bridiem

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, Richard LH. I haven't watched the broadcast yet, but I've seen it live twice. I think its weakness (and it's a significant one) is the story-telling, so it's a great pity there was no synopsis. (Why do so many of these broadcasts not provide a synopsis?!). But other than that, I find it has a dark beauty and forceful power all of its own - distantly related to but very different from the original. And I love the music and choreography (but then I love almost everything Khan has done). Unlike with Matthew Bourne (in so far as I have seen his productions), I think Khan really does both imagine and 're-imagine', and uses dance in ways both powerful and poetic. I'm only (very!) sorry that his own dancing days are drawing to a close.

I thought it was more that if she got injured on Thursday or couldn't get back in time, there would be a problem covering her on Saturday evening. But I don't know if that's right either. Does anyone know: is the withdrawal of a guest artist because they're needed at home very rare? Or is it a real possibility to be aware of when booking for guest artists generally? I haven't heard of it before, but maybe that's just me.

Is there more injury and illness now than there used to be? If so, why? And if so, I fear for the welfare - short term and long term - of the dancers.

I don't think it's a 'saga', capybara - it's a matter of interest and raises questions about guesting generally. I agree that Osipova is far from pure or flawless in classical roles, but I find I am also still an 'ardent and loyal' supporter. I find her more than 'watchable' or 'interesting' - I find her absolutely mesmerising.

I'm amazed that a guest artist can pull out like this (not blaming anyone!) at the last minute just because they're deemed to be needed at their home company. Are all guest appearances covered by this proviso, then, that the dancer might not in fact perform? If so, guest appearances/bookings are really quite provisional which I hadn't realised. Or is it just the RB that makes this proviso if their dancers perform elsewhere?

Lots of lovely post-War ROH posters now line the Amphi corridors! Slightly strangely set out, but in general a great improvement.

Yes - in spite of what I said above, I would love to see Osipova and Muntagirov paired together again, in something less showy, to see how they could really relate to each other.

Thrilling performance last night. The company really threw itself into the performance with total commitment and theatricality. And the standard of dancing was terrific. Although they're well matched in terms of brilliance, I'm not sure Osipova and Muntagirov are otherwise a natural pairing - it was a bit like seeing a wild, passionate, Bolshoi panther with a pure, classical, RB (though also Russian!) gazelle. But what the heck. Every cast member was outstanding. Claire Calvert was a sultry Mercedes with Reece Clarke a commanding (and sometimes amusingly OTT) Espada. Lukas Bjorneboe Braendsrod was a revelvation (to me) as the Gypsy man - oozing sexuality and drawing all eyes to him, especially those of his passionate woman, Itziar Mendizabal. Fumi Kaneko was calmly beautiful as The Queen of the Dryads and her variation was absolutely gorgeous. Isabella Gasparini was a smiling, darting, joy of an Amour. I may even have come to love this production, to my great surprise. Danced like this, it sweeps away all doubt.

But presumably the St P DQ was scheduled quite some time ago. Why would the objection only have come at the last minute?

Amazing! And on such a small stage. I wonder if Christopher Dean saw this? Thanks very much for posting it, Fiz!

I would also apply that to the kind of buildings or developments (e.g. Open Up) that look terrific in artfully taken photos, and nothing like as impressive when seen in real life.

Not to say ridiculous... 🙂

Playground was performed by SWRB in September 1979 at Sadler's Wells (I saw it). I suppose that was soon after Edinburgh. Perhaps it has never been performed again since the SW performances?

I found the headline of that article irritating too - he's not the RB's 'new Romeo' since, as described in the article itself, he has already danced it. Not a difficult concept really.

That was an awful decision, I presume borne of a sort of panic because the applause had stopped. Really really wrong.

If those really were the people being offered the tickets (no doubt at large discount) that would at least have some worth. But, of course, that's not what's happening. The ticket sales for Frankenstein are interesting, because it does seem that if the ballet regulars don't buy in bulk, there's a real problem for the ROH. That seems to belie their oft-quoted statistic (which I can't remember, of course, but it was quite high) as to the percentage of complete newbies coming to each performance or each season or whatever it is/was. Clearly there aren't enough of them to buy the tickets (at full price, which presumably the ROH needs) when the regulars stay away.

As long as they can take the (main) auditorium with them!!

Is it just me or... My mouth is positively watering at the prospect of Akram Khan's Creature. However a little voice is also asking if this is being mounted so that ENB can effectively say to the RB: this is how it should be done... But I absolutely cannot wait for it.

Thanks for the very interesting review, Jamesrhblack. I would agree with much of what you say, but although it's not particularly illuminating I do think the tavern scene has some purpose - it shows Victor to be serious, studious, apart, isolated, ?obsessed etc, which does give him a bit more context I suppose. (And I felt as if it that scene was - happily - a bit shorter this time round, though I could be wrong.) But in general, in spite of its good points I do think that (as others have said) the focus of the work really needs to be more on Victor and the creature (and less on Victor and Elizabeth); without that, I think it's difficult to really be involved in what happens towards/at the end. We see nothing of the creature's development - he just disappears and then reappears all those years later (and then spends a lot of his time just lurking around - and invisible to some of the audience - so we still learn no more about him.) It's frustrating because there could have been something really good here.

For goodness sake. We all have our idiosyncrasies and we all get things wrong sometimes. There's really no need for such a comment.

I'm very sad to hear this, Sim, and thank you for your wonderful tribute. He was a great dancer and clearly a great and treasured friend who lived a full and fulfilled life. May he rest in peace, and my condolences to you and all his family and friends.

That implies that students are seen as (only) discount ticket targets, rather than (also) as targets for building a future audience. Which is incredibly short sighted.

I think all the fuses blew in the creation scene... I've been at performances where the applause has moreorless stopped before the red-runs (didn't know they were called that!) but they still go ahead. I know it had completely stopped last night, but it would have started again if the dancers had appeared. Really not fair on them, especially since there were debuts involved.

I agree about the performances tonight, which were excellent. Campbell got everything possible out of the role of Victor, and gave it both drama and pathos; Hinkis was a lovely and very touching Elizabeth, though I thought perhaps (understandably) a bit tentative in the first pas de deux; and Kish a sad, strange creature. I had felt rather depressed and dispirited about seeing this work again, after all I've read about it since seeing the première (which I enjoyed very much, with some reservations). But I actually enjoyed the first two acts quite a lot tonight, to my surprise. It was the last act that really didn't work for me this time; although (like all the acts) it looked amazing, it just seemed interminable, with a lot of samey choreography and slightly odd and unsatisfying elements. E.g. why does only Victor see the creature dancing when a) the creature is real, and b) the creature is there? I assume Victor is meant to be hallucinating; but the creature is actually in the vicinity, so that doesn't quite compute for me (but that's probably just me). And why doesn't Elizabeth shoot the creature when he's killing Henry?! She points the gun at him for ages, but doesn't fire. (I'm not being blasé about killing! But it would have been completely justified here after all. So I found it jolly frustrating. Maybe this happens in the book - I've (already) forgotten.) And the pas de deux for the creature and Elizabeth seemed to go on for ages for no real reason. By the end, I did feel sorry for everyone involved (including the creature), but really I just wanted to go home. My feeling this time was that although there's a lot to like, it doesn't hang together as a work. And I think in fact that the most fundamental problem is the music. I actually like it quite a lot, but it's not right for a ballet. It's like a film score, and would be fine as such; but ballet music needs to have light and shade, contrast, climaxes, ebb and flow, etc. This music really only allows for choreography that reflects/parallels it, rather than expressing depths, heights, subtleties, nuances. It's storytelling music, and so the story was told. But that's not enough. The performance was indeed greeted with loud cheering; but bizarrely, there were no front of curtain calls. The cheering/clapping stopped as soon as the red curtain came down after the company calls, and I did wonder if some at least of the cheering was because there were a lot of student/discount ticket holders who didn't realise that there would be more calls to come (and the calls didn't happen because the cheering/applause had stopped). Maybe that's an unworthy thought, but it was strange.

It didn't sound ageist at all, SMballet! It was a lovely post. I'm fortunate enough to have discovered ballet more than 40 years ago, and it's been the most incredible blessing. Lucky you, with so many years ahead of you!