bridiem

I'm so sorry, Mousem40 - that sounds awful. I wonder if he always behaves like that. I used to go to football matches regularly and if people behaved badly they were BANNED. Maybe that could be introduced at the ROH?! (And elsewhere for that matter.)

Just to say that some of the wildest and most romantic people I've known have been library assistants...

Interesting topic. I suppose if an AD is also a choreographer, which they often are, it's inevitable that they will include their own works in the rep and that will have been known and understood when they were appointed (and may have been partly why they were appointed). So I think longer term it really just depends how successful the board/governors/funders etc deem the company to be and what their vision for the company is. If reviews are largely good and audiences are holding up, and the company is fulfilling what is judged to be its remit/role, then presumably it's reasonable to leave well alone. If any of these aspects are problematic, a change would no doubt be considered. I suppose there could be a view that no AD should stay longer than (say) 10 years, in order to keep freshness and introduce new ideas etc. I don't think I'd favour that outlook - I think every situation/AD should be judged on their merits on an ongoing basis (and I would assume that they are).

The problem was that he took photos the whole time and didn't clap at all - that was what was rude and ungrateful. No feedback/thanks for the performers at all, he was just interested in getting his souvenirs. An unobtrusive shot or two whilst sitting down wouldn't fall into the same category.

As far as I know it's not currently allowed, in which case that should be respected in any case. But my own objection to it stems from what happened a few months ago when the man in front of me stood up to take his photos (often difficult to take decent photos from a seated position) and completely blocked my view of the calls, until eventually I asked him to stop/sit down. Also, he should have been clapping!! If he enjoyed the performance enough to want photos of the curtain calls, he should have been expressing his thanks and appreciation not spending the whole time taking photos. Those are human beings down there who have given their all in the performance, not objects to be photographed. Very rude and ungrateful I thought, and inconsiderate in respect of those sitting behind him.

And if they've told RuthE this, why couldn't they have given some sort of indication on the booking form? It's only thanks to RuthE that we won't now be wasting our time (and that of the ROH) ringing up about it.

I agree with you about Salenko, Bruce. But I think it's good for the RB to use guests on a reasonably regular basis, though not all the time, whether or not they're strictly 'necessary'. I think it's good and interesting for both dancers and audiences. But currently, there is certainly no need for a guest and the casting is getting pretty 'crowded' so I think it would be better not to use one (regardless of who it is).

Yes - I've sometimes (before joining this Forum!) missed interesting dance things on at the Coliseum because their website is so ENO-orientated.

Thanks, Bluebird - that's interesting. I did think the designs at that stage were stunning.

I wouldn't say it's 'completely' surrealist, Lindsay - a few stock (maybe even clichéd) surrealist images in the midst of a largely traditional production doesn't a surrealist ballet make. But I didn't know about Man Ray and metronomes as mentioned in one of the newspaper reviews, which does explain them (though it doesn't completely remove my objection to them). But yes, I completely missed the point about the trouser suits (I didn't realise the second lot of women were the same ones as the first lot, so I was clearly confused!). I wouldn't have expected or wanted this to be like the Ashton version (or any other version). What I expected and hoped was that it would be coherent and that the choreography would be more subtle and interesting than it was.

Firstly, I must acknowledge that judging by the audience reaction last night my opinion is in a minority. (I was in the Balcony, of which the central part was quite full but the sides pretty empty.) But I was really disappointed by this Cinderella, which I had been quite excited about seeing. It had so many holes and problems that it was impossible (for me at least) to believe in what was happening. Combine that with choreography that to my great surprise I found often clunky, unimaginative or just plain silly, and a regular failure to use the gorgeous music effectively, and I found the result really disappointing. It's a big, ambitious and well-danced production, with some extremely impressive sets and costumes; but for me it lacked credibility, poetry and mystery. A few of the random questions that arose for me as I watched: why does the stepmother look exactly the same age as her daughters (at least from as far afield as the Balcony)? Why does the fairy godmother wear a bowler hat and a deliberately silly long nose? She plays a serious role in the story, but just looks ridiculous for no apparent reason. Which would be OK if this was a cartoon version of Cinderella, or a surrealist version, but it isn't - it's a largely conventional production. Where is it indicated in the first act that a prince is to hold a ball and that's where Cinderella will be going? (Maybe I just missed that, especially because there was a very tall man sitting in front of me so it was difficult to see the whole stage, but it is quite a crucial element of the story.) Why do the women at the ball (at least at first) wear trouser suits? If that's what women wear at balls in this Cinderella world, which would be fine, why then do the stepmother and stepsisters and of course Cinderella herself aspire to and then wear beautiful ball gowns? Why do lots of metronomes appear at the end of the ball? Spectacular from a design point of view, but metronomes indicate speed, not time, and the whole point is that the crucial TIME of midnight is approaching. Why use, repeatedly, an effect of mottled lighting on the stage which has the effect of making the dancers legs and the shape of the choreography all but invisible? Why does the prince apparently need to travel by ship, train and car (brilliant backcloths here) in search of his love, when Cinderella's family clearly had to make no such journey to go TO the ball? If meant to be symbolic of the 'journey of love', it's a very literal and unpoetic (though visually thrilling) depiction of the idea that doesn't match the music. Who are the women, and then the men, who dance with the prince en route to finding Cinderella? (I didn't buy a programme, which perhaps would have explained this. But it shouldn't need a programme to know at least roughly who the characters are in a work.) Why, if Cinderella is about to marry a prince, does her father shake hands with him rather than bowing? If this intends to portray a more egalitarian social order, which would be fine, why is he treated in a more prince-like fashion elsewhere in the work? And I have to say I found the resemblance of the prince to a 1970s John Travolta rather distracting (but maybe that's just me). Now I know you could say: these questions are too literal, it's a fairy tale, it doesn't have to make sense or be consistent. I would disagree. All fairy tales have to make sense - it's why their outcomes matter to us, and why they have lasted. They're not just airy, puffy stories to be played around with at will. If they're to be adapted, the adaptations must make sense so that the resulting whole still has a dramatic and symbolic coherence, otherwise the tales lose all their power and all their point. But: I thought the dancers were very good, with Leanne Stojmenov a sympathetic Cinderella, Kevin Jackson commanding the stage as the prince, and strong support from the rest of the company.

Yes, that's a bit confusing. And assuming we do our online booking first, it means we won't know at that point whether or not we're going to be able to get a ticket for that performance. And the ROH will be inundated with phone calls!! (Even more than usual.)

Brilliant! Thank you Capybara.

Yes, because apart from a few opening nights it's of very limited use knowing when performances are if you don't know who's dancing and therefore which performances you will be wanting to book/which dates you need to keep free.

Federer is the Anthony Dowell of the tennis court. Sublime. But at least I have no dilemma about who to support on Sunday now.

Interesting post, MaggiM - very good to hear from you. Just to say that I did indeed see hesitations on Wednesday evening, mainly (I'm sorry to say) from Osipova. And I would say that I went to the performance in hope rather than expectation, given previous experiences of great dancers commissioning works for themselves - clearly being a great dancer doesn't necessarily also bestow great skill in other aspects of the art form (choreographing, directing, teaching etc), though sometimes it does. But you're right that we all see performances differently for all sorts of different reasons. And whatever my view of this bill, I still think that Osipova is an amazing dancer!

There were just two other dancers, in the first piece - named at the top of this thread. They were fine, but the spotlight was very much on Osipova and Polunin. I think Osipova is light and slight and gravitates towards the light. For me, contemporary dancers have to have a more earthy, more 'down' quality. They use the floor in a different way and move in a different way. (Which is actually one of the reasons I don't like the Royal dancers doing so much McGregor work. Even when they do it very well, it's not what their bodies are trained for.)

I think we came out at something like 9.50pm, though I'm afraid I slightly lost track of time.

I was at the performance and I'm still in a bit of a state of shock. How is it possible to be given two such tremendous performers to work with, and to produce what I saw last night? The only saving grace was seeing and being reminded of what a sensational dancer Polunin is, which was evident briefly in the second work which did produce a few moments of interest and enjoyment. Osipova, unbelievably, was made to look less than ordinary throughout. She is a magnificent classical ballerina, but she is clearly not a contemporary dancer, and what she was given to do last night simply emphasized that. I found Qutb tedious, repetitive, poorly lit and poorly danced, though I did quite like some of the music (for a while). Silent Echo included a good solo for Polunin, who made absolutely the most of what he was given to do, and some interesting moments between Osipova and Polunin - circling each other but not touching (yet). But much of it was also tedious. As for Run Mary, Run - words (almost) fail me. All I can say is that there was almost no dance content and what there was I found infantile, that the 'storytelling' was crass and the costumes horrible. I had to make a real effort to stop myself from heckling (which I have, I hasten to add, never done at a dance performance in my life). All the works look under-rehearsed, the performance started late and the intervals were long. An absolute crying shame of an evening.

All biographies and autobiographies (as opposed to works of history or textbooks) surely describe and comment on the personality, behaviour and motivations of the subject and the other people in his/her milieu. Whether that constitutes gossip or interesting/illuminating reflection depends on what is said and how it is said. Since I haven't read this yet either, I wouldn't like to pass judgement at this stage. Obviously, I hope it will be the latter.

Interesting post, David. I’d just make a couple of points in reply: Yes, the RB has attracted some of the finest dancers in the world, and I hope will continue to do so. But it has also recruited/employed dancers who though sometimes very good do not necessarily fall into that category. No doubt there have been all sorts of reasons for this, but I have sometimes found it frustrating. And, I think that the growing internationalism of ballet companies has indeed influenced the evolution of the RB’s style, and that of many other companies, so that they're increasingly similar. I think that’s sad. Like eating McDonald’s wherever you go in the world. (NOT that I’m comparing dancers to burgers, of course.)

I loved the Gemma books too, and still do, though when I read them now I realised that Lydie is quite appallingly self-centred and selfish!! At the time I thought she was just determined and talented etc (and so excused her behaviour). (Shades of Nureyev?!). But I still love her, and the others including Philip and Alice who to me were the epitome of good, caring parents trying to deal fairly with growing children including an unexpected newcomer. Although Gemma was obviously the main focus, Lydia's ballet was for me the most thrilling part...

I loved (and love) The Ballet Family and its sequel - the characters, the plots, the settings (and the ballet!) all had a huge effect on me (I suppose c 1970). The depiction of Paris thrilled me as the epitome of excitement and romance, and has coloured my picture of the city ever since. For some reason I only discovered the Drina books when I was quite a bit older, and although I enjoyed them they didn't have the same impact. Perhaps by then I was too old to really identify with Drina, whereas I loved all the members of the Ballet Family in different ways and was fascinated by their interaction and all their activities. I also loved (and love!) Noel Streatfeild: Ballet Shoes, Curtain Up and the Gemma books for the ballet/theatre/family settings (and Curtain Up for its really vivid depiction of wartime London) and others for the way they showed children training for very specialised activities (skating, tennis etc) or just learning and growing up (e.g. The Growing Summer, Caldicott Place, The House in Cornwall). Interesting looking back that I was clearly mysteriously drawn to ballet long before I ever saw one!

I see the RAD played a really big role in the parade which ended with Bussell and dancers in front of the Queen. Jolly good - ballet at the centre of national life!! I work for a charity of which the Queen is patron and two of my colleagues were going to the picnic, so I will look forward to hearing about it all.

Personally I think there's a real chemistry between Hayward and Campbell, and that partnership should be given the chance to blossom.