Fonty

I think it is dreadfully bad manners to boo any performance, unless it is obvious that the performers could not give a hoot about what they are doing, and are simply going through the motions. The only time I can think of when this happened was when I went to see a friend of mine who was dancing in the Black and White Minstrel show about 15 years ago (?). The songs were pre-recorded, for some reason, and some of the singers were making no attempt to even look as though they were miming. Two were clearly having a private conversation and laughing during the songs. I'm afraid on this occasion I joined the rest of the audience, and gave them the boos they richly deserved. The British do tend to boo the baddies, as mentioned above, and I hope foreign visitors are warned about this pantomime tradition in advance, because it could be a bit of a shock for the performer otherwise! I felt a bit apprehensive when I went to see the Mikhailovsky and this happened, as the dancer concerned didn't appear to be milking the applause in the way we have come to expect. He didn't look too upset either, so I assume it was alright. But apart from the two examples I have given, it is just not acceptable. To boo a dancer who misses a step, or fails to complete 32 fouettes or whatever, is shocking behaviour, and I would scowl at anyone around me who behaved like that. I've never experienced it under those circumstances. On the very rare occasion there has been an obvious mistake, the audience has given sympathetic applause.

Just a couple of quick points on Laurencia, which I went to see on Wednesday evening. I found it a bit of a curate's egg. I had no problems with the story, the music was lively, the orchestra played with great zest, and the costumes were attractive. There was some fabulous dancing. However, I've never seen Osipova and Vasiliev before, and although they performed their party tricks brilliantly, that was all it appeared to be. I was in the cheap seats right up in the roof, and none of the intensity and drama mentioned by others came across. Instead, when not setting out to dazzle, I found Vasiliev slightly lacking in stage personality, and I also found his enormous thighs and huge bottom a bit off putting, especially in white tights. Osipova looked wonderful, but although I could see she was technically brilliant, I really wish I could have seen her in something classical like Giselle. The last scene, where the peasants storm the castle and kill the Grand Commander was one of the silliest I have seen. The still shots projected onto the backdrop while they changed the scenery looked amateurish, and having set up the stage to show the interior, It would have helped if the choreography had at least attemepted to show some serious fighting. Instead, the baddy and the two rather inept soldiers who seem to be his entire staff did a bit of feeble parrying with their weapons before being easily overcome by the mob. Finally, after launching straight into some joyous celebration dancing, (presumably taking care not to slip in the blood of the still twitching corpse) there is a rousing call to the masses to take up the revolution and overthrow the oppressors. I half expected the orchestra to launch into a version of The Red Flag. Overall, I would say I enjoyed the evening, but i never want to see it again!

I am wondering if Bussell's comments were based on a comparison between her own salary as a permanent member of the company, and that of Guillem who was a Guest Principal. I have no specific knowledge of these things, but would Guillem have been able to negotiate a higher rate of pay because she was not on a fixed pay scale? Only a suggestion, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the two ladies did not always hit it off, and the idea that someone is being paid more for doing the same job might be one of the reasons for that.

Alison, I was typing quite quickly when I made the comment about the respective repertoirs of BRB and RB, and should have been a bit more specific. Of course they both perform the big block busters such as R & J, but I was thinking more of the shorter works by both Ashton and MacMillan. Symphonic Variations is one of my favourites, but I am struggling to remember the last time I saw it at Covent Garden. I think it was with Cojocaru when she was still in the Corps. I was away for a few years, so they have performed it many times since then, of course. Likewise The Two Pigeons. When was the last time it was on at Covent Garden? I've never seen it done there at all. I appreciate that both companies do Daphnis and Chloe, Scenes de Ballet and so on, but it is my perception, (and of course I may be wrong) that BRB perform the shorter Ashton ballets more regularly then RB. And consequently perform them much better IMO. .

Can't say there is anything there that grabs my interest to the extent that I am already putting dates in my diary. I think we have been asking for RB to do the Two Pigeons for a long time, haven't we? Is there some rule that RB and BRB cannot perform the same ballets ever? I agree with Joan above, that triple bills with something like Symphonic Variations to balance out the "modern" pieces with angular choreography and scratchy musical scores would be more to my liking. I appreciate they are doing The Dream and Gloria, both wonderful ballets, but the latter I have seen so many times I feel I could dance it myself! And I was disappointed the last time I saw The Dream. I can't remember who was dancing, but I felt they were doing it as if it had been choreographed by MacMillan, not Ashton. And the RB never used to do the Nutcracker, because everyone else was doing it. Is there really nothing else that would attract the once a year, Christmas treat audience?

I have just received an email telling me about this. I was looking through the DVD collections, and there are some gems on there. I came across this, which looked very interesting. http://www.roh.org.uk/products/margot-fonteyn-michael-somes-tchaikovsky-ballet-masterpieces

Looking at the review regarding the headdresses for the jewels, I overhead in the interval after the first act: "Mummy, why do the dancers in the black and white tutus have light bulbs on top of their heads?"

Hi everyone, just thought I would drop in to say that the first think I knew about the BRB coming to London was when I read this thread on Monday. I don't remember seeing anything about it - no posters, no adverts in The Metro, nothing. I don't travel by tube much any more, about once a week on average, but even then nothing caught my eye. Anyway, I went last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. I treated myself to top price seats in the stalls, courtesy of some left over theatre vouchers from Christmas. Wonderful view, and although not completely full, there were plenty of people there. It is a very gentle ballet, with some great costumes and lovely dancing. A real treat for families, and would make a terrific Christmas ballet, making a change from The Nutcracker. There were plenty of children in the audience, some no more than tiny tots, but they were all beautifully behaved, and enthralled by what they were watching. There was only one thing that slightly confused me, and that was the jewels section. Yes, I could work out that the dancers in green were Emeralds, and the ones in red were Rubies. But the sapphires confused me a little bit - they appeared to be wearing white dresses with green wigs, and the lead dancer had what looked like an oyster shell on her head! Maybe it was the lighting....?

Hi Everyone, Thank you so much to the people who sent me a message regarding the spare lunch place today. Unfortunately, I only got back from the Christmas break yesterday evening, and so didn't see it. Somebody else was checking my email for work issues, but didn't read any emails of a personal nature. i hope you all have a great time. Fonteyn.

And just to add to this - normally there is an email sent out to those who have attended in the past?

Oh dear, I missed this thread. What a pity, as this will probably be my last Christmas in the UK Never mind, hope you all have a good time.

Hello everyone. I haven't been on this website for some time, I have been so involved in the Olympics. I work from home, but the amount of work that went on over the Olympic period was nil, as the tv went on at 10 in the morning, and stayed on until about 11 at night. Not sure if this thread is still active, but thought I might add to it. What an Olympics! I am a Londoner, and London was transformed into a crowd of flag waving, flag wearing, happy people. Even passengers on the overcrowded tubes were smiling and chatting to one another, and strangers stopped to ask for news on the various events. I went to several live screen events where all nationalities sat happily together, and celebrated together at the end, no matter who won. Regarding coverage, someone told me that the Olympic games has its own, independent broadcaster, and all the countries link into whatever sports each country is interested in. The BBC had no control over the pictures being shown. I feel a bit sorry for you, Anjuli. It does seem that NBC(?) did a rotten job. The BBC always showed 3 different sports at any one time, plus you could access just about everything on the internet. You can't ask for better coverage than that. I remember when it was in Beijing, I could watch a full recording of that day's events on the red button so that I didn't have to get up in the middle of the night to see it, so I don't see why America can't do the same thing. I realise how lucky I am, living in the UK. For me, one of the joys of the Games is being able to watch sports I would never normally see. I loved the rhythmic gymnastics, the synchronised swimming, and the musical dressage. I never thought I would get so involved in horses dancing to the Nutcracker and Land of Hope and Glory.

Does anybody know why the NBC decided to edit it? Although I thought some bits were better than others, I think it was largely a matter of personal preference. I enjoyed "naming that tune" during the pop section (I got all of them except one). My nieces loved Dizzee Rascal, which is definitely a generation thing. I don't particularly like the Artic Monkeys myself, but they are extremely popular and successful. I also thought the actual lighting of the olympic flame was incredibly moving, and very beautiful. I felt the whole thing made me proud to be British!

Just been looking at these pictures. I can't tell, are the ladies bare legged? I particularly hate that...

I've been away on holiday, and just got back last night. This was the first thread I read, and I wondered if everyone had taken leave of their senses. I didn't even get the name at first....

My most well-thumbed books are generally what are regarded as children's books. My Narnia books are the original ones I was given as a child. I was very lucky in that some were hard back, and the paperback ones, for some reason, have stood the test of time, considering they are all read once a year. As someone else mentioned on the other thread, I also read the C S Lewis Space Trilogy frequently as well. Other books I read repeatedly are those by Alan Garner - The Weirdstone of Brisingamen and the Moon of Gomrath are classics which don't seem to be read or recommended much for children these days. I adore Gone with the Wind. And finally, I have a weakness for the Larkin series of books by H. E Bates. Always cheer me up when I am feeling a bit down. (Edited to add that Ballet Shoes is also well thumbed...of course. )

Yes, I also loved Cold Comfort Farm. And I read A Christmas Carol ever December, to get me in a Christmassy mood, so I am surprised others don't like it. I struggled to get through Moby Dick when I was a student. Never tried again, so not sure whether I would enjoy it now. I was made to read Lewis Carroll when I was a child, but although I enjoyed Alice in Wonderland, I hated Through the Looking Glass. Tried it as an adult....and I still hated it.

I've just read a review of the 50 shades trilogy which was so funny. Not sure if it sounds like my kind of thing - it was described as Barbara Cartland with lots of knobs (!) I am currently reading all the Rebus novels by Ian Rankin. I am trying to read them in order, and they are very entertaining. We recently did The Crimson Petal and the White for our book club book, and that was an excellent read. Huge book, but difficult to put down once I'd started.

In no particular order: Henry James - The Bostonians. Don't know what there is about James, but I find him a good cure for insomnia. Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov. I stuggle with quite a lot of the Russian stuff where they all seem to have 3 different variations of their name. I can never remember who is who. James Joyce - Ulysses. Please, just don't go there. I really think this is a book that people only read to impress everyone else with how clever they are. I found it the biggest yawn ever, which probably makes me a dimwit.

I'm sorry I missed this, but reading about it made me go on You Tube and see if there were any snippets of Pavlova herself. After a false start where I got videos of people showing you how to make strawberry pavlova, I found several clips of Pavlova doing various dances including The Dying Swan. Very moving, in spite of the rather jerky nature of the film

As someone who was not blessed with a huge amount of flexibility naturally, and had to work extremely hard at it, I would probably have found over splits impossible. I say "probably", because fortunately nobody ever forced me to try to achieve them. Have I misunderstood, or are people saying that everyone has to achieve this, or they are very unlikely to get a place at school or in a company?

Something else that has struck me recently, and that is how slow some of the music has become. I was watching a recording of The Sleeping Beauty, and the Rose Adagio seemed positively funereal. Likewise, the last time I saw Swan Lake, everyone commented that the tempo in the second act made it look as though Odette was struggling to get into the air. I am guessing that, because the legs are being lifted higher, the music has to be slower to allow the dancer adjust and to move on to the next position? Or is this not actually the case, and it is just the modern way of doing things?

Must have been a big ice cream, Alison.

Regarding Fonteyn, I seem to remember an article about her, and her view on high extensions. She was quite capable in her prime of lifting her leg far higher than she did, but she considered it ugly. I don't have a problem with flexible dancers, and I can understand why some of the more modern choreography might demand extremely high extensions, which look good in ballets with leotard type, all-in-one costumes. The problem I have is that now this "modern" style is applied inappropriately to the older, classical ballets e.g. Giselle. I can't remember who I saw at the RB the last time I went, but when she was doing the developpes to the side with the arms in 5th in the second act, she was taking her leg up to nearly 180 degrees, and her foot poked up through the middle of her hands - not an attractive look! It seems to me that now the legs have become the total focus, and the arms are no longer complementing the positions. And nothing will persuade me that these oversplits are attractive.

I had never even heard of this until reading this thread. I went off and had a look at the Dance Direct web pages, and the pictures are truly shocking. I've never seen anything so ugly in my life. Is this really what schools are encouraging now? I remember making a joke once to someone about six o'clock extensions would soon be seen to be too easy, and the dancers would strive to achieve five past six extensions. Somebody must have taken this seriously.