Andrew73

Sorry for the delay - when I get a new ballet DVD, I can't watch it until I get a free evening - by free I mean guaranteed no interruptions; with witnessed statements to that effect from all friends and family. Finally, I managed it, and it's a marvellous version of the ballet, very traditional, rich in mime (done properly, so far as I can tell, but I'm no expert). The leads are both excellent, Laëtitia Pujol on top form, and with good 'chemistry' between them. Good camera work and direction allows us to see almost all the footwork, with a variety of angles - but no pointless changing angles every few seconds. The company, as ever, is superb, which shows not only in the second act, but in the villagers' dances in the first act too. Dramatically, Giselle is well portrayed as the innocent maiden, and the 'mad' scene is horribly convincing, while her 'white act' is as good as any you'll find. Albrecht changes seamlessly from 'bad boy caught out' to concern to guilt and then to horror; nice one, Nicolas Le Riche! Myrta seems technically fine, but not as strong a presence as in some versions, while Hilarion, always an ambiguous character, comes across as little more than a bully; perhaps that's why the Wilis show him no mercy? Throughout, the direction is smooth, the camera work and lighting is good - though I felt the spotlight following the leads was overly bright and a little distracting in the first act. I was very impressed by the orchestra and the sound quality; so often ballets on DVD are let down by poor sound I've probably missed several key points here, but, all-in-all it really is an excellent Giselle; all involved clearly understood the ballet and respect its history and traditions. I suspect it'll be a while before we see a better one! When you see such great shows, you cannot help but notice the trivial little weird bits; I found myself obsessed with Giselle's grave. Far from the wooden cross placed to mark a peasant's grave, there's an ten-foot tall War Memorial, carved in granite. You can picture the scene at the undertakers: "Usually, moi lad, we'd just mark the grave with a simple wooden cross, and if Ma can afford it, a little stone in a few months' time; but I reckon this Giselle will be talked about for, oh, 170 years or so, so we'll give 'er summat better. Bring out that spare War Memorial - I don't reckon there'll be a another war for a few years ... " But don't let it distract you from a wonderful performance

Arrived yesterday, not yet opened: Adolphe Adam Giselle ou Les Wilis Ballet-pantomime en deux actes Giselle - Laetitia Pujol Albrecht - Nicolas Le Riche Myrtha - Marie-Agnes Gillot Hilarion - Wilfried Romoli Les Premiers Danseurs et le Corps de ballet de l'Opera national de Paris Orchestre de l'Opera national de Paris Paul Connelly Conductor Recorded Live at the Opera national de Paris / Palais Garnier December 2006 Directed for TV and Video by Francois Roussillon Running time 111 minutes TDK DVWW-BLGISP I got mine from Amazon - but I see it is now marked as 'unavailable' - weird, indeed. Maybe it accidentally contains Top Secret government papers? I'll report back as soon as I get the chance to watch it! ...

Maybe this is for another thread - but it's certainly worth considering now prices are lower. But, also consider that many dvd players are actually able to become multi-region; search for your make and model and 'multiregion' - because many companies make just one model, presest to whatever region, and just don't shout about the fact that it can be 'tweaked' to other regions or 'region 0'. May be worth a look. Also, I believe (though may be wrong) that Blu Ray is 'all region', and so the future is Blue. They are also 'backward compatible' with DVD, so it might be worth investigating how that works!

I didn't realise that she actively disliked being filmed; that really is a tragedy. I'd always assumed the lack of major releases was due to her being a 'guest' for large parts of her career, rather than staying in one place. She's certainly one of the greatest dancers I've had the privelege to see.

Quite likely that it got filmed ... but no sign of it on a commercial DVD. If there is one, there's more chance of seeing it than with most 'Western' companies, most of which will only feature 'current' stars on their new releases. Did he feature as Albrecht, albeit briefly, on the deliciously overpriced "The Glory of The Bolshoi DVD Video"? I've not found a complete listing of those snippets.

... But April 28 in the UK! Thanks for that!

What a fascinating thread! You could certainly find productions that have featured suicide (a few), heart failure (many), heart failure plus suicidal attempt (a few), plus many that leave it it up to you; there's certainly a broken heart, but who knows what 'physically' did the deed. Most productions suggest that everyone thinks she's going to stab herself, whether she does or not. And as people have said, most of these approaches have been made to work - even stabbing herself with a three-foot sword without visible blood (too much reading of 'the merchant of venice?'). The only time I've been concerned, is the few productions that over-egg the weak heart; sometimes you wish they'd just hang a sign around her neck saying "WEAK HEART, HINT HINT". While it's important to the story to be able to look back and think "Ah, all this dancing, stress and betrayal, that's what done it", I'm not convinced we need to be thinking "Crikey, one more solo and she'll be popping her cloggs" - it's distracting.

Exactly. While I'm sure the film director won awards (don't they always?), he has entirely missed the point; the recording isn't about him. With the performing arts, the film director's job isn't 'creating a work of art', it's making the best possible display of someone else's work of art. So, distracting - which it most certainly was - is exactly the last thing it should have been. Having said that, it is a fine performance, even with the all-too-often amputated feet

How many Blanchett threads can we take? For me, it has to be Glenda Jackson; but I read somewhere that she was 'inspired' by FR

I really don't see that; there's plenty of biopics that don't get gongs, and don't deserve to - and plenty of non-bio-pics that do get gongs but don't deserve to (Forrest Gump, anyone?). Fact is, some biopics really stand out, and it does take - in my view - some seriously quality acting to make the character real without simply mimicking every gesture. For example, 'Walk the line' was clearly fictionalised, and yet Cash and Carter-Cash were 'living people'; similarly, one Piaf fan I know was very disappointed at the 'bits' of her life that were chosen (and rewritten), but still felt that the film (and the star in particular), in his words, 'made her live again' Good biopics are no different to any other good movie, but more weight hangs on the actors; no amount of special effects can rescue miscasting! Perhaps the judges are rewarding actors for being great despite the (often) poor scripts, weird timeline editing, and the impossibilty of a 100-minute movie doing justice to a whole life? But I can think of half a dozen biopics that were embarassingly bad - and were long forgotten by Oscar Day!

"France's Marion Cotillard was rewarded for her interpretation of Edith Piaf in La Vie En Rose with a best actress Oscar." Well deserved, in my view - though I agree with those above who said that the film needs seeing on the big screen to get the best effect. I think that's true of many bio-pics; they soften the edges, both visually, and in dialog, and it's much easier to 'suspend reality' at the cinema than it is at home!

Princess Diana was a regular visitor to the Ballet at the Royal Opera House. Princess Margaret was too - though she never used the Royal Box. She preferred to sit in the centre of the stalls circle; no-one thought to point out that she shouldn't take her gin and tonic with her. And I don't recall anyone telling her that she shouldn't smoke, either. Not sure who provided the ashtray. And that was only about ten years ago.

For me, that suspension would fail if I saw Giselle with a Satanist motif; but, in general, if it did not distract, I wouldn't worry a lot. It's a fashion that will probably wind down one day, but nothing we say or do will make much of a difference!

Just to respond to this one point; "Since she was nineteen, Alicia was afflicted with an eye defect and was partially blind. Her partners always had to be in the exact place she expected them to be, and she used lights in different parts of the stage to guide her." This is in Wikipedia (not 100% reliable, but no reason to doubt this!). I also understand that her eyesight continued to deteriorate - perhaps cubanmiamiboy has some detail?

Yes, I think it was released in 2005 in the UK - though I seem to have missed it. It may just be a new cover. Must go and order ...

It's called Meltdown. That's probably a clue. Think about it; it has to either mock her, or glorify her recent behaviour. Anything in between would be simply boring. Neither choice is attractive. And 'everyday norms' is not a term I understand in the context of exploitation. "Two wrongs", as they say, "Never made a right". I hold no brief for Spears, and I fully understand comics and the gutter press using her mental health problems for profit. That's what they do. I just feel it's a little sad that a once reputable dance company chooses that particular shortcut to a fast buck. But that's my last word ... I don't want to see a Rambert "special" based on my rants!

Springer, like him or hate him, was well able to make the decision that the opera would do him no harm, and may even help his reputation (it did). And I suspect he was at least consulted, if not deeply involved. Spears is deeply disturbed, and this is a very nasty thing to do. And not just for her; mocking mental illness should have stayed in the 19th century. Shame on the Rambert Dance Company - and anyone who buys a ticket. I see it came to London's South Bank last week. "Essakow said he believes Spears's story is a 'modern-day tragedy' but called his work an "homage" to her." - that's not so. It's a homage to exploitation. It's one thing to do this to historical figures, where (hopefully) the facts are known, and behaviour can be seen in context. It's inexcusable when the story is still unravelling, and this could actually influence events. I suppose we can but hope that Spears has been unaware of the whole thing.

I don't see anything intrinsically wrong about making production changes; it's all down to why and how. Too often, perhaps, the updating is a gimmick to draw attention away from a generally inferior production, and I think audiences are right to be a little suspicious - but not to dismiss them on principle. Take a step sideways and consider Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet; in most theatres today, it would be simply impossible to stage it 'as Shakespeare intended', and few would argue that it always should be presented that way. While Shakespeare could never have forseen the vaiety of developments to his work - including West Side Story and the Ballet - I don't think revolving remains is a likely scenario. And some versions have probably made the original more accessible to modern audiences. If it's true for R&J, It's probaby true for "The Taming of the Shrew", which would otherwise have faded out almost entirely. Back to ballet, change has breathed new life into many classics, and perhaps made some of us more appreciative of the original as a result of having to consciously compare. And potential audiences always have a choice. Producers should surely be free to use new materials for costumes, 'see thru' curtains and back lighting to create effects limelite could not, and back projection too. We can judge the various versions on their own merits. Also, with the wonders of the digital age, we can keep a record of the original / pure form for later comparison, and possible revival. That's assuming the companies don't refuse to release them on the grounds that "it's no longer part of our programme".

It is interesting that most of the responses so far assume that removing 'the rest' will diminish the experience; I have seen performances (by leading companies), where 'the rest' has seriously let the dancers down; inappropriate, over-elaborate sets are by no means something to miss. Similarly, while the music is (usually) central, a fine recorded performance may be much better than a brash, poorly rehearsed live performance. And you could produce similar negatives for lighting, supporting characters, and, of course, the quality of the audience I have seen Shakespeare with minimal sets or distractions of any kind from the spoken word, and it was something I'll remember forever (a good memory, I should add!). Personally, I see no reason why Giselle, Swan Lake or ..... [insert choice here] couldn't be performed with the simplest of costumes, the most minimal set (or no set at all), provided that the performers could rise to the challenge. Many modern ballets rely on lighting alone, but have the advantage of having been created with that intention. Indeed, it would be fascinating to see which of the classics could thrive in 'the raw'.

I don't disagree - but they could do both. Even a small pressing of a Sibley-Dowell performance would sell well - and I'm sure there was a 1990's televised performance (? Bussell ? Durante ... but I may have imagined that!), that would also be a DVD success story.

I asked the Royal Opera Hose Shop why there were no Royal Ballet Giselle's available ... and they replied "GISELLE with Alina Cojocaru & Johan Kobburg is due for release this Spring - keep an eye on the website for pre-order options!" Should be great ... but what the all the great ones they's got tucked away in the archives?

It's amazing that Cuba is able to produce sufficient principal dancers for two companies, despite the hardships they suffer compared to the wealthy US companies. Art seems to thrive in adversity!

Thanks for that; I've only been a member for 5 minutes, and already it's been well worth it! I note the DVD will be released on 29th January - but they took my advance order.