Jamesrhblack

Have been musing on this afternoon. Becoming doesn't work for me. It seems too unvaried and there's not enough differentiation of gender which I had taken to be the point of the novel (think Tiresias). There was some jaw droppingly impressive dancing, including from Campbell and Choe (the latter surprised me) but also Cowley (who I always love) and ?Edmonds? but monotony set in for me. I now, I then is simply beautiful and could well work alone. I was pleased that I had done my homework and read Mrs Dalloway as the relationships between the characters became clearer. I'm not sure I'm a fan of Woolf's stream of consciousness style, but dance with its ability to superimpose generations physically before you suits it well and I thought the whole cast outstanding with special kudos for Matthew Ball, Yuhui Choe (there I go again, never take anyone for granted) and Calvin Richardson, but also Yasmine Naghdi, Mayara Magri, Ryoichi Hirano and Tomas Mock. Above all, how wonderful to see Mara Galeazzi back on the ROH stage. Still wondrously lissome, she has now an extraordinary quality of still intensity that I found mesmerising to watch. Tuesday moved me very much. After the reading of the letter, I watched the initial pas de deux remembering Wayne McGregor saying that it was "an exchange of weight" and I was now able to see that as the balance within the marriage that Woolf describes so movingly. The desolation of Galeazzi's back as she sat and removed her shoes was heartbreaking and when the corps de ballet emerged it seemed to me that she was seeing within the inter relationship of "the waves" the support that she had experienced with her husband and in whose arms she now sort solace. As she became at one with them, moving with their rhythm, and the repeated musical figures (including a solo by one of my sopranos!) suggested the timelessness of dying and of a life slowly releasing, I found my eyes damp and the final laying down as peace was achieved for this brilliant but tortured woman will long live with me. I don't think Woolf Works is flawless, but I will go to the cinema for a second proper experience (my first two years ago was marred by a bad seat, no programmes being available so I was essentially clueless, compounded by having forgotten my glasses) and, of course, to see Ferri, Watson et al, but its finest moments seem to me to show McGregor working in a way more sympathetic to music and situation than is always the case (it does concern me that he choreographs without music) and there are some hauntingly beautiful moments where music, choreography, design (and execution) come together remarkably compellingly.

Really enjoyed seeing this beautiful production again. Giselle always makes me feel very nostalgic. My father's sisters on the Isle of Sheppey had a highlights disc of the old Covent Garden production that was played endlessly (I still have the Ace of Clubs LP with a photograph of Margot Fonteyn on the cover) and it was the first ballet I saw at Covent Garden in 1970 (a matinée with Antoinette Sibley and Donald Macleary - I can still remember her ankle deep in flowers at what was her first CG performance in the role). Having become rather used to the current RB production some of the design seems perhaps a little "theatrical" rather than naturalistic (which is, I imagine, a definite part of the conception) but I enjoyed the pacing of the First Act and had forgotten how effective that remarkable Fugue is in Act Two. I don't see enough of ENB to have a real feel for the company as dancers but two things in particular impressed me. Given the discrepancy of training and background, the unanimity of the ladies of the corps de ballet in Act Two was remarkable (and I loved the off white tutus tapering into the green and brown of mud) and the accomplished and expressive playing (much acclaimed by the audience too) of the orchestra, especially during what has been a long run under the ever invigorating baton of Gavin Sutherland. Extraordinarily, this was the first time I had seen Alina Cojocaru as Giselle. Indeed, apart from a distant memory of her in the Makarova Beauty, I don't think I've seen her in a nineteenth century classic apart from La Sylphide. There was much to explain why she is so highly regarded in this role. Some exquisite details in Act One suggesting both fragility and coquetry, some touching gaucheness, an almost catatonic Mad Scene, a sensation of light and air in Act Two with the coquetry developed in to something more dangerously seductive and a remarkable sense of pallor and ephemerality at the end. So, why was I not absolutely entranced? Her feet concerned me - I have read that she suffered some damage in early training and her shoes, large and noisy, certainly did not help the illusion. There were also indications that her technique may be slightly on the wane - she abbreviated the hops in Act One and towards the end of Act Two some of the jumps in ensemble were barely attempted and there were incidental moments where feet seemed unstretched. I am probably writing heresy and I don't necessarily expect technical as well as artistic perfection but it wasn't quite the performance I anticipated, lovely and touching as much of it was. Isaac Hernandez has an evidently fine technique but I'm not sure that it is yet put at the service of character rather than display. There was a little more chemistry between him and Cojocaru than I had sensed in Romeo and Juliet in Manchester last year and he partners with due care. However, in Act One it was hard to sense any real affection let alone love for Giselle and there was never that sense in Act Two of Albrecht being drawn against his will in to the fatal dance. The entrechats six were there but unrythimcally and it was the one moment where the conductor really had to adapt his chosen tempo to adapt to the dancer's technical need. I was impressed by Michaela DePrince. Of course, her life story is inspiring but I found she had a captivating presence and a stunningly impressive jump. Maturity might bring greater implacability and sense of character and some of her bourrees might have been a little neater (those for her final exit were particularly wide) but her freedom of movement was really rather wonderful to behold in this splendidly extended version of one of the great killers of the repertoire and decidedly better than anyone I've recently seen at the RB in the role. I'm quibbling. I've been more moved by Giselle up the road (Park and Wall, Collier and Mukhamedov, Osipova and Acosta) but it was still a lovely evening. What a beautiful ballet it is, the romantic vision turned on its head with the female now as the avenger and yet ending in loving forgiveness and some sense of understanding.

Yes, I did have a little wish that Yanowsky would be partnered by Clarke. They were so beautiful together in After the Rain. I guess the demands of a broadcast and a probable DVD made that unlikely and Yanowsky was fantastic with Bolle in Manon...

Oh that's a shame that it's such a big injury. He's usually a dancer I enjoy and I thought he was wonderful as The Creature...

You'd think it might be Campbell or Hay but both are too small for Morera. Thin pickings for Golding and Kish.

Thank you so much for posting. It has been over thirty years since I last saw this beautiful production (at the Coliseum with Patricia Ruane and Jay Jolley) and I am looking forward very much to seeing it again next week. It is so good to read an article that concentrates on the nature of the work and its presentation quite as much as who danced what and how. Of course, that is important, but it is also salutary to be reminded of the values that have a kept a work and its production in the repertorie.

My stream was late to start too Duck

Seeing this on 29 and delighted that one of my artists is conducting it :-)

Wasn't it Itziar Mendizabal....

I'm Balcony for the matinees on 16 and 18 Janet

There seemed rather more than that when I was booking other tickets over New Year. My comment was not intended as a slight on Hayward (and with Campbell dancing it was my immediate go to performance) but an observation on the interest also being generated in Naghdi and Ball.

Just caught up properly with The Nutcracker programme as half watched through an anti biotic haze on Christmas Day and thoroughly enjoyed. I'd agree with Mary that Alexander Campbell was Man of the Match (an analogy I think he'd like) and enjoyed seeing the involvement of the school at all levels. With regard to the emphasis on Francesca Hayward, I can absolutely understand those who feel that, in particular, Yasmine Naghdi was overlooked. Indeed, in years to come, it may well be that Ms Naghdi moves ahead as with her slightly longer lines she seems a more obviously classical dancer and it's interesting that both her Beauties are sold out whereas tickets remain for Hayward's second. Not having seen her in a full length I'm really looking forward to that, especially as her partnership with Matthew Ball seems by all accounts very special indeed. Interesting too how these (not rivalries) pairs of dancers seem to emerge, Bussell and Bull, Rojo and Cojocarou, that can serve as real mutual inspiration as well as being exciting for audiences. That's not to forget Calvert and Stix-Brunell, of course.... However, Francesca Hayward's story was ideal TV. Inspired as a very young child to dance here she is dancing the role of her inspiration in the production that inspired her coached by the (wonderful) dancer who she first saw dancing it. You'd need to be a curmudgeon of the first degree not to find that seasonally heart warming.

Interesting. I wonder with whom Naghdi had been intended to dance given that they seem increasingly partnered together to wonderful reports: I'm looking forward to their Beauty very much. I understand that current management prefers a degree of flexibility rather than established partnerships but they do seem to be developing: not just Naghdi and Ball (let's not forget Salenko and McRae) but also Hayward and Campbell (who could well be the Collier and Jeffries of their generation as well as wonderful artists in their own right), Nunez and Muntagirov and Takada and Hay (does his stature obviate success in the Prince roles? I've yet to see him in that capacity but he's a dancer I like). Who will snaffle Reece Clarke? Cuthbertson and Yanowsky are both getting a chance, although the wonderful Zenaida is, of course, retiring ....

I am sure that her last Marguerite will, quite rightly, be with Bonelli but imagine if it were to be with Clarke. Their partnership in After the Rain was something very special and the May / September (or even February / September) element would surely be heartbreakingly appropriate in Ashton's conception of Marguerite & Armand...

Many thanks indeed, most useful. Interesting to see that solo: it's much more referenced to the subject matter (as in gifts and blessings to the baby) than the usual one that seems undancebale by almost anybody with any semblance of ease. Was it always like that? I don't recall Bergsma, Derman, Eyden, Mason and Wylde struggling: the first time it seemed a problem was for lovely Marguerite Porter and I've seen some real stinkers since then (Christmas spirit and etiquette forbids naming names)....

I interpreted it as a clumsy way of their expressing that it was the first time he had danced the role as a Principal, it being neither a principal nor role debut....

That's extremely interesting to read. I have laboured under a misapprehension for too many years it would seem...

It was created by Marie Petipa and was originally a mime role.

Possibly not a surprise but still very sad and she will be missed. One thinks of her so much as a dancer of gravitas with a remarkable long limbed elegant beauty and yet I'll never forget her as Manon, whether the first time around with Kenneth Greve or the last one with Roberto Bolle, a role in which she was completely uninhibited and astonishingly communicative. The memory of her tender partnership with Reece Clarke in After the Rain will long linger too. I'll certainly try to catch her remaining performances.

Sorry to put a spanner in the works here. The last time I saw Bayadère (ROH 2009 with Cuthbertson, Soares and a disastrously miscast McMeekan - very sad as she was a dancer I loved) I came away with the firm impression that this ballet's time was past and that it played disastrously, with its limp narrative and tinkly score, to all the prejudices that many hold against classical ballet as an art form. Yes, the choreography for the Shades is truly beautiful and I can see a reason to preserve that Act as Nureyev did, but, in general, I would have hoped that there were more interesting and creative projects in which BRB might be investing. Obviously, I'm not presenting my opinion as gospel - it is nothing more than a personal opinion.

And not Kish either (scheduled to partner Choe) - in Beauty I mean...

Gosh, that was in a completely different class to what I saw at the cinema (Nunez, Bonelli) and on Saturday afternoon (Lamb, Bonelli). It has poise, flow, inflection and it's also danced at a rather quicker tempo. The cinema showing in particular seems positively lugubrious in recollection...

Kevin O"Hare did mention that but I have to say I have never seen that referenced anywhere else amongst the physical similarities that existed between Anna Anderson and Anastasia - deformation of the feet, height, eye colour, extensive physical scars on her body....

Kevin O'Hare mentioned the birthmark at the Insights evening but I've not come across this reference anywhere else...

Good Morning Aileen, It's a purely personal interpretation of the oft repeated gesture. To my eye, it seems "uncourtlly," slightly rueful and in its naturalism removed from standard etiquette and I think my interpretation is based on the individual nature of the stance compared to the other characters and influenced by thoughts of the ballet's concentration on memory and identity I've seen it as an expression of independence and self development. I've really not expressed that very well but because of where it occurs in the ballet it seemed viable to me. Although, of course, its appearance in the last act would originally have come first which may or may not make a difference. The outstretched hand I've read as a mirror extension. Anna Anderson looks in to her hand to see who she is and then extends it to us the audience either in affirmation of her identity or in a question to us. Or, indeed, both... Often, there are no concrete answers and wider discussion can help fix thoughts or open up new ones. I'll continue to cogitate. The introduction of Anna Anderson at the start was new this time round I believe: I certainly don't recall that from 2004.