Lindsay

Perhaps part of the problem is that Scarlett has never really had to prove himself.  He was nurtured as an 'insider' through the RBS and then the company, with access to excellent dancers and a supportive audience from the start of his choreographic efforts. Despite all that he has not developed in any significant way since Asphodel Meadows and,by moving into narrative, the quality of the work has actually declined.  And I don't think we should be describing him as 'young' and 'learning' after 10 years of work and main stage commissions at the RB and around the world.

I agree with Ismene Brown and others that the RB shows an outrageous degree of complacency in repeatedly feeding  commissions to Scarlett, Acosta, Wheeldon and Marriott (the last two both RBS alumni also).

Bringing McGregor in from 'the outside world' was by far the best decision of Mason's directorship but the current administration shows no signs of making similar decisions (one commission from someone as well established as Akram Khan really doesn't cut it).

Might it be possible to have choreographers come in and pitch for a commission from the company? It doesn't have to be an open, public competition, since obviously some experience is needed to work on a stage that big, but SOMETHING is needed to shake up the cosiness  

Repeatedly mining the same pool of 20-30 dancers each year who come through RBS and the even smaller pool who make it into the company does not seem to me a reliable way to find the most promising choreographers with potential to develop in interesting ways.

Bridiem, I agree and I think that is the point about McGregor's work.  It always stands on its own merits and you don't need the programme notes to 'understand' it.  Personally I don't mind his programme notes but I generally read them afterwards (you'd have to get to the theatre pretty early to be sure of finishing them before curtain up!). They provide interesting background to his thought process and enhance my interest if I decide to see the piece again.

I object more to things like the very lengthy synopsis for Frankenstein, without which it would have been very difficult for anyone who hadn't read the book to work out what the hell was going on.  That is a ballet which did not stand on its own merits.

I agree Aileen.  The Kahlo ballet was excellent and I also think Scarlett is stuck somewhere in the 1950s (at least with his narrative stuff).

I find it quite amusing that McGregor conveyed the essence of three Virginia Woolf novels in one evening, whereas Scarlett missed the point of a far more straightforward single novel in about the same space of time....

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/the-royal-ballet-is-literally-losing-the-plot/

Discuss

This is not a Manon or a Mayerling. Not even close.

I think the critics have been very kind considering. I suspect there was no wish to slam the dancers, who indeed did their best with the very thin material they were given.

And why does anyone think it wasn't Hayward being hoisted on the wire? From the front of the stalls it certainly looked as though it was. Perfectly normal theatrical practice and totally safe - see Fritz in the Nutcracker.

Fixating on that and clumsily staged details like the father's death may be a distraction from thinking about the overall dramatic coherence (or lack thereof)?

If I were Liam Scarlett or Kevin O'Hare, I might actually be more troubled by Mr Crisp's review than Mr Monahan's.  If ever there was a case of damning with faint praise.

For the first time in my experience I find myself agreeing with the great man.  It is a mystery why this full-length commission was ever given to a choreographer whose shorter narrative work has been so consistently derivative, hackneyed, literal and downright dull.  Bizarre indeed....

Me too. I have had tickets for a while - can't wait to see Irek again!!!

I saw Teo and Solomon on Friday, Capybara. A little nervy and they don't (yet) have the technique of the first choice cast but overall a very decent effort. (Mostly) secure landings but more importantly a sense of cohesion and enjoyment to the pas de 6 that let the audience enjoy it. Whereas on Saturday some early blips seemed to induce a loss of confidence that put me on the edge of my seat just praying for them to get through without major mishap.

Ah well, I'm sure he will be good too. Wasn't it zucchetti with yuhui in the last run? I must be thinking of that.

Thanks for the information.

You're absolutely right about the pas de 6 Sim. Zucchetti makes me laugh - his first entrance downstage when he "announces" their arrival was so cheesy and showoffy that I wondered if he was doing Puck by mistake. But his technique is just absolutely reliable and I would far rather an amusingly overblown stage presence with all the steps every time than a series of nervous missed landings, which is really not good enough from a company the size of the RB. Look forward to seeing zucchetti do the pas with yuhui on Wednesday.

Agreed Alison. Kobayashi was very secure and light, even in that horrendously difficult opening solo, and Stepanek is a good and subtle actor.

I saw Takada and Kish yesterday and was very pleasantly surprised. He made Albrecht quietly touching in a way I haven't seen in a very long time. She was the real revelation though - a proper romantic era ballerina, never forgetting the tilt of the torso and the arms and hands exactly right for the period. She balances forever and has an incredible jump. Not the same speed as osipova of course (but who has?) but it was a really classy performance with impeccable technique. And the whole company rose to it last night - a very tidy show all round.

Unlike tonight, which with the exception of very clean and stylish dancing from bonelli never really got off the ground. Quite a few edge-of-the-seat moments technically from various soloists too. I wonder whether some of the casting is too generous or whether the run is just too long?

"Passed" BBB

And are you saying that times have changed so much in those six years that all male casts are no longer acceptable? Interesting view

That person taught my husband also pictures. He was at chets with the victim who committed suicide after giving evidence against him. The pattern of incidents which came out in alumni discussions after that conviction was unbelievably shocking to me. I would support any investigation or discussion which could stop anything similar happening elsewhere.

I would not call Polunin just a technician SwissballetFan.  He may not know the stories but he does not have that self-conscious "showing-off" vibe which I get from some (not all) of the other performers you mention - perhaps because Polunin does not care so much what the audience think of him so he is not anxiously trying to convey a particular persona.  He gives the impression of throwing off the choreography with such ease that you are simply watching him exist on stage, rather than acting.  That is a very special and rare talent.  I don't think artist's explanations of their own performances should always be taken at face value - what the audience sees may be very different.

But I do agree with you that his comments regarding pay and treatment of dancers are interesting.  He has made many rash statements in his time but I think he is too significant an artist for all of his views to be simply dismissed by those who seem to take any criticism of the RB as a personal attack.

I saw this last night and thought it was excellent.  Hvorostovsky sang beautifully and Fabiano's duel scene aria was just stunning.  In fact all of the singing (with the exception of a shockingly flat Gremin - I hope the singer had a head cold as it was otherwise inexplicable) was lovely.

I also quite liked the production; it at least attempts to address the issue some critics of the opera have that it fails to capture the narrative irony of Pushkin's work.  I don't necessarily agree with that view, as the orchestration clearly adds nuance to the libretto, but if the production can assist in "layering" the meaning, then I'm all for that.  And I thought it was (mostly) successful in doing so.  Didn't see the 2013 staging though so I don't know whether it was much fussier/less clear last time around.....

And the waltz and polonaise are terrible ear worms - still singing them this morning!

I think people are still missing the point excellently and clearly made by Floss.  Safeguarding is a separate thing from the quality of the education delivered.  

The issue is that NO artistic or educational outcome, however brilliant, can justify a life or lives ruined by abuse (whether sexual, physical or emotional).  It is irrelevant how good the rest of the school's provision is if it cannot protect and safeguard every child in its care.  Specialist schools are quick to claim credit for successful alumni, but their duty to those who have been damaged in their care should be equal, if not greater.

In some ways, what makes these kind of high level specialist institutions so good, the deep, artistic experience that staff can share with pupils, is also their point of vulnerability.  In music schools, abusive teachers played on this by telling students that they were "special" but could be only be taken to the next artistic level if they trusted the teacher unquestioningly.  And then they abused that trust horribly. Any complacency about children being so lucky to have such brilliant teachers that they should not be questioned MUST be a thing of the past.  

So this is not just another item of bureaucracy or procedure.  As Floss said, it goes to the school's whole attitude to safeguarding and that they need to create a culture where any pupil or staff member feels safe reporting concerns to management/designated safeguarding officer.  I know that at least one residential music school now goes out of its way to frequently remind all teaching staff that the school actively wants them to report even small concerns, no matter how eminent the person in question. Having the required statutory checks procedure in place is the absolute BARE MINIMUM so a failure to achieve that calls into question how seriously a school is taking the creation of an appropriate culture.

And the reason that Ofsted is focussing on this, as I said earlier, is that the Independent Inquiry into abuse has as one of its points of focus specialist and other boarding schools, because of the many cases which have revealed that they have been "fruitful" environments for abusers.  In that climate, the RBS would do well to get its house in order.  Again I am NOT accusing anyone of anything, just reiterating that failure to do this in light of what we now know about historical events is not a small thing.

Your point about one to one lessons in music schools is true, but these are boarding schools and there are always opportunities. Again I am NOT accusing anyone of anything but am very suspicious of cultures of complacency. Chetham's was still telling parents that there was no issue at all after a long time director of music and his wife were convicted of raping a former pupil and two current teachers had been arrested. It is that kind of attitude that sends a signal to potential abusers that the school is more concerned about its reputation than it is about investigating potential problems.

The RBS has historic form for ignoring and attacking critics and whistle blowers (see the concerns about bullying raised by acclaimed teacher Linda Goss' back in the 90s and reported here: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/a-step-in-the-wrong-direction-1250670.html)

If I were advising their leadership team now I would say that they should learn from events elsewhere and that every single issue and procedure should be addressed with the utmost energy and seriousness. The failure to maintain robust safeguarding systems suggests that is not currently the case. I hope that active steps are currently being taken to change this position.

Jane is absolutely right and I would also add, from first hand experience, that the thinking in Melody's post (while completely understandable) was exactly what caused many of the problems at a well-known specialist music school. "I've known him/her for years/they are an outstanding musician" allowed people to get jobs and abuse children (in some cases over many years) with impunity and concerns raised by children and parents were dismissed on this basis.

Another factor of these competitive, high-stress environments is that a teacher's favour (choosing for performances, networking as the young musician begins their career and even years later) is so important that young people and even some parents are very reluctant to rock the boat. The very fact that children are taught by first class performers (ex-performers) with contacts in what is a very small world gives them far more power over their pupils than teachers in "normal" schools. This relationship was exploited by abusers at music schools.

I am NOT suggesting that any of this has happened at the RBS or any other ballet school. Just explaining how these are the kind of environments where young people can be very vulnerable and governing bodies and leadership teams should be striving for the very very highest standards of screening.

I am rather shocked that the notice relates to safeguarding.  I would expect any prudent leadership team to be paying great attention to that in the current climate.  I know that the Independent Inquiry into child sexual abuse is looking extremely closely at all of the specialist music and dance scheme schools, given the well documented abuses, many of them the subject of criminal proceedings, at residential music schools.  

Given the extremely high hurdles that state schools must cross in order to properly screen anyone having contact with children, I have found it shocking how lax private institutions have been (and in some cases still are).  In music schools there has been a culture of assuming that because someone is a "great musician" they are above reproach.  I really hope that the same culture does not exist in residential ballet schools........

Me too - for Chroma, Infra and Woolf Works.  And if you compare that to, say, McMillan's "hit" rate from all his work over a similar period, I don't think it is at all bad.

I absolutely agree with Floss's point that the RB is (and rightly so) accountable for its spending of a huge amount of public money.

She is also correct to state that is 'perceived' as elitist and, as someone who has sat all over the house for many years, I would say that the tag is not wholly undeserved.  For both ballet and opera, I have encountered and overheard (particularly in the Grand Tier and the Stalls) some of the worst and rudest snobbishness I have ever experienced.  Of course this is NOT the case for everybody present and the comment is NOT directed at anyone here, but it is certainly something which gives me pause before taking non-ballet/opera friends to a performance.

And before anyone advises me to stick to the amphi or SCS, I absolutely accept that there is less risk of such behaviour there, but these days I prefer to go to fewer performances and splash out for a seat with a better view.

Further to my comments on another thread about casting principals in "supporting roles", I remembered this truly beautiful performance by Yanowsky as the Rose Fairy and was pleased to track it down on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQZV0D196jI&list=PLF5B477B4D11DDD61&index=16

She is such a fluid dancer and I really wish we could see her do this again.  Not to speak of some pretty good casting all around there - with Cojocaru as Clara and Nunez among the leading flowers...........

Yes Nina, but they have subsequently issued a further update 

http://www.roh.org.uk/news/cast-changes-the-nutcracker-on-12-16-and-17-december-2015

(and not changed the cast sheet............)

Update - latest casting for tomorrow seems to be Kish as the prince so I imagine both Golding and Bonnelli must be injured.  RB are not having the best luck this autumn in terms of healthy principals............