Spring 2015: The Sleeping Beauty

[angelica]

Well, frankly, I feel like this SLEEPING BEAUTY is a big bore.

To me it was also a bore, especially the role of Desiree. Even wonderfully danced by Cornejo, the emotion was missing. All the various groups of dancers and individual dancers in various divertissements made me feel as if I was at a community ballet school recital, not watching a cohesive story ballet with a dramatic arc. I guess that's what I missed most in this production--the witnessing of a drama. My three favorite ballets, the ones that move me deeply, are Giselle, Swan Lake, and Romeo and Juliet. They move me every season. Sleeping Beauty is a lovely fairy tale that doesn't have a smidgeon of drama, at least in Ratmansky's production. Charm, delight, sweetness have their place, but not for three hours in hideous costumes.

Edited to add: Perhaps I will feel differently after seeing a second performance next year. (Hideous costumes) and wigs.

[canbelto]

To me it was also a bore, especially the role of Desiree. Even wonderfully danced by Cornejo, the emotion was missing. All the various groups of dancers and individual dancers in various divertissements made me feel as if I was at a community ballet school recital, not watching a cohesive story ballet with a dramatic arc. I guess that's what I missed most in this production--the witnessing of a drama. My three favorite ballets, the ones that move me deeply, are Giselle, Swan Lake, and Romeo and Juliet. They move me every season. Sleeping Beauty is a lovely fairy tale that doesn't have a smidgeon of drama, at least in Ratmansky's production. Charm, delight, sweetness have their place, but not for three hours in hideous costumes.

But that's what Sleeping Beauty is about -- a test of the depth of a company and its ability to fill each variation and divertissement with quality dancers. It's not a star turn.

[angelica]

But that's what Sleeping Beauty is about -- a test of the depth of a company and its ability to fill each variation and divertissement with quality dancers. It's not a star turn.

I will think of that when I go again next season. Perhaps it will help. On the other hand, it is a star turn for Aurora, probably the most difficult role in all the Petipa ballets, technically if not dramatically.

[vipa]

After seeing this production once I've crossed it off my list to see again regardless of who Aurora is. As much as I disliked the last version, that wasn't the case. Also, I really don't know anyone I'd recommend this to, where as in the last version I would say - if you can see so-and-so go buy a ticket. This isn't really a star turn.

What I am wondering is if this will be modified, changed etc. I hate to say this but it makes me favor the NYCB version.

[canbelto]

After seeing this production once I've crossed it off my list to see again regardless of who Aurora is. As much as I disliked the last version, that wasn't the case. Also, I really don't know anyone I'd recommend this to, where as in the last version I would say - if you can see so-and-so go buy a ticket. This isn't really a star turn.

What I am wondering is if this will be modified, changed etc. I hate to say this but it makes me favor the NYCB version.

See this is what's frustrating. Everyone wants ABT to become more like a company, with chances for every member to shine, and many chances given to corps members. And then along comes a production that does give the whole company a chance, and everyone complains it's not enough of a star turn.

[vipa]

See this is what's frustrating. Everyone wants ABT to become more like a company, with chances for every member to shine, and many chances given to corps members. And then along comes a production that does give the whole company a chance, and everyone complains it's not enough of a star turn.

I know what you mean canbelto but really SB is about Aurora. That's the way it is with full length story ballets. Swan Lake is about O/O. No matter how good the corps or the pas de trois is, if the lead isn't good it isn't satisfying. If I go to see Giselle, having the greatest peasant pas on earth isn't enough.

[canbelto]

I know what you mean canbelto but really SB is about Aurora. That's the way it is with full length story ballets. Swan Lake is about O/O. No matter how good the corps or the pas de trois is, if the lead isn't good it isn't satisfying. If I go to see Giselle, having the greatest peasant pas on earth isn't enough.

And? ...

Rose Adagio for Aurora - check, she dances it

Variation for Aurora in Act 1 and Act 2 Vision Scene - check, there

Wedding pdd - check, it's there

It's not like Ratmansky gutted Aurora's part at the expense of the Prologue Fairies. The night I saw it Vishneva definitely made it a big star vehicle, and came forth numerous times for bows.

[mimsyb]

See this is what's frustrating. Everyone wants ABT to become more like a company, with chances for every member to shine, and many chances given to corps members. And then along comes a production that does give the whole company a chance, and everyone complains it's not enough of a star turn.

But I'm thinking that with this particular approach to the choreography, it really doesn't matter who dances what. Corps, soloist, principle. While the choreography doesn't necessarily make for "a star turn', neither does much of the other choreography stand out. Almost every role is diminished in some way. I think the only time I sat up and took notice was for the Diamond Fairy in Act III and for Carabosse and her troupe of invaders. Everyone else sort of disappeared into the scenery somehow. The lady sitting next to me on Saturday PM said she bought her ticket for that night as she had been told that Diana Vishneva was an extraordinary dancer. She wanted to know if "something was wrong with her". Was she injured perhaps? I tried to explain about the difference in approach to the style, but she wasn't convinced. She simply felt Vishneva was "a bad dancer"! "Not what I expected". I think we sometimes assume the average patron is not all that sophisticated or informed about what they are seeing. But this lady clearly just thought it was about bad dancing.

[Ilya]

The creators of the Sleeping Beauty (Vsevolozhsky, Petipa, and Tchaikovsky) never intended it to be just a vehicle for the star ballerina. Rather, it was intended as a gesamtkunstwerk, where the music, scenic designs, costumes, principal dancers, soloists, character dancers, the corps de ballet, and the students all have star turns to create a total work of art. The ballet simply does not work if any one of these parts are missing. ABT finally has a glorious production where all these have come together. I have never seen the entire company shine so brightly. This work is complex and long yet they make it exciting to watch, down to the smallest character dances and variations. It proved to be a great vehicle for several corps de ballet dancers who heretofore had really not made a mark—the two that made the deepest impression were Cassandra Trenary (spectacular in three different roles—I found her Diamond Fairy especially breathtaking) and the astonishing and stylish Zhiyao Zhang as Bluebird. I watched this production seven times and am sad that its run is over. Certainly by far the best production of a 19-th century classical ballet that ABT has, and by far the best production of the Sleeping Beauty I’ve ever seen.

[Drew]

The dancers definitely had to give themselves to the overall style and some were more successful than others--but many qualities were gained even as a few, some that I am very used to and very used to liking, were lost.

But the most successful performances up and down the ranks seemed to me to 'stand out' very effectively, even if still within the parameters of the production. Performance after performance lingers in my memory.

I do think that some climactic passages are not as viscerally exciting in this production as in others--or I did not find them so--but, at the same time, huge swathes of the ballet seemed to me more deeply engaging than I usually find it including the mime and the fairy tale divertissements. I certainly wasn't bored.

Was my enjoyment all the effect of novelty? It is possible, but I don't think so, and not least because this was a company event. For example: watching four different dancers take on Diamond...with every single one of them having something special to offer, though certainly I enjoyed some more than others...and every single one of them distinct yet part of a clearly framed larger 'whole'...that was a pleasure.

I love the K. Sergeyev Sleeping Beauty--at least I did when I saw it rather long ago--and except for some hugely exaggerated extensions value the Mariinsky tradition in this ballet. I unabashedly love great ballerina showcases and, not having seen Cornejo, I'm also more intellectually on board with the new Prince variation than I am aesthetically. (And even intellectually I am pretty convinced Petipa would have come up with something different for Gomes had he watched him dance the 'new' variation.) But I also love Sleeping Beauty--the whole beautiful, harmonious ballet and the ballet as a beautiful harmonious whole and I think that's what this production, despite punting on some scenic effects, aims for and, however imperfectly, achieves.

Edited to add: I was typing at same time as Ilya and our views partly overlap. Glad he made the point about the ballet's history.

[Amour]

I hate to say this but it makes me favor the NYCB version.

I completely agree. Unlike hIs R&J and, from what I hear, his SL, Peter's SB isn't bad. At this point, I far prefer it to Ratmansky's.

[Amour]

See this is what's frustrating. Everyone wants ABT to become more like a company, with chances for every member to shine, and many chances given to corps members. And then along comes a production that does give the whole company a chance, and everyone complains it's not enough of a star turn.

I'm not sure that's what people are complaining about, canbelto. Certainly, not me. What I don't like are the low legs, the chainees on releve, no big jumps, etc. it's like we got the Bournonville version of SB. And I just hated how he changed the Lilac Fairy role. The "traditional" prologue Lilac Fairy variation is so gorgeous with those slow développes to second. While my complaints primarily have nothing to do with "star" roles or who was dancing, frankly, not everyone at ABT could do justice to all the footwork and small beats. It took NYCB 9 months (since September) to prepare for La Sylphide. Clearly, ABT didn't get 9 months to prepare for this new SB. I would have loved to have seen a version more approximate to what the Mariinsky or Bolshoi dance.

[Amour]

Having just re watched the DVDs of the Bolshoi (Zakharova/Hallberg) and Mariinsky (Lezhnina/Ruzimatov) SBs, The Diamond Fairy variation is one Ratmansky pretty much left alone. Also, the Wedding PDD is pretty much untouched. So there's that. Frankly, he didn't really mess too much with Bluebird either. But I saw both Daniil (twice) and Gabe Stone Shayer as Bluebird. Sorry, but Gabe was NOT up to it. At all, IMO. So saying every corps member looked good is certainly not my opinion. Some looked good, some didn't. And one of the three nights I went, the corps lines were VERY sloppy. Even with this new SB, because of the tremendous amount of batterie, I think everyone could still use more rehearsal time. But, again, that does solve my gripe. If I want to see Bournonville, well.........I saw them at the Joyce in February. If I want to see more (I don't), I'll travel to Denmark. Or go to see NYCB perform Sylphide again next year. But, really, that's my limit to Bournonville or Bournonville like ballets.

[choriamb]

McKenzie said in one interview that he wanted ABT to have an iconic Sleeping Beauty production: something that was recognizably ABT's and no one else's. Given that many companies appearing in NYC and LA also have Sleeping Beauty in their repertory, there's really a financial as well as artistic need for this.

I do wonder if the only other way to differentiate ABT's Sleeping Beauty enough to make it really emerge from the shadows of the "standard" twentieth century productions put on by other major companies would have been to re-choreograph it entirely.

I think that the route Ratmansky chose was better.

[terrynyc]

I think somehow the focus of the discussion got a-kilter. It isn't really about providing more space for all the dancers, or whether SB is a star vehicle or not. The fact is, done this way, the evening was very dull. There was no more space for more dancers (although that was a huge number of garlands). The fairies were still there, but the Lilac Fairy very diminished, with a loss of impact. The fairy tale characters were all still there (Puss, Wolf, Bluebird). No, the "room" seems to have been made for more pantomime, which is tedious. In the meantime, most of the roles were somehow "made less".

Vishneva was exhilarating in her entrance, but once the Adagio started I found myself thinking "It is expertly done, but 'earth-bound' in some way". There is something for Aurora to convey here. I don't like it when the ballerina makes her too "little girl" because she isn't Juliet, she is 16, not 13. But still, the challenge is to show her in the first flush of womanhood. The choreography gives her opportunities to express, alternatively, sexuality, demureness, shyness, flightiness, etc. I think the "earthbound" aspect I felt has to do with the "concept" and the way everyone had been directed. One thing no one has mentioned was the way Prince Desire was directed. I only saw Gomes (the final). Marcello is a wonderfully expressive, masculine dancer. But for reasons known only to himself, Ratmansky directed him to be extremely 'effeminate', with very "dancery" posing and attitude. Like some kind of parody of a 'primo uomo ballerino'. In the last act Marcello returned to his usual self. Somehow, it all seemed part of the plan to diminish the role of the Prince, which I think was the real big problem. In order to make this ballet live for modern audiences, the role of the Prince needs to be augmented, not diminished. If the Prince is just a 'tool' (so to speak) then we really don't care about this whole story. There isn't a lot of 'drama' to work with. Still, in the second act, it seems to me that the challenge is to humanize the Prince. Show that he is 'yearning', 'looking' for something. The Vision Scene is about the Prince falling in love with the magical vision of Aurora that the Lilac shows him. Whatever things were cut for the Prince in that scene again lessened the impact of the ballet. And then, in the final pas de dieux, to take away the fireworks for the Prince again, just flattens everything out, and leaves us uninvolved. Perhaps that wasn't the way it was "originally" done. But this is the 21st Century, and this company is the ABT, known for its devotion to the "story ballets" and for stressing the drama and acting in their performances. This evening felt a bit like a homework assignment, and I am not sure for what purpise. Petipa was brilliant, and the very best parts need to be maintained in any production of SLEEPING BEAUTY. But, the real challenge is to bring the ballet alive, to make the fairy tale moving and romantic for modern audiences. That is a challenge that was not met with this scholarly, didactic and flattened out rendering. Where was the Romance? Where was the Fun? the Magic?

[Helene]

I think there are two unifying elements to performance: style and purpose. While it's great when a company has both, most companies do not have a unified style. Baryshnikov tried at ABT, but there wasn't the money to support that effort in the long run, and there's only so much that a two-year "finishing" course can do.

One of the things I've learned from watching PNB do the Ratmansky "Don Quixote" is how powerful a unified purpose can be. That may be the greatest gift he bestows on ABT, whether then end result is his Shostakovitch trilogy or his version of "Sleeping Beauty."

[Ilya]

Having just re watched the DVDs of the Bolshoi (Zakharova/Hallberg) and Mariinsky (Lezhnina/Ruzimatov) SBs, The Diamond Fairy variation is one Ratmansky pretty much left alone. Also, the Wedding PDD is pretty much untouched. So there's that. Frankly, he didn't really mess too much with Bluebird either.

K.M. Sergeyev and Grigorovich tinkered quite a bit with the original choreography, mostly not to a good effect. Unfortunately, neither one of them is nearly as talented a choreographer as Petipa who can stand very well on his own. In those parts where the surviving choreographic notation is incomplete, Petipa’s ballets require a choreographer who both can be his equal partner and has a deep understanding and respect for the style---requirements which Ratmansky fits, and, unfortunately, K.M. Sergeyev and Grigorovich do not. I for one am thankful to Ratmansky for bringing to us a version which is much closer to what Petipa’s choreography looked like.

I find Grigorovich’s Sleeping Beauty especially awful. It does differ vastly from Ratmansky’s production. Just in the adagio of the wedding PDD as performed by Zakharova and Hallberg, there are dozens of differences that coarsen this piece. The Ratmansky reconstruction looks warm, delicate, refined, full of texture and detail. The Grigorovich version—which is just a coarsened K.M. Sergeyev version—is detached, repetitive, and stylistically bizarre. This PDD is one of the pieces where the choreographic notation does not seem to be very detailed, but Grigorovich trashes what little of it does exist. Where is the mime at the beginning of the adagio? (She is supposed to mime “I will dance with him”, as he is miming “I love her and I will marry her”---I'm quoting here from Wiley's "Tchaikovsky's Ballets".) Where is the warm embrace and why has it been replaced with an awkward supported arabesque penchée where they are at an arm’s length from each other? Where is Aurora's mime just after the diagonal of supported pirouettes, and where are the beautiful lifts just before this diagonal? Why does the whole piece move at a glacial pace and why is there so much walking and standing? Why is the music slowed down to accommodate the choreography? Why does the ballerina hardly ever look at her partner? Why is their manner cool and distant? Why are the King, the Queen, the guests, the Prince, and the spectators repeatedly subjected to the sight of Princess Aurora's undergarments flanked by her legs split at a 180-degree angle? This might be appropriate in a piece by Forsyth but looks jarring at Aurora’s wedding. I am not sure if the mutual bows between Aurora and Désiré in the Ratmansky version are in the choreographic notation, but they look elegant and appropriate, as all the intricate footwork that he included. None of the Grigorovich additions/alterations look elegant or stylistically justified.

The origin of the Désiré variation in the K.M. Sergeyev and Grigorovich versions is somewhat unclear, but I have seen it attributed to K.M. Sergeyev. The notated variation, reconstructed by Ratmansky, is very different, quite a bit more technically challenging for contemporary dancers, and, to my taste, vastly superior.

[nanushka]

The origin of the Désiré variation in the K.M. Sergeyev and Grigorovich versions is somewhat unclear, but I have seen it attributed to K.M. Sergeyev. The notated variation, reconstructed by Ratmansky, is very different, quite a bit more technically challenging for contemporary dancers, and, to my taste, vastly superior.

The music is also much more filled with movement in the Ratmansky version, which I really appreciate. I've always disliked the traditional Désiré variation because there's so much standing/walking around getting reading to do something. Yes, there are more obviously bravura elements in the traditional version (though I suspect that Ratmansky's is in fact rather more difficult), but it doesn't really look as much like dancing.

[miliosr]

I would have loved to have seen a version more approximate to what the Mariinsky or Bolshoi dance.

Why would ABT want to do that given how oft-criticized it is for being a pale imitation of the great Russian companies? It seems to me that ABT will lose every . . . single . . . time . . . if it tries to emulate contemporary Russian productions of Sleeping Beauty.

The beauty (hohoho) of ABT's new Sleeping Beauty production is that it is something unique in the world. It owes nothing to any contemporaneous productions and everything to those of 1890 and 1921. At a time where the international repertory is coalescing more and more around a mean (see Millepied, Benjamin), I think that's a wonderful thing.

[Kaysta]

Why would ABT want to do that given how oft-criticized it is for being a pale imitation of the great Russian companies? It seems to me that ABT will lose every . . . single . . . time . . . if it tries to emulate contemporary Russian productions of Sleeping Beauty.

The beauty (hohoho) of ABT's new Sleeping Beauty production is that it is something unique in the world. It owes nothing to any contemporaneous productions and everything to those of 1890 and 1921. At a time where the international repertory is coalescing more and more around a mean (see Millepied, Benjamin), I think that's a wonderful thing.

Completely agree!

Frankly, I think it's wonderful that Petipa is being danced as Petipa imagined it. It's Petipa's choreography, and maybe the man would be rolling in his grave if he saw the super high extensions and changes made to his works if he were alive today. Yes, I realize dancers (and probably point shoe technology) has changed since the 1890's, but that doesn't mean the choreography should have been altered to the point that it isn't even recognizable as Petipa anymore.

You don't take a painting by Caravaggio and paint over it to make it more modern.

You don't take Bach's violin concertos and change notes around.

If someone is able to interpret Petipa's true choreography and put that on the stage, then it should and deserves to be done. (I'm not saying other "based off of Petipa's works" can't be done, but if it's been changed to the point it's no longer recognizable, that's wrong to me)

In one of his interviews, Ratmansky once made a comment how it's hard for him to see his work done if he's been away from the company presenting his work. That sometimes it can look sloppy and different, and not like his anymore. Imagine how Petipa would feel if he saw half the stuff that is now attributable to him.

I have so much admiration for the respect that Ratmansky shows for Petipa's true choreographic intentions. It's the work as it was intended to be. And that is something special, and I feel honored that I had a chance to see it.

[Helene]

Petipa was already on the record toward the end of his life as bitterly aware of the changes that Gorsky, as a stager and virtuoso, and other male virtuosos were making to his ballets. He didn't have to wait until he was in his grave to roil.

[volcanohunter]

I'm genuinely puzzled by complaints that there is little in the way of jumps in Ratmansky's production. The fairy cavaliers in the prologue jump, the coda of Act 1 is filled with jumping, and so is the coda of the vision scene. The Bluebird jumps practically the entire time, and Désiré's variation is nearly non-stop jumping, including things like double revolutions in the air, which hardly qualify as petit allegro. How much more jumping is needed?

The music is also much more filled with movement in the Ratmansky version, which I really appreciate. I've always disliked the traditional Désiré variation because there's so much standing/walking around getting reading to do something. Yes, there are more obviously bravura elements in the traditional version (though I suspect that Ratmansky's is in fact rather more difficult), but it doesn't really look as much like dancing.

My only complaint about the variation comes at the very end, when the music is really churning, while the dancer is walking around in a little half circle to prepare for his final pirouette. Of all the places to insert walking. I wish Petipa had done that somehow differently.

I assume that complaints about excessive Bournonvillism stem from this particular variation, although I can't see how a single variation can qualify a three-hour ballet as Bournonvillean, if that's even a bad thing. Furthermore, a lot comes down to the manner in which it's performed, which is why I have to mention James Whiteside. His approach to the variation was forceful, upright and staccato, and a priori that should not appeal to me, but in fact it's perfectly in keeping with the martial character of the music (lots of snare drum), so I have to commend him on this insight, which also has the virtue of distinguishing Désiré's brisés volés from the Bluebird's. I also have to praise his partnering in the wedding pas de deux, because all those supported pirouettes performed with only one arm were really striking. I don't know whether this is a reflection primarily of his partnering ability, or Gillian Murphy's legendary skill at turning or a combination of both, but watching those supported turns, which involved hardly any support at all, was breathtaking.

[volcanohunter]

From a (frustratingly short) interview with Doug Fullington posted today.

What impression have Ratmansky’s re-imagined Paquita and Sleeping Beauty left you with?

I feel they demonstrate that these ballets were a much broader form of entertainment, full of character dance, pantomime, children, and plenty of comedy and wit. There is a great sense of spontaneity. And there is a more evident influence of French technique, and neo-Baroque dance.

Why do you think these sorts of efforts haven’t been undertaken more frequently?

I think directors may feel like it’s a risk to do something old, that it will be boring or suggest they are presenting old-fashioned repertory.

http://dancetabs.com/2015/06/doug-fullington-on-stepanov-notation/

[abatt]

Fullington forgot to mention that in addition to it being a risk, reconstruction is quite expensive. Without the deep pockets of David Koch, this reconstruction would never have gotten done.

[abatt]

I also think that one's perception of how much jumping was involved in the production was somewhat dependent on who you saw in each role. I ended up seeing all of the casts, and there were notable differences. For example, Boylston had the most soaring jumps of any of the Aurora's, while Vishneva's jumps as Aurora were generally low and not impressive. Herman Cornejo had the most soaring jumps of all the Desire's, so if you missed him the variations for Desire might not have looked quite as impressive. As Bluebird, certain performers soared, while others (notably Gorak) did not.

I'm genuinely puzzled by complaints that there is little in the way of jumps in Ratmansky's production. The fairy cavaliers in the prologue jump, the coda of Act 1 is filled with jumping, and so is the coda of the vision scene. The Bluebird jumps practically the entire time, and Désiré's variation is nearly non-stop jumping, including things like double revolutions in the air, which hardly qualify as petit allegro. How much more jumping is needed?