Ilya

On the occasion of ABT’s “Giselle” this week, here is my translation of a review from the Sankt Peterburgskie Vedomosti by N.M. Bezobrazov, from December 20, 1888 (yes, it is 1888---I made a mistake in the thread title and would be grateful to the moderators if they can tell me how to correct this error). I find it incredibly interesting. And yes, there are three glaring factual errors in this review—critic’s work was much harder back then, before Google and Wikipedia. ————— It is customary to revive the ballet “Giselle” in those cases when the ballet repertory grows thin. This repeats periodically every five-six years. Almost no ballerina has succeeded in escaping this ballet with charming music and dramatic libretto, but according to the current tastes it is outdated. When Emma Bessone was engaged last year, she had to debut in “Giselle” whose mise en scène was refurbished for this ballerina; Ms. Cornalba succeeded in escaping the thankless role of Giselle during the last year’s season, but did not succeed in avoiding it now. “Giselle” has many virtues. Measured by Adam’s music, it is one of the best ballets, measured by Théophile Gautier’s libretto it is as well, but it does not have anything that is nowadays required of ballet: very few dances, and those that it has are not diverse and are interesting only from the point of view of archiving the old past. “Giselle” was composed more than fifty years ago; choreographic art of that time and of the present day are two completely different things. What enraptured Taglioni’s contemporaries is not satisfying now, after the progress that the choreographic art has made. In the meantime, they stubbornly keep putting on “Giselle” in that very form in which it was staged for Taglioni. These dances are now not sufficient, yet it is not allowed to add anything new to “Giselle”, so that contemporary ballerinas, especially the Italian ones, have next to nothing to do in “Giselle”. It seems to us that, if it is really necessary to put on this antique and dated ballet, all the dances in it need to be staged anew, according to modern tastes. Another circumstance against the revival of “Giselle” is that currently there is no ballerina that is fully suited to this ballet. In the first act, a strong dramatic actress is necessary, whereas in the second, an airy dancer. This combination is rarely met in the same dancer, and that’s why no one can do “Giselle” well. The last Giselle on our stage was Emma Bessone who danced this ballet during the Spring season. In the first act she was very good. Her expressive face and eloquent eyes gave her all the necessary tools to play the strong mime scenes in the first act; however in the Wili act Emma Bessone left much to be desired. With the current Giselle, Ms. Cornalba, as expected, it was the other way around. In the Wilis she was charming in the dances, epitomizing an unearthly, bodiless being, hardly touching the ground; however, in the first act she was hardly satisfactory. Motionless expression of the face, the same stereotypical smile both in the scenes of joy and in the scenes of despair and madness, made quite a weak impression. In the role of the Wili Ms. Cornalba had an expansive platform to show off her phenomenal ballon, and the strength of her pointework in the variations and solos. The ballerina’s partner, Mr. Gerdt, acted superbly, and danced so well that one can only feel sorry that he very rarely indulges the public with his refined dancing. Ms. Nikitina tastefully danced with Mr. Karsavin the charming pas tyrolien, and there could not be a better fit than Ms. Johansson for the classical dances of the Wili. The corps de ballet was dancing quite poorly. They did not keep the lines, and every coryphee was improvising something. It would not hurt for the ballet master to take up the corps de ballet and, as they say, tighten it.

A wonderful performance this afternoon (Sunday November 23). Not sure why ABT uses an awful arrangement of Minkus’s music—the original is much better, especially when sensitively performed as today. Osipova and Vasiliev achieved a perfect combination of virtuosity and good taste: everything was brilliant, light, and natural, without ever looking circusy. They seemed to be enjoying themselves and had great chemistry with each other and with the rest of the company. This entire production somehow managed to combine larger-than-life exuberance with good taste throughout. Sergey Strelkov was hugely impressive in the Gypsy Dance—he was also a standout in the extraordinary Basque Dance in last Friday’s Flames of Paris. Ekaterina Borchenko was a glorious Queen of the Dryads, reveling in her Italian fuettes. The production is very similar to the Bolshoi production seen here last summer, but is superior in at least three respects: there are fewer character dances but they are more exciting; the show moves along at just the right pace; and the character of Gamache is thankfully free of awful homophobic mannerisms that abound in every staging of this ballet I can recall seeing, including Bolshoi’s. All in all, a great company that will hopefully visit often in the future. I also very much hope that ABT will find ways to help us see more of Sarafanov and Vasiliev. Congratulations to the performers, the staff, and---most of all---to Mikhail Messerer.

What a fantastic company and a fantastic performance! It was a horrendous “Giselle” at the Mikhailovsky in 1985 that resulted in my never watching the company for the remainder of the 1980s; then geography intervened, and since then I had never had a chance to see the Mikhailovsky Ballet until tonight. I can confirm those persistent reports that nowadays the company is much, much improved. Everyone was great—the corps, Ekaterina Borchenko as Myrta, the Peasant PDD (Veronika Ignatyeva and Andrey Yakhnyuk), Moyna and Zyulma (Anna Naumenko and Valeria Zapasnikova); and of course the duet of Osipova and Sarafanov was outstanding and achieved great dramatic impact. I have not seen Sarafanov since the Mariinsky’s 2008 NYC tour. He is a great virtuoso, a sensitive partner, and a formidable actor. I wish he would dance in NYC more often than once every 6.5 years. Perhaps Kevin McKenzie (who was in the audience, along with a number of other staff members from ABT) could arrange this?

I watched the first two performances of Don Quixote, and I liked both of them very much. While it's certainly fair to say that Alexandrova no longer has the elevation she used to have, I found her performance the superior of the two. Krysanova was able to jump higher, spin faster, and eat up more space, yet Alexandrova was more natural, more radiant, and had better chemistry with her Basilio. Her Act III variation was brilliant. Olga Smirnova was a beautiful Queen of the Dryads in both performances. Both Maria Vinogradova and especially Anna Tikhomirova were great in the first variation in the Grand Pas, and I also liked Ana Turazashvili very much in the second variation on Tuesday night. Denis Rod'kin was an electrifying Toreador on Tuesday, but some of his gestures during his Tavern Scene variation were unintentionally funny. Vitaly Biktimirov did not make the funny gestures on Wednesday and was an overall more refined Toreador, but then he didn't have Rod'kin's amplitude, conviction, and abandon. For the Wednesday matinee, the back of the Fourth Ring was occupied by a large group of kids in T-shirts with inscription "Dance Theater of Harlem". The kids happily squealed and furiously applauded after every bit of pyrotechnics---and there were many, especially from Krysanova! All things considered, this production is decent, but I doubt that a great production of Don Quixote is humanly possible. It's a pity that Lincoln Center Festival and the Bolshoi decided to showcase such great artists in such inferior ballets. Perhaps next time they can bring some more interesting repertory. Bolshoi's season is over for me, as I'm traveling the rest of the week and therefore skipping Spartacus. After two Swan Lakes and two Don Quixotes, the major revelation for me is still Olga Smirnova's Odette and Odile. She single-handedly breathed life, warmth, drama, and poetry into a helpless production. One can only hope that she will come back to New York soon and frequently.

I don't have time to write much right now, or words to do justice to tonight's experience. Smirnova was astonishing. This was one of the best performances I've ever seen. What a contrast to the icy cold performance yesterday, with zero chemistry between Zakharova and everyone else. Today's performance was poetic, moving, touching from the moment Smirnova appeared on the stage. Dozens of small, barely perceptible touches made this performance---especially the duets between Smirnova and Chudin---extraordinary: for example, the way she would brush her head against him, or look into his eyes, or bury herself in his arms with abandon. He was a great and attentive partner, and when they danced together they were completely absorbed in each other. The performance was technically brilliant, but then yesterday's performance was even more technically brilliant---yet bland. I wish somebody who can write better than me would describe how Smirnova and Chudin were able to go far beyond technical brilliance and imbue this performance with warmth, authenticity, and poetry.

Yes, you are correct, my mistake. Judging from his instagram they were left over from the recent Legend of Love performances. Real is even better than fake! :-)

While at least five different La Bayadere casts looked really interesting to me, I had to choose one, both because of budgetary reasons and the fact that---unlike in years past---I no longer have the patience to be subjected to that trite music and the silly plot multiple times in one week. It came down to Wednesday vs Thursday, and I chose Thursday because I'll still have an opportunity to watch Smirnova in July, whereas watching Tereshkina and Shklyarov is not in the cards any time soon. I've seen them multiple times before---both together and with other partners---but the most lingering impression is their inspired portrayal of the leads in Ratmansky's Little Humpbacked Horse during Mariinsky's 2011 Lincoln Center Festival appearances. A particularly enjoyable memory about Tereshkina from that and other performances is her ability to make astonishing technical feats an integral part of dancing, to toss them off as if nothing happened---with no flashiness at all, so that an uninitiated viewer might not even realize that something unique is occurring. (The only other ballerina that evoked a similar feeling in recent times is Sara Mearns.) True to form, Tereshkina's dancing on Thursday night was incredible---one amazing episode was discussed earlier in this thread, but there were many more (do I remember correctly that she did a series of triple pirouettes in the Shades act where usually doubles are done?) I kept thinking that the virtuosity and musicality of her dancing were a better drama than the story of Nikiya. Yet I was not moved in the same way I've been moved when watching this role performed by Asylmuratova or Cojocaru. While Tereshkina's great acting skills were evident in Little Humpbacked Horse, it seemed difficult for her to identify with the story of La Bayadere---but who could blame her? I wish Tereshkina could guest in Ratmansky's ballets, the Balanchine repertory (Theme and Variations, Duo Concertant), or, better yet, across the plaza. Barring that, one hopes for another Mariinsky tour with repertory from the 20th and 21st centuries. Shklyarov was very enjoyable as well. Soaring elevation, ballon, beautiful line, pliant back, solid partnering. The fake beard and moustache were a good touch, because without them he looks 16. He seemed a little tense during the betrothal scene, but that may have actually worked well because it's logical for Solor to feel out of sorts during those proceedings. I really loved the corps. Their dancing in the Shades act, especially the delicate movement of the upper bodies and the arms, was pure poetry. If memory serves, there were five curtain calls: the curtain went up twice, and then the dancers appeared in front of the lowered curtain three more times. The last of these occurred after the lights went on, which is very unusual for the Met. In my experience, the lights being switched on is typically taken as the signal to stop clapping and go home. Not this time---the applause continued until the dancers came out one more time. One thing I was confused about is the fact that Yuri Fateyev participated in the coaching here in New York, according to the following photo from Isabella Boylston: http://instagram.com/p/ojvc1VHG_I/ Doesn't he have a company to run, with a full schedule of different ballets almost daily? Didn't an important festival start at the Mariinsky on Thursday? It seems odd to me that he would abandon the ship to go to New York in order to coach one of his charges for two performances.

Alymer, thanks for the inquiry, but it turns out I'll be able to use the ticket after all. It's been a roller-coaster ride!

I bought a ticket for Sleeping Beauty March 27, 2014 at 7:30pm, Grand Tier row B seat 35 through a ticket broker for 175 pounds. Unfortunately won't be able to use it. Trying to sell for what I paid for it, but will take the best offer. Can meet anywhere in London.

The following article quotes the Minister of Culture on Kolpakova's involvement, as well as Kolpakova herself: http://www.itogi.ru/iskus/2013/44/195548.html As usual, the minister seems to be incapable of telling the truth. My translation of two sentences from the sixth paragraph of the article: After the meeting at the Vaganova Academy, Vladimir Medinsky told the media that the Ministry of Culture reached an agreement with the legendary prima ballerina of the Mariinsky Theater Irina Kolpakova who is now a teacher with the American Ballet Theatre in New York. Irina Aleksandrovna [translator's note: Aleksandrovna is Kolpakova's patronymic] will occasionally come to St Petersburg to help manage the Ballet Academy. My translation of the very last paragraph on the page: Irina Kolpakova, People's Artist of the USSR: "I was very glad to hear the news of Nikolay Tsiskaridze's appointment. I am sure that the Academy will gain from his becoming the rector. I don't share the opinion that a solid manager should head the Vaganova Academy. The issues of, let's say, mops, can be solved by a person whose position is a deputy for management. Nikolay is a true, high professional of the ballet world who knows very well both the Moscow and St Petersburg schools. Exactly such an authoritative creative leader should be seen as the rector of the Academy. As to myself, no one has called me and no one has offered anything. I mean not any officials, representatives of the Ministry of Culture. Since a very long time ago Valery Abisalovich [translator's note: Abisalovich is Gergiev's patronymic] has been having very general conversations with me on the topic of the future of the Academy; however, we have not discussed with him anything concrete. I would like to use this opportunity to refute the allegations that I have emigrated. I work in the US on a contract which is renewed annually, and I spend much time in Russia, as previously."

The press secretary of the Vaganova Academy Yulia Telepina is quoted here http://calendar.fontanka.ru/articles/1122 as saying that all the deputy rectors of the Academy, including Asylmuratova, have now become acting deputy rectors until the elections of the new rector who will then make all the human resource decisions. My guess is that Asylmuratova is going to be dismissed from her positions as the artistic director and deputy rector once Tsiskaridze is voted in as the rector.

Ballet critic Tatyana Kuznetsova chimes in with an article entitled "Moscow's Foot" in Kommersant, http://kommersant.ru/doc/2331981 Among other things, the article answers the question posted here regarding Gergiev's remark on the quality of ballet education in St Petersburg. It also makes rather obvious conjectures of what Vishneva meant by moral character, namely, the recent and not-so-recent shameless statements made by Tsiskaridze. My translation of the preamble to the article: The main news item of the last week was the appointment of Nikolay Tsiskaridze as the acting rector of St Petersburg's Vaganova Academy of Russian Ballet. Tatyana Kuznetsova writes about the undercurrents of this decision and the reaction to it of the ballet community. My translation of the text of the article itself: The change of authorities at the St Petersburg Academy was done in the best Russian traditions, being similar in style to a special forces operation. First, there was an information leak. On Saturday October 27, the news media reported that Nikolay Tsiskaridze was appointed rector of the Academy, citing a source at the Ministry of Culture. Deputy Minister of the Culture Grigory Ivliev immediately refuted this information, saying that, on the contrary, the contract with the current rector of the Academy, Vera Dorofeyeva, had recently been renewed. Minister, Medinsky, put it more ambiguously: "Nikolay Maksimovich [translator's note: "Maksimovich" is Tsiskaridze's patronymic] will not remain without a job." And added: "There exist many rumors." On Monday October 28, the "rumor" turned out to be a fact. Deputy Minister Ivliev now refuted his own self, relating those same news media about the appointment of Tsiskaridze as the rector of the Vaganova Academy. Half an hour later a briefing of Vladimir Medinsky was held within its walls, at which the minister personally introduced Nikolay Tsiskaridze as the acting rector to the faculty and journalists. At the same time, a new artistic director was appointed (according to the bylaws of the Academy, the artistic director that deals with all the creative matters, can only be its graduate): People's Artist of Russia Ulyana Lopatkina replaced People's Artist of Russia Altynai Asylmuratova who had been working since 2000. The prima ballerina of the Mariinsky Theater agreed to this (over the phone, since she was touring) on the condition that she would continue dancing on the stage of the Mariinsky. It's curious that, while firing the leaders of Academy, the minister did not voice any complaints against them---on the contrary, he promised to nominate them for government awards. The paradox was explained by Vera Dorofeyeva who, according to her words, found out about her firing an hour before the meeting. At the briefing she openly announced that her departure is the payment for the independence of the Academy. The uncompromising leader was a tough defender of the autonomy of the ballet school from the claims of the Artistic Director of the Mariinsky Theater Valery Gergiev. The latter desperately needs additional square footage. The reason is that the gigantic new Mariinsky-2 has only one ballet rehearsal studio and, when the historic building closes for renovation, the company whose size was increased by Gergiev's dictate will simply have no space to rehearse. Whereas it looks like Nikolay Tsiskaridze will not stand up to Maestro Gergiev. On the day of his appointment he said in an interview that theater artists who rehearse inside academies is a an ancient practice (although he forgot to mention that during those ancient times ballet schools had four times as few students as now). It is not surprising that Valery Gergiev enthusiastically supported that change of the Academy's leadership, calling the new appointments "a virtuoso human resource solution". Minister Medinsky indeed slipped between Scylla and Charybdis like a virtuoso, i.e., between the necessity to find employment for Nikolay Tsiskaridze (who, as is claimed by people in the know, has sponsors in high places) and the necessity to satisfy the wishes of Valery Gergiev who is friendly with the President. As to the Maestro, his idea to unite the Mariinsky Theater, the Vaganova Academy, the St Petersburg Rimsky-Korsakov Conservatory, and the Russian Institute of the Art History, expressed in a personal letter to Vladimir Putin, met with bitter resistance of practically everyone in the arts and culture. It looks like after this he tamed his appetite and focused on the Academy. In mid-October during a meeting with President's Cultural Advisor Vladimir Tolstoy, the conductor expressed dissatisfaction withe the quality of the St Petersburg ballet education. This remark addressed to the best ballet school of the country whose graduates occupy leading positions in many of the world's companies, caused ballet professionals present at that meeting to be greatly perplexed. Now, however, Valery Gergiev is publicly clarifying his position, and it now is somewhat different from his initial position. Allegedly he did not propose the unification --- the Ministry of Culture got confused --- and he does not have any claims to the Vaganova Academy, as Mariinsky-2 allegedly has five rehearsal halls (perhaps he was counting the halls for the chorus, orchestra, opera rehearsals, and the performance hall), whereas he was only speaking about the shortcomings of the ballet education in order to refine the relationship between the theater and the school. However, the result is still that the leaders of the Vaganova Academy were dismissed by the end of the month. It turned out to be more difficult to find employment for Nikolay Tsiskaridze (who became unemployed on June 30, after the then General Manager of the Bolshoi Theater Anatoly Iksanov did not renew both his artistic and teaching contracts), than to satisfy Maestro Gergiev. Not every management role would satisfy the former Bolshoi principal: his attention was only focused on the Bolshoi Ballet, the Mariinsky Ballet, and the Vaganova Academy. Tsiskaridze would not agree to, for example, the non-prestigious Kremlin Ballet and, indignant at the discussions of his employment search, thundered at the inquirers: "What do they want? To push me out of the country? Should I name those who would like this to happen?" And although no one abroad has invited him (apart from Charles Jude who invited the artist to dance in provincial Bordeaux), the threat of his leaving the country probably worked. However, it looks like the hope of heading the Bolshoi was not abandoned during the entire summer either by the dancer or by his omnipotent circle of supporters, because in September the Minister of Culture had to personally meet with Tsiskaridze. After that, Vladimir Medinsky called the new General Director of the Bolshoi Theater, Vladimir Urin, with a proposal to organize a farewell performance for the People's Artist. Urin, a diplomat, supported the idea with all the noticeable enthusiasm. He related to the correspondent of "Vesti" that he met with Nikolay Tsiskaridze three times and offered him three benefit performances. However, the General Director was stubbornly refusing to sign a full employment contract, citing a difficult moral climate at the theater. The issue of the benefit performances was hanging in the air, until in mid-September visibly irritated Tsiskaridze publicly announced that he no longer wanted to dance. After the fiasco with the Bolshoi and the never-officially-expressed but quite obvious lack of desire on Gergiev's part to appoint Tsiskaridze the Artistic Director of the Mariinsky Ballet, all that remained for him was the Vaganova Academy. Not many appreciated the virtuosity of this human resource decision. Besides the interested Valery Gergiev, the resourceful General Director of the Mikhailovsky Theater Vladimir Kekhman, Maria Leonova (the Rector of the Moscow Ballet Academy) who breathed a sigh of relief, and St Petersburg's officials, the theater director Lev Dodin and choreographer Boris Eifman who recently opened his own Dance Academy in St Petersburg expressed their happiness with Tsiskaridze's appointment in the official media. "Theaters of Moscow and St Petersburg, even very big ones, are experiencing a huge human resource shortage, there are not enough artists. This problem has ripened a long time ago, and it is time to solve it," complained Eifman, without, however, explaining how the change of the rector could lead to the increase in the number of graduates, especially if rehearsal studios are taken away from them. Among the less famous persons, the principal of the Mikhailovsky Theater and a graduate of the Kiev Academy, Leonid Sarafanov, expressed optimism. The rest of the ballet world met the news of the new rector with hostility. This does not just mean the despondent teachers of the Academy who feel at a loss and who have created their mournful and protesting page on social networks. Twitter, blogs, forums both Russian and international, are full of panic: "What a terrible choice!", "What will happen to the Academy!" The issue is not just that fact that St Petersburgians were offended with an appointment of a Moscovite: the antagonism of the two schools has its roots in history, while the superiority of the St Petersburg teaching methods has never been in doubt, as a rule. During two centuries St Peterburgians-Leningradites were being sent to Moscow in order to strengthen the Moscow ballet, and they held key positions at the school as well---for example, in the 1930s, when the remarkable teacher Victor Semenov was appointed head of the Moscow Academy. However, in the entire history of the Russian ballet theater there has never been a precedent for a Moscovite to head the St Petersburg ballet school. In addition, the graduate of the Moscow Ballet Academy Nikolay Tsiskaridze possesses neither any serious experience of working with children, nor, as one might suppose from the hastiness of the appointment, any substantive program of methodological reforms. However, those offended by the ministerial decision were mostly outraged not by this, but rather by the cynical unceremoniousness of how the human resource revolution was conducted and the personality of its main character. The ballerina Diana Vishneva reduced everyone's groans to a crisp formula, saying publicly: "It's painful to recognize that the change of the leadership in our legendary school could become a chip in someone's games that have nothing to do with the Academy." She added: "Also one cannot forget that a school is, above all, children, and its leader must be morally irreproachable." This is perhaps the key question. Indeed, it looks like Nikolay Tsiskaridze might be lacking some moral irreproachability. A person who, from the TV screen, calls his colleagues "curs" and expresses the wish to shoot them to death with a machine gun, is hardly fit to be an ideal executive. To this can be added public insults at the Artistic Director Ratmansky, the Bolshoi teachers, and the artists of the company. One could also recall baseless revelation of Nikolay Tsiskaridze about "gold paint" and "plastic material" at the restored Bolshoi, after which all the viewing public started to scrape the gilded fretwork in the boxes. As well as the letter of the cultural icons to Vladimir Putin, organized by the artist himself, proposing to appoint him the General Director of the company. And a very strange reaction to Sergei Filin's injuries: Nikolay Tsiskaridze, self-appointed expert of chemistry and ophthalmology, nevertheless publicly doubted both the diagnosis of the doctors (both Russian and German) and their motives. Incidentally, this hard-to-explain callousness towards his Artistic Director shocked not so much the Russian public as the international one: judging from the international publications, Tsiskaridze's reputation abroad is now irredeemably undermined. At home, all the scandals started by the People's Artist have been attributed to his short temper and truth-seeking. However, Rudolph Nureyev also had an obnoxious personality. Which did not prevent him from commanding tremendous respect and being in high demand in the ballet world. In Tsiskaridze's case the issue is not just his personality (although it causes apprehension, especially in the context of a children's school). The issue is also in the fact that the former Bolshoi principal and teacher does not have as high a rating in the professional circles as his worshippers and sponsors think. It is not superfluous to ask the question of why an artist of this caliber who became unemployed was not bombarded with invitations from all the ends of a fairly well-knit ballet world. A logical answer is that perhaps he is not really needed. First, Nikolay Tsiskaridze is not a choreographer. He hasn't showed himself as a good leader because he hasn't lead anything. As a repetiteur of a ballet company, he was a disaster: the ballet "The Lesson" which was entrusted to his care, disappeared from the repertory; "The Pharaoh's Daughter" which was last time given almost a year ago, turned out to be in a disorderly state. Nikolay Tsiskaridze's teaching accomplishments at the Bolshoi are quite questionable. It is known that the first one of his three students, Artem Ovcharenko, was ready to flee from him to another company, and only excelled after switching to another teacher. The second, Denis Rodkin, under Tsiskaridze's instruction danced the leading role in "The Pharaoh's Daughter" half-dead, like a zombi, whereas his best parts---Spartacus and Kurbski---were prepared with other teachers. The third, Angelina Vorontsova, who was talked about as a future star even before she graduated, at the Bolshoi under the tutelage of her teacher Nikolay Tsiskaridze started to dance less cleanly and more sloppily than at school. What awaits the Vaganova Academy under the new Rector, besides a possible loss of independence or equally possibly communal co-existence with the artists of the Mariinsky company? Perhaps financial well-being. Nikolay Tsiskaridze was received by city officials and showered with kindness. The Vice Governor of St Petersburg Vassily Kichedzhi already promised to house the students from the Teaching Department of the Academy at the city dormitories. One can forecast the grants for the teachers and perhaps the increase of the Academy's budget---Nikolay Tsiskaridze, supported by his sponsors, is sure to get on well with high-ranking officials. It's known for sure that the responsibilities of a rector will be not just expanded but changed: Nikolay Tsiskaridze, the first dancer in history occupying this administrative position, will not restrict himself to financial and operational activities, as has been the custom in St Petersburg for centuries. It is possible that the new rector will not want to teach the children, however, without doubt, he will teach the teachers: it has already been announced that Nikolay Tsiskaridze will "determine the artistic policy of the famous school." Especially given the fact that the new artistic director of the Vaganova Academy, Lopatkina, who is remaining a principal with the Mariinsky, will surely not have time for this. As a reference, when the brilliant ballerina Altynai Asylmuratova was offered this position in 1999, it was demanded of her that she leave the stage. And so she did---at the age of 38. It seems that no one is concerned with her fate now. On the other hand, the unbendable former rector Vera Dorofeyeva already received an excellent offer from Vladimir Kekhman: starting in November, she will be the Deputy General Director of the Mikhailovsky Theater. Even though in order to become a full-fledged rector Nikolay Tsiskaridze still needs to go through a voting procedure, it seems that officials do not doubt its favorable outcome. Not because they think that the teachers are submissive or unprincipled---on the contrary, they believe the teachers to be decent and noble, as the hostages of any conflict will be the students. And the school? In 275 years, it survived wars and revolutions. It will survive the new Rector as well.

Congratulations to Mr. Whiteside! This is fully deserved and expected, based on watching him during the 2013 Met season, especially his impressive performance in the Ratmansky premiere. What a fantastic acquisition for ABT!

A quick Google search yields the following ABT page for Ms. Osipova, where she is listed as Guest Artist, with two upcoming performances on Feb 25 and 26 in Tokyo: http://www.abt.org/dancers/dancer_display.asp?Dancer_ID=230 I wonder how many performances this new status implies for the 2014 Met season.

Just back from the Mariinsky Swan Lake which I saw in 2D. A perfect all-around disaster. Interminable videos before each of the three acts: Maestro Gergiev talking various nonsense into the camera, Maestro Gergiev conducting bits of Tchaikovsky's Symphony #4, a random ballet dancer doing a pirouette on a staircase in the Winter Palace, the hostess (supermodel Natalia Vodianova) providing inane, cringe-worthy commentary from a poorly memorized script, etc. The hostess actually forgot Kondaurova's name when interviewing her husband Islom Baimuradov before the second act, and kept calling him "Islam". All this caused the actual performance to begin around 7pm instead of the announced start time of 6:30pm, and end after 10pm. Considering that this was a recording, what's the point? Then there were horrendous camera angles. Close-ups of corps dancers while the entire corps was dancing. Close-ups of dancers sitting or standing next to the wings while somebody else was dancing outside of the camera shot. Distracting cut-aways which broke the continuity of dancing. Poor lighting which made von Rothbart indistinguishable from the background most of the time. (Interestingly, the lighting on Maestro Gergiev in the pit was always very good.) Then there were problems with the orchestra. Bad notes from multiple sections in the orchestra during the first act, plus lack of coordination between Gergiev and the dancers---on several occasions, the orchestra and a dancer would finish at very different times. Kondaurova is a great dancer, and Timur Askerov---who I was watching for the first time---is excellent as well, but there was little chemistry between them and not much emotion or expressiveness. It didn't help that Kondaurova had two slips during the "white" adagio.

This is an astonishingly offensive remark. Many people DID live and die in a Gulag. Many millions. And most of those people WERE innocent, with no secrets to hide.

Third and last (for now) viewing Monday night, with the second cast. The kiss seems to be gone from the choreography---Reyes and Simkin did not do it. It was interesting to trace certain motifs---steps, poses, formations---through all three pieces. As I was sitting farther away this time, I was able to better appreciate how ingeniously the space is used in all three parts. In addition, it seems I missed some obvious and important details during the first two viewings---e.g., how the four menacing male corps figures sometimes raise the main protagonist up high, and sometimes push him down to the ground in the Chamber Symphony. They sometimes take the ballerina away from him (Yuriko Kajiya on Monday, Paloma Herrera in the first cast), and sometimes let them reunite. This episode is then echoed in the Piano Concerto #1. The second cast for Chamber Symphony was fantastic, especially James Whiteside. Hallberg's restraint renders more depth to this work; however, I liked Whiteside more vivid interpretation as well---his character is more down-to-earth and at times more child-like, especially in his first encounter with the first ballerina (Sarah Lane). Gillian Murphy was still injured and again substituted in Piano Concerto #1 by Christine Shevchenko who acquitted herself very well. Peter Martins and Christopher Wheeldon were in the audience. So was Alastair Macaulay---it seems to have been a third viewing for him as well. Interestingly, the chief music critic of the New York Times, Anthony Tommasini, attended the Saturday evening performance. Perhaps the New York Times is planning more coverage? Quite strangely, Vladimir Shklyarov was also in the audience on Monday---isn't the Mariinsky season still in full swing?

Dear rg, thank you very much for the explanations about the photo and the costumes. Regarding the set for Symphony #9 on Friday, I had the same reaction at first---"what set?"---until the backdrop appeared before the third movement. Speaking of changes---Friday night Osipova and Vasiliev kissed during Piano Concerto #1. Saturday night they didn't (or did I miss it?) After the second viewing on Saturday night (with the same cast as Friday night), both Symphony #9 and Chamber Symphony are now my favorites. Chamber Symphony is full of interesting detail. Looking closely at the pas de deux between the main protagonist and each ballerina, one notices that the three relationships are quite different, and that the three ballerina characters are quite different as well. The interactions with the corps de ballet are equally fascinating. Sometimes the corps gives the main protagonist looks of bewilderment, sometimes they are menacing. Towards the end it looks like he directs their movement---are they now the characters from his works? are they his reminiscences from years past? I am starting to appreciate the Piano Concerto as well, although it is still full of riddles for me. The performance on Saturday was as spectacular as the first performance, if not more. Cornejo's turns at the conclusion of the Ninth Symphony were even more breathtaking than on Friday. Concerto #1 looked a bit sharper.

My favorite part is the first--i.e., the Ninth Symphony, perhaps because it is the most familiar one, as I have seen it three times now. I need a few more viewings before I can even start to absorb and process everything that's going on in the second and (especially) the third part. After yesterday's performance, my partner and I hastily bought tickets for tonight. We are also going Monday night to see the second cast. It's too bad that there are only four performances! Regarding the symbolism, Ratmansky mentioned the following two things during a seminar in List Hall at the Met on May 22. He said that he was thinking of Master and Margarita when making the second movement of the Ninth Symphony (the slow duet for Semionova and Gomes)---the two title characters from a novel by Mikhail Bulgakov. These characters are a writer and his lover who are outsiders and do not fit into the society. This reference, however, creates more questions than answers, as it is quite difficult to imagine any connection of Herman Cornejo's character to that novel (perhaps one of the demons from Woland's retinue?) I am also not clear on whether this literary image applies only to the second movement or elsewhere in the Ninth Symphony. Another thing he mentioned is that one of the images he was thinking of when making the Chamber Symphony was that of Shostakovich and his three wives. Having now watched the work, it seems to me that the connection is quite loose; however, some parallels between Shostakovich and the main character (David Hallberg) come across quite clearly---e.g., the idea of being surrounded by a lot of people yet never quite fitting in and being an outsider. The piece ends with the corps de ballet forming a spectacular tableau, the three ballerinas (Isabella Boylston, Paloma Herrera, and Julie Kent) reclining in front of it, and David Hallberg quietly and slowly walking into the wings in the back of the stage. The set for the Chamber Symphony is based on Pavel Filonov's paintings (http://en.wikipedia....i/Pavel_Filonov)---Ratmansky mentioned this during the seminar, and this is also written in the program. The last piece, the First Concerto, is the most mysterious one to me. Parts of it have a rompy Soviet-sports-parade-type feel to it, similar to Concerto DSCH. Flashy lifts and jumps. At one point, Ivan Vasiliev does horse-like movements with his foot. Then, in the middle, there is a long slow double duet for the two principal couples who sometimes move in sync and sometimes repeat each other's movements to mirror fugue structures in the music. The two leading ladies (Diana Vishneva and Natalia Osipova) sometimes stand still in a sisterly embrace, observing other people dance. I am sure that this piece is full of symbolism; I wish I understood at least some part of it. I was pleasantly surprised by Cory Stearns. I had expected him to be completely lost next to three superstars. Nothing of the sort. He was spectacular. His partnering was secure, his elevation was great, and his double assembles looked as spectacular as Vasiliev's.

I'm curious---did Cornejo dance Friday night May 24, or is he still injured?

Here is the translation of the excerpt from Osipova's interview in Kommersant (http://kommersant.ru/doc/2165603) which deals with New York. I don't see where she "complains publicly". On the contrary, she is very nice and diplomatic. It's quite natural that a European city is closer to her culturally than a North American city.

According to the New York Times, artificial skin was invented in the 1970's at Harvard/MIT/Mass General: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/us/dr-john-f-burke-dies-at-89-created-synthetic-skin.html?_r=0

Two more links on the alleged break-in: http://www.mk.ru/dai...rabotnitsa.html http://lifenews.ru/news/112016 I don't have time to translate the whole thing, but the gist is that the prosecutor's office is no longer (as of March 22) classifying this as a criminal investigation because the police hadn't presented enough evidence that a crime may have been committed. The first article says that an hour before Tsiskaridze came home, his housekeeper left his apartment, and that the broken key may have belonged to her. The elevator repairmen who were working there that day claimed that they did not see any strangers. Both articles say that more investigative work would need to be done in order to determine whether in fact an attempted break-in took place. I haven't seen any updates on this since March 22. As to his address, I have not seen it given out in the media. The articles I've seen only specify the street, but not the building number or the apartment number.

I would say a little respite from Tsiskaridze.

Not sure why the alleged attempted break-in to Tsiskaridze's apartment is being discussed here, as it is not part of the attacks on Sergey Filin. (At least not yet. I suspect that Mr. Tsiskaridze might soon be all over the airwaves claiming that Filin and Iksanov wanted to break into his apartment.) But since the original post on this incident was in this thread, I'll keep posting here. More on this: http://www.gazeta.ru...n_2811381.shtml