bridiem

Wayne has just said that it is both.

?? Call me literal but I'm not sure that that is plausible. Or indeed possible.

I would say that Edward Watson's comparatively unusual appearance has served him very well in his career, and has been an essential part of it. That said, critics should be careful how they express negative views about dancers who are human beings and deserve to be treated with respect.

Yes, that's a really important aspect that's missing from the ballet - the development, learning, and understanding of the creature over a period of time, so that he comes to love human beings and yearns to be accepted by them (and believes that he can be/will be, because he sees the good in humanity). It's what makes the work a tragedy rather than just a horror story.

I did feel sorry for the creature, partly because he looked very like a large, lost baby who wanted to be looked after but was instead beaten and rejected.

True. But then it will be fresh to people who are new to ballet. People on here are a bit blasé because they seen it all before - but there are people who might haven never seen a ballet before. Don't forget also that Mr Scarlett is a very young choreographer. I don't think even Sir Kenneth or even Sir Frederick Ashton managed to struck gold time after time. They needed to get into their stride and they must have had some ballets that fell flat.

 

It must be so hard for young choreographers these days - constantly being measured against Ashton and McMillian and the good old days and being found wanting. But that is a discussion for another time.

That's interesting, and you're right that it's very important to judge choreographers and new works on their own merits and not always to compare them to the comparatively few great works of the past. But if you've seen a lot of ballets you can't watch with the same eyes as a newcomer. I think Liam Scarlett is a very good choreographer, and as you say still young. That doesn't mean that I have to like the tavern scene in Frankenstein (though I didn't object to it as much as some people clearly did).

I also think that it's great that on this forum there are people with decades of experience of ballet-watching, and people with hardly any experience. Both bring things of real value.

Yes, I can understand that. But does everything have to be original? I am sure that scenes such as taverns may seem a bit unnecessary but they often help to illustrate a particular society or how a character reacts to a social situation. Take for example - the tavern scene in Mayerling. Some would say that it was completely unnecessary, too gratuitous. On the other hand, by including that scene MacMillan is showing us a glimpse of the world outside the Hofburg - a world that was yes a bit sordid and fermenting with political intrigue. Yet it is also showing us how Vienna worked at that point in time - particularly with Mitzi Casper spying for Taafe.     

That's very true. But I think that both the choreography and the music for that scene in Mayerling are much better than in this scene in Frankenstein. Things don't always have to be original - in fact they probably can't always be original - but if they're going to be derivative in theme that's when it matters especially to be fresh in execution.

Am so pleased for Leicester as it's nice to see a team which isn't loaded still coming through! My friends in Leicester are more rugby than football but have said its hard to avoid the fever of this success in Leicester at the moment!!

 

Here in Brighton it's also quite exciting as at this moment they are in one of the automatic promotion to the Premiership positions so it's down to the match with Middlesborough now!! If they do make it don't know how long will stay up though unless they can do a Leicester!!

 

 

Hasten to add I'm a Liverpool supporter though!

Me too, and a very happy one this evening!! I will now have to miss the cinema relay of Frankenstein in order to watch the Europa League Final!!!

I presume you mean by that "Why are management putting Cuthbertson on in the cinema relay two years running?"? Not that it would be the first time we've had the same principal in a Nutcracker relay.

It seems very strange to do that, though. Many people can only see the company via these relays, so why give them the same principal again? (Wonderful though she is.) No doubt there are all sorts of issues involved in selecting possible dates for the screenings; but why not then allocate the casting to ensure variety for the cinema audience? (And allow more dancers to have this opportunity.)

I think it's just because it's so reminiscent of other ballets and not particularly original choreographically even if the idea behind it is clear. So it's difficult not to think 'here we go again'.

Putting aside the provenance of this remark about Nuñez and Muntagirov, and on the evidence of regularly trawling all over for our daily Links, I will happily rush to the defence of Hanna Weibye as possibly the most cogent, erudite, and capable emerging writer on dance.  (As to the remark, as a professional historian, I would be surprised if she made it up and its genesis may lie in the casting changes beaten to death elsewhere.)

In which case it should not have been used to imply that they refused to dance because of the quality of the ballet. That seems incredibly unlikely to me, especially given the dancers involved.

Thank you so much Sim. You've expressed both the strengths and the weaknesses brilliantly and far better than I was able to. (Though I did feel the torment of the Creature.) And I agree about Nunez and Muntagirov.

Does anyone else think that Act 2 is overlong and could benefit from being shorter and tighter - or is it only me?

I didn't find it overlong - my main problem with it was that it seemed extremely implausible that the Creature would have taken 7 years before looking into his coat pocket to find Victor's notebook. In the book, the whole process of him understanding about his creation and his relationship to other humans and to Victor is dealt with gradually, and is very interesting and touching. If you hadn't read the book (which I only did in the last few weeks, in preparation for seeing this ballet) I would have thought that that would seem a bit odd.

There are many references to Mary Shelley in the programme.

 

I looked at the cast sheets for The Winter's Tale and Romeo & Juliet, and I can't see any references to William Shakespeare there either, and yet there are plenty in the related programmes.

That's interesting - perhaps there should be! These writers are effectively providing the scenario, which if provided by a living author would surely be credited.

I hadn't noticed that Mary Shelley isn't credited on the cast sheet - that's outrageous! Without her there would be no ballet. I hope that will be rectified quickly.

Thanks, zxDaveM - lovely photos! I was at the premiere tonight and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Visually spectacular, full of drama and pathos, moving depiction of all the relationships and especially that between Victor and the Creature, and great performances. I found the music interesting and sometimes effective, but at times it was too much like an accompaniment rather than something that actually drove the action on, and for me that sometimes led to passages that were a little unfocussed. But there were also times when it sounded like an old Hollywood film score (which is intended as a great compliment!). In fact I thought that the whole ballet was very cinematic, and in some ways very old-fashioned: a great story told with intelligence and panache within a carefully worked out structure. And choreography used to convey relationships, emotions and incidents, not to display extreme athleticism and physicality for its own sake. I hope I will be able to see it again since it's difficult to take in so much in one viewing. But the dancers were wonderful, with McRae both moving and frightening as the Creature, Morera giving the role of Elizabeth such poetry and depth, and Bonelli effectively conveying Victor's desperation. Alexander Campbell really stood out too for me as Henry - such personality, and such terrific dancing!

I've just had this warning in from Sadler's Wells:

 

"As you may be aware, all of the work shown in the evening is brand new. It has been brought to our attention that one of the works, Arthur Pita’s piece entitled Run Mary Run, will contain scenes of an adult nature, including brief scenes of simulated drug use."

That doesn't fill my heart with joyful expectation...

However I must remember Mayerling, which could of course carry the same health warning (though not sure if it does).

Sounds as if you wept a whole lake of tears, Janet!

I wasn't comparing only the two performances you suggest, I was talking generally. I have seen Nagdhi in a number of full length performances inc. R&J and she is a beautiful dancer but I was just expressing my bemusement that she attracts so much hyperbole (even for a 5 min turn on stage) on here when there are other soloists who are just as good, perhaps better, who barely attract a whisper.

Clearly a lot of people think that Nagdhi is not just beautiful but also exceptional (a view to which they are entitled). Many other dancers also get praised, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Yes, I thought the dancers were superb and what a great advertisement for ballet! Very small stage that must have been tricky to negotiate but they were all brilliant. (And Catherine Tate's comment after the R&J pas de deux was good too - 'when I see what they do with their bodies, I think they must be from a different species' or words to that effect. I hope a lot more people now realise how amazing they are, and ballet is!

I didn't see Osipova this time round because of her injury; and of course no two performances are the same anyway. But I think I understand what you mean, capybara. I think that Osipova is like an old (not literally!) Hollywood star - whatever character she's portraying, she's always ultimately herself. A bit like Nureyev, who was always Nureyev. But I find her so fascinating and her dancing so blazingly intense, individual and impressive that I don't mind that. She (like Nureyev) sweeps all away in front of her. But there's also a slight sense of fragility, or even sometimes inconsistency, that for me just adds to the drama. I understand why it might have a different effect on others, though.

I agree about Matthew Golding, but wasn't fortunate enough to see Nunez as Myrthe.

A dancer mentioned to me the other day that some audience members seem to 'fall so in love' with a dancer that they lose their ability to differentiate his/her wonderful performances from the average and even weak ones. I don't think I'm guilty (well, not yet anyway) but I found it a salutary comment nonetheless - I must be careful 

 

I would also like to say that I am feeling increasingly inhibited on here in terms of posting a personal review which is anything other than laudatory. I returned from the Osipova/Golding Giselle three weeks ago with thoughts that it would have been nice to share but I felt that the wrath of ages would descend on me even if any criticism was balanced with much praise.

That's a real shame, capybara. I think it all depends on how criticism is expressed - i.e. not cruel, dismissive, destructive or simply rude. I read very few such comments on the forum and ideally there would be none. It's like reviews/critics - there are some reviews that are simply nasty and personal. But thoughtful/appropriately expressed criticism should always be welcomed (even if it's in respect of one's own favourite dancer/s! And even we don't in fact agree with it).

I wanted to share with the forum a very special part of my niece’s wedding last weekend: she and her soon-to-be-husband walked up the aisle together to the finale music from The Firebird. As the familiar notes started very very quietly and slowly, the congregation turned to the back of the church and waited to see the bride and groom, and we waited and watched as the music grew slowly and gradually, and the volume rose, and they started walking forward and the music swelled again, and the magnificent sound reached its full pitch of glory as they arrived at the sanctuary. I’ve always loved the ballet and the music, and of course since the finale depicts the wedding of Prince Ivan and the Tsarevna it was highly appropriate. It was incredibly powerful and effective, and (for me at least!) unbelievably moving. And I will never be able to watch The Firebird again without this (joyful) association!

I've just been to the Encore showing at Wimbledon Odeon. Wonderful to see the close-ups (and the backcloth which I never see much of from the Amphi). Nunez and Muntagirov absolutely stunning, again! I found the presenter very patronising, but exciting interviewees and rehearsal footage, including several comments I'd never heard before: Peter Wright saying that the sword takes control of Giselle, and chases her - very interesting concept!; and Nathalie Harrison saying that one of the 'poses' of the Wilis is as if they're holding the babies they never gave birth to, from marriages that never happened. Unbearably moving. Not a very large audience, but clearly very absorbed. These screenings really are brilliant.

Oh and another thing that really struck me was Muntagirov right at the end - his expression of exultation, relief, love, joy. Not grief or shame, now; he is experiencing the joy of redemption AFTER the guilt and agony. Which was so beautiful. If Albrecht is still only grief-stricken at the end, it doesn't convey the whole point of the ballet.

I wasn't just talking about soloists, I was responding to the point about talent "at all levels".

The point about guest principles was more about filling a short term gap at the required standard - they don't have to be world famous, although that does appear to draw an audience e.g Osipova. However, I don't see 'buying in' as a long term strategy, and would still like to see the internal promise developed, but need to make sure they are truly world class, so that the company continues to be respected on the international stage.

That last point is interesting. It implies that the RB must ensure that it's showing world-class dancers, regardless of whether or not they are RB dancers or have come through the company or school. Shouldn't the company be respected for producing such dancers, rather than just employing them? If it is in a slightly fallow period (which is perhaps arguable), perhaps it should show the best it does have and be judged on that.

I was a bit nonplussed by this. Nice to see Ferri 'out there' in the real world, so to speak; but is it really the use of Boot products (or any other products!) that has kept her body so strong and supple? I think not. She's a tremendous advert for ballet training, and for sheer artistry regardless of age; but not for beauty products.