Catherine

I can comment as I was at the festival press conference. When asked if the Theatre intended to keep Silvia in the repertoire long term and/or if permission/rights had been paid in order to do so, Fateyev responded that they paid to have the sets and costumes done anew specifically for the Mariinsky and that unlike ABT which had borrowed theirs from the Royal Ballet, this 'set' of costumes/scenery is new and belongs to the Mariinsky and thus he hopes the ballet will remain in rotation for years to come. He did not comment on how many years or any amounts paid or not paid.

Perhaps they can support him because they believe he is the fall guy paid to carry out and also to take the public blame for the entire thing which was orchestrated by someone else... As such, what he says would not be the truth but rather what he was commissioned to say in court.

Just wanted to say I agree with these observations and they're very astute. Regarding the sham marriage: she was married for a short period of time (I read one month, I believe but perhaps it was longer) and is already divorced, because she thought it would help her get somewhere. What I find surprising is that it is not difficult to read online the Russian requirements (in English or in Russian) for obtaining 1) visas 2) legal employment 3) residency and 4) citizenship. In either language it is clear that marrying a Russian does not get you any of the above (not in the short term at least). Before moving to Russia I did extensive reading about the requirements for legal working visa and the tax requirements for dual residency or Russian residency as a foreigner and what taxes need to be paid, to whom, at what %, and when. It's not the Bolshoi's responsibility to be aware of US tax law. They are responsible for adhering to tax requirements within their own country only. It is the individual's responsibility to file a Federal US Tax return whether residing in the US or not, as Helene I think pointed out. Furthermore, when signing an employment contract in Russia, the contract lists the amount of tax that will be deducted from your paycheck based on your status. She would have seen what that percentage was before signing. As a tax resident it should be a flat 13% along with the rest of the country. It is higher for other categories (I have to check as this has changed recently, but I believe it's higher if you have not been in Russia long or are not officially employed, or are a subcontractor etc). And a final thought: casting couch policies exist in nearly every company on the planet. We don't hear about them in the mainstream press but they happen. So I'd extend the comments in that area as well. If she was exposed to those comments, she was not the only one. But it's up to the individual how they react, whether they succumb, if they work hard without the bribes or try to take /give money to get somewhere faster. It is a fact that not every (or even many) corps members are paying bribes to get on stage. The below is very very true:

Me too. I don't know if they are - I suppose only the courts and those with access to them will know for sure.

Izvestia is pro-Tsiskaridze, and therefore anti-Filin, so take into account the source of who's "producing" the news.

What relevance does it have to the case to what extent Filin has lost, regained, or will regain his eyesight? The fact that acid was thrown in his face is documented by medical and surgical photos that are available online. In my view, legally speaking, and not legally speaking, it bears no relevance how severe the damage is or was, then or now -- because there IS damage and acid WAS thrown. And it was ordered thrown by someone other than Dmitrichenko. Those are facts. I don't understand the focus (in the courtroom) on that or the focus on whether or not Filin was carrying on a casting couch situation. Unless that is going to determine the amount (in monetary funds) of compensation for his suffering. Other than that I think that line of questioning by the courts/attorneys is a bit irrelevant. Or is that just me? Secondarily, as a journalist, I can tell you that the coverage in certain US papers is decidedly slanted against or for certain pieces of news. As a journalist I've personally been asked by US national papers to find more "dirt" on someone when there was no dirt to be found (and when the someone in question was Russian). I just say that to suggest we should take with a grain of salt whatever is in print by a national paper (US or otherwise). Look at the source and look at what their typical political views are in most articles on said topic, and then seek out a paper with the opposite views and you will likely find the facts in order to piece together the story.

2. Financial audits are not necessarily black and white. Accountants make projections and assumptions that are subjective. Methods of accounting are also subject to the accountant's judgment, within a range of standards. 3. If AA ran the educational docket and DV ran the budget, then why would AA have to run away, Birdsall? Also, what about DV? 4. Why the pressing agenda to unify the schools and the theatres? Is it for greater access to larger budgets and greater power over more supplicants? Or to standardize outputs? Or both? 5. Why do London, NY, and other orchestras need Gergiev? 6. Is the word audit used in a nonfinancial setting in Russia, to mean an internal investigation of other behaviors? 6. Yes in this case that is how the article sounded. 5. They don't IMHO 4. Bc the Min of Culture is an idiot. But from a PRACTICAL standpoint the only reason i can think of is that it would give more "power" to whomever heads this new entity up. The money won't necessarily be larger...unless you consider one person ruling a $10 budget in city A, and one person ruling a $10 budget in city B, each only manage $10. But if the city structures are combined, and the budget is now $20, then one person gets to manage $20.... But I still dont see the economic advantage there bc the institutions must still be run in a functional manner (therefore said person cannot just pocket $20). So to answer your question - no one knows! 3. Will let birdsall answer. 2. Right but if the books do not add up, and money is missing, that's pretty black and white. 1. Lack of employment contracts have zero to do with a financial audit. But they have to do with an administrative audit. Why weren't the human resources files filled? The answer is bc the Min Culture did not provide the required documents. My point is - that is not the Academy's fault as far as I can tell. You can ask the MinCul for the documents. Whether they provide them or not is up to them... Just to recap, the audit is all encompassing: administrative/financial/educational. Its not just financial.

You were not referring to the Bolshoi reno, too? Personally I was not, no...I dont think the Bolshoi reno qualifies as costco bc at least there is form to the building...

(Oh - I meant the MT2. Someone called it Costco bc it resembles the square-box form of Costco...)

Lord, at this point, I suppose sky is the limit. I want to say, "it would depend on the legal situation" but apparently nothing is based on that here anymore. In the article they note that the audit also involves "educational" processes. How can the Ministry of Culture audit the way a 275 year old ballet academy teaches its own students, I'd like to know? Financial audits are obviously more black-and-white. If they find missing funds, yes, I'm sure someone will be charged. Then the irony is why aren't people responsible for building billion dollar Costco theatres also being audited? ahem. We'd have a quick list of jail applicants in that case... The fact that none of the rectors were given employment contracts however, is a reflection on the MINISTRY and not on the administration of the Academy. So I honestly do not know what they plan to "find" in this audit. Between that and the "idea to unify" the schools, I....have no more words.

More at day's end. First, the good news: Fomkin met with Gergiev in a productive meeting and sources say he is not in support of Tsiskaridze leading up the Academy. His (Gergiev's) main grievance was the "distance" of the Academy from the theatre, he claimed. Tsiskaridze heading up the academy will only widen that gap. Second, the bad news: The Ministry of Culture has announced suddenly that it will be running a financial/administrative audit of the Academy due to violations. (Unclear what violations, when, how, or why). Propaganda at its best to perpetuate the drama? Unbelievable.

Ha sandik ))))) and Drew ["the Minister's tin ear and really spectacular display of ignorance is...well...astounding.] YES. This. ___ Yesterday here in Saint Petersburg at 2 p.m. on Ligovsky Prospekt Rosbalt hosted a press conference organized by the petitioners for ...perhaps I will call them the petitioners for fairness and democracy. In attendance were Kuznetsov, Igor Kolb, Anton Korsakov (also proposed as a candidate in fact), Yuri Smekalov and Fomkin along with pedagogues from the Academy. The candidates spoke and part of the conference is recorded on youtube (without visual but with audio) for those who understand Russian. It is impressive that the group has rallied press support> the petition is reaching 1000 signatures but we need 10 times more than that to take it to the Duma. I'm praying that the more press attention this gets, the less likely a long-term disastrous outcome will be.

Well it's preferable when doing a manege or diagonale and heading *downstage* ahem because the momentum takes you forward faster and in jumps you seem to go higher since, as you travel forward (downstage), the floor is lower than it was where you took off from the jump (due to the grade). I can't personally say it's preferable when running upstage though (because you're running uphill)... From an audience's point of view it's also preferable because you can see everyone on stage, up to the girl in the last row. In the West this is achieved mostly by grading the orchestra seats...but still, from the orchestra you look at the stage and it's one level, so the "girls in the back" can get lost from view more easily. It depends of course on the hall, where you're sitting, but overall the sight lines are better, i find, in theatres with raked stages (better for the audience I mean).

Tamicute, I totally agree that Gergiev doesn't intend to make MT2 (or other) studios... the dancers I interviewed during the opening of the MT2 for the article were told in explanation for why the MT2 *stage* itself is not raked that "since they dance on flat stages on tour, they can do it at home" -- that is the reason they were given! For Westerners, the rake takes a huge toll on joints when you are at first not used to it, but once you are used to it (as Xander noted) it can be a preferable option. What is not easy is the "back and forth" (even though they do it for touring). What is staggering (or OK, at this point, nothing is surprising) but the inconsistency, considering the MT1, the Mikhailovsky, the Conservatory and the Alexandrinsky (unless I'm mistaken) stages are all raked...--as tamicute noted, every rehearsal studio and stage in the city basically -- as well as any major Russian theatre intended for ballet/opera viewings in any city, has a raked stage, with few exceptions. Oh - but not the MT2.

I have no proposals and didn't realize we were obliged to submit proposals here - my job is not to solve that problem (with the 3 jobs I already have, it's plenty for me!). I just don't believe that laying a floor (of the type that you mentioned) is an option or they would have already done it at present time. Nor will it be easy to find sudden empty space that is usable. Something will have to be built or converted (renovated) unless the school is booted out of their 275-year home. It's great if the NYCB man made that floor in the US, and that was a solution there, but it isn't one here (at present time)...I don't know that the Russians have that technology or knowledge, asI have not seen it done here before. So presuming they do not have that option: is Mr Bates willing to fly to Russia, and would they hire him? Or will someone in Russia fly to the US to learn how to build it? The Sochi workforce isnt needed as the MT has their own stagehand builders. But if they do not have that knowledge, even though that proposal is great, if it is not accessible here either due to cost (visa/flight/training) or skill on site at the MT...then we're back at square one.

Again though, you mention the studio space will not be needed if the company is on tour -- but that leaves behind another 100+ dancers who do require space. Also, there are not sprung floors available on which "portable" floors (I presume you mean Marley?) could be placed. Not to mention the issue, either that studio floors here are raked. Those require specific measurements and angles -- a raked floor as far as I know is not a portable item, it has to be built from scratch. So on both accounts, that results in construction - unless you want to ask dancers to jump on cement, which will just result in injury. Finally the issue of transportation, if these studios are not next door to the current performing venue, you have a massive transportation issue for dancers who have: 1) company class at 10am "somewhere in the city" (based on your plan) 2) a stage rehearsal at 12 noon on the main stage per current practices 3) other rehearsals from 3-6pm across the city (see point 1) 4) a performance at 7pm back at the stage. The time lost in transportation, in winter conditions especially, not to mention how to dress for -15C temperatures in the January through March season (undress/redress/undress - warm up again? undress/redress, back on the bus...) are not easily or practically overcome. You wrote they have until the end of 2014...why 2014 (??)

Agree with your last sentence Ilya -- but let's hope we are wrong

The article about the pro-rector is slightly incorrect. Altynai and all the other pro-rectors' contracts are extended *only until* December 31, 2013. The press incorrectly published that news (same mistake in Lenta.ru as in Gazeta.ru apparently). At that point, unless Tsiskaridze is NOT appointed full director (he is "acting director" until the elections), then all pro-rectors are dismissed and Lopatkina is slotted into Asylmuratova's position.

Ah Ok, from your post I was not clear that you understood that :-) "the M-II could have a hundred ballet studios, but not be able to use them if they're in Paris or Berkeley" The reality though is that the school is too huge -- I know there are some readers and posters on this forum who have also seen the new renovations inside, as have I -- to simply relocate in its entirety. Too huge in terms of student body, teaching classrooms, dormitories, not to mention the actual ballet studios. It's immense in terms of square footage. Offhand there is not an equivalent space (in terms of metrage) that is empty at present time in the city of Saint Petersburg. So yes, in theory it could be relocated but to where? Something would have to be built and that doesn't happen overnight either.. (witness 7 years of the MT2!) I think complicating the issue is that the Conservatory is currently closed for renovations. The talk about 3 yrs ago was that when the MT1 closes, the dancers could use Conservatory studios (which are woefully inadequate in terms of size and floor quality etc but - they are studios). But that's not an option now and for the foreseeable future (until it reopens).

The initial word was that the ballet would be on tour 100% of the time and therefore not need space in MT2 when touring, and MT1 would be closed down. However as is well known, 100% of the ballet troupe does not go on tour. It is ALWAYS divided in half (or 70/30, or 60/40). Half remain -- the Zhelonkinas of the troupe, the ones who become part of the "home base" group -- and the other half tour. That then overlooks the issue that *when the company is on tour there are still over 100 dancers left at home who need space for company class and rehearsals on a daily basis*. Just because you see the Mariinsky listed in Paris or Berkeley doesn't mean that that's the entire troupe or even most of it - just to clarify that point. The school cannot shut down as it is a government institution first of all, and second of all, there are children being educated there from 8am to 8pm throughout the school year, if not in the studios then in their academic classes. That includes students of paying parents, and it includes students whose parents are not in Russia and who are paying for their education there.

Or, if said boss is willing to risk being fired for going against Gergiev, which, as we know, he is not. Also, think: who's above Gergiev? Yes - they have been taking in paying students for years. You can (they can) demand. It just doesn't mean that it will happen. I am reminded of one other key factor here. The dates for finishing the new theatre (completing construction) were moved out numerous times. The entire outfit was woefully behind schedule and delayed more than 1 year (if memory serves - initial completion was supposed to be in 2011). As it was, there were doubts about how it could make the May 1-2-3/Maestro's birthday bash deadline in 2013 given the fact that, even in spring 2013, it was not finished. For that matter, at the opening, it was still not finished. Even this summer, walking through areas in the lower floors: still not finished! So, even if consultations were made, and reassurances given, no one was able to see the outcome until what was done was done. Most dancers I spoke with had not even seen the inside of that building until perhaps a week or so before the opening (maybe 2 weeks). At that point, of course, it was too late to request that adequate studio space be built... Yes, but corruption, in the form of payment or taking of money, as I stated, does not explain "sufficiently" the punitive behavior toward the ballet and school, nor does it preclude the creation of a well-designed, useful building, suited to its purpose. It adds to costs and delays, and may cause moral, economic, and other types of harm, but it does not explain sufficiently the design of a nonfunctional building. If a builder did not use sufficiently safe material to permit the diversion of allocated money to his or someone else's pockets, then corruption would be a sufficient explanation (e.g., designing a smaller space, built with inferior or fewer materials, to permit skimming and diversion of budgeted monies for stronger, costlier materials). But if a building to house a school does not have classrooms, then corruption alone is not a sufficient explanation for the senseless design, although it is likely a factor.Likewise, the above claim that Gergiev favors the opera and treats ballet as a slave, does not sufficiently explain the intentional creation of a space that lacks studios to permit the training of dancers who are the cash cows whose slave labor funds the beloved opera. One must still build a barn to house the horses who draw the carriages, even if one does not adequately or completely feed the horses. I see your points now... that corruption alone can't explain the (perhaps intentional, perhaps not) lack of space. I suppose we've already touched on the basic reasoning behind it all

Could have hired. I think though, that this touches on the issue. They *did* hire Jack Diamond Architectural firm from Canada, known for the Opera House built there, to build this building. So, it was not even a Russian company. I am no specialist in architecture, but numerous publications have already commented on how the (exterior) design leaves so much to be desired, and the theatre employees have commented at length, as have many who've been backstage, on how the interior design is also lacking. So we had the "decent architect." They worked, they were paid, they left. What happened? I think corruption *does* explain just this. My guess is that the design was dictated by the theatre and the ballet was not considered. Also, I do not know if this goes on in the West, but you have no idea the degree to which the middle men come out of the woodwork for the piece of the pie (I have no better metaphor). And as soon as that pendulum starts to swing away from the original plan (ie: we need a new opera house with ABC in it) it swings far and wide, and the original ABCs by the end of the entire building process, have long been forgotten. Again, as I noted in my article in Dance Europe in May, and to repeat what what Islom Baimuradov stated at the time, "why wasn't in the ballet administration consulted --at some point over SEVEN YEARS -- in what was needed in terms of rehearsal space?" (comment about 7 yrs my own) Also, isn't creating the need for new expenditures for repairs/modifications/redesigns (necessary or not) -- isn't that what corruption is? or at least, mismanagement? In my view it is, whether done purposely at the outset ("let's just get a building up and we will ask for more millions of dollar later to redo the entire thing") or unintentionally ("well this is a mess and now we have to fix it so I will write the government for more millions"). Because in the case of the unintentional disaster, the bottom line is someone is still responsible. It's not every day across the world you build a new opera house and have THIS kind of reaction.

The problem is, that private money was already donated, spent and pocketed by those middlemen who stuck their fingers into the pie of the MT2. And the result is a building that does not, after --was it seven years?-- of construction, meet the needs of the ballet troupe. And so now people are scrambling to cover up the mess that could have been solved if someone had sat down for five minutes during the planning stage with the multi billions of dollars *just spent* for this specific purpose. As an example of the poor layout, when you go to floor 2 or 3 or 4 of the MT2, there are huge corridors -- they are not hallways, they are vast open spaces (in the hallway). Then walls of tiny offices, millions of them, along the periphery. Empty rooms. Redesigning even 20% of ONE floor in the building would have created a single ballet studio. The footage (metrage) is massive. And - useless now. At least for the ballet. The opera is covered. As an example also of what the ballet is dealing with: behind the actual stage there is a space equal to the dimensions of the stage space itself, to the right, to the left, and behind the stage (think of a "U" shape curving behind the stage). So basially five "blocks" or squares in the same dimensions of the stage. There are no mirrors or barres there -- one side (right) is a workshop with men building scenery. the other side (left) was/has been empty. So the ballet laid down a marley (the floor is not sprung!!) and in this black box, no mirror, no barre space, will rehearse ballets. Ratmansky had to do rehearsals for his DSCH ballet there... But how convenient if they have to request more money to "redesign" the inside of the (still unfinished!) interior of the MT2. Then the construction companies, designers, everyone will pocket more money along the way, above the actual costs, and in addition to the people actually needed to do the work. Materials will be downgraded so middlemen can pocket money and rinse repeat.

I've been backstage at the MT2. As I wrote in the coverage of the MT2 opening for Dance Europe magazine, there is one large (overly large) studio. So large that it could have (should have?) been divided into two. In the basement there are two small rooms with mirrors/barres and low ceilings. The current Mariinsky (historical stage) has 5 studios that are fully in use from 10am to 10pm seven days per week with no days off. For the ballet only. The opera has separate areas. So, to go from 5...which is inadequate when you consider there are, as of this September, 60+ extra dancers in the troupe and no where to have them rehearse, to essentially ONE functional studio for close on 300 ballet dancers....

The voting by staff is not to occur until next *summer*. News sources suggested January but the pedagogues here have told me it is closer to summer 2014. That's a LONG time (a full academic year essentially) before anything can be adjusted.