Bruce Wall

Yes, Alison. It is the Ashton. Here's the season link: http://www.bostonballet.org/cinderella/ (Sorry, it is to be presented in March and not Christmas as I originally suggeted).

What a wonderful programme (No. 1) presented by Boston Ballet last night. It was SO refreshing .... I only wished that the Faun had been the Robbins (which is also in their rep) as it is less seen here. Wonderful dancing - so colourfully individual within the framework of the whole - Misa Kuranaga, Bradley Schlagheck (who appeared in three out of the four selections - so different in each), the stunning Whitney Jensen, Lorna Feijoo - and especially Paulo Arrais and a radiant Kathleen Breen Combes in that life-enriching pas de deux in Symphony in Three Movements - stand out just now in my mind's eye. What a rich canvas was on display. Also it was glorious to see the Serenade and Symphony in Three Movements as remounted by (i) Judith Fugate and (ii) Russell Kaiser (now the Assistant AD at Boston Ballet). Having seen these fine artists dance so much during their time with NYCB, you could see their own form through Balanchine's masterful dance drama although nothing was in any way distorted (which sadly could not be said for certain elements in the RB's recent Symphony in C showings - and [before anyone asks] I say that having seen four of their recent performances - and (on the positive balance) thought Marianella absolutely radiant in the second movement on each occasion.) The BB dancers told the thrilling drama in each THROUGH THE DANCE itself. That was exactly as the doctor ordered methinks. Certainly there was no harshly distorted barnstorming in place of the detail of the choreography. The whole here was GLORIOUSLY REFRESHING and, through the whole, the individual was glorified which was, I think, as Balanchine wanted. He knew his ballets would live in that way. (Of course, ALL masterworks somehow survive irregardless. That is their BRILLIANCE.) How I wish BB could dance here more often. (A pipe dream I know.) It would be most instructive to see them do Ashton's Cinderella (which they are doing for Xmas in Boston). How wonderful if you could bring that and, say, the fine programme from the Ashton Festival by Sarasota Ballet (I. Webb, AD) to Sadler's Wells and see how those works differed from more recent memories of our experiences with the Royal Ballet. This would also allow O'Hare to further concentrate on his programmes of new work which he has so proudly and rightly devoted the company to for the benefit of all and our collective future. Perhaps this could be matched with, say, ABT's or NBoC's Month in the Country in a mixed programme of varying companies such as they show in festivals at the Kennedy Center. Surely this would be worthy of a small slice of lottery subsidy in the sense of a 'Heritage Returned via an International Prism'. It could, I think, be telling - and certainly lead to a further and healthy debate/education for an ever burgeoning many without (one hopes) diminishing quality. (Of course, I know, I KNOW this won't happen ... but just imagine if it could!!!) Perhaps a series of live cinema relays co-ordinated by the ROH's Opus Arte in such a regard might do the trick .... Again, I realise this is just a dream ... but surely that's where all good things begin ... (don't they????).

While Leanne may have RETIRED from the RB, this programme for her is FAR from RETIRING !!

Thanks for this interesting piece, Bruce. It is telling to note, however, that many of the changes that the author is proposing are having to be made RIGHT NOW with the very real impact of the previous funding cuts to both of the noted organisations. We will see the very real outcome of those shortly. The ENB of the year after next will HAVE to be very different if it is to BE at all. The further 5% cut as noted will come in 2015 and there are - as already promised - further cuts for the following two years which are yet to be registered as those spending reviews have yet to be contemplated. Much like the new Governor of the Bank of the England (and let's pray he tries to truly remain more independent from the government's pull than his predecessor) artistic leaders may well have to administer radical reform to have ANY impact at all, They will not be allowed to stand still. The new Governor may well have to announce an interest rate rise within a certain specific juncture - say every six months - if he is to FORCE people to go out and buy/borrow in the now. He can't just go on printing money to add on to our (great)grandchildren's debt. So too might the managements of these artistic companies have to seek what in other times would be thought to be far too risky swims - (or is it now they will simply have to be more open in such pursuits?). Ironically the ENO - which had been long dribbling along in the fat of previous affection - has of late - with, say, the stunning productions of Wozzeck, Death and Venice and The Perfect American - been fulfilling the mandate they had all too long ignored; one wholly deserving of their subsidy received. I pray they can be salvaged to fulfill an on-going renewed focus. I, for one, will understand if that is not possible. As in everything, it is a case of agendas. As it is all of their productions are co-productions with three or four different organisations. I have a feeling that number of participants may well have to grow if these are to survive. Of course it may - much as sadly was the case with the core of the once noted NYC Opera - not be sufficient for survival. I pray that the Coliseum itself is somehow protected. It was built at the end of the heyday when theatre itself was mass media. When NYCO left the NY State (now David Koch) Theatre, it left it as a dance palace (e.g., 'the house that Balanchine built' as it it's sweetly known by locals). ABT now has a contract for the next five years there for its Fall season. Who would have previously thought? Not me, and I daresay not Kevin McKenzie. NOW there is a chance - albeit slim - for Tamara to storm the Coliseum with the ENB. If anyone can do it - I think she can. This is her chance to be a 21st century de Valois. ENB will no doubt have to be reformed - indeed it MUST. SURELY THAT IS ON THE CARDS NOW - NOT IN TWO YEARS TIME - AND OF COURSE THERE WILL/(MUST) BE CURRENT PAIN IF THERE IS TO BE THE POSSIBILITY FOR FUTURE GAIN. It MUST, of course, be different from the Royal Ballet - but then that too I think can be a good thing. Much as was the case with Serena Williams yesterday - it won't come without a goodLY number of fights. Press on Madam Rojo. That's what some might call 'teaching' - although perhaps not by one Mr. Gove. ('Where is your certificate, dear?' might be echoed.) As the screws tighten EVER further ... and they will .... perhaps EVEN more radical approaches will be required. What if there was a ACE programme to help subsidize TV programmes like the reality documentary series that was done on ENB by Sky Arts. If you can't beat the reality commercial band then why not join them on your own terms; in a way that would at least be within touching distance of the relevant artform. This would - well, MIGHT - help to inform the public and would (hopefully) bring into focus the young artists (British born and otherwise - although the immigration policies are helping to refine this) who are at its core (the older ones having been more expensive and easily expendable ... as ever in life's own cruel toll ... Nothing new there.) Of one thing I'm certain THIS 'austerity' period - once the shock of the memory of what was can fade - (and there will be casualties on THAT wayside as well) - will bring with it renewed vigor. As in any surviving garden you have to cut back to grow anew .... otherwise it is merely the weeds that ultimately remain. I agree with the comments made about the funding of the community sector. Too much of THAT was all too patronising ... and went on for far too long. [This I saw first hand for myself] It oft provided but a chance for ACE to applaud/celebrate themselves on a basis rooted far from the quality (or lack of) the artwork being produced/delivered.) Of course we may not like the new off-shoots in the short term. As ever, we will have to learn to live with them ... or move elsewhere. (Is this not STILL a free country?) The choice of the seeds is for our leaders. They have to live/die by their choices. They must be free to make them. Of course, we vote in their ultimate terms with our subsidy. The problem is oft having leaders who can sit nowhere but on the proverbial fence. David Nixon cannot be blamed for that. He is dealing with the realty as creatively as he can. Not everyone may love McGregor but it was clear from the Kevin O'Hare's recent LBC chat that this is where his key commitment for the RB's current future is to be. I applaud that. McGregor (regardless of what you think of him) has shown himself clearly developing a voice at the RB FOR THE RB and has begun to shape the company in his mold. I think now we know what we mean by a McGregor dancers. Also he has kept to a balletic idiom. That has now begun to reflect in ALL of the work that the company does. Much as people may have thought of the RB historically as an 'Ashton' Company, then a 'McMillan' company - now the RB is - at least from my perspective - and I mean this as a compliment of recognition/achievement - a 'McGregor' Company. The other two key current RB associates seem to be sharing their gifts a little too generously to commit to this hold. Commitment surely is ALL. Once either party deflects the potential (and danger) of that bloom is gone. If a company today is to have a shape - and currently they MUST if they are to swim - then they must have a recognisable voice within which all else can be recognised. Ratmansky - after such a long time - is bringing this to ABT. (He could not have come sooner - and his commitment there is to 2020.) (It is here that of late the Bolshoi has struggled. If there was an internal vision would they have the extremity of the problems they now possess? I don't know .. but I think it might not. .... Gergiev is very clear in wanting to bring the Mariinsky 'back to Russia' and he now has the tool to do it with. The roaming days are over, he says. He has got the money and he's heading home.) I applaud Mr. O'Hare for holding the courage of his conviction's choice. That bravery in and of itself deserves applause. That is, of course, his job. (Sadly few have the guts to do it.) Being the poster boy for its success he will have to stand to face its failure. In all stand he must. He will I'm sure because he seems more than refreshingly content with that responsibility. Bravo. If there is going to be something for anyone to revive in the future that is the only way to go; to give a snapshot of our time through the balletic arts.

I especially enjoyed the two segments from the Stuttgart Ballet.

I think you are being a tad unfair to I. Vasiliev here,,Aileen. There can be no question but that his placement needs refinement but his assets can, I think, not be denied upon a world stage. In his most recent interview with the NY Times Mr. Vasiliev came over (at least to me) as ultimately 'teachable' and most certainly dedicated. This is someone who - whatever else one may think and feel - loves the artform of dance and is obviously willing to entirely dedicate himself in an effort to achieve the broadest canvas through which to paint his art. The memory of his performances in Spartacus (and I have to confess I really DON'T like the ballet) made the work for me not only palatable but stand out in a way no other living dancer has been able to accomplish. The fact THAT memory lives with me even now (without requiring the resource of a filmed record) is (at least to me) astonishing. He is still, I think, finding his way and is eager to learn. That is, I think, a large part of his attraction. There is always more than a certain mystery when he steps up to bat. He invites us to share in the rawness of that adventure. That's what gives him such extraordinary presence/charm as he so ably demonstrated at the end of the first act of Giselle in his recent London performance. Or who could forget his STELLAR performance in Le Jeunne Homme et la mort with ENB - every bit in its way as fine (albeit different) as Nicholas le Riche's world shaking portrayal in that role.) Absurd or not, this is a lad willing to be totally committed in an effort to step beyond. He gives his audience the chance to love or to hate him: He invites us. As he barrels through the air he calls out (with always the glint of a telling smile): 'The choice is yours'. That invitation is, I think, his key. The invitation itself is open (like a wound). It stings and yet is freely humane. That in my book takes guts. That courage cannot be bought or trained. He possessed it when we first saw him in London when he was 17. He is wise to have protected that gift. In an interview I did with Erik Bruhn MANY years ago, I remember him saying of Nureyev that 'there was no inbetween'. I feel the same in that sense might be said about young Vasiliev. (Of course, Nureyev had a more conventional line in his physique ... if not the optimum height. Sadly, Vasiliev has neither but always fires on all cylinders with what he has been graced.) One only wishes certain politicians would share a similar creative dedication and honesty in their work. Would the world be a better place? Perhaps not .. but it certainly wouldn't be boring. There is no question but that Vasiliev did not have the protected opportunities in much of the classical canon that others at a similar level - albeit being thrust there at a very young age - have had. (Here I'm thinking here of Polunin. Certainly it was for me, I think, far less easy to dismiss Polunin's messy Don Q pas at Alina's recent gala - especially having seen his fine work in M&A only recently - than it was some elements of misfire in segments of Laurentia for a Vasiliev who was still recovering from an injury that had taken him out of many of his Notre Dame performances at La Scala only weeks before. Whatever else Vasiliev is ... He's not lazy) Thus Vasiliev is gaining his 'classical' experience in front of the world's eyes in a largely unprotected format. He has had to fight for that right. In a sense, it has been the award of his defection from the Bolshoi which sometimes seems to me - from all the recent items quoted on this forum - a nation state foreign unto itself. I applaud him for his bravery in that pursuit. This is, I think, what Ratmansky was attempting to relate when he was interviewed for that NYT piece. I have to say that I am also much impressed that he has taken the time to attempt to learn several different languages, having seen clips of interviews with him in both English and other European languages. It is also clear he is striving to find ways to employ his physique in avenues where it might not otherwise most conventionally fit. For THAT, I - alongside world theatres crammed with cheering others - find myself forced to join in with the shouts of 'Bravo'. I just find myself not able to help it - as much as I know there are aspects where by right I should. I also hope his lack of a 'conventional' male ballet physique gives hope - and, yes, the necessary fight - to 'other boys' who may at times have been retarded in their passion for a similar reason. Of course, Vasiliev is not alone in this regard ... Look at Villella, look at Hubbe (Mr. Thunder Thighs Personified) and just LOOK at Mukhamedov .... They, too, all at certain levels had to fight and unquestionably managed to leave their indelible mark against more conventional odds. I, for one, am willing to give Vasiliev the space I feel he not only deserves but surely at this point has earned. I'm not always a betting man, Aileen, but I think we may well see that refinement in time. If not, it certainly won't I think be for a lack of desire; a lack of trying. .

Sorry to have led to this off-shoot discussion on the DSMC ... Please know that was not my intent. I was trying to be humorous and it seems I failed. Ah, well. Certainly I didn't mean for the comment to be taken literally. OF COURSE Culture IS culture; sport IS sport .... and I used the word 'IF' in my sentence as an operative. I WILL I promise strive NOT to apply what I thought MIGHT be classified as wit in the future IF I feel it will be misunderstood. I have a much more clear idea now of the Board's boundaries. My apologies to ALL for time wasted unnecessarily.

The ENB School performances are in Wimbledon next weekend (alongside the tennis championships) and they have a very winning programme indeed - including Balanchine's brilliant Allegro Brilliante

Bless you, Dave ... but I was ... I think .... speaking with tongue mit cheek .... Still, with the government you can never tell ... even when you think they think they are being obvious

Really???? .... Oh, dear. Then why was the Olympics office lodged within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? Call me simple minded ... (Believe me, Nina, I don't mind!!! .... I wear this title frequently now as a banner of pride!!) .... Please go ahead. You have my sincere blessing. Bless all.

I agree, Anjuli, but IF people REALLY WANT to SEE it as a form of athletics ... then the Olympics is where it will belong ... ALWAYS .... Nowhere else!!! Why? Cos it's the top ... It's the Coliseum .... (and I don't just mean St. Martins Lane ... )

If Ballet is an Athletic Sport ... then I think it is MORE than high time that it has an official stable (or a few) at the Olympics. Answers on an 'official' postcard ... That coverage alone would ensure the artform a bigger client base that it has perhaps EVER known previously!! Now who would be your Gold Medal Winner? .... (and, remember, this is not restricted to Team Britain) ....

Jose Manuel Carreno is a case in point I think, Ian. Whilst ENB and the RB seemingly did not know what to do with him, he became one of the finest male danseurs of his generation (and perhaps several others) at ABT being rightfully hailed on the world's major stages. Was he a different root dancer at ENB / RB? I suspect not. The potential was always there ... It was simply that it was realised 'AT' ABT .... ironically in a company with a rep much akin to that of the RB. I suspect this was a case of Time's agenda as much as anyone else's.

Surely that is just like life. This is, as far as I can tell, the way in practically EVERY profession nowadays (e.g., no more contracts for life ... apart from, say, University tenure ... and even that NOW is 'get-out-able' .... well, more than it used to be.) As in so many instances ... if you REALLY want to be seen in a different role ... IN ALMOST ANY CLIMB ... you NOW have to (be willing to) leave to come back. I think Ms. Messmer expresses this effectively for herself as much as for all of us. Hers is, of course, a philosophy that stretches over so many different thresholds to now be almost expected to head any list marked 'universal' in terms of employment protocol. Refreshingly she comes across as having her head screwed on tightly in an effectively positive position. She does not seem to be functioning from a position of fear which is most edifying. I was impressed, too, with the depiction of her frankness about her relationship / respect for Kevin McKenzie and the very practical realisation that he too needs to exercise/enforce whilst not being able to please all the people all the time. From what one has read in interviews of a similar ilk this has not always been the case in similar relationships at the Royal Ballet during the period of McKenzie's tenure, now extending as it does beyond a quarter of a century. Dancers similar to Ms. Mesmer at the Royal Ballet would have had to fight their fronts within the various trenches/varying administrations of four different RB AD's. For some that will have been a lot of digging I'm certain ... without ever having had to step outside the RB battlefront. I'm confident that Ms. Messmer will benefit from her time with SFB, as will, I know, we all. She goes to another company where the leadership at the top has now, as throughout that Company's history, held substantially firm and well profited from it. I, for one, look forward to seeing her with SFB in Paris next year. Thanks so for posting this link, Ian. It was most instructive.

I have a feeling there may be more departures. It will be very interesting how Tamara grows 'her' ENB company. This is, of course, just her beginning. That in itself offers excitement ... which now is more nigh that it was before

How wonderful that we get a peek at David Hallberg with the Bolshoi

So like life, huh. One wishes Mr. Berlanga well in his future pursuits. He served ENB well during his time in the company.

On a side note - and as a way of attracting potential interest in the dancers - and knowing Tamara's desire to 'step forward' in terms of branding ... I, myself, would love to see film portraits such as are available on the website of the VIENNA STATE BALLET for the dancers at ENB. While they are not, of course, dressed by a leading fashion designer - let alone the legendary Vivenne Westwood - one gets the distinct feeling that each dancer has an input in terms of their own personality for the film segment here ... and the whole gives a very clear picture of both life in and around their opera house and the repertory of their company. It is interesting to note that there are filmed segments for all principals (here noted as first soloists) and others in the soloist - AND EVEN DEMI-SOLOIST - level (including Scottish/UK dancer, Grieg Matthews who graduated from the RBS. This filmed provision, in the RB, would stretch to First Artists. (I do not believe there are even RB bios on the ROH site but I may be wrong.) It is interesting also to see that there is only SIX (6) dancers in this substantive Austrian subsidised company at ANY soloist or principal level who was actually born/reared in Austria. Manuel Legris (surely one of the finest dancers of the last half century ANYWHERE -- well, surely one of the finest dancers I have had the privilege of seeing internationally) has obviously had a keen effect on this company compared with the last time I had the privilege of seeing them which was a couple of decades ago now. http://www.wiener-staatsoper.at/Content.Node/home/kuenstler/taenzerinnen/uebersichtsseite-Taenzer.en.php If such a fine record of introduction were to be possible I, myself, would understand if a company/opera house wanted to restrict their filmed/photographic personnel to specific dedicated artists to help 'build a mutual brand'. If such dedication were sustainable - and that point is, I suppose, arguable - and the results as fine as they are here - then it would, I think, not only be understandable but applauded by a vast many.

Dear Aileen, I think two contributing factors why feedback on Laurretta's DEBUT may have been somewhat curtailed: (i) cost (the price of these seats are genuinely expensive in a period where most people's personal disposable income is contracting and therefore the reality of monetary choices are often constricted against desire) and - much more fundamental - (ii) her debut was on a mid-week matinee when many people now gainfully employed (and therefore able to afford to see her both in terms of leisure time and money) are not able to attend. Of course, I understand that this does not account for those fine readers of the wonderful balletcoforum who are either (i) independently wealthy or (ii) on a scale of benefits larger than, say, the now ever burgeoning (or so it seems to me) number of common working 'people' with ever-shifting levels of pension attainment dates and a multitude of other statutory and sociological concerns ever gathering upon all of their plates as they step up to bat. Somehow, I'm certain that Laurretta herself would understand this and would know (I pray) that the support 'in general' for her fine work is rife within the willingness of our collective spirit. I am sure - well, I would hope - that the interest in the development of any notable performing artist such as Laurretta (and I, for one, have much admired what I have seen in her ascension) would be of keen interest to ANY and ALL balletomanes no matter where they may hail from.

I too attended the LBC meeting with O'Hare. He made it very clear that his priority was concentrating on "in-house" dancing talents. He spoke about the six young people he was taking/had taken in. I still think this will leave him stretched - especially in the current male principal performing ranks. His focus is brave and certainly may prove to be his most prudent decision in the long-run. It certainly does look - attempting to read between his clearly stated lines - that his core priority is the development of the new works by the three designated home talents (i.e., the desired focus being firmly set on the creators rather than the collaborative instruments - not to take anything away from them or these forums, of course.) When an audience member asked him about Tudor he said that he thought 'much of it today seemed rather old fashioned'. Refreshing to hear him say that he had been very impressed by the work of Justin Peck when he was in NYC to see McRae guesting in ABT's Corsaire. Important that he should get about. Grand that he does. (On a side note: Wonder if McRae will guest with ENB in their 'new' production of that work ... given that both will have been fashioned by the same Anne-Marie Holmes. Certainly it will be good to see Vadim in THAT.)

Much thanks, Bruce, for your kind reply. It is keenly appreciated.

The grass is often - if not ALWAYS - greener on other sides. Tis, I fear, the way of the world ... and not reserved to that of the ballet or CERTAINLY the purvey of the Royal Ballet. There are countless examples in oh, so many arenas. Perhaps it is just human nature. Look at the creative talents who are celebrated AFTER their deaths. (Not dancers, of course). Surely that too is but a facet of 'coming back' and crossing (back on) boundaries.

Given that it has been a week since my last posting/request, I just wondered if there had been any advance on this important issue. Much thanks for anyone's kind advice as and when available on behalf of all.

This kind of ratio is fairly standard for an American (e.g., US) arts organisation. The level of Federal support (which then dishes out the monies to the various States' arts panels) is VERY low per capita compared to the British/European models. (I can speak with some authority on this as I sat as a member of, first, the Pennsylvania State Council for the Arts and, later, the (Federal) National Endowment under Jane Alexander's Chairmanship.) That said, it is not as bereft as some of the above postings might have you fear. The BIG difference lies in the tax break given to the individual tax payer who wishes to support the arts. [i ran a LORT (League of Regional Theaters) theatre in the US in the early 80's. At that time (thank you, Mr. Regan) donors got 50 cents on the dollar. I believe now it is more akin to 35 cents on the dollar. ] This gives an incentive for individual giving. I feel in a way the British Arts Council (ACE) model cripples the arts organisations that are healthy (e.g., actively serving their public). [Let us also not forget that ACE itself is not some age-old institution having only been established in the 60's, but a mere decade and a half behind the official establishment of the 'Royal Ballet'. The seeds of the NEA in the US were set out some 30 years earlier in the US by Roosevelt's administration - at the same time as the 'WPA' programmes (Work Projects for Artists) were created during the depression.] Individual giving in the US FAR outstrips the ratio of public monies distributed in the UK while the British/European format also succeeds in robbing the individual of a practical incentive to actively support their own focused arts choice. There have over the years, of course, been many cries for a similar alteration to the system here (e.g., the practical application of the combination of both). It has yet to happen and I suspect never will as the Treasury will always feel that THEIR piggy bank will be further pilfered for this, a non-mandated cause. Here the choice is ultimately theirs, not ours .... whilst understanding that everything in THIS LIFE is relative. Perception continues to be ALL and the arts lobby remains - on the whole - RELATIVELY weak in the UK ... no matter what its employment/practical impact percentage may imply. .

I really think that Kevin O'Hare should be applauded for giving so many different people opportunities in terms of casting at so many different levels in comparison with, say, his immediate predecessor - without necessarily changing rank. This gives so many different people a chance to prove their worth; a chance to 'earn' as much as to 'learn'. One of the things I think has been most especially welcomed is the beginning of the dancer exchange with ABT and the continued co-production schedule with the National Ballet of Canada, two established classical sources - one institutionally older; one just a little younger than the Royal Ballet as an organism in and of itself. I realise that the dancer exchange has started at the young principal level (S. MacRae for C. Stearns). I, myself, would love to see that continued with dancers at different rankings and established with other companies with a core classical background (a la the RB) e.g., the Paris Opera Ballet, say, or the Mariinsky. This would not only allow dancers to show their skills in adapting to world stages (so important for ANY significant POTENTIAL etoile on a world stage today) but also crucially give informed practical insight from shared views between key world ballet company directors, especially those of major classical companies who share similar plights. Let's face it, the reality of being at the top has to lead to significant moments of keen isolation - no matter where the individuals themselves may physically reside. (On a similar note, I, for one, would love to see segments of the Ashton Festival that Iain Webb is mounting for Sarasota Ballet (and has been preparing for years) in London at, say,Sadler's Wells. I feel this could but enhance and inform by example and encouragement - rather than rob from any potential audience such as has oft been suggested historically. It is most refreshing to see that the fact that NYCB has so much Balanchine (as it should) performed annually does not stop ABT, SFB and other major international ballet companies showing (as they have in the past) their own turn at these major works in NYC. Everyone is richer on these occasions I feel.