bridiem

 

As for the curtain calls, Russian curtain calls are part of the performance and should be accepted as such. 

Some of you are clearly far too young to have seen Frederick Ashton's curtain calls. They were an art form in themselves.

I have to mention that my first ever ballet performance (Oct 1977) was graced by an Ashton curtain call (he'd just been awarded the OM). I was (very rare for me) very near the stage so I saw it all close up. Now that was a performance. No wonder I was hooked.

Sorry, totally off thread again.

At the ROH tonight OS row C, sitting next to an odious little man all evening. Before he takes his seat, he peers into the pit and announces loudly 'Too much Fxxxing timpani as usual!'

Gets in the seat beside me, makes a phone call to someone, loudly talking about how he's the RB junior's choreographer or something, on and on about how wonderful he is, and how awful this Bolshoi cast is compared to 10 years ago. Coughing all the time.

 

An announcement is made, 2 dancers are being substituted. His reaction? You guessed it, a very loud 'Fxxxing hell!'

 

First interval, lights go on, he loudly pronounces to no one in particular 'Fxxxing choreography so tight' that everyone around us turns to look. Another phone call 'I don't like the RB, but that Oskipova [sic] she's wonderful, why she has to do that modern stuff.....Oskipova she's wonderful, this lot are good, but not nearly as good' on and on cough cough.

 

Hateful man, ruined my night.

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.)

The only disappointment for me was Chudin as Lucentio. Although technically proficient, his characterisation was more of a library assistant than anything else.

 

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).

A quick shot or two of the curtain calls seems inoffensive enough - we often do it - but without disturbing other people. Sit. Clap.  Take a couple unobtrusively saying in your own space. Clap some more. No flash - pointless anyway - obviously.  Doesn't the note on the programme generally say something like "no pictures during the performance"?

 

I'm fairly uptight about these things but I'm pretty sure "rude" and "ungrateful" are waaaaay over there somewhere.

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.

Could I just ask why people object to the taking of photos at curtain calls? The dancers seem to like it, given the number of them who use the photos for their own social media later. And the non-photo-taking public can still applaud and see the dancers bow. I am at a bit of a loss to understand what the "mischief" is?

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 I have an answer to the above:

 

"This is for people who have been to one of our Welcome performances but never returned."

 

(Damn. I'm going to miss this cast then - just like I did with their R&J...)

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.

 

But back to my point:  It was a privilege to see both Salenko and Obraztsova dance on those occasions aside the Royal Ballet.  I'm sure their unique skill sets will also have served the Company well by example.  That has now long since been accomplished.  IF A RB GUEST IS CURRENTLY NECESSARY - and I do not honestly believe at this juncture that it is - certainly for things like Nutcracker -then I personally feel they should bring in dancers NEW TO THE ROYAL BALLET AS GUESTS who have perhaps a different skill set and are of international note so that they too might - once again - transport and delight - and once again inform - the RB audience and Company family alike.  That is all.  

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).

It's strange that this production hasn't sold well when last summer DNB's sold so well (I think that with the exception of the Thursday matinee it sold out). I suppose that AB's visit may have been overshadowed by the visit of the Bolshoi.

 

It probably doesn't help ticket sales (a) that you are immediately taken to ENO's productions and have to search around for any dance; and ( that the 'front page' for Cinderella only mentions evening performances and no matinees.

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

In answer to Bridiem's other question about the prince's journey by ship, train..etc, the original Prokoviev Cinderella had the prince travelling round the world to find Cinderella. I understand this is supposed to be because, since nobody knew who she was, he'd assumed she must be a foreign princess.

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

The design is completely surrealist bridiem. The bowler hat, the eyes on the metronomes and the shoe-shaped hats etc. are pure Magritte.

 

And besides being very glamorous, the women's silk trouser suits were used to make a point. When they saw the prince fall for Cinderella in the dress they all scurried off to put on dresses except the sisters, already a step behind, who changed into suits.

 

I was amused by that and also by the John-travolta-esque preening prince. I must say it's far preferable to 'noble' men in ballet tights which I always find faintly ridiculous.

 

But fair to say if you are looking for the "pure" Ashton version this is not for you. But I found it much fresher. When Cinderella has a solo that shows off her arabesque lines and pirouettes but also includes little "andy Murray" style fist pumps done on pointe, all delivered with a knowing wit, then I am amused and entertained. Your mileage may vary.

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. 

In the ROH Winter magazine, it lists the 18th February matinee as 'limited availability, call box office'. Schools matinees are usually not for public booking, so I assume its not that. Can anyone elaborate?

Thanks

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.)

I’ve worked out a way of doing the Triple Bill without typing out the cast for every show.

 

The Human Seasons:

Cast 1: Cuthbertson, Calvert, Lamb, Nunez, Cowley, Stix-Brunell, Mendizabal, Watson, Underwood, Sambe, Bonelli, Richardson, Donnelly

Cast 2: Stix-Brunell, Takada, Hayward, Naghdi, Magri, O’Sullivan, Heap, Muntagirov, Edmonds, Zucchetti, Ball, Hay, Dyer

 

After the Rain:

Cast A:  Nunez, Calvert, Mendizabal, Soares, Kish, Hirano

Cast B: Yanowsky, Cowley, Heap, Clarke, Mock, Edmonds

Cast C: Stix-Brunell, Magri, O’Sullivan, Underwood, Dubreuil, Donnelly

 

16^th March: Cast 1 and Cast A

17^th March: Cast 2 and Cast B

18^th March: Cast 1 and Cast B

20^th March: Cast 2 and Cast A

21^st March: Cast 1 and Cast B

23^rd March: Cast 2 and Cast A

24^th March: Cast 1 and Cast C

 

New Crystal Pite: The Company – all dates

Brilliant! Thank you Capybara.

I have been sympathetic to Kevin O'Hare's explanations as to why casting is not included in the Opera House Magazine - mainly, as I understand it, because the timeline associated with printing and distribution is so very long that he would be making decisions virtually a year ahead and he wants to minimise changes. All well and good. However, I do think that an indication as to when the details will be available should feature somewhere - if not in the magazine itself then in the accompanying letter. Everyone feels the need for constant reassurance that they will know who is dancing ahead of the opening date for their own particular booking.

 

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.

 

Janet, I'm Brazilian, live all the way down in the South, very far from the big cities where all that is important about Ballet happens. Unfortunately, most of my contact with Ballet is virtual, with the exception of maybe two months a year when I am "based" in Germany - my opportunity to see live performances in Europe. I'm a keen reader of reviews and ballet forums, to keep me informed and learning, and to help me choose what I will try to see the next time... I'm grateful for the information and knowledge I find here!

 

I saw Solo For Two in London, 2014, the reason why I'm interested in this Triple Bill. Osipova and Polunin have made some unusual professional decisions lately, I was wondering about their health and priorities, and curious about developments in her contemporary work.  

As in Solo For Two, I see totally divergent opinions, and it is not always easy to figure out the premises of each writer to understand why.

 

But some comments... 

 

I cannot believe, for example, that it was under-rehearsed. I'm not doubting the writer's impression, it's just that both Osipova and Polunin are great, experienced dancers, and have been preparing this show for months! Solo For Two was prepared in a single month, and I could see nothing that needed more rehearsal, not the slightest hesitation or blurred movement - but I also had accepted that well known steps might not be performed in a classical way, and must be seen in the context of a different aesthetic and intention. 

 

The choreographers were Osipova's choice in both occasions, and if in Solo For Two Cherkaoui and Naharin made versions of existing pieces, you never know what will come out when it is a new work. Choreographers are human, may be more or less inspired. It is very frustrating, however, if the outcome is not up to the dancers' potential, as several reviews imply. For them and for us. Expectations were very, very high, both times, all expected some miracle to happen. Not reasonable, and an extra weight for anyone who is venturing in new ways.

 

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!

So, there were some dancers other than Osipova and Polunin in this programme?

 

Why don't you think that Osipova is a contemporary dancer, Bridiem?

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. 

 

And yes, I agree with what you are saying about pre-publication hype and I'm sure he will have interesting things to say about British ballet history that aren't sufficiently 'juicy' to make the review articles.  But on the specifics, is it really necessary to recount anecdotes of Macmillan's behaviour at parties? MacMillan always seems to me rather a tragic figure and I'm not sure what that kind of gossiping adds to our knowledge of ballet history.

 

I really like a good debate and 'controversial' writing where it goes to the artistic, technical side of the writer's area of expertise.  Relaying of decades old gossip about people who are no longer around to defend themselves I find less edifying.

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've found the link for the Drina fan fiction http://archiveofourown.org/tags/Drina%20Series%20-%20Jean%20Estoril/works

 

Spent an entertaining half hour reading them last night!

 

Streatfeild's Gemma books are interesting- they do seem to elicit a rather Marmite-like response among readers and I've read some really negative comments about them in accounts of her work. Personally I really enjoy them. I read them as a child growing up in the 70s and I think they strike a period feel (although they were published in the 60s I still see my childhood when I read them now and I love the characters and how they grow and develop.

 

Girls Gone By publishers have republished the first Sadlers Wells book, and the two Ballet Family titles as well as some of Mabel Esther Allen's other, non-ballet work. Another Allen/Estoril one I enjoyed (2nd hand via Amazon) was the Ballet Twins. It's intriguing that she uses her creation of the Lingeraux ballet school in this, and the Ballet Family, which crops up in some of the Drina books.

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.