Jump to content

Lizbie1

Members
  • Posts

    2,177
  • Joined

Reputation

4,199 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

2,643 profile views
  1. Agree, they do seem to make a lot of mistakes on the website. It's normal in "bigger" websites to have to have someone approve any edits before they're published - I wonder whether they just don't have this in place, either because they're short-handed or their system doesn't have this built in or set up.
  2. I keep thinking of how it's been better received than almost anything they've commissioned from a big name in years. (Flight Pattern is the main exception I think?)
  3. Well - they've just posted a clip of the fish dives from the broadcast. Seems slower than I remember them from the first night. Edited to add: my guess is that few minds will be changed by this - mine certainly wasn't.
  4. I liked it a lot the first time round and much less the second, which for me is the big test.
  5. Yes - but I think not rejected by Ratmansky when he made his quasi-authentic version. So presumably he considered them in keeping with the whole.
  6. Thank you! Really, this kind of discussion is what makes this forum so valuable - disagreeing civilly with reasons attached rather than people simply saying, "you're wrong".
  7. Everyone has a different way of viewing things, but there are two counter-arguments I'd like to make to those in favour of the slower fish dives. The first is that speed is definitely not the opposite of musicality, and in my opinion not the opposite of lyricism either - both require give-and-take, and as I think Jeanette said, the fish dives offer contrast and punctuation to the slower passages. The second is about interpretation. While Act III presents to us the "fulfilled" Aurora, she is still a very young woman (notwithstanding her long sleep!) and a new bride; not a queen or even a young matron. She should be as capable of excitement and energy as she is in Act I, and the fish dives remind us of that. But really I have to be honest and say that the thrill of the faster dives is a large part of my preference for them.
  8. I didn't sign up for the streaming so can't test this - but maybe part of the problem is the modern dread of looking messy or imperfect? Watching Eagling and Park - and you have to make allowances for this being a live performance in a difficult space - you see lots of moments which are far from picture perfect. But it works! Edited to add: I did however see it live on opening night with O'Sullivan and Sambe and agree with the more negative reviews here.
  9. Looking at that 1982 performance, it's not just the lightness and apparent ease, it's the sheer flow! I would really like to see Hayward in this - lightness and flow are her hallmarks, IMO. I don't know who I'd have partnering her though.
  10. I don't understand why they have published seat maps when the prices on them are still unconfirmed. It's a very strange thing to do.
  11. I don't mind the SPF's wig in this respect as it just reflects the 18th century fashion for powdered (not blonde) hair. The Titania wig is definitely open to question though.
  12. You remind me of the (apocryphal?) story about someone forgetting to photocopy the middle four pages of Gorecki's Totus Tuus and nobody noticing, least of all the performers.
  13. The problem IMO is that a lot of the so-called period wigs are more reflective of the era in which they were designed than the period they were meant to evoke.
  14. This is the thing! I find it hard to believe that such fine technicians as Nunez and Muntagirov aren't capable of doing it faster.
×
×
  • Create New...