bridiem

I got Donkey too. My toes are protesting in anticipation.

I see that for the Dubai programme they are (prominently) billed as 'Principal Dancers of the Roayl Opera House', which is obviously inaccurate in two respects. Maybe it has been cleared with the Royal (or Roayl) Opera House/Ballet for Polunin to be billed in this way. But much as I love both of these dancers, I have to say that I'm beginning to feel quite uncomfortable with (and sad about) how they are managing/promoting themselves.

That's interesting. But I haven't noticed her shoes looking different from any others until last night. Maybe she chose a particularly old/soft pair because of the fast footwork (no idea if you'd want soft shoes for that or not!). It looked to me as if they were a bit too soft, in fact - almost like slippers. But clearly she must know what she wants out of her shoes! Not ideal though if they look so battered that the audience notices. (I speak as someone who has great difficulty wearing/walking in any sort of shoes, so really I have no right at all to pass comment on minor variations in the shoes of someone who dances en pointe in a pair of flimsy satin ballet shoes...).

My sister and I were at the Thanksgiving Service for the life of Bryony Brind in Essendon, Herts, today. The church was absolutely packed and the service was very beautiful and extremely moving. The entrance music was Swan Lake Act 1, The Lord of the Dance was included in the hymns, and Swan Lake Act 4 brought the service to a close. Above all, this was a wonderful tribute to someone who was clearly very much loved. I am so grateful to have known her through her performances, which were evidently a true reflection of her loving and generous personality.

I was at the ROH last night. I loved Rhapsody and was especially pleased that the costumes have been restored to something more like the originals - a much better reflection of the fizz and dazzle of the choreography. There is so much to see too - richness, depth and subtlety - it's so much more than a pretty setting of the beautiful music which at first it might appear to be. I thought McRae was sensational - brilliant technique and musicality - but I also slightly missed the air of insouciance that the role (unreasonably!) also asks for. I am a huge fan of Osipova and there was a lot that was lovely about her performance, but I did think that there were times when (to my surprise) she struggled a bit with the speed of the footwork. I also thought that there were times when the men were surprisingly ragged, whereas the women seemed much more comfortable. I wonder if the men in particular are so used to being asked to do everything as BIG and HIGH and STRONG as possible that they find it very difficult to dance on a 'smaller' scale that requires enormous precision as well as fluidity and an apparently effortless grace. But overall it was an exciting performance of a gorgeous work. The Two Pigeons is itself like a living work of art. No step or note out of place, and it seems to get more and more satisfying as it goes along until the final reconciliation pas de deux brings it to an absolutely perfect and profoundly moving close. As when I saw it last autumn, the audience (including me!) simply couldn't wait until the curtain had fallen before starting the applause and cheering. Cuthbertson, Muntagirov and all the dancers brought such conviction to the work that it seemed as if they had been dancing it for years. Let's hope they will be!

The Flames of Seasons in Wonderland... Sounds like the experience of a life of ballet-going!

I saw the performance this evening. I enjoyed it very much and thought all the performances were excellent and it was very absorbing. I wasn't always sure, though, about the way the dancing and the words worked together. The words were so rich and so specific that the dance didn't seem to really be necessary to interpret them further - I almost felt that mime would have been just as effective if physical interpretation was wanted (as some of the mime/gesture in fact was). Or perhaps words followed by dance, so that the dance could speak its own language rather than following the words so closely. But the performers were all so talented that they made it work, and Yanowsky was tremendous - powerful, moving and beautiful. At the end, you really felt you had been in the Elizabethan court and world, with a monarch both headstrong and vulnerable at its centre. A very interesting and rewarding evening.

What a shame, Alison - but I hope that in fact the enjoyment was only temporarily dissipated! Sounds as if you and many other forum members were at a memorable performance, so a great way to mark your birthday.

No, I deliberately booked at the front because I was wary of the pillars. I think that they might possibly interfere a bit if you were sitting at certain points in the curve of the circle, but I didn't get the impression that they would be a big problem from anywhere. But it would be interesting to hear how it is if anyone does sit further back.

Lucky you!! It is totally riveting. (It only lasts about an hour - when I found out that, I felt slightly aggrieved beforehand since that's not exactly a full evening offering; but in the event it didn't matter at all since it was so gripping that time was irrelevant.)

Not sure if it's OK to comment on a preview, but if so... I saw this on Saturday evening, and it was amazing. Superbly danced and incredibly powerful. If I hadn't read the programme I don't think I would have had a clue about the specifics of the story (in fact, even having read the programme I didn't know what was actually going on for most of the time). But the general theme/s (love, hatred, revenge, power etc) did emerge gradually (though I don't think the much-touted gender issues came across much for me, except in that Amba's revenge was only possible in a male form). But visually and emotionally it was absolutely fascinating and built up to a terrific climax. I hadn't been to the Roundhouse for many years, and it's a brilliant venue - atmospheric and intimate, in spite of its size. Very effective and imaginative sets and beautiful music/singing from the four actors in the cast. Khan's choreography/staging stunning. A piece that would repay many viewings; but sadly, no more possible for me!

I don't imagine any of us are acquainted with Bussell's personal motivations in her work choices or conduct, so in my view comment should be confined to what she does (or could do, or could not do) - not why she does it. (And my view of her as a dancer has no relevance to my opinion of her as a presenter.)

Thanks, Janet and capybara - I wasn't speculating, just confused! (Thought I'd missed something.)

I thought she was only out for the autumn performances so I assumed she was back now especially since she's been dancing elsewhere. Is she not doing Rhapsody either then? Wouldn't (shouldn't) the ROH website show the new casting/s if so?

I find that if I've really loved a performance I seem to find superhuman hand/arm strength; if it's been so-so, the clapping quickly becomes a struggle.

This is anecdotal too, but I've quite often been disappointed by the audience not clapping enough generally! (There's a limit to how much one person can help it along...). There are plenty of performances where I would happily go on clapping for ages afterwards (but I realise that the dancers are probably aching to go home by then). I get frustrated when sometime curtain calls are 'milked' and at other times the curtain stays down when I'm sure more calls could have been taken. I'm not sure to what extent the number of calls is completely fixed in advance or are a real reflection of the audience's response.

Just to say that I read FLOSS's first paragraph as basically factual, with no automatically positive or negative inference about any of the groups mentioned.

Delighted about the above - but shouldn't David Bintley have been knighted too, especially this year??

I agree with you, billboyd; but I also think that Bussell could afford to be a bit more serious and it would still please/interest the target audience whilst conveying a slightly more 'serious' message about ballet. But equally, I think that ballet can speak for itself to at least some extent - although the presenter is important, the beauty is evident whoever presents it, for those who have eyes to see. And although the style of the documentary was lightweight, there was a lot of good content too.

P.S. Apologies for making a gender assumption here. Should have said his/her, she/he, etc. Though of course that would have produced a longer post.

I hope that FLOSS will NOT shorten her posts; they are long because she is putting forward complex ideas and arguments as well as factual information. And I'm very grateful to her for doing so. (Writing is not ballet, unless perhaps you're writing poetry.)

I think that Schaufuss and Mukhamedov were indeed both brilliant dancers (the Spartacus clips were incredible!), and important in various ways, but I agree with FLOSS that they weren't ground-breaking in quite the same way as most of the other dancers who were featured. But since they did have particular significance in this country I was glad to see them included, and I suppose since the programme was called 'Darcey's Ballet Heroes' (I think) they could legitimately be included on that ground. I found it slightly irritating that reference was made to Eric Underwood's modelling (of course dancers often have beautiful bodies and are often very attractive, so I'm sure most of them could do modelling if they chose/had time to do so). But if it makes dancing/dancers appear 'cool' to a wider/younger audience I suppose that's good (or at least OK!). I agree with your last sentence, Janet, though I think I actually got more than I expected! Really interesting footage and some great interviews (eg with Arthur Mitchell). Seeing Bruhn dance was thrilling, and seeing him and Nureyev together was very moving. And I'd forgotten quite how sensational Baryshnikov was.

Have finally been able to watch this. I agree with the above comments, except that I got rather irritated by the constant implication that contemporary dance in its freedom and reality is somehow superior to classical ballet in its rigidity and artificiality. It didn't question/challenge the validity of any of the statements being made about contemporary dance or the quality of any of the work/s shown; it was all accepted as automatically good and enlightening. That said, there was a lot of fascinating early footage, including of Pina Bausch who was a breathtakingly beautiful dancer when young (and, in fact, when older), and the whole development of contemporary dance was very well covered. Wonderful to see Nijinska, and Ashton talking about the importance of continuity (unlike many other contributors) in relation to asking her to revive Les Noces. And seeing Akram Khan dance, no matter how briefly, is always a reason to celebrate. Given that contemporary dance was clearly shown to have developed as a reaction against classical ballet, I did wonder (not for the first time) on what grounds Wayne McGregor (regardless of any estimation of the quality of his work) is deemed to be the right person to be resident choreographer of the Royal Ballet. But that opens up a whole different can of worms.

A very illuminating interview. Interesting that some dancers (people) flourish within the structures of a company, and some find them restrictive; I suppose this is reflected in other professions too, and happens for all sorts of complicated reasons many of which we (and even the person involved) can't necessarily fully understand. At least Polunin is now reflecting in a more positive way on the nature of ballet and no doubt his views will continue to develop over time as he gets older and experiences more, both in ballet and in life. The comparison with football is interesting too; I support Liverpool FC, where the club is and always will be the thing, and the greatest players (and managers) have shared that ethos. Of course ballet needs stars; but stars need companies, and (often) guidance and formation to achieve the full extent of their greatness.

I'm very fond of Darcey, but she's clearly working to a brief and is actually a lot more effective and less nervous when she's allowed to be more herself. So I wish the producers (or whoever) would be less prescriptive and allow the interviews to be a bit more serious/informative, and as you say let the audience decide for itself whether it's fabulous.