bridiem

No, I missed that! But thanks for posting the full time scenes. Sheer joy!! I never doubted for a moment...

Just to record that LFC is the most magnificent club in the world. YNWA

I haven't actually been notified yet, so if I wasn't on this forum I wouldn't know it had been cancelled/changed. If I don't hear by tomorrow, I'll contact them myself for the refund.

Thank you so much for posting these terrific photos, Rob S!

Great, thanks John.

I haven't been told this yet. I hope I will be able to get a refund since the programme has completely changed.

I think that what makes Lamb and Muntagirov so exceptional for me is their humility; they give themselves entirely to dancing the role, to dancing classical ballet, to the highest possible standard, without imposing anything of themselves on it. That doesn't mean they aren't expressive, but they give precedence to the choreography and the art form, not to themselves. Unlike (say) Osipova (and I am a huge fan of hers - this isn't a criticism), who is incapable of not imposing her personality on a role. So L & M showcase what classical ballet is, for me, and the sheer beauty and transcendence of the art form.

That's not good news, Alison. I really appreciated that feature too. Have just seen the further posts about this. Strange, because other sites still store card details. But I suppose it's better to err on the side of security.

I almost always sit in the Amphi, and make extensive use of my opera glasses. I find it totally absorbing and have no problem at all getting involved; though I'm not sure how I'd feel if I didn't use opera glasses. Of course they have the disadvantage of excluding the wider stage when you're using them; but I've become very adept at switching in and out of using them. Sitting in the stalls you lose a huge amount in terms of shape, pattern, and depth though obviously it has great advantages in terms of seeing the dancers close-up without the strain of using opera glasses. So my preference would be to sit in the Amphi routinely (in the centre, if I could afford it, which I can't) but if someone is kind enough to buy me a seat in the stalls from time to time I am thrilled to accept!

It's good to hear other people's reactions to the same performance, even if (or maybe particularly if) they weren't moved in the way I was. Hearing a range of reactions is really interesting. And I do think that a response to a performance is dictated by all sorts of things in both the viewer and the dancers at any given time, and by tastes and preferences and expectations (which can be fulfilled or confounded). Sometimes, everything just comes together for the viewer; that doesn't mean it does or will for all viewers. Which is why it's so valuable hearing as many responses as possible on this forum. I also wanted to add that the way Lamb and Muntagirov danced at this performance brought to my mind some words from what is probably my favourite poem, Little Gidding by T. S. Eliot: 'A condition of complete simplicity (Costing not less than everything) And all shall be well And all manner of thing shall be well' That really expresses it all for me.

That's very kind of you, Dawnstar. I'll really look forward to hearing your thoughts about both performances.

Overwhelmed by this evening's R&J. Lamb and Muntagirov gave performances of such beauty, purity and goodness that the tragedy became unbearable. This was a relationship not just of passion but of love, not just eros but (right from the start) agape. When he saw her at the ball, long before she saw him, he recognised in her something of inestimable value. When she saw him, her world expanded to encapsulate the whole universe. Their harmony when dancing together was emblematic of their inner peace; they knew what they had found. The balcony scene was so beautiful and expressive that it was like watching a poem being created. When they were being married, I felt overcome with grief at the realisation that this innocent and joyful love should have led to happiness, to a fulfilled life, to children, to the spreading of harmony; and none of this would happen. After their marriage, their love has been consummated and deepened so they are no longer two but one. At one moment in the bedroom pas de deux, Romeo carries Juliet forward in his arms, foreshadowing the moment later in the act when he will again carry forward her body, believing her to be dead - such terrible poignancy. When she is left on her own and sits on the bed, she's like a marble statue on the outside whilst inside a volcano is erupting, before she flies out of the bedroom to find Friar Laurence. When she is refusing Paris, she stands in front of the window out of which Romeo left, and blazes like Myrthe - you shall not pass, you shall not go where he went, you shall not enter my heart or soul. Positively frightening. When she finally appears to consent, she does so in a trance-like manner, unable to summon any more strength to fight what she knows is coming. And when she takes the potion, her convulsions are as ugly as her fear. When Romeo finds her in the tomb, he dispatches Paris with the same venom with which he had killed Tybalt; no lily-livered lover here. And he desperately 'dances' with Juliet, willing her to live, willing her to be alive. Accepting her death, he turns his venom on himself and takes the poison in total despair. Then as Juliet awakes, she stretches blissfully to her left to touch her Romeo, unaware that his dead body is to her right. As the full horror dawns on her, her dancing fragments. As she kneels by his body, her grief builds up from the depths of her body and pours upwards until it bursts out of her upturned mouth in a terrible scream. All harmony gone, and the inevitable end follows. But as she crawls over the tomb, as she nears Romeo, as she finally touches him and turns over, the harmony returns as they are united again in death. Great performances also from Sambé as Mercutio, Dubreuil as Benvolio and Whitehead as Tybalt. The fight scenes were really vicious, the deaths shockingly real. A wonderful company performance, and one I will always remember. I'm normally an Amphi-dweller, but my sister generously bought us seats in row B of the stalls for this performance, as a belated birthday present for me. What a treat to be so near! And what a treat to witness such a performance.

A belated comment - I saw this in Wimbledon, for the first time since its première run. My main reaction was that the male swans are still so powerful, impressive and original, and that I would love to see them in a more serious and powerful context. I'm clearly not on Matthew Bourne's wavelength in terms of humour etc, and anyway I don't know why he feels the need to make fun of what are basically serious works. I can't take the serious story seriously if it's constantly undermined by light-hearted humour. It's as if he doesn't quite have the courage of his conviction - the real belief in his choreography that the male swans indicate he should have.

I wasn't sure why the programme concentrated on Brick Lane; nowhere was it clarified that Khan was actually born and brought up in Wimbledon. And it's been clear from his work for a long time that he has been seeking to reconcile his upbringing and identity with his Bangladeshi heritage; I found the analysis in the programme much more superficial than what has emerged from his work. So although his dancing was wonderful, I found the programme as a whole a bit disappointing.

I think it's difficult to rate 'best evers', but for me Prokofiev's R&J would definitely be up there near the Tchaikovskys, as would his Cinderella and Adam's Giselle.

Life us too short for all this. I mean it really is.

I saw this yesterday and I would completely echo Duck's comments above. A terrific film - absorbing, beautifully filmed, extremely moving, and superbly acted. I was left in a conflicted state at the end - very sad for what Acosta lost and suffered, and very uplifted both by his achievements and by the enduring love that permeates the film.

Wonder if you can have moderate stylised decapitation?! Sorry, just thinking aloud...

I echo this exactly!

I wouldn't have remembered the choreographer's name, but Osipova performed Ave Maria at SW last year. I had the same reaction as you, Sim; and even if the piece wasn't intended to be religious, I would be unable to listen to such music and ignore the religious connotations/source. I'm also not sure why you would be inspired to use such music if you didn't want to reference its meaning. (The work wasn't great anyway, which sort of added insult to injury.) (I accept that it's possible to make a work that isn't specifically religious to religious music; but I don't think you can - or understand why you would - effectively disavow the music. e.g. MacMillan's Gloria, which isn't specifically religious but nevertheless reflects on the music in such a way that it produces a work of real profundity and illumination, in respect of both the specific themes of the work and the religious nature of the music.)

I find the whole 'virtual reality' (and computer games) concept very underwhelming. It seems to me to be designed for maximum 'experience', and for a sense of (virtual) physical participation, rather than for the appreciation of a creation by someone else in which our role is to be an open-minded and open-hearted recipient. There's a lack of humility about all this. I don't want to, and am not capable to, participate in (e.g.) Swan Lake; that's fine. What I do want is to see and experience a magnificent production of Swan Lake as an audience member. It's not all about me; it's about what's being created.

What a brilliant performance this afternoon. O'Sullivan was a wonderful Juliet, bringing fresh nuances and sculpted beauty to the familiar steps. So many interesting and moving details. When her nurse took the doll away and placed her hands on her breasts, O'Sullivan's expression was one of total fear; as if she somehow foresaw the tragedy that lay ahead. When she was being courted by Paris, she was flattered and curious and happy to flirt shyly with him - until she saw Romeo. That moment when they set eyes on each other was stunning - the proverbial thunderbolt, leaving both of them stunned, shocked, unable to comprehend what had suddenly happened. And thereafter, she couldn't bear even to touch Paris, or have him touch her. Her heart and mind and body were with Romeo, and his with her. Only gradually did their shock soften into the realisation of love, the joy and wonder and opening up of their worlds to each other. Sambé was perhaps the most passionate Romeo I have seen - expansive, powerful, musical, and absolutely in thrall to Juliet. Both danced so quickly, so lightly, but with great physical finesse. You really believed that this couple were in love, and the terrible finale was unbearably sad. I thought that Luca Acri was a fantastic Mercutio - incredibly fast, dynamic, laddish, charismatic; his death was traumatic. And Romeo's revenge on Thomas Whitehead's domineering Tybalt was shockingly fierce and realistic. Gary Avis dominated the stage as Lord Capulet, and all the dancers performed with such commitment. The female townspeople in Act I fought each other so violently I was a bit afraid there would be a higher than usual pile of bodies in the middle after Escalus's appearance... What a performance, and what a ballet.

Clearly, in their 'philosophy' the arts per se are no longer relevant to a society - it depends on their content. (The 'relevance' of which, as Sim points out, will be assessed by a small number of people at the ACE.) That's incredibly disturbing. Philistinism of the highest order, at the highest level.

The problem is linking the 'Emerging Dancer' concept with the 'People's Choice' concept, which this scheme does. If the People's Choice element includes everyone except principals, it's clearly not exclusively for an emerging dancer, it's just for a favourite dancer who isn't yet a principal. (Not yet being a principal doesn't count as being 'emerging' in my book; most dancers will after all never make principal.) It would be nonsensical, and indeed pretty insulting, to vote for (say) James Streeter as my choice for an 'emerging' dancer, whereas I would happily vote for him as simply my choice for recognition as a dancer. If they really want to have one 'emerging' dancer nominated by the company and voted for by judges, and another (or possibly the same?) 'emerging' dancer' voted for by the public, they obviously need to restrict the number/rank of dancers for whom the public can vote. (Though quite why they want to pitch the company and judges against the public in this way I don't know. If the public chooses someone other than the company's selected 'finalists' - assuming they actually vote for an 'emerging' dancer rather than an established one, which is where all the confusion lies - doesn't that imply that the company and the public are out of kilter with each other in terms of what they see/value? Which might be interesting, but would be a bit worrying for the company I would have thought.)

Neither did I, Fonty. It didn't appeal to me and so I didn't give it any great attention. Having now looked at it more closely, I think my first reaction was preferable.