bridiem

Happy Birthday BalletcoForum! And so many thanks to the moderators who do such a fantastic job, day in day out, to ensure that the Forum is the stimulating, enjoyable and valuable 'resource' that it is. Happy Christmas and thank you.

I think the Fonteyn programme was ultimately unsatisfying because it raised lots of questions but answered them very superficially or not at all. e.g. if Fonteyn really felt that at the height of her performing career she was lost personally (and I know she said this herself), was this reflected in her performances? How could she be such an effective performer if she didn't know who she was? Was her performance style able to overcome this, or was it evident in any way? Or did performing compensate for her personal unhappiness? The quality and effect of her dancing was also raised but all the comments about this were very brief and we then moved on. I have always found Fonteyn a great enigma. Nothing she said publicly (either in interviews or in her autobiography) was truly revelatory, and she chose to keep many aspects of her life private whilst apparently living it in a glare of publicity. That is (was) her privilege, but it means that a documentary seeking to 'explain' her life needs to be very diligent in looking behind appearances. This one kept saying that it was going to do so, and then pulling back at the crucial moment. But I enjoyed it anyway, because of the interesting film footage and knowledgeable people being interviewed (even if very briefly). But it portrayed Fonteyn's life as being so sad - I wonder if she saw it as such. I hope perhaps not.

Oh for crying out loud (which I nearly did). At The Sleeping Beauty at the ROH last night, the NOISE during the music between Acts II and III was totally deafening. That beautiful music being played for all it was worth by the (real, living) orchestra, and the audience treating it as if it was an advert break on the TV. Perhaps partly the fault of the ROH, because the house lights were raised to some level and that was all it needed for the audience to start talking, moving, checking their phones, etc etc. Ridiculous!!

Yes I thought it was a lovely performance too. Muntagirov was quite astonishing technically and very touching and credible dramatically. Lamb danced beautifully though I did find her perhaps a little too sophisticated and confident, given how young Aurora is supposed to be. Hayward and Campbell were terrific Bluebirds and SO SO musical! I also thought that Hayward shone as the Song Bird Fairy; for me she was the only fairy who had that other-worldly, strange quality that a fairy should have (well I imagine a fairy should have, not having met any). The others were more like lovely young women; she came from another world. And again supremely musical. I personally don't like the costumes for this production (not sure if any are new or not this time round?), except for Act II which is lovely and has a more muted palette; I find the rest a bit too pantomimic. And the performance reminded me how very challenging Beauty is; everyone was clearly stretched to their utmost. I think they will relax into it as the run continues - made me think of FLOSS's comments about how the classics keep a company on their toes (so to speak) technically.

I know what you mean but I hope it doesn't always have to be either or! Though I suppose it depends on how 'manhood' is defined. I can think of quite a few dancers who I would say combine both qualities (e.g. off the top of my head amongst dancers I've seen recently: Alexander Campbell, Marcellino Sambé, Akram Khan, and I'm sure others - too early in the morning to remember!).

The trouble is that no matter how wonderful the female principal is, if the prince is not equally wonderful/convincing the performance as a whole just doesn't work as it should (for me). Which is why performances that DO work completely are so rare and so much to be treasured. E.g. I've seen countless brilliant performances by Tamara Rojo, including in the classics, but very few where for me the show as a whole has been equally sensational because I think she has so rarely had a partner who was completely her equal. Unlike lucky Cojocaru, who has had Kobborg; and (e.g.) Lesley Collier, who had a range of brilliant male partners.

I think the Nutcracker documentary is on Christmas Day, so that's quite enough prime ballet!!

I loved Woolf Works but I didn't agree with Alessandra Ferri that at the end of it you knew everything about Virginia Woolf. I'd say it was more impressionistic than actually narrative. But very effective as such.

I always think of things too late too. I remember many years ago my sister and I were at the ROH and a man was rude to us in some way - I can't now remember the details. But I do remember being so proud of my sister - I was just ready to slink away feebly without responding, but she didn't miss a beat: she looked straight at him and said loudly and scathingly 'GO BOIL YOUR HEAD!!'. Not exactly wit, perhaps, but highly satisfying.

I went to the cinema relay. Absolutely dazzling. Fantastic performances and complete commitment from all. Gary Avis the most tremendous Drosselmeyer - evoking the power of the act of divine creation in his command for the tree to grow and grow and grow, thereby creating and releasing the love that ultimately frees his nephew. And delighted to see Sir PW come on at the end. A great evening.

Crikey! Is there no limit to his talents?! I was already looking forward to the new version of Murder on the Orient Express and now I can't wait!

I can't either, Sim, and I actually prefer the maturity and authority of his later performance. But the earlier is pretty special too!

Fantastic! Thank you so much LinMM. Very moving seeming two such brilliant dancers at the height of their powers. (Though of course Ferri is still brilliant now.)

I think that's only on booking info - but it would be great if it was on the cast sheet too. (But perhaps some in the audience might then feel short-changed in that they're not getting an experienced interpreter of the role! Don't know why they don't do it.)

Great review and photo, DQF. It always amazes me how fresh dancers look at their curtain calls (at least after classical works, when they seek to maintain the mystique) - as if they've just been having afternoon tea or a stroll in the countryside. How do they do it??!!

Lovely post, Bruce - thank you. I do want to say however that I think it's perfectly possible to embrace and cherish the present whilst at the same time demanding respect of the past (where merited). And to refuse to embrace some particular things in or aspects of the present if they fail to do so. But yes - we are lucky to be able to live and appreciate NOW (just as others were lucky in the past, which was their NOW).

Firstly, please be aware that whereas to some Brexit is redolent of a backward-looking 'whiff', to others it is associated with a forward-looking breath of fresh air. But back to ballet... I think it's very true that we have become gradually accustomed to a different style of dancing over the years and a return to the past (if there were a single 'past' to which we could return, which there isn't) would be for most people very difficult to absorb. I also think that some aspects of the changes have been impressive, and that styles do change over time (though not necessarily in a linear direction). I love many of today's dancers and have been so grateful as one generation of wonderful dancers has been succeeded, almost miraculously as it seems, by another. But it's precisely the gradual nature of the change that is deceiving; I have had a vague sense for a long time that something important was being lost (as well as much being gained), but I couldn't articulate what it was and since I find so many current performances superb in a sense it didn't seem to matter that much. So seeing the two different performances of Voices of Spring (on another thread) was actually quite shocking for me because Park and Eagling were not my favourite dancers and I have always loved Cojocaru and Kobborg; but the difference was so clear, and not in favour of C&K. Sometimes it's too easy to get used to what you see in front of you and accept it without question, especially if it seems in some ways to be an improvement on what went before; so it's quite salutary to be forced to look at it afresh. However, I STILL think C&K are brilliant! I'm just rather more aware now of how they (and others) differ from dancers of 20+ years ago, and where the differences may not always be an improvement.

I hope the paperback is an improvement. I was so disappointed by the hardback. There was interesting material in it, but it was very disorganised. Above all I was taken aback by the many unpleasant comments, often personal and unnecessary, especially about people who are still around (and with whom Sir Peter must sometimes still have contact, which seems a bit odd). The tone of the book really spoilt it for me. I wondered if Sir Peter had been encouraged to be as waspish as possible and hadn't really thought through the consequences.

Oh dear. I think I'd always assumed that the control, precision, awareness etc needed to dance well would very quickly be damaged by drugs and so this wouldn't be a major problem. I suppose the difference with dance as opposed to sport is that it's not competitive (I mean in the sense that sport is) so if a dancer takes drugs the main issues are their own health and any legal issues - they aren't 'cheating' in the sense that sportspeople are. But clearly dancers do need to understand the dangers involved; and companies have some sort of duty of care towards their dancers, and also need to be able to rely on them not damaging their bodies recklessly. So it's in everyone's interests to deal with this if it is a real problem.

Thanks very much Fonty - that was fascinating. Park and Eagling have an entirely different quality - quick, light, effortless, joyful. I love Cojocaru and Kobborg but here by comparison they seem almost stodgy, and much less musical. P&E are clearly just as strong, but look more beautiful and less 'physical' than C&K.

But why are tickets allocated to agencies that are (effectively) NOT reputable - i.e. they're known to sell them on at many times the face value? (Or do Ticketmaster sometimes do that too?). And anyway why not just sell them all through the venue? (Do the agencies pay a lot more for them than we do?). Booking fees are really annoying. If they didn't sell the tickets/have an audience, there wouldn't be much point putting on the performance. And often there's no real choice as to booking method so no way of avoiding them. I suppose if they didn't have them, though, they'd just charge more for the tickets. I don't know if the fees are really related to the costs of the booking systems etc, or just a way of getting more money from purchasers.

I've never FAILED to get completely through any pudding.

People on the tube who turn into the platform entrance and then just STOP. Does it not occur to them that if they want to get onto the platform, others might too?

That's awful! If I lived in Toronto I would never have been able to go to ballet. At least the ROH has some reasonably inexpensive seats.

Sounds like some sort of fundraising event rather than a performance that ordinary people might go to. Though clearly won't be successful if the tickets aren't sold!