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Was surprised to read the following excerpt on the subject of Willy Wonka's costume: What on earth are Robert Helpmann trousers?

Editing this list as I find them... The Adams/Leclercq Concerto Barocco is MGZIDVD 5-118. The Western Symphony (Adams/Bliss, Hayden/Magallanes, Kent/Barnett, LeClercq/d'Amboise) is MGZIA 4-7661. Dances at a gathering (looks like a theater recording of the original cast?) MGZIA 4-6933 JRC Midsummer Night's Dream: *MGZIDVD 5-5995 Disc 1 and Disc 2 -- And Quiggin, I agree. The NYPL catalogue is annoying to use. Now there's an interesting project, cross referencing relevant archival Balanchines for interested viewers, I mean.

The Tarantella is likely from the batch of 1973 RM Productions recordings. The NYPL have a set of three on DVD (though the library does not seem to hold all extant recordings from that series) which also included Serenade, Duo Concertant (non-granitine Martins and Kay Mazzo) and Tarantella. There is another Tarantella from the Carter White House, but it's Baryshnikov/McBride in a very confined space. Barzel's tapes are an amazing resource, but do keep in mind that they are silent and often shot at very odd angles. Jack and I were at the Chicago Public Library and saw Tanaquil LeClercq in a rare clip from Symphony in C (when she bows down, her arms are up, like a welcoming hostess's curtesy, instead of the palms down arms of a woman in submission). It was a silent revelation, but does require a sharp eye and a pretty good idea of where you are in the music.

How about a Apollo with Jacques d'Amboise, Farrell, Govrin, Neary and von Aroldingen? I've seen excerpts of it on BBC television (most notably in Darcey Bussell's farewell special...one of them) but have never managed to locate the whole thing. For something fun, how about a 16mm rehearsal film of Rubies with McBride, Villella and Morris, performing against two pianos? It can be a bit blurry, and the thing's in brown and yellow (black and white is a luxury for us plebes) depending on how the projector feels that day, but I've never see Rubies performed with such speed, vivacity and (weeps at inability to come up with words).

Balanchine Masterworks Ballet Chicago Sunday 6 May Matinee Harris Theater, Chicago, IL Orchestra O109 Balanchinean first nights seem to invite overbearing scrutiny. I plead in part excessive caffeination while trapped on a slowly moving train, but the other half of the argument is that first performances of Balanchine works often resemble dress rehearsals (I'm paraphrasing from someone, but whom?) and the dancers often haven't fully worked out how to relate to the audience. Perhaps the strategy for greater commercial success and/or artistic acceptance for me (insert laugh here) is to post the second night's review first, then post my initial querulousness when no one is looking*. There's a moment in Barocco's Second Movement when the cavalier carries the First Violin across the stage on, her legs surging into the air like waves. The corps mirrors their journey in waves of bodies, surging and subsiding, to the opposite shore; it intensifies the impression of distance, and brought strongly to mind the Act II Panorama from Sleeping Beauty. The closeness of the camera, along with the forced narrative that it imposes on the proceedings (which may or may not be in sympathies with the choreographer's intentions), really cannot not prepare a viewer. This was my favorite discovery of the night. Courtney Wright Anderson continues her excellent dancing. She is generally very 'correct' in her Balanchine performance, but I think recorded music make dancers complacent. In this case, Anderson finishes her choreography before the music does and then poses until the music catches up. I still don't see much awareness of Ted Seymour. I did wonder whether the choreography (or just my very finicky aesthetics) could support such an interpretation. After all, Seymour is not given an instrument but is an auxiliary of the First Violin; his function is to help her in developing the singing lines in the Second Movement. However, I ultimately don't find unawareness interesting to look at. While the partners moved together beautifully, they were ships passing in the night emotionally, even despite Seymour's careful attention and increased security in the lifts. Ellen Green continues to perplex me. She obviously has the idea of the choreography (as I had mentioned, the shifting of the weight), but she sticks out stylistically and musically, especially against the other two soloists. I've admired quite a few Danish men in the Balanchine repertoire but have not had that pleasure for the women. Is this endemic to the current company or just a quirk of the dancer? The curtain began to come down before dancers got into position in the final tableau, cutting off any suggestion of expansiveness in space that the dancers' open arms would suggest. I have already noted previous problems with the lighting, but allowing the house to determine when the dance ends instead of the reverse seemed like a serious misjudgment. A drive-by perusing of Wikipedia tells me that Capriccio for Piano and Orchestra was begun on Christmas Day, 1928, with the Third Movement begun first. Some call it wit, but Your Critic finds it to be the musical equivalent of laughing gas. Mr Stravinsky's tossing off epigrams on champagne and I'm giggly on the effervescence alone. That said, I would recommend that dancers warm-up to the Third Movement before attempting to perform Rubies on stage, so that they can firmly fix the humor and wit and fun in their minds before going on for the whole thing. Holowchuk on Saturday night visibly perked up during the Third Movement, as if she had finally stopped worrying over the choreography and decided to have a little, which carried marvelously into the Sunday matinee. While Holowchuk initially couldn't figure out how to make some of the posing work, her dancing gave us some elegant mischief. She isn't quite the lady who goes slumming with the local bad boy (Renko was too wholesome looking for that!), but I can easily see her dazzling the catering staff into doing her bidding, possibly to create a manmade river of champagne in the salon. And if she and the hostess convinces everyone to dive in and take a swim, so much the better. Matthew Renko's energy was better focused than on opening night. He still appears too wholesome, but I think that looking the paragon suits him, especially in getting out of scrapes that his devilish energy gets him into. Who, me? says he as he runs away, while the women shake their heads in fond exasperation. His troupe of men were noticeably sharper in their marching precision today, trailing behind him in admiration and emulation. After an excellent Saturday performance, Jane Morgan needed half a movement to get into character Sunday, as if our hostess had just woken up and hadn't quite got her face on before going downstairs. But a cup of coffee later and her amused worldliness was back in force. As with Saturday night, her shaky adagio technique drew attention to itself instead of keeping our attention on the character. But then again, it is a nervewracking sequence of slowly unfurling arabesques after an already difficult movement. The hostess exits, slightly disheveled by the fun she's orchestrated, but golly, even that is rather fetching. My karma likes to bludgeon me with whichever ballet I don't particularly care for until I capitulate into at least detached appreciation. The candidate for my recent reconsideration has been the excerpted Who Cares?, courtesy of Ballet Chicago. To be honest, the work is pleasing mostly due to its musical familiarity, but it can rather trying to sit through, especially as a program closer, for someone not raised in Americana,. To paraphrase from Miss Austen, too much of Who Cares? is rather too light and bright and sparkling. The corps looks thrilled to be dancing on stage and seemed like such nice hardworking cityfolk in their variations. In general, the work wants shade, which the soloist choreography provides much too late in the sequencing. I didn't see much difference in the soloist work between the Saturday night and Sunday matinee performances. Ted Seymour was his usual excellent self*** and I wish that I could see him in more roles to stress test that thoughtful musicality. Susan Belles seemed more in control of her nerves/legs today and built on her previous performance. The other two soloists (Ellen Green and Robyn Wallace) were technically secure but intellectually perplexing. Who are these women, and what is this man to them? These dancers have not yet found the narrative within their dancing to engage us emotionally. *The other option for fame and fortune, that of writing stream of consciousness commentary to endless after-Petipas à la Russe by third-rate touring companies, make me long for a lobotomy. **Case in point, Union Jack. I'll invite the Wrath of Karma and mention it if it means that I get to see it live, at least once. *** Excellence is not boring, but finding new ways of describing it can be.

I had to look through my reviews, but I did see her in it in 2008, and I'll shameless quote: "The dance archeologist in me wonders what the first concert version of Ragtime looks like (with Diana Adams). This version with its demi-caratère gestures and the loose-limbed choreography can only connect in my mind to Farrell and her little eccentricities. Elizabeth Holowchuk (sic) did admirably, but she filled the Farrell mold - is it possible for her to exceed it? Actually the first thought I had when they began dancing was, "My God, it's Rubies with Suzanne Farrell!" But it wasn't, not quite, she was perhaps a less cynical jazz baby, before she had acquired quite the verve and edge of Rubies." That being from the beginning period of my public opinionation, it's unfortunately one of those pieces that I don't remember very well, especially as I was mentally wrestling with the music. Her playfulness didn't project well into the cheap seats upstairs. I've seen her in things since, but I had never really experienced that playfulness (and even poutiness!) until her Rubies. I'll expand these impressions in more detail in my review for 6 May.

Balanchine Masterworks Ballet Chicago Saturday 5 May 2012 Harris Theater, Chicago, IL Orchestra M110 I didn't expect a car wreck, but I did approach these performances with a(n un)healthy anticipation when I heard that Elisabeth Holowchuk would be taking the lead in Rubies. We talk of emploi mostly in reference to Russian companies, but Balanchine ballets have their own emploi*. The bottom line is that Holowchuk is not the most obvious dancer for a McBride role. She is reserved, introverted and more naturally suited at first thought (by association or style) to Farrell's repertoire and, being a member of the Suzanne Farrell Ballet, can seem in danger of being cornered into those roles. I am pleased to observe that she did find a satisfying and valid interpretation of Rubies, though it did take two movements before she revved up to it. On the whole, the performance was uneven. Performers had opportunities to shine, but it wasn't a wholly cogent program. Duell announced before this performance** that this was the 25th anniversary of Ballet Chicago and the 15th anniversary of the studio company. The Balanchine Masterworks program is designed to showcase the dancers' progress in three different "Balanchinean" moods, and it is interesting to see the company react so differently in each. I know Concerto Barocco primarily from film (list available upon request), as I had never seen it live until now. I am pretty sure that one is not supposed to find the corps more interesting than the soloist, but the casting didn't work quite as intended. Ellen Green returns from the Royal Danish Ballet as Second Violin. Her movements were brilliantly sharp, inappropriately so against the phrasing in the recorded music. Her port de bras was soft and blurry in contrast, but tense when posing. I wasn't sure what was going on and can only conjecture that it was two techniques, usually thought to coexist harmoniously, fighting a turf war with each other. Courtney Wright Anderson as First Violin was, in contrast, a serene presence. She sketches out a good framework of the choreography, but needs more guidance to populate it more fully. Her dancing anticipates the recorded music and the phrase consequently looks incompletely developed, even static. Occasionally I got the feeling that she's forgotten about her cavalier, Ted Seymour, when she was not looking at him, but whether that's a valid reading on the partnership requires discussion. Seymour is an attentive partner but is too tall for her, which occasionally disrupted the geometry in the partnership. So, as I said, I ended up watching the corps more often than not. Surprisingly, Balanchine the classicist is not in their bodies as is Balanchine the modernist or the showman. Concerto Barocco is, according to Marie-Jeanne, about a shifting of the weight, and I don't think that the corps is as yet secure enough to bring that out in the choreography. Bows occasionally do not go down*** but shrink inward like a crumpling piece of paper. No, down in this case, as Ender Wiggins would inaccurately remind us, is down. Here, the bow provides the visual anchor for up as well as the four planar directions. The entry for Barocco in the Balanchine Foundation's database remarks that the piece "was begun as a School of American Ballet exercise in stagecraft". The corps work is true to that mission: the dancers never go off stage, and every movement is exposed as it is not in Rubies or Who Cares?. Toward the end, I noticed that one of the corps member's skirts had slipped to mid-thigh and threatened its own solo burlesque. The dancer trooped through it as if nothing happened. This is professionalism in the teaching, but has not fully stuck yet, judging by the other ballets. I did notice that the corps's port de bras is rather more florid than the music (the bowing?) would suggest. This is stylistically correct (probably), but I found myself preferring the calmer port de bras, possibly a result of the busier floor work, in the Third Movement. That same calmness, fullness, even efficiency, in the arms should be aspired to. Duell commented before the second performance that the middle piece in any program (as formulated by Mr Balanchine) should be the most 'challenging' work for the audience. This company ate up the challenge with large dessert spoons, presenting sense of commitment to the choreography that I wish was more present in the other works. Digressing a little, we bandy about the term "black and whites", but I wonder if we should invent a category for Balanchine's "red" ballets, so unimaginatively labeled for the prominence of red in the ballerina's costumes. Candidates here include Tarantella, Rubies, Tzigane, with more nominees welcomed at my inbox (and vetted by a fully blind peer review process). Many (two, anyways) were McBride roles, and often gives of the vibe of, to paraphrase the late popularlibrary "a classy lady in a party dress who goes slumming with the local bad boy", which usually meant Villella. As I mentioned, Holowchuk is counterintuitive casting. She appears reserved and occasionally (and visibly) retreats into herself while dancing. We did get half a pas de deux that looked like it would turn into a production of "Diamonds in Rubies". The pas de deux is demanding, and she looked like she was worrying through the choreography instead of dancing it. However, she had relaxed sufficiently by the Third Movement that what had been flashes of wit ignited into amusement and vivacity. This was an elegant lady letting her figurative hair down, and the effect was marvelous. Her cavalier, Matthew Renko, is more the neighborhood Quarterback than the local bad boy. His musical intelligence complements Holowchuk's in creating a story. Lady delicately sashays toward him. How about a tour of the wild side, she coos. Hubba hubba, reply his shoulders, all anticipation of hijinks. First night energy could have been better channeled into precision, but however unfocused, nowhere is Matthew Renko barreling downstages at the audience not a terrifying sight. Maybe tonight's the night that the boy decides to turn bad and dive at someone in orchestra. Jane Morgan was pitch perfect casting as the tall girl. Whatever lushness she lacks in physique, she makes up for in her dancing. As a hostess, Morgan reminds me of Gypsy Rose Lee, all vivacious cheekiness, holding court for some salon of notables. She occasionally needs more attack, but the performance was utterly musical and always deliciously in character. This was on the slow side for a performance of Rubies, and the company looked like it couldn't quite keep up. At one point, Renko waves a hand at his boy posse. It is meant to be a gesture of inclusion, but it looked like he was urging the boys to catch up instead. With more bodies on stage, Rubies is not as exposed in the corps choreography as other pieces on the program, and that invites a certain amount of fudging. One of my cardinal rules of performance is to always look like one knows what one's doing. In this case, when the choreography is faster than the dancer, the dancer must stay where she has landed. Otherwise the eyes are led immediately to where the dancers are trying to sneak back into place. It's nothing several million more Rubies can't fix. I would volunteer to watch them. It's an entirely disinterested motive on my part, of course. And in the same vein, I want to give a giant discommendation to the lighting design. It did not trust in the choreography to do its job and made the dynamics obvious and a little cheesy. We didn't need more narrative when the dancers have already created their own. Surprisingly, the Balanchine the pop showman was the hardest to perform. I've seen Ballet Chicago do it to greater effect a year ago, but they did not have to contend with Rubies and Barocco on the same program. Specifically, the corps and the soloists look mismatched. The corps sold their energy hard enough to reach nosebleed and looked hungry for more, but the soloists didn't convey enough drama or character. Over all, the piece was the most uneven out of the three and felt flat. Miss Green was in Who Cares? last year and I remarked favorably on her potential to make more of the role. McBride's role should smolder in a deep and dark and wonderful way (a conflagration that one would gladly walk into, my brain supplies on the train home); unfortunately this performance only looked like a fire. It was technically correct but emotionally absent, and almost all of the accents were missing. Ted Seymour's ardent partnering covered some of the problems, but his absence underlines the weaknesses in her solo. Robyn Wallace in Morris's role looked generally delighted to be there. Unfortunately that delight wasn't a function of Ted's presence. She gave a very able performance of the My One and Only solo with that same stage demeanor. Who needs Ted Seymour if you've got pas de chat en tournant****? Somehow I don't think the choreography is meant to work like that. Susan Belles wasn't in full control of her legs during her duet, but she was demurely sweet and danced with great delicacy and mental presence. From start to finish, and not just in Who Cares?, Ted Seymour was a thoughtful dancer and an attentive partner. He builds his solo in Liza from introspection to a rousing finish. Is he searching for or remembering love? His partners do not give any hints, but his dancing invites the speculation. *subject to discussions yet to come **Please have your people talk to my people about flattering stage attire thnx ***What made put me in mind of it was a comment by Marie-Jeanne and John Taras, who noted that bows by the corps were originally flat backed, not round. ****That whooshing sound you hear is Your Critic raising her hands.

They used recorded music. The tempo was definitely on the slow side both nights. Holowchuk's vivacity did make it feel faster on the second night.

I saw Dupont in Bolero during the celebration of the Sino-Franco Cultural year in late November or October 2005, so it's not a debut. I believe she had just come back from maternity leave then. The POB also presented Suite en Blanc and L'Arlesienne on that same program. Between the lackluster (jetlagged?) dancing and the Central Orchestra whose soloists couldn't count time to save their lives (the bassoon player forgot to come in, so there was silence for 16 measures), it was a really forgettable performance.

According to the credits: Zina: Inna Petrova Pyotr: Yuri Klevtsov Ballerina: Maria Alexandrova Ballet Dancer: Sergei Filin Accordionist: Gennady Yanin Dacha Dweller: Andrei Melanin Anxious to be younger than she is dacha dweller: Lyubov Fillipova

Jack is right as usual. I was thinking of the MCB's four person Valse Fantasie, which I saw in Chicago. I'll slink off and correct my initial post then... I guess Valse Fantasie and the second movement of Brahms-Schoenberg are the premieres. If so, what are the other pieces on the program? (in weary anticipation...)

The 2004 Balanchine Centennial also has an excerpt of Duo Concertante with Yvonne Bourree and [male name unfortunately forgotten] if you can locate a copy.

Jack, given that it is not noted as a company premiere, my guess is that TSFB will present the 1953 version that they performed 2-3 years ago, with four dancers. EDIT: I was thinking of the MCB version. Ignore, do not read. Think about bunnies.

The video of the announcement here. October 16-21: Mariinsky Ballet in Ratmansky's Cinderella November 7-11: Suzanne Farrell Ballet in a mix repertory program (two premieres, Valse-Fantasie and the second movement of Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet) November 13-18: San Francisco Ballet, (EDIT) Romeo and Juliet December 5-9: Ballet West in Nutcracker January 18-27: National Ballet of Canada in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland March 26-31: New York City Ballet in two mixed repertory programs April 9-14: American Ballet Theatre in Le Corsaire and also a mixed repertory program June 4-9: Ballet Across America II (EDIT: Ballet Austin, Boston Ballet, Dance Theatre of Harlem, North Carolina Dance Theatre, Oregon Ballet Theatre, Pennsylvania Ballet, Richmond Ballet, Sarasota Ballet, Washington Ballet).