Jump to content

The Royal Ballet: Anastasia, October 2016


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 317
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just left tonight's performance. A quick summary

 

ACT I: Yawn

ACT II: Yawn

ACT III: Absolutely sensational! Osipova was truly mesmerising. One of the most convincing standing ovations I've seen in years. I have to see her perform this again! Astonishing

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osipova was truly mesmerising. One of the most convincing standing ovations I've seen in years. I have to see her perform this again! Astonishing

 

Worst-case scenario: cinema relay on the 2nd? (plus repeats where applicable)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've now seen both casts (one being the General rehearsal) and both were sensational. Osipova and Cuthbertson both excellent. The dramatic denouement of Act 3 works so well because of the juxtaposition with Acts 1 & 2. Without the first two acts the third act wouldn't make as much sense. The sets were great and the use of film and 'voices over' coherent and relevant.

 

Having seen other companies in recent months I very much appreciate just how good the RB is in the big numbers. And the revolutionary cameo at the front of the stage in Act 2 develops the ballet. I thought the whole ballet worked really well.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to note that a lot of tickets appear to have shifted in recent days: I don't think it's long ago that most performances were showing 100+ tickets remaining.

 

And darn, I only realised this evening that I'd mistakenly only bought one Cuthbertson performance :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just left tonight's performance. A quick summary

 

ACT I: Yawn

ACT II: Yawn

ACT III: Absolutely sensational! Osipova was truly mesmerising. One of the most convincing standing ovations I've seen in years. I have to see her perform this again! Astonishing

 

Perfect summary! Act III brilliant and Osipova thrilling. For me, Acts I and II add nothing at all and are unbelievably tedious. Beautiful sets and costumes, but nothing else. Dull choreography, mainly dull music (and I love Tchaikovsky!), and almost nothing happens. Also a problem with the gunshots in Act II - i.e. no gunshots - so it was a silent revolution and frankly just looked silly. I thought maybe the person with the gun had been as bored as me and had fallen asleep. I must also say that I found the big pas de deux in Act II really quite horrible - awkward, difficult, unmusical, unilluminating, and unattractive. Bonelli struggled with it and even Nunez didn't look comfortable. With much of the choreography in this Act I found myself thinking that MacMillan must really not like his dancers.

 

And, given that we now know that Anna A was not Anastasia, the full-length work makes no sense anyway. Act III still works superbly as a study of someone who thinks they are Anastasia; but since she isn't, why do we need Anastasia's back story in such tedious detail in Acts I and II? What would be more interesting would be to see Anna A's back story. The ballet is - or should be - about her, not about Anastasia. It's a study of loss of identity, confusion, fear etc, and the Russian/Imperial aspects are riveting and very well integrated. And the music works excellently too. Acts I and II are entirely superfluous, and would be even if they were better than they are.

 

I also found myself really questioning why the RB have revived this as a three-acter. The quality of Acts I and II are so far below MacMillan at his best that it's quite inexplicable. Whereas Act III is powerful, original and fascinating as well as providing a great vehicle for a lead female.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bridie and Mouse, I agree with you. I remember feeling the same back in 2004 when this was last performed. If I hadn't been standing tonight I might well have fallen asleep in the first two acts. The choreography is underpowered and despite the valiant efforts of everyone on the stage, I didn't feel engaged with anything or anyone. However, it was worth the wait to see Osipova's stunning performance of Act 3. Who needs Acts 1 and 2? As my daughter said, everything is already in Act 3, in Anna's memories or fantasies. It is painfully apparent that the first two acts are redundant tack-ons to what is an already complete, self-contained piece.

 

I am seeing the other two casts, but I can't imagine my mind will be changed. I am really going just for Act 3.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfect summary! Act III brilliant and Osipova thrilling. For me, Acts I and II add nothing at all and are unbelievably tedious. Beautiful sets and costumes, but nothing else. Dull choreography, mainly dull music (and I love Tchaikovsky!), and almost nothing happens. Also a problem with the gunshots in Act II - i.e. no gunshots - so it was a silent revolution and frankly just looked silly. I thought maybe the person with the gun had been as bored as me and had fallen asleep. I must also say that I found the big pas de deux in Act II really quite horrible - awkward, difficult, unmusical, unilluminating, and unattractive. Bonelli struggled with it and even Nunez didn't look comfortable. With much of the choreography in this Act I found myself thinking that MacMillan must really not like his dancers.

 

And, given that we now know that Anna A was not Anastasia, the full-length work makes no sense anyway. Act III still works superbly as a study of someone who thinks they are Anastasia; but since she isn't, why do we need Anastasia's back story in such tedious detail in Acts I and II? What would be more interesting would be to see Anna A's back story. The ballet is - or should be - about her, not about Anastasia. It's a study of loss of identity, confusion, fear etc, and the Russian/Imperial aspects are riveting and very well integrated. And the music works excellently too. Acts I and II are entirely superfluous, and would be even if they were better than they are.

 

I also found myself really questioning why the RB have revived this as a three-acter. The quality of Acts I and II are so far below MacMillan at his best that it's quite inexplicable. Whereas Act III is powerful, original and fascinating as well as providing a great vehicle for a lead female.

I absolutely agree. I thought Bohuslav Martinu's music much more compelling and the orchestra were on top form tonight.

I was very disappointed with the Bonelli/Nuñez PDD, he wasn't a great help when one of her assisted pirouettes stopped half way and took him way too long to recognise the situation and assist.

 

I understand Acts I and II were written before it was fully understood that she was not in fact Anastasia,and therefore their inclusion per se was relevant back then. I also understand that these earlier sections act as an antithetical dialogue to Act III. It's just stylistically and qualitatively they jar so badly with the triumph that is Act III. They are a facile, sickly sweet Nutcrackeresque introduction to the heavyweight, emotional rollercoaster that is the denouement in act III.

 

In my opinion their introduction in this style was a commercial decision. The 'red programme' carrying people sitting around me seemed to love the first two acts and were confused by act III - I'm sure it can be divisive as it's not your regular ballet content.

 

Osipova - marvellous, she worked so hard tonight, gave it everything. sweat everywhere. Wonderful!

I strongly recommend you watch the Osipova rehearsal video on the ROH website before you watch the performance, it really gives you a good insight as to what they were trying to achieve and the maturing movements throughout

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point. A previous poster asked if it was suitable for a 10yr old to watch.

I'd say no. There are several historic cinematic sequences of Russians being shot at close range and falling dead into open pits.

Maybe that's ok for children these days to watch, I don't know?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first two acts may be quite boring but they certainly give depth and meaning to the final act. We saw this as a one act ballet a long time ago and hadn't got a clue what was going on. If nothing else the first two acts set the scene and act as a counterpoint to the madness of act 3.

 

The performance has already been beautifully summed up by Mousem40and Bridem. Nunez and Bonelli looked most uncomfortable with the choreography but got a huge cheer anyway. 

 

Osipova was simply stunning.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree, agree, agree. All I can add is that the costumes really are special. So much careful - and individual - detail work. But it is a sad day when one goes to the Royal Ballet and concentrates on the costumes, as I found myself doing in Act 2.

 

But then I never liked this ballet (the three acter, I mean, was there on opening night but never saw it before as one act) Does anyone know what if anything was revised in Act 3 when MacMillan added Acts 1 and 2?

Edited by Geoff
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For once I really wish I had the time and ability to write more. I apologise for the brevity of my comments, but I really am too flummoxed to tackle the the mixed feelings I had after seeing the performance last night. Firstly I want to state that it was a personal and professional triumph for Osipova. She was outstanding. She did everything she could with the first two acts - I really was watching her dance and act (it was almost "stalking"!) but the third act was beyond expectations. The brutal physicality of her performance was incredible. Would I have been happy just with Act 3? Of course, I would always be happy with the one act version being used as any other MacMillan, and appearing more frequently. However it was of interest to see the first two acts, even if I really don't know if they're necessary. The critic Mary Clarke was right to describe it as a "flawed masterpiece", and I'm grateful for the Royal to have revived it. I'd be just as grateful for them to bring it back as a one-act in the not too distant future in a triple bill featuring another classic from his Berlin period, Concerto. The third act is too good to be shelved until another full revival.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone notice who danced the 'spinning' revolutionary (well enough to deserve a credit in the programme but sadly not given)? Someone on Twitter said he and Osipova's Act 3 were what the evening was about.

 

David Yudes. Fabulous and certainly deserving of a mention in the programme (especially when other 'named' roles did less).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, but only two have danced as yet.

 

I'm a bit baffled by many of the above reviews. I go to watch dancers dancing, and to enjoy the music, the sets and the production. I don't go for a history lesson.

 

It may be that the passage of time has indeed rendered Anastasia's fate and Anna Anderson's claims of little current importance but when we attend a ballet don't we all suspend reality for the magic of the moment; otherwise this chain would take up time arguing about the issues of magicians turning nephews into nutcrackers, maidens into swans and putting princesses to sleep for a hundred years (and most 10 year old children can make the distinction).

 

The dancing was, in my possibly naive opinion, lovely and engaging in all three acts.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On those occasions when I think that this ballet works as a three acter I accept the difference in music, vocabulary and style between the first two acts and the last act as an essential element of the ballet marking out the world of Anastasia's memories of a secure, carefree childhood set to a Tchaikovsky soundtrack and her anguished and confused present as a sort of exhibit in a mental institution set to a  specially created electronic soundtrack and music by Martinu.

 

On those occasions when I think that it does not work I  come away from a performance feeling that the commemoration  of the fiftieth anniversary of the Russian Revolution which prompted all sorts of exhibitions, documentaries and books has a  lot to answer for.as it led to the creation of the first "docu-drama ballet" and that MacMillan had clearly overdosed on the memoirs, photographs and archive footage of pre-revolutionary Imperial Russia which in 1967  suddenly became part of the collective memory of the wider public.At the time of the commemoration the television viewing public was repeatedly shown  the flickering images of the lavish celebrations of the tercentenary of the foundation of the Romanov dynasty; of Anastasia roller skating onboard the imperial yacht; cavalry; men, I think the Grand Dukes, bathing while on holiday;trains and men being shot. In fact everything that you see on stage either as part of the action of the ballet or in the film shown at the beginning of act 3.

 

I accept that I am totally inconsistent  in my opinion of the ballet, flip flopping between like and dislike depending on how gripped I am by the performance of the dancer in the title role. I don't intend to say much about last night's performance at this stage except to say that I think that Seymour was more involved dramatically in the action of the first two acts than Osipova seemed to be last night. What last night's performance demonstrated once again is how very difficult it is to be Anthony Dowell. Being Antoinette Sibley,while difficult enough, is a doddle compared with being Dowell. Capturing Dowell's creamy ease and elegance in the choreography is virtually impossible. In the Kshessinskaya pas de deux Macmillan exploited the original cast's technical skills, their personalities and their outstanding ability to handle swift transitions without any apparent effort or difficulty.

 

Where Sibley and Dowell managed to make their choreography look like a grand pas from a long forgotten Petipa ballet. Nunez and Bonelli made the pas look like a heavy handed "after Petipa"  pastiche. I am not sure why this is so. Changes in performance style might be part of the explanation. Sibley danced the role with a fascinating bravura lightness and strangely compelling allure.Nunez's danced the role in a straight forward " here is the choreography" manner. Bonelli looked far from comfortable in the choreography,where he should have displayed elegant ease he looked awkward,and inelegant. As far as this performance is concerned I think it might be best to treat it as a "super" dress rehearsal.

Edited by FLOSS
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I know why I can never remember any choreography from Anastasia!

 

Maybe it's because I have always loved Tchaikovsky's first three symphonies, but my feelings last night were the opposite of everyone else's, enjoyed acts 1 and 2 as a memory of an era when Russia had a Royal family, beautifully captured in the costumes and designs, the problem was fitting the dancing to the music, especially when the endings of both acts needed to be sad. The dancers did so well with what little choreography they had, the little boy was outstanding, Thiago Soares lurked as Rasputin but didn't really get a solo, the set piece pdd was much needed, Anastasia had little to do but stand and watch. Thanks for naming David Yudes, he danced a spectacular solo at the end of act 2, I tried to see who it was but having been guessing for ages!

 

Act 3 felt like a completely different ballet, which just didn't work for me, too many films, not enough dancing, although what Natalia Osipova did was marvellous, those fast runs around the stage reminded me of Nureyev in full flight, and the pdd with Edward Watson were emotional (I just kept thinking of seeing them them in Mayerling) but I didn't really feel engaged, and the ending with the bed gliding around the stage was ridiculous, I'm going again too see the other casts and to the cinema, perhaps I'll change my mind, it often happens, but as a full length ballet it didn't work.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving aside the difference in choreographic quality, the story of Anastasia is rooted in reality whereas Nutcracker & Swan Lake are clearly fantasies. Nonetheless, if the story telling/scene setting in Acts 1 & 2 gave you any insight into the characters to make you care about them in any way then the poor choreography might be less of an issue. Act 3 lost a good part of its impact after the mind numbing tedium of the first 2 acts. I only saw the rehearsal and the heroic efforts of the dancers to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear could not save it for me. Surely the RB could have come up with something better than serving up yet another dull as ditchwater offering a la Raven Girl, Strapless, Frankenstein.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOSS, you're not the only one who does the "flip-flopping".  In the last two runs, I too have alternated between really liking the whole thing and not liking it - and I'm not sure it only depended on the dancer in the lead role.  I thought Osipova was far more effective in Act III than in the previous two, where I'll admit to my attention being attracted (distracted?) more by certain others of the dancers on stage.

 

I should have a full view for my next performance: that in itself should make a difference to my appreciation (or not) of the ballet.

 

Incidentally, I'm still trying to work out whether the choreography for the husband has been restored to what it was before, or not.  Does anyone know?  My impression was that Rasputin had less to do in the third act than last time, but it's a long time ago, and my memory could be deceiving me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfect summary! Act III brilliant and Osipova thrilling. For me, Acts I and II add nothing at all and are unbelievably tedious. Beautiful sets and costumes, but nothing else. Dull choreography, mainly dull music (and I love Tchaikovsky!), and almost nothing happens. Also a problem with the gunshots in Act II - i.e. no gunshots - so it was a silent revolution and frankly just looked silly. I thought maybe the person with the gun had been as bored as me and had fallen asleep. I must also say that I found the big pas de deux in Act II really quite horrible - awkward, difficult, unmusical, unilluminating, and unattractive. Bonelli struggled with it and even Nunez didn't look comfortable. With much of the choreography in this Act I found myself thinking that MacMillan must really not like his dancers.

 

And, given that we now know that Anna A was not Anastasia, the full-length work makes no sense anyway. Act III still works superbly as a study of someone who thinks they are Anastasia; but since she isn't, why do we need Anastasia's back story in such tedious detail in Acts I and II? What would be more interesting would be to see Anna A's back story. The ballet is - or should be - about her, not about Anastasia. It's a study of loss of identity, confusion, fear etc, and the Russian/Imperial aspects are riveting and very well integrated. And the music works excellently too. Acts I and II are entirely superfluous, and would be even if they were better than they are.

 

I also found myself really questioning why the RB have revived this as a three-acter. The quality of Acts I and II are so far below MacMillan at his best that it's quite inexplicable. Whereas Act III is powerful, original and fascinating as well as providing a great vehicle for a lead female.

It was interesting to hear Lauren Cuthbertson discussing Anna Anderson's claim when i caught up on iPlayer. Her feeling was that at the time the ballet was created there were many, including MacMillan, who felt, or hoped, that she was indeed Anastasia and that whatever DNA has since proved the last act has to be played with Anna firmly believing in her identity, which she seems to have done, or at least maintained (there are one or two claims of her muttering darkly things along the lines of "who I am and who I claim to be" and of her failing a lie detetctor test late in life). Many of the supporters of Anna Anderson made mention of the "memories" she had of Tsarist Russia and felt that these were incompatible with any imposter. Again, later evidence suggests that these "memories" were very much built upon conversations held and books scoured as her "claim" emerged and that Anderson was often passive in her acquiescence of her proclaimed identity, leaving it to supporters to do much of the public work in pushing for recognition.

 

This is a slightly convoluted background to my own stance that Acts 1 and 2 do enhance the impact of Act 3, whether in presenting an idealised world shattered by revolution, from which Anna Anderson emerged, the nostalgia for a lost world that enabled those claims to find a remarkably secure footing in the public imagination, and to suggest the untroubled past to which an injured Polish factory worker (for such it seems was Anna Anderson, her identity as Franziska Schankowska proven by the DNA tests) in her desperation to escape the grim reality of her own existence reached out. Somebody above questioned the bed moving: I'd always taken that as an indication that the bed is where Anderson feels safe and that in her mind it becomes linked with the ship from the first act (whether Anastasia's memory or Anderson's appropriation if it) thus framing the action and linking start with finish. If I recall correctly, one of the survival stories, had the Romanovs saved from the cellar with doubles executed in their place and the entire family living out the rest of their lives on a yacht in the Gulf of Finland.

 

For those who feel that the ballet is now irrelevant, given that Anderson's claim has been disproved (although she still has adherents who believe that there was something manufactured about the DNA testing), I would suggest that it is also about more than an historical figure. It is surely also about memory, identity, loss of identity, and that yearning for a past that can never be ours, however much we long for it, a highly appropriate theatrical image, given how much many of us as audience members invest in watching a world that is not ours on stage in which we nevertheless see our own lives and aspirations reflected. How many little girls watch their first Sleeping Beauty and dance the ballet at home, convinced, in their own minds, that they are also a princess. Anna Anderson became that princess in her own mind and later life, even if, after initial fêtings and luxury, the fairy tale scarcely lived up to an ever more grim reality.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all for the interesting discussion which really whets the appetite. I'm afraid I've only seen the Lauren cast at a stage rehearsal and am looking forward tremendously to seeing finished performances at the ROH and in the cinema. It seems to me that the full three Act ballet can work well and agree very much with Jamesrhblack above. Even if the two opening acts are considered something of a prelude to the visceral third Act, they do seem complementary, fleshing out Anna's 'memories'.

 

What I'd find very interesting to know is what ballets would be as complementary if just Act 3 were performed as part of a triple bill?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a slightly convoluted background to my own stance that Acts 1 and 2 do enhance the impact of Act 3, whether in presenting an idealised world shattered by revolution, from which Anna Anderson emerged, the nostalgia for a lost world that enabled those claims to find a remarkably secure footing in the public imagination, and to suggest the untroubled past to which an injured Polish factory worker (for such it seems was Anna Anderson, her identity as Franziska Schankowska proven by the DNA tests) in her desperation to escape the grim reality of her own existence reached out. Somebody above questioned the bed moving: I'd always taken that as an indication that the bed is where Anderson feels safe and that in her mind it becomes linked with the ship from the first act (whether Anastasia's memory or Anderson's appropriation if it) thus framing the action and linking start with finish. If I recall correctly, one of the survival stories, had the Romanovs saved from the cellar with doubles executed in their place and the entire family living out the rest of their lives on a yacht in the Gulf of Finland.

 

For those who feel that the ballet is now irrelevant, given that Anderson's claim has been disproved (although she still has adherents who believe that there was something manufactured about the DNA testing), I would suggest that it is also about more than an historical figure. It is surely also about memory, identity, loss of identity, and that yearning for a past that can never be ours, however much we long for it, a highly appropriate theatrical image, given how much many of us as audience members invest in watching a world that is not ours on stage in which we nevertheless see our own lives and aspirations reflected. How many little girls watch their first Sleeping Beauty and dance the ballet at home, convinced, in their own minds, that they are also a princess. Anna Anderson became that princess in her own mind and later life, even if, after initial fêtings and luxury, the fairy tale scarcely lived up to an ever more grim reality.

 

Interesting thoughts, Jamesrhblack. I think that the idea in your second paragraph doesn't work for me when I watch the ballet, because Acts I and II don't come across as an idealised past but as a historical reality - nostalgia-tinged, as material about pre-revolutionary Russia often is, but not idealised or in any way a fantasy. It appears to depict a real period of history with real events. (I also must have less patience than you, because there's no way I could sit through two full acts of a ballet and then find out that they weren't in fact real when I thought they were. :wacko:) That also for me differentiates it from Sleeping Beauty etc which are acknowledged from the outset to be fairy tales and (if wanted) allegories. But I can see how a ballet on this theme could still work even if Anna A wasn't Anastasia - in fact Act III does that, because you are caught up in Anna's inner world whether or not it's historically correct. But as a three-act work, especially this one, the balance seems to me to be all wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the ballet there was a play and a film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048947/ the film suggests the imposter was in fact Anastasia, and Ingrid Bergman, one of my favourite screen actresses was very convincing as the young woman who ultimately seeks nothing more than being accepted by the grandmother she loves.   Watch it and you'll need a box of tissues.  However it puzzles me that anyone reading the Anna Andersen story could take it seriously bearing in mind the woman couldn't speak Russian, so I've always viewed the ballet as a private fantasy, an imagined past and a tortured present.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...