Ilya

Finally (at least for now), here is an article containing the first official reaction from the Bolshoi: http://izvestia.ru/news/540111

And here is an article in "Izvestia" about Sotkilava's retraction: http://izvestia.ru/news/540108

Yes, "fasten your seatbelts" is exactly right. Having seen the text of the letter, two more signers have withdrawn their signatures: Obraztsova and Sotkilava. First, here is Obraztsova's apologetic letter to Iksanov: http://www.echo.msk....sk/953744-echo/

One of the signers now claims that he was duped into signing under false pretenses. He sent an apologetic letter to Iksanov: http://www.echo.msk....sk/953719-echo/ http://izvestia.ru/news/540047

The letter, along with all the signatures, has been published: http://www.echo.msk....ki/953596-echo/ I have tried to keep the translation as close to the original wording as possible, with line breaks corresponding to where they are in the Russian text. This inevitably resulted in some awkwardness of certain passages in the translation.

Iksanov is the general manager of the entire Bolshoi---i.e., both ballet and opera companies. He is a theater administrator with many years of experience: 20 years in various administration and management positions at the Bolshoi Drama Theater in St. Petersburg and 12 years as the General Manager of the Bolshoi. It's interesting that Tsiskaridze no longer wants to be simply the artistic director of the ballet company (the position currently occupied by Sergey Filin)---now he is aiming to become the general manager of the entire vast organization, having had zero managerial experience.

Tsiskaridze is at the epicenter of yet another scandal. Several prominent Russian artists signed a letter to Putin, requesting to dismiss the Bolshoi's General Manager Iksanov and to appoint Tsiskaridze to be the General Manager. From the press accounts, it appears that Tsiskaridze himself did not sign the letter. The story broke on November 9, when the former Russian Minister of Culture M. Shvydkoy wrote the following on his blog on the website of the Echo of Moscow radio station (http://echo.msk.ru/b...oy/949699-echo/): A media frenzy ensued, and within several days several press accounts uncovered eight out of the twelve signers: Gennady Khazanov, Oleg Tabakov, Mark Zakharov, Alisa Freindlich, Elena Obraztsova (the opera singer), Zurab Sotkilava, Mikhail Lavrovsky, and Galina Volchek: http://izvestia.ru/news/539479 http://news.rambler.ru/16335399/ http://izvestia.ru/n...8#ixzz2C7lwbGCV http://www.aif.ru/cu...e/article/57218 http://izvestia.ru/news/539686 http://www.ng.ru/cul.../1_talents.html http://www.echomsk.s...delaki/9898.php At first, it was unclear where the letter came from. However, the following excerpt from the interview with Lavrovsky suggests that the letter was authored and circulated by Tsiskaridze himself (http://izvestia.ru/news/539686): The letter has not been made public. When contacted by the newspaper "Izvestiya", Tsiskaridze refused to comment: http://izvestia.ru/news/539479 In the meantime, the Ministry of Culture renewed Iksanov's contract until 2014 and declared the case closed until then: http://www.aif.ru/cu...e/article/57218

According to the narrative in the full episode (posted above by elena), Skorik dropped out two weeks before the filming commenced. (My understanding is that the dancers were given one month for rehearsals, and then the filming was done over one week.) For Carmen, the jury gave Yermakov both the most criticism and the lowest scores among all the competitors in Episode 1. Also, the hit piece on Skorik in the middle of the episode uses quotes from Fateyev. Based on those, it's hard to believe that she is his protege. Either this is the result of creative editing by the producers of the show, or perhaps publicly badmouthing his own dancers is part of his management style.

The competition was filmed July 15-22. However, they started showing it on TV only a few days ago, one episode per week.

Well there is disagreeing with someone, and then there is comparing him to a Nazi sympathizer and to a convicted felon, and alleging that he has done some (of course, unspecified) "despicable things"---all, it seems, because Mr. Koch supports conservative causes. I do not think Mr. Koch deserves this, and I for one am grateful for his support of NYCB and ABT. He spends an enormous amount of money on philanthropy; however, even he cannot support everything. There is still a lot of good philanthropic work left for the rest of us. He (and other libertarians) does not want to remove funding from all these organizations. He wants their supporters to contribute voluntarily, instead of being forced by the government to do so. One can argue about the pros and cons of this approach. However, considering that about 99% of taxpayers will never, ever watch a ballet, I do feel guilty sometimes about asking all of them to subsidize my expensive habit of going to lots of ballet performances.

Among many things that Mr. Koch "stands for", it seems to me that the most (and perhaps the only) relevant one to this discussion board is that he stands for the prosperity of ABT and NYCB, and has been instrumental in enabling countless great performances that these companies have put on. Yet, somehow every time he makes a large donation to ballet he gets skewered on this board. I find this incomprehensible.

Well clearly he is not succeeding in this endeavor---at least not on this board, where he is treated quite brutally. I find it quite astonishing, given his long history of support of great ballet companies and wonderful productions (e.g., Ratmansky's recent 9th Symphony) that most of us are so enthusiastic about. If he really only wanted to buy "respectability" with this crowd, he would have noticed a long time ago that it's not working and he would have stopped. It's quite clear that his contributions to the arts and healthcare do not have the power to soften the hearts of those who are intolerant of his political views.

Has there been any official word on what happened to Stephane Bullion and whether this will have any implications for the "Orpheus" casting next Friday?

There will in fact be an evening of three new one-act ballets by Ratmansky: http://www.abt.org/insideabt/news_display.asp?News_ID=407 (This was mentioned on the adjacent "2012 City Center Season" thread.) I'm very much looking forward to it. I think we are very lucky that ABT is his artistic base, both now and for many years to come. I've enjoyed all his ballets at ABT I've had a chance to see (and I've watched all these multiple times): On the Dnieper, Nutcracker, Seven Sonatas, Bright Stream, and Firebird.

I had never seen Semionova in a full-length ballet before tonight, and now I am a huge fan. I'll second abatt's comment about phrasing---it was remarkable, throughout. It brought to mind the concept of bel canto singing---long legato phrases basking in the music. Every bit of her dancing looked very natural and musical, including Odile. This was a rare performance where Odile, while seductive, had the same unmistakable qualities as Odette---fluid movement and softness of arms---making it quite logical that Sigfried was tricked. Hallberg was spectacular as well---but then I never expect anything less from him.

There is a distinction between matters of taste (describing one's opinion of the performance) and matters of fact (giving a play-by-play of some parts of the performance). There can be many different opinions, but surely there is only one set of facts. It has been simply pointed out above that one of the NY Times pictures refutes a factually incorrect statement made on this thread about Monday's performance. Of course the NY Times photos cannot possibly refute anyone's opinion of the quality of the performance: those who didn't like it will probably dislike the photos as well. I for one liked all the pictures (of all the three casts, including the ones that I, unfortunately, didn't get to watch), including picture 4.

New York Times published pictures from J&R, here is the one of opening of the balcony scene. Natialia Osipova is "feeling the moon" on her face. She is in the light, clearly visible. (And this is exactly how I remember seeing it.) http://www.nytimes.c...2_ABT_SS-5.html Thank you for pointing this out. That's exactly how I remember it as well. But after reading some of the messages on this thread I was beginning to wonder if I was imagining things. It's nice to have a piece of physical evidence to confirm that I can still trust my senses.

I readily concede that I am not a director, only a regular spectator with no professional connection to theater, just like the majority of the audience. I found the beginning of the balcony scene very moving. I also thought that the bow after the balcony scene was a natural thing to do. Pre-intermission bows are done all the time during operas and at many ballet companies throughout the world, and I don't see anything wrong with this custom. Moreover, even at ABT it is customary to bow at certain points during various performances (e.g., after Giselle's variation in the first act, after the Rose Adagio, etc.)---this is also fine with me.

Sounds like perhaps a partial-view seat. There are many of those at the Met---many more than the management would officially admit. Osipova was certainly always "in the frame" (unlike in "Bayadere" where she did finish a variation inside the wing). She was very clearly visible throughout the opening of the balcony scene, "felt the moon" on her face---it was actually a very beautiful moment, and the passion between her and Hallberg was quite obvious from seat E12 in the orchestra. As a practical matter, it's difficult to see what else they could have done. The audience just wouldn't leave for the intermission and wouldn't stop clapping. For a very, very, very long time. This was very unusual for ABT. I think their coming out for a bow was the only reasonable solution.

I'm very surprised to read descriptions of Osipova's performance as over-the-top. It seems to me that Juliet herself is over-the-top and should therefore be portrayed as such, in order for a convincing characterization to be achieved. Falling in love at first sight, getting secretly married to someone from a rival clan, and committing a suicide---all during a very short period of time, all at the age of 13---this sounds quite extreme to me. How does one make this improbable story look logical without portraying the heroine as going somewhat off-kilter? I thought that Osipova brilliantly conveyed Juliet's emotional fragility and her being driven to near-madness at times. It was an astonishing performance in all respects, especially memorable for the intensity of Osipova's acting. Watching both her and Hallberg, it was difficult to imagine more convincing interpretations. The balcony scene and the bedroom pdd weren't simply sequences of beautiful steps and lifts (as they can be sometimes): they were infused with emotion and drama. It was electrifying and, at times, almost scary.

Apologies, Natalia. I meant no harm! I do seem to be the odd man out around here regarding "Firebird", and, more generally, this entire triple bill. Moreover, now you can also read Alastair Macaulay's review of Firebird in the NYT, and he echoes many of the points raised in this thread by most everyone except me, e.g., the lack of correspondence between choreography and music. My problem is that I had never considered large stretches of this score danceable in the first place, and I thought that Ratmansky did as admirable a job as possible. Also, I liked the abundance of humor; I found the updated story more interesting than the original one; I thought it a plus that Ratmansky had four quite distinctive characters all of whom were defined through both mime and dancing (whereas Fokine had essentially only one dancing character, the Firebird). The squeakiness was ever-present, but Gomes didn't have as many pirouettes later on as in the first few minutes, and so it wasn't as pervasive and jarring later on. An additional reason why the squeaks were the dominating sound at the beginning is that the music happened to be very quite during those passages.

One complaint about Firebird---there was something about Marcelo Gomes's boots and/or the flooring that resulted in very loud squeaks every time he'd do a pirouette. Unfortunately, his choreography contained many pirouettes, especially at the beginning of the ballet. Each time I'd cringe and pray for no more pirouettes. Hopefully this issue can be somehow resolved... I'm planning to watch it again next week.

I thought both the choreography and the dancing in Firebird were fantastic. I especially liked David Hallberg---he was deliciously evil as Kashchei. A very different role for him, showing his range---especially striking given the fact that he gave an outstanding performance as Apollo during the same evening. Osipova, Gomes, and Messmer were great in Firebird, and Part and Abrera were great in Apollo. Firebird's sets and costumes were also a hit: the designers came out along with Ratmansky for the bows, and all got enthusiastic applause. I thought Thirteen Diversions were the weakest link of the evening.

The actual Russian text of the libretto of the opera does not make it clear whether the uncle is dead or alive. Also, the text does not have Onegin return the letter, but---inlike the book---does not mention that Onegin kept the letter. Therefore, the matter of whether to have him return the letter to Tatyana is up to the stage director in any particular production of the opera. However, having him return the letter would be inconsistent with his character in this part of the opera. In the first two acts, he is quite even-keeled, much like in the novel. On the contrary, the ballet's Onegin is highly prone to hysterics (as are most other characters in the ballet)---tearing the letter, ignoring Tatiana during a conversation, pushing her during the party, making a scene in public, etc. I doubt that such behavior was realistic for a gentleman of Onegin's background in the 1820s. The libretto of the opera (in Russian) can be found here: http://feb-web.ru/fe...br/lib-001-.htm In general, the book is very short on hysterics. The opera introduces quite a bit of hysterics (e.g., the bizarre challenge to a duel in the midst of a party), but the ballet goes far beyond the opera, making caricatures of all the main characters from the book. I immensely enjoyed watching all the dancers (I attended Thursday's performance with Vishneva, Osipova, Gomes, and Matthews); however, the story at times gets so ridiculous that it was difficult to take it seriously. The fact that the choreography is often unmusical didn't help either. Thanks! This article has a lot of information!

After several days of randomly searching through Tchaikovsky's works in my CD collection and on youtube, I found where it comes from. It's from Overture in F major, http://javanese.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/1/12/IMSLP18602-Tchaikovsky_Overture_in_F_major2.pdf (starting on page 141).