Spring 2015: The Sleeping Beauty

[DeCoster]

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.

Thank you for your historical insight. I am also grateful that we have this reconstructed Sleeping Beauty at ABT. I get a feeling (from their personal posts) that many company members feel grateful and inspired and know they still have work to do to execute the style fully. (I believe Boylston used the hashtag #workinprogress on one of her posts)

Do you think Ratmansky restored the original tempos? I read somewhere that the Marinsky restoration was particularly sluggish.

[Drew]

My only complaint about the [Prince's] 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.

[...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.

I had mixed feelings about the repetition of the same steps bluebird does...Aurora is supposed to be a summation of all the qualities bestowed by the fairies, but it's odd to see the Prince echo the fairy tale pageant. I also feel the low leg in pirouette looks better on the women than on the men. But I accept that I am learning some things along with the dancers.

Whiteside (whom I had never seen in a 19th-century ballet) did make it work. I thought part of his success too was the speed combined with an almost macho forcefulness that I thought (somewhat similarly to Volcanohunter above) should have looked wrong, but combined with the speed actually made it kind of exciting. The others I saw all very obviously lost steam towards the end, though Gorak came closest to showing the beautiful beats clearly and really dancing the variation in the graceful, elegant way that seemed most obviously called for by the choreography. I continue to regret missing Cornejo.

Stearns gets my vote for looks best in red velvet coat and Gomes (no surprise) for knowing how to gaze at his ballerina as if he were genuinely in love with her.

[abatt]

IStearns gets my vote for looks best in red velvet coat and Gomes (no surprise) for knowing how to gaze at his ballerina as if he were genuinely in love with her.

I got that feeling from Gomes when he was with Vishneva, but not as much when he danced with Murphy.

[vipa]

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.

I find thinking about and discussing this sort of thing fascinating. Take a Bach as an example. Unless we go to a concert in which period instruments are used and players have made a study of baroque playing, we hear the notes that Bach wrote played on modern instruments with a wide variety of interpretations that differ greatly in terms of tempo, dynamics, phrasing etc. Another thing is audience. We can never see Petipa's choreography the way the audience he was trying to entertain did.

It is an interesting idea to mull over. One thing I thought of recently was that Ratmansky let the dancers wear modern pointe shoes. They look very different from the ones worn in Petipa's day. The demi-pointe chaines may have worked better in oid style shoes but the rest I strongly suspect wouldn't have worked.

[Kaysta]

I find thinking about and discussing this sort of thing fascinating. Take a Bach as an example. Unless we go to a concert in which period instruments are used and players have made a study of baroque playing, we hear the notes that Bach wrote played on modern instruments with a wide variety of interpretations that differ greatly in terms of tempo, dynamics, phrasing etc. Another thing is audience. We can never see Petipa's choreography the way the audience he was trying to entertain did.

It is an interesting idea to mull over. One thing I thought of recently was that Ratmansky let the dancers wear modern pointe shoes. They look very different from the ones worn in Petipa's day. The demi-pointe chaines may have worked better in oid style shoes but the rest I strongly suspect wouldn't have worked.

I find it fascinating as well! I admit I'm a bit of a history nerd, so that may add to my love for this production. Good point about Bach regarding tempo and phrasing and such. I have a couple of CDs of Bach's violin concertos and they often sound a bit different just from having different conductors. So obviously it would be impossible for an exact replication of what the geniuses of the past truly had in mind.

But it does bother me to see it changed so completely in some areas. Take Desire's variation as an example. The variation most companies dance is so completely different from the Ratmansky reconstruction. How did that happen, they are not at all similar?!? It almost seems like an insult to Petipa that someone would so completely change his work into something he never intended.

It has made me totally rethink what I thought was Petipa choreography in all of his ballets. Maybe those programs should say "based off of Petipa" instead of listing Petipa as the choreographer.

Very interesting, and whether folks love this SB or not at least it has people talking.

[vipa]

I find it fascinating as well! I admit I'm a bit of a history nerd, so that may add to my love for this production. Good point about Bach regarding tempo and phrasing and such. I have a couple of CDs of Bach's violin concertos and they often sound a bit different just from having different conductors. So obviously it would be impossible for an exact replication of what the geniuses of the past truly had in mind.

But it does bother me to see it changed so completely in some areas. Take Desire's variation as an example. The variation most companies dance is so completely different from the Ratmansky reconstruction. How did that happen, they are not at all similar?!? It almost seems like an insult to Petipa that someone would so completely change his work into something he never intended.

It has made me totally rethink what I thought was Petipa choreography in all of his ballets. Maybe those programs should say "based off of Petipa" instead of listing Petipa as the choreographer.

Very interesting, and whether folks love this SB or not at least it has people talking.

Kaysta I'm glad you also find this interesting. Maybe as a history buff (notice I didn't say nerd) you might know if people in Petipa's day were allowed to change choreography to suit their strengths. I'm thinking of Tchaikovsky pas de deus. Balanchine was still alive when there were many different versions of the man's variation, all were done with his suggestions and blessing.

[Olga]

It is an interesting idea to mull over. One thing I thought of recently was that Ratmansky let the dancers wear modern pointe shoes. They look very different from the ones worn in Petipa's day. The demi-pointe chaines may have worked better in oid style shoes but the rest I strongly suspect wouldn't have worked.

I have been thinking about the pointe shoes for some time now and it seems to me the fact that modern shoes were used undermines the whole concept of the restoration and basically shows that it can't possibly be a complete one. By this I do not mean that they should have used the old shoes, only that it just points up the inherent contradictions of the "restoration.". In the end I think this restoration is somewhat academic, and of interest primarily to people like us. And many of the old productions that have been restaged do indicate they are done by a new choreographer but based on Petipa. Time marches on. When I think of what was spent on this production, and, forgive me folks, how poorly it was danced by many, it seems like a waste. Sure, a few dancers did a great job. Simkin, for one. Admittedly, I only saw two casts, so my opinions are circumscribed, but I did see opening night which presumably had one of the stronger casts. What a waste of Marcello. Honestly, he was pretty awful, though some people say he improved with Vishneva. Glad to hear. We can analyze and talk about this production ad infinitum but when you think of what could have been done with the money.... Maybe if Ratmansky had better dancers to work with it would have been more successful. Not sure. I think the production is inherently problematic.

[Kaysta]

Kaysta I'm glad you also find this interesting. Maybe as a history buff (notice I didn't say nerd) you might know if people in Petipa's day were allowed to change choreography to suit their strengths. I'm thinking of Tchaikovsky pas de deus. Balanchine was still alive when there were many different versions of the man's variation, all were done with his suggestions and blessing.

I'm not sure. It's been documented (in this thread and by Ratmansky) that Petipa choreographed two different lilac solos (one more difficult than the other), but that was still Petipa's own choreography. Whether he allowed others to change his own work is a good question, which I don't know the answer to.

I know from reading, Tchaikovsky had major issues with the changes done to Swan Lake. Wasn't it Minkus who tried to compose a new pas for Anna Sobeshchanskaya and it pissed Tchaikovsky off, hence the PDD? Petipa did supposedly change the choreography for Sobeshchanskaya, so obviously he must have been a bit flexible.

I'm just really curious where the currently favored Desire's variation came from (non-Ratmansky/Petipa version)? Anyone have a clue when it was changed? I don't, but I'm really curious to know.

[Kaysta]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 8:42 PM, vipa said:

buff (notice I didn't say nerd)

Oh, and I use the term "nerd" endearingly.I'm proud of my nerdiness!

Edited January 8, 2017 by Kaysta

[Drew]

I have been thinking about the pointe shoes for some time now and it seems to me the fact that modern shoes were used undermines the whole concept of the restoration and basically shows that it can't possibly be a complete one. By this I do not mean that they should have used the old shoes, only that it just points up the inherent contradictions of the "restoration.".

I think there is room for middle ground here...with different productions making different choices. (I'm not an expert, but K. Sergeyev's Sleeping Beauty seems closer to Petipa than, say, what video shows Nacho Duato has done with the same ballet.) When it comes to the past it need not be all or nothing--in fact, it can't be for many of the reasons already discussed or, to put it in general terms, because ballet is a performing art. By going as far as he did in what he demanded in order to revive a somewhat past aesthetic, Ratmansky does get a very distinctive look from the company. Some people love it, others like it, others are merely intrigued, and others bored, irritated etc....I should say that, as far, as non-ballet-fan ballet-goers are concerned, I have found that Sleeping Beauty in whatever production is often something that they find "boring" in sections.

I also think a more modernized look in Sleeping Beauty does sometimes genuinely interfere with or even come close to destroying the beautiful geometry and fairy-tale fantasy spirit of the choreography. The super high extensions in the opening of the Rose Adagio -- not just Zakharova (whom I saw in the theater) or Somova, but Novikova and even Obraztsova in some videos -- seem to me unharmonious and oddly immodest at that moment in Aurora's self-presentation. It does start to look like gymnastics to me. And Cojocaru, too, whom I have seen dance Aurora with both the Royal and ABT, sometimes pushes the extensions a bit more than I think she should and I consider her the finest Aurora I have ever seen. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy higher extensions than one typically saw in Ratmansky's production. In fact, Vishneva and Murphy in the vision scene variation wisely let their leg reach high enough that the foot was about on a level with their shoulders, and it was very beautiful (Vishneva's variation was especially legato in quality). Lack of attention to the upper body is another problem in some modern productions.

I also like the inclusiveness of this production and attention to mime. And all the fairy tale characters. Sleeping Beauty is partly an allegory of how passages in life seem threatening, even potentially traumatic (in this case, primarily girlhood to adulthood, a transition very faintly echoed in the prince's story since he has to take on adult responsibilities and seems a bit reluctant) -- even as the threat is partly averted and altogether made bearable and the passage finally ends in joy. (I think this is more or less a standard interpretation...) The fact that Tchaikovsky's music often has undertones of melancholy even at its most celebratory seems to me to capture something about that underlying allegory and the way that adulthood/marriage can be experienced as loss. The fairy tale characters at the end all embody similar themes and also, by their presence at the wedding, magically show us a world in which the dreams and fantasies of childhood never entirely have to be left behind because they are always with us. I think the ballet as a whole offers something of the same pleasure to its audience.

But even if that's so and not overly fanciful/pretentious etc., the real issue remains how it translates on stage in the theater: is it dull? or, perhaps, just too long? Some 'modern' productions can get to be a bit of both -- I have occasionally gotten a little weary when watching this ballet over the years even though it's one of my absolute favorites. But in this production I enjoyed every single divertissement at every performance I attended (weaker dancers here and there notwithstanding), though I can't deny it makes for a long evening. I don't know enough to break down how the choreography or other elements of the staging worked so well for me--though the fabulous masks for the Ogre and Ogress and some other costume elements played a role and I know the music played a huge role including, probably, the tempos. But I think Ratmansky also showed the dancers how to bring these episodes to distinctive life. Of course one can't talk people into enjoying something they find dull! I can only report what I felt and thought and try to explain why.

[lmspear]

It is an interesting idea to mull over. One thing I thought of recently was that Ratmansky let the dancers wear modern pointe shoes. They look very different from the ones worn in Petipa's day. The demi-pointe chaines may have worked better in oid style shoes but the rest I strongly suspect wouldn't have worked.

Never mind the shoes looking different. Today's dancers would probably have to wear some padding to approximate the look of the original SB cast, if the production was really trying to offer an experience as close as possible to what Petipa created. ;-)

[mimsyb]

Never mind the shoes looking different. Today's dancers would probably have to wear some padding to approximate the look of the original SB cast, if the production was really trying to offer an experience as close as possible to what Petipa created. ;-)

I was curious abut that also. What did the Original costumes for 1890 look like and why weren't they used if indeed this was a "reconstruction" of that production.? Why go with the Bakst costumes? To possibly make the dancers look as flattering as possible? What version of the choreography was danced in 1921 when the Bakst costumes were done? In the end, this version became a "mash up" of years and styles.

[Natalia]

I was curious abut that also. What did the Original costumes for 1890 look like and why weren't they used if indeed this was a "reconstruction" of that production.? Why go with the Bakst costumes? To possibly make the dancers look as flattering as possible? What version of the choreography was danced in 1921 when the Bakst costumes were done? In the end, this version became a "mash up" of years and styles.

BINGO! Exactly my question several posts up. Couldn't cash-strapped ABT have saved $$$ by renting the far-more-gorgeous 1890 sets at the Mariinsky, hence allowing us to see Ratmansky Team's results within the appropriate designs?

My guess as to why not:

1. US and Italian labor unions (desire to make work for them...even if the results are shoddy-looking dresses in cheap fabrics looking like they come from a Curtain Call Costumes catalog)?

2. Possible legal ties binding the Mariinsky's designs to the reconstruction work of Sergei Vikharev & Pavel Gershenson (ie, need to rent the entire production, not just sets & costumes)?

3. ABT's desire to have a cheap-to-tour production (maximum portability).

As nice as is this new ABT BEAUTY, I'm in total agreement with Mary Cargill (Danceviewtimes) that the Mariinsky 1890 production remains "The Gold Standard" (Ms Cargill's words). I give ABT the Pewter Medal (4th place) behind:

Gold - Mariinsky-1890

Silver - Royal Ballet-1946 (Oliver Messell)

Bronze - POB Nureyev current designs ( so luxurious, complete & bright/colorful...no El Cheapo in this or the above two!)

Pewter - ABT 2015

[sandik]

BINGO! Exactly my question several posts up. Couldn't cash-strapped ABT have saved $$$ by renting the far-more-gorgeous 1890 sets at the Mariinsky, hence allowing us to see Ratmansky Team's results within the appropriate designs?

My guess as to why not:

...

2. Possible legal ties binding the Mariinsky's designs to the reconstruction work of Sergei Vikharev & Pavel Gershenson (ie, need to rent the entire production, not just sets & costumes)?

...

Ratmansky and his designer have said that they wanted to pay respect to the Ballet Russe production that introduced this ballet to the West -- it's certainly a matter of opinion which version you feel best fits the ballet, but I did think this was a lovely gesture.

And I would imagine that you've put your finger on a major issue here -- it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Vikharev/Gershenson production was an "all or nothing" deal.

[Drew]

Mckenzie has been quoted as saying, too, he wanted a version distinctively ABT's -- for this ballet I think that includes the scenic elements. I was mostly disappointed in some of the drops and the grand transition scenes, though I liked the backdrop for the vision scene well enough. I though many costumes were beautiful; others I had to get used to, and I am not sure they added up as a whole in every stage picture. I also agree with critics who point out that Aurora's very first appearance is slightly muffled by this set, at least from several angles--yet another moment in the production one could see much better from the left side of the audience.

But the choreography and dancing? The production as a whole is at once being faulted (as was the Mariinsky reconstruction) for being too pedantic and not pedantic enough...If a time machine could take me to the premier (sitting next to Bakst please-who was there), then I would go--but of course I don't expect ANY reconstruction to look exactly as the original did in every detail.

Intentions? The production has clear intentions in honoring certain aesthetic qualities that bring us closer in spirit to the essentials of what makes Petipa Petipa....It has to be an interpretation (eg where the notations are lacking and for that matter where dance historians and artists may disagree) and at least to some degree an adaptation.

It would be absurd (for example) to expect dancers to try to dance in completely unfamiliar pointe shoes, a recipe for injury probably. But does that make it absurd to ask them to hold their bodies differently or perform a lift from the original notation? Everyone will draw the line differently...but I don't think so.

[volcanohunter]

Mckenzie has been quoted as saying, too, he wanted a version distinctively ABT's -- for this ballet I think that includes the scenic elements.

Yes, and I suspect that borrowing or buying the sets and costumes from the Vikharev production would inevitably lead to comparisons with the Mariinsky that would not be flattering to ABT.

[nanushka]

The production as a whole is at once being faulted (as was the Mariinsky reconstruction) for being too pedantic and not pedantic enough...If a time machine could take me to the premier (sitting next to Bakst please-who was there), then I would go--but of course I don't expect ANY reconstruction to look exactly as the original did in every detail.

Intentions? The production has clear intentions in honoring certain aesthetic qualities that bring us closer in spirit to the essentials of what makes Petipa Petipa....It has to be an interpretation (eg where the notations are lacking and for that matter where dance historians and artists may disagree) and at least to some degree an adaptation.

It would be absurd (for example) to expect dancers to try to dance in completely unfamiliar pointe shoes, a recipe for injury probably. But does that make it absurd to ask them to hold their bodies differently or perform a lift from the original notation? Everyone will draw the line differently...but I don't think so.

Very well put. No reconstruction can possibly be an exact replication -- for so many reasons, many of which have been mentioned in previous posts. But that doesn't mean that the aim of reconstruction is futile or valueless. In fact, the many forces (temporal, physical, aesthetic, etc. etc.) that make replication impossible make reconstruction all the more valuable as a check against complete loss of an historical legacy. No one production has to be all things for all viewers. This is one production among many in the world, and it has a role to play among that multi-textured variety of interpretations.

[Olga]

What I was trying to say about the toe shoes being different in Petipa's time is that relative to today, those shoes placed a limitation on what could be done choreographically and made what was danced more impressive. Similarly, Gerdt's age also placed a limit on Prince Desire's dancing. To transpose all of this to now, with these dancers, their training, their shoes, their bodies, can never be a true transposition. As Drew said, there is room for middle ground -- but I don't think the ballet has been presented as such.

Taking the balances with the four suitors as an example, I think we can see it would have been more impressive with less physical support for the pointe work. So, I wonder whether the four suitors grouped anxiously a few inches from Aurora in this production is in the original notes, and the increased distance employed in Fonteyn's adagio was a modification. Let's say it was a modification. Given the modification on the shoes, maybe the modification vis a vis distance is warranted. In any event, Fonteyn's adagio is many orders of better than the Auroras I saw. Maybe this production's spacing is the original, but in that case it would have been more impressive in the original and the audience would have felt that. In the end, maybe it does come down to the level of dancing in this production. I didn't think those balances were very good.

And what exactly is the point of so significantly limiting Desire's dancing? Maybe it was necessary for Gerdt, but does it really add to the production other than that we can see how it looked originally? That is why I think this production is academic. It is of interest to see how the ballet was choreographed originally. It is of interest to see Bakst's costumes. But it is not a ballet that most of us will want to see many more times, unless changes are made and that would go against the grain of the articulated purpose of the production. On the other hand, one could argue that this ballet is presenting an aesthetic and that aesthetic doesn't require so much virtuouso dancing. That is a valid idea, and those people who enjoy the ballet on those terms are free to do so. I even agree with it to some extent, ie, the ear height extensions and other gymnastic feats could easily leave the current ballet vocabulary as far as I am concerned. For me, this production is of academic interest, but I think it is too precious, not to mention indulgent to have spent all that money on it.

I will say we are now on p. 27 of the ABT Sleeping Beauty thread, and most of the posters have seen it more than once, so the ballet has certainly grabbed our attention and generated publicity which I guess is at least in part the intention.

[Kaysta]

We'll, all I can say is I do plan on seeing it again, I loved it that much.

And I disagree that no one nailed the balances--both Murphy and Vishneva were perfect at the end of the run.

But yes, it has gotten people talking, which is a win for ABT.

[Ilya]

Continuing with musical analogies, the minimum I expect from any performance is to hear the notes that were written down by the composer. Musical notation is not perfect, and many aspects of any piece of music are left up to the performers. We do not even know what pitch Bach would want his pieces to be played at, as the pitch used to vary widely and still varies somewhat even these days. However, we do know that if he wrote a “D” he meant “one tone higher than the C just below”, and that if he wrote a quarter note he meant a note that lasts approximately twice as long as an eighth note. These basics that are clearly preserved in the notation are expected to be followed in every performance. Whether the performers want to tune to A440 or A415, and whether they want to use modern violins or violins made in the 1700’s—that’s up to the performers to decide because, as far as I know, Bach has not left any instructions in his scores regarding these. However, the argument that the violin technique has much advanced since Bach and that therefore performers should insert extraneous virtuoso passages into his Chaconne in order to make it palatable to listeners these days—such an argument is obviously preposterous. Even though modern violinists are indeed technically much more advanced than those in Bach’s times, no serious musician would mess with the notes in Bach’s violin pieces.

I find equally questionable the argument that Petipa’s steps that are preserved in the notation should be disregarded or modified because the ballet technique these days is more advanced, or because the dancers' bodies are different, or because they wear different shoes. Whatever steps survived in the notation, I would like to see them performed, because Petipa---much like Bach---seems to have been pretty good at what he did!

In those classical music pieces where the composer did not even have a chance to write down all the notes, such as Mozart’s Requiem, care is usually taken to fill in the remaining notes with deference to the composer’s style. I would expect no less from the choreographers filling in the blanks in Petipa’s steps.

[Helene]

To continue with that train of thought, there are numerous scores written after Bach's time that require different technique and style and have other technical challenges, and musicians are expected -- at least now, because there were periods in which this wasn't the case -- to match style and technique to the work, and to make extrapolated cadenzas and ornamentation seamless.

Today's dancers, even at the Mariinsky and Bolshoi, have ample opportunity to show extension and extended technique in a wide range of works created in the last century.

[Kaysta]

Continuing with musical analogies, the minimum I expect from any performance is to hear the notes that were written down by the composer. Musical notation is not perfect, and many aspects of any piece of music are left up to the performers. We do not even know what pitch Bach would want his pieces to be played at, as the pitch used to vary widely and still varies somewhat even these days. However, we do know that if he wrote a “D” he meant “one tone higher than the C just below”, and that if he wrote a quarter note he meant a note that lasts approximately twice as long as an eighth note. These basics that are clearly preserved in the notation are expected to be followed in every performance. Whether the performers want to tune to A440 or A415, and whether they want to use modern violins or violins made in the 1700’s—that’s up to the performers to decide because, as far as I know, Bach has not left any instructions in his scores regarding these. However, the argument that the violin technique has much advanced since Bach and that therefore performers should insert extraneous virtuoso passages into his Chaconne in order to make it palatable to listeners these days—such an argument is obviously preposterous. Even though modern violinists are indeed technically much more advanced than those in Bach’s times, no serious musician would mess with the notes in Bach’s violin pieces.

I find equally questionable the argument that Petipa’s steps that are preserved in the notation should be disregarded or modified because the ballet technique these days is more advanced, or because the dancers' bodies are different, or because they wear different shoes. Whatever steps survived in the notation, I would like to see them performed, because Petipa---much like Bach---seems to have been pretty good at what he did!

In those classical music pieces where the composer did not even have a chance to write down all the notes, such as Mozart’s Requiem, care is usually taken to fill in the remaining notes with deference to the composer’s style. I would expect no less from the choreographers filling in the blanks in Petipa’s steps.

This is said far more eloquently than I ever could--thank you! I completely agree!

[dirac]

..If a time machine could take me to the premier (sitting next to Bakst please-who was there), then I would go--but of course I don't expect ANY reconstruction to look exactly as the original did in every detail.

Nor would such a literal reconstruction even necessarily be desirable. The past is a different place - the audience looked at their dance with different eyes from ours, the dancers danced with very different bodies. But yes, I would hop right into that time machine myself.

[sandik]

Nor would such a literal reconstruction even necessarily be desirable. The past is a different place - the audience looked at their dance with different eyes from ours, the dancers danced with very different bodies. But yes, I would hop right into that time machine myself.

I have a feeling almost all of us would jump in as well. We may not always love what we see when we get there, but to satisfy our curiosity...

[cubanmiamiboy]

I will chime in a little late here, but I'm sure the performances are still fresh in people's minds.

I definitely applaud Ratmansky's vision for his Beauty. It creates a very organic balance in between historical perspective and contemporary taste. I must say it was a little weird to see all this demi pointe used, and at times one could see that for some the efforts to master the steps was rather a bit strained-(Murphy). The production is gorgeous...costumes and backdrops are winners, and the re insertion of long ago missing mime is definitely a plus. Yes, Lilac is seen here less in pointes and tutu, but frankly...I've seen many awful instances in which Lilac is given just bogus choreographic fillers just to justify something that it had never been created for her originally.

One complaint I have is about the Panorama scene. The original score calls for I think three repetitions of the main theme, and here Ratmansky definitely shortens the sequence. I think the backfrops for the Panorama could had been more imaginative, so here I believe this version looses in relation with Kirkland's. Other than that I certainly enjoyed all the details brought back, like the more extended mime between Desire and Lilac right before the awakening scene, the Precious stones pas and the fairy tales characters variations.

Costumes were very beautiful, although I would had wished for a more substantial tutu for Aurora in her wedding pas. The white number's design is very pretty, but it looks rather too soft and squalid. I think it should had been stiffer, and perhaps a little more elaborated. The one costume I really disliked was Lilac's shiny long number. It had the feeling of a bedroom gown. Pefhaps it would had worked better in a different fabric. I certainly liked the fairies and her wigs. They reminded me of a black and white fragment film I've seen of the Ballet Russes de Monte Carlo. They had a nice vintage aura.

Contrary to what other felt, I found the Valse villagoise very pretty. I DO like to see a filled out stage-(I'm a fan of baroque and horror vacui décor).

One think I think should be reworked is the lighting during the Vision scene. The stage doesn't change too much from the previous scene, and it sort of looks too bright for this segment's mysterious ambiance purpose.

I saw three couples...Murphy/Gomes, Lane/Cornejo and Boylston/Gorak.

Opening night was certainly full of surprises, from the sight of the new production to the digestion of the old style and steps adopted by the choreographer and dancers. Murphy wasn't my favorite Aurora, among the three, to be honest. That prize-(even surprisingly for me)-goes to Boylston. I must say that Gillian looked at times aged for the role. Her technique is still strong, but she didn't gave me the aura of the fairy tale princess.

I didn't like Sarah Lane. I found her unprepared and unfitted for the role, and too shaky during balances-(she even fell off from the seashell device)-as well as during the RA. Finally, she and Cornejo even omitted the iconic fish dives of the grand PDD. I know they are not original from the XIX century choreo, but they were created for the superb Spessivtzeva for the very London staging, so it is very weird to see it omitted from western productions. I have the feeling that Lane and Cornejo were not up to the choreographic challenge. That's a No-No in my balletomane book.

I enjoyed Boylston's Aurora the most-(and I hadn't seen too much of this girl before. I think I had only seen one rather flavorless T&V by her a while ago)-so I was rather surprised. Her Rose Adagio was the most nicely done among the three ballerinas.

I also saw one FLorine with Copeland-(don't remember the other two), which was totally forgettable. I don't think this girl has Principal material to offer, nor Lane.

To summarize, I think this is a winner production. It was very refreshing to see the low arabesques and developpes, and to have a little resting period from the contorsionists of the world. ABT is nowadays in the lead for the restitution of original mime and finales in ballets, and I REALLY love that.

It was wonderful to see all of you at the MET!!