bridiem

Interesting thoughts, Jamesrhblack. I think that the idea in your second paragraph doesn't work for me when I watch the ballet, because Acts I and II don't come across as an idealised past but as a historical reality - nostalgia-tinged, as material about pre-revolutionary Russia often is, but not idealised or in any way a fantasy. It appears to depict a real period of history with real events. (I also must have less patience than you, because there's no way I could sit through two full acts of a ballet and then find out that they weren't in fact real when I thought they were. ) That also for me differentiates it from Sleeping Beauty etc which are acknowledged from the outset to be fairy tales and (if wanted) allegories. But I can see how a ballet on this theme could still work even if Anna A wasn't Anastasia - in fact Act III does that, because you are caught up in Anna's inner world whether or not it's historically correct. But as a three-act work, especially this one, the balance seems to me to be all wrong.

Perfect summary! Act III brilliant and Osipova thrilling. For me, Acts I and II add nothing at all and are unbelievably tedious. Beautiful sets and costumes, but nothing else. Dull choreography, mainly dull music (and I love Tchaikovsky!), and almost nothing happens. Also a problem with the gunshots in Act II - i.e. no gunshots - so it was a silent revolution and frankly just looked silly. I thought maybe the person with the gun had been as bored as me and had fallen asleep. I must also say that I found the big pas de deux in Act II really quite horrible - awkward, difficult, unmusical, unilluminating, and unattractive. Bonelli struggled with it and even Nunez didn't look comfortable. With much of the choreography in this Act I found myself thinking that MacMillan must really not like his dancers. And, given that we now know that Anna A was not Anastasia, the full-length work makes no sense anyway. Act III still works superbly as a study of someone who thinks they are Anastasia; but since she isn't, why do we need Anastasia's back story in such tedious detail in Acts I and II? What would be more interesting would be to see Anna A's back story. The ballet is - or should be - about her, not about Anastasia. It's a study of loss of identity, confusion, fear etc, and the Russian/Imperial aspects are riveting and very well integrated. And the music works excellently too. Acts I and II are entirely superfluous, and would be even if they were better than they are. I also found myself really questioning why the RB have revived this as a three-acter. The quality of Acts I and II are so far below MacMillan at his best that it's quite inexplicable. Whereas Act III is powerful, original and fascinating as well as providing a great vehicle for a lead female.

I think that happens quite a lot with music that's played before the curtain goes up, no matter how tuneful it is. But I would say that people posting on this forum are not really 'the average ballet fan' - they're rather more involved than that, and I would have thought (hoped) are mainly open to a range of musical styles. I personally love the music for Pierrot Lunaire - it may not be exactly 'tuneful', but it's expressive and interesting and moving and powerful (as is the work itself).

Oh no! I didn't realise he was so 'old'! (Comparatively speaking, of course.)

Great list, capybara, except that I never want to see The Judas Tree again, and am very dubious about Marguerite and Armand (except when done by Rojo and Polunin...). Other than those, I'd be very happy with a season including all the above works. I'd also add Van Manen's Four Schumann Pieces, specifically for Muntagirov to do.

Good point, Janet. But I don't understand how any work gets on stage - especially a big three-acter - without someone taking that step back and seeing it with the eyes of someone coming to it fresh, and who needs to know what is going on, who the people are, what ideas are being conveyed, and whether all this is happening with any degree of success. I think that The Tempest needs a lot more than tweaking - it needs a complete restructure and rethink. Much as I have always had great admiration for David Bintley, I think that perhaps he creates too many works nowadays and needs to step back himself in order to free up his imagination again. (Though I did love The King Dances, which was fresh and interesting and imaginative.)

I would have LOVED to have seen Bennet Gartside do Rudolf. He is so interesting to watch whatever he does.

I must admit I'm disappointed by the Rudolf casting. I had assumed that Muntagirov would do it, though admittedly it's quite difficult to imagine his sunny personality in such a role. And I had hoped that one of the new male principals would do it, though I suppose that would be a big ask. It makes me realise that the RB has quite a few male principals who although obviously extremely capable simply don't excite me. Watson/Osipova does though! And I'm delighted that Yanowsky has been cast (though not as Rudolf, I hasten to add). P.S. Now there's a thought. If Glenda Jackson can do King Lear...

Yes, a terrific performance this afternoon. Roberta Marquez was so funny and touching and believable, and Alexander Campbell was just wonderful - beautiful dancing and acting, and this was a Colas who didn't just love his Lise - he adored her and would clearly cherish and treasure her for the rest of their days. You could imagine this couple growing old together. And Bennet Gartside was an interesting Widow Simone - you could see how she would have been beautiful when younger, and perhaps still wanted to be; a match between her and Thomas would perhaps have been a better thought than one between Lise and Alain! And Gary Avis was a more convincingly angry Thomas than usual, when the match had been thwarted; and a movingly tender father to his son. Luca Acri was an excellent Alain. I was rather hoping that Peregrine would misbehave again today, since there were so many children in the audience and I'm sure they would have been thrilled; but he was as good as gold. As was the performance.

I saw this last night. I liked the scenery (especially the ship at the end) and some of the costumes and I thought the dancers were excellent especially Iain Mackay as Prospero. And I liked exactly the same parts of the production as Alice Shortcake!! But unfortunately disliked or was baffled by most of the rest. The music was a big problem for me - lacking drama, rise and fall, interest. (One big element in the masque just seemed to stop/peter out at the end which seemed very odd.) And I found a lot of the choreography repetitive and not very interesting. I also had very little idea of what was happening in most of Act 2 in spite of having read the programme note. The ending was moving but seemed to come out of nowhere; and it didn't involve dance! So in the end I felt frustrated. I feel as if perhaps there's a very good one-act ballet in there (preferably to different music). But great work by the dancers (and it did get a great response from the audience).

Interesting idea!! (Might be quite a challenge for the dancers too!). And I know what you mean, but I never actually think of it as a 'sad' ending, except (of course!) in that they die. Because it's clear that through their death - through the power of their love, to the extent of being willing to die for it - that they break the power of evil; and it's clear (at least in the current RB production) that they don't just die, they enter eternal life. So for me it's the most powerful of all happy endings in spite of - or perhaps because of - the pain and loss. The alternative 'happy' ending would be have much less power and resonance for me. So I'm with Janet on this.

Just to say that I enjoyed Wink, didn't much enjoy The Shakespeare Suite (though I thought Titania and Bottom were funny, and I liked Lady Macbeth), but I ABSOLUTELY LOVED The Moor's Pavane. So beautiful, restrained, stylish, powerful. Gorgeous costumes and music and wonderful performances. Just brilliant.

That really made me laugh, Dance*is*life! I'm pretty sure that there are times when I have indeed put a programme between my teeth for want of any other possible resting place. What we suffer for our art.

Oops, yes, I'm sure you're right MAB. Dim distant memories of both. But same principle.

Interesting comment cavycapers. I think Filles do differ, but I know what you mean. Maybe tragedy is easier to make distinctive than happiness/comedy. Made me think of Tolstoy/War and Peace, i.e. that all happy families are happy in the same way but all unhappy families are unhappy in different ways (bad paraphrase, but you get the gist).

Yes, I think I had assumed that this sort of thing was already happening in some form (though not the peer review element, which is an interesting but potentially difficult concept). Wherever public funding is used, evaluation is inevitable (and perhaps appropriate). I'm sure the problem is the tick-box/reductive nature of this sort of evaluation, and the administrative burdens for already over-stretched companies/organisations. And, of course, the fear that a subjective process could end up being presented as an objective assessment, with negative outcomes for those being evaluated. Oh and by the way, I DO believe that we are eternal! Not in our current bodies, but still eternal. Without that element, art would lose all its power for me. In the end, that's its point: it expresses, in some way, the eternal; not as something that is irrelevant to us (which would render art irrelevant) but as something of which we are an intrinsic part. Bit difficult to get that in a tick box, though...

Thanks very much James - sounds brilliant!

I have yet to read this book (I have it and hope to do so soon), I have a huge amount of respect for Sir Peter, and I have no wish at all to be ageist; but I do wonder if Sir Peter's advanced age might be relevant here. We all know that sometimes age reduces inhibitions, and causes memories to be brought forth and/or expressed in ways that might not have happened in earlier years. Sir Peter is also not a professional writer. So I have an increasing feeling from the reports that I have read that he may have been very ill served by his editors/publisher etc.

Yes, big shame they haven't named the Myrthes too, and the Hilarions.

It's still on Amazon this morning, as the No 1 best seller in classical dance. I don't know why the book has been withdrawn - or whether that is permanent - but its author is clearly held in very high esteem by lovers of classical dance.

And there's now this habit of starting sentences with 'So'; as if what is being said is the logical outcome of something that has already been said, when in fact nothing has yet been said... I think that's a way of (consciously or unconsciously) trying to give possibly spurious legitimacy to what's being said. Sometimes through lack of confidence, but sometimes (imho) with intent to cloud the judgement of the listener. Even quite eminent people can be heard doing it on occasion now - it's clearly contagious. My other gripe is with people who when ordering food or drink in a café/restaurant say 'Can I GET...' instead of 'Can I HAVE...'. It implies that they are themselves going to do something, when in fact someone else is going to do it for them. As if they can't bear to acknowledge that they are the passive partner in this transaction (or any transaction).

Having previews is fine; but as Janet implied, aren't they normally cheaper? Because whether or not there are subsequent changes, they are acknowledging that it's not necessarily the final 'product' you're seeing.

I will miss her because she writes really interestingly and intelligently, whether or not I agree with what she's saying. And she's lucky enough to have been given the opportunity to write at greater length than most critics are allowed, which has allowed for more in-depth writing and reflection. I also don't really think that any critics (or any people, probably) are fully open-minded, even if they/we try to be so; everyone has biases and preferences and strong opinions which inevitably inform how they watch works and react to them. Though it's true that critics should make a serious effort not to pre-judge performances or companies, and to remain open to the possibility of being surprised.

I don't know how ticket sales were for Fille last time, but I hope in due course sales for this run will pick up. But ballet is currently promoted very much as an extreme art, both physically and emotionally; and that chimes in with the current cultural climate for extreme self-exposure (both physical and emotional). Drama and tragedy are also currently favoured much more than gentle humour or happy endings. So Fille is quite counter-cultural at the moment, and less easy to promote in the terms used for other ballets.

Interesting post, ravensara. Perhaps Hayward is more like Collier than Cojocaru (both tremendous in different ways). I haven't seen enough of either Hayward or Naghdi yet to really be able to judge them in comparative terms, except to say that I've loved what I've seen of both. And Takada's Giselle moved me profoundly, to my great surprise - I'd always thought she was good technically but that was it; in Giselle, I suddenly saw her soul. I haven't seen Choe in the big roles - she's a lovely dancer but I've never felt inspired to book specifically for her (limited money/time - have to make choices!).