Mary

I wonder when we will get to see them in the UK? I do fancy Flames of Paris.

I really enjoyed your review Frank. I feel just the same about the music for the grand pas de deux-it makes me cry very time ( and I must have seen it 100 times.) There is a fabulous dvd recording of the Royal Ballet with Johnny Cope and Miyako Yoshida dancing this pas de deux which is The Best. I shall be looking out for Moscow CB near me.

Indeed, Arky, it's not as if I expect better behaviour in the posh seats...far from it. More that, having paid more, the annoyance is EVEN more when the performance is disrupted. I have a new theory for why the amphi behaviour is better- we are all packed in so tightly, like sardines, that we have less scope to misbehave like the drunken lady or the lady putting her feet in my face......

Saw Tuesday night. SV was excellent! Far the best of the 3 performances I have seen, this was the only one which I think achieved the sense of serenity intended by the piece. It was beautiful and Reece Clarke most excellent once more, with the right calm, majestic presence- bravo to him-also Nunez. James Hay jumped superbly. I loved Month this time- Yanowsky inhabited the role so convincingly. I was a little less impressed by Pennefather( nice hair though) but very pleased to see and impressed with Emma Maguire who had great sprighliness as Vera. I agree that Scenes was not quite all it should be and for me it was the corp being a mite untidy that slightly let it down. I liked McRae and Lamb very much. I thought McRae had the sharpness, style, elan and precision the piece needs ( didn't Ashton say the piece is meant to be "sharp and precise" or something, and "NOT too English"? The corp needed to be just that tiny bit sharper, in my view. But still very enjoyable. Crawford was good as Isadora , despite a couple of slight slips. She got a great reception.

So agree with all this re the ROH amphi. But I have just treated myself to a v posh seat in the grand tier no less ( a special occasion for me.) To my personal amusement the bad behaviour was just the same - only....somehow more so. The woman jangling throughout the performance was jangling the chain of her chanel handbag....people were unwrapping sweets and talking during the musical opening of a piece etc as per usual. To my astonishment, a woman behind me took her shoes off (fair enough in itself)- and put her stockinged feet up on the seat back in front of her! I turned round to get a faceful of foot! I also notice that the people in these seats clap a LOT less than the amphi people. Back to the amphi for me...

Jacqueline you have said what I felt but more so! It made me laugh. I do so agree, especially re the Brandstrup and all the angst, (-seen it all a 100 times! I don't feel your pain, I'm just bored! ) -though was more entertained than you were by Age of Anxiety, mainly because the sets and dancers were so good I would like to say though that, disappointing as it is when an evening fails to take off, I go to every production of RB, and this disappointment ony happens to me about once every 2 years, which is really not bad going. RB give me a huge amount of joy - I have seen so many wonderful things- so I am going to let them off this triple bill and look forward to seeing the Ashton one more time tomorrow..

Saw last night's performance. The Brandstrup was a bit dull to my eyes. Edward Watson was not so much under-used as unused. What a waste. He sat on a chair for most of it. The theme seemed very familiar and unoriginal. (Man can't grow up. Wants Mummy.) The choreography unmemorable. Age of Anxiety was such a contrast I might have reacted more positively for that reason, partly. Great sets, well used in the dance not just a backdrop. I did feel that Scarlett had tried to do something different and there was a lot of very entertaining choreography-nothing wrong with that... indeed I was entertained. The McRae role was perfect for him and he gave a characteristically fizzy performance which for me was the best of the evening. I did think Scarlett had reduced a complex, interesting poem to a short piece about sex!- but maybe that was inevitable. Morera was characterful-and not given enough to do. Her role as a girl swirled around by men seemed all too cliched. I was underwhelmed by the very stock ending- walking into the sunrise as music soars. ...and the final solo by Dyer seemed to be rather under charged. (Oh dear I am sounding very dour today.) Aeturnum I quite liked. Nunez was excellent. Such power. But it is not Wheeldon's best piece, I have to agree. Maybe the 3 did not work that well as an evening. I agree with all who felt underwhelmed- relatively-as I am used to being uplifted and thrilled, even, at RB- well, that says something. This 3 reminded me rather of that very weak Metamorphosis evening. It is the 3rd Brandstrup I have seen and I have not been impressed by any of them. I am sure there is much more interesting work around the RB could use- isn't there? Some of the recent new pieces in the Linbury look more worthwhile than this. It would be good to see the work of one of these new-even female, that might be nice- choreographers on the main stage. On a positive note the music-all excellent- was very well played throughout.

I was there yesterday and the exhibiition about the plans, with comments forms and a box to post them in or envelopes to return them- was still there- I expressed my view-not too late to do so.....

Very depressed at the awful thought of losing the amphi terrace- that is SUCH a lovely spot and always a great place to take people who are new to ROH- somewhere to get some air, the lovely view, and you only have to stand there for 5 minutes to hear all the cries of delight from people coming out on it for the first time. I have so many memories of standing there- how can one convey deep concern? "Retail" - why does the phrase -' the price of everything and the value of nothing ' spring to mind?

I third that! In particular SV was far far better than the performance I saw on 28th. Nunez was fuly in command of the steps and projected, I thought, the right air of serene control. I was very impressed by Reece Clarke, who really looked the part but also acted it and showed great confidence in this exposed role. Yhui Choe as I had expected was right in the Scenes role and she and Zuchetti worked harmoniously together, which brought the piece into focus much more successfully. Month in the Country was also much better in my view. Osipova was much more acting the steps ( Ashton so brilliantly gives you everything, like a magic recipe, , you just have to do it perfectly to get the effect) rather than overacting the emotions at key points. I thought she was really excellent, as was Bonelli. A great evening.

Wow! thank you, what a joy. I have such good memories of seeing him at Covent Garden- Aileen, you can see the tattoos if you peer closely...

Bruce, I would agree. It was my first viewing of the programme. Scenes I thought was danced very well, withMcRae very good, very sharp and in the spirit of the piece., Lamb also. I liked Crawford's work in 5 Waltzes-and it is not easy in my view to make this work to a modern audience and in this mighty venue. Symphonic Variations cast its spell over me again. It is a stunning work and needs a lot of viewings. I very much liked Muntagirov who seemed ideal in his nobility and elegance. I was a little unsure about the others..... only a little unsure, it was danced well, but there was a slight feeling of uncertainty at times, when in this ballet you really want utter solidity and conviction. Month in the Country went very well- I had forgotten how much detail there is in it, and how brilliantly the choreography conveys mood, drama and character. It is a very rich and subtle work. I can see why some think Osipova was dancing in a different mode to the piece itself. The beauty of her dancing was compensation enough; however that is partly because I know I am going to see Yanowsky.... I do see what people mean that she (and others) might want to present her own interpretation of Turgenev - BUT surely it is Ashton's interpretation of Turgenev the dancers should be trying to express, not their own? The ballet is not the play. I agree with you Bruce that the piano playing could have been better. I was perhaps on the look- out for shortcomings after reading all the posts but it was a fine evening-if only the intervals were not so long. 30 minutes really is a lot. I am keen to hear other views of the SV compared to earlier performances.

Thanks- I shall have to have a poke around myself this evening....a bigger floor area for the amphi bar would be good as it can be pretty crucsed in there when the bell rings....

[This has been copied over from the "Ceremony of Innocence" thread because it looked as though the discussion might derail that thread - Alison] How interesting. Is it possible to summarise what the ROH re -development plan is? It seems like yesterday they re opened after the last one!

Thanks Alison and apologies for my incompetent setting up of the new topic! You have all said pretty much what I thought. One of the main problems was the stylistic theme of the supposedly "oriental" hand and arm movements which as Rodkin said meant the dancers had to "break" the line of thier arms and use them differently throughout.This would have been all right in one or two moments but used throughout spoiled the line and was distracting.At one moment it looked just silly as the corps whirled ther hands around. In the first act bizarre analogies came to mind -a corp of Freddie Mercuries doing the sand dance? The third act was much more tasteful and restrained. But, on the whole, a curiousity. Still, it is great to be able to see it and some pretty spectacular dancing too.

[Legend of Love] At first I found it hard to warm to this production, but became engrossed. It is not a very subtle ballet, and some aspects jarred on me- e.g. the hunch backed jesters(!) and some of the costumes... Denis Rodkin was, I thought, impressively precise, powerful and indeed beautiful to look at. I am not quite sure about the rest-it is so different in every way from the current RB run that I've been thinking about so much! what does the forum think?

Reading all the fascinating posts on this thread about the casting of key works such as Sympohonic Variations, I now wonder whether, in the past, the directorship of the ballet was more of a dictatorship-some might say a benevolent and ideal one- and certainly reading biographies of Ashton or David Vaughan's book about his ballets, (and I defer to the actual experience of many forum posters who were actually there!)- it is clear that he had absolute discretion and power over casting-at times. Is the same true now? Is a modern company a bit more- well, modern, in that dancers expect to get their turn, and the management want to nurture talent across a wider number of dancers? This may have a downside, as many obviously feel it does, in that we don't all get to see the perfect cast or the perfect cast don't get enough perfomances.On the other hand, doesn't it give more chance for more really good dancers to come to the fore? and just as importantly give them experience of performing Ashton which is so important to the RB? I also recall some of us, including myself, complaining that McGregor seemed to use the same -few- dancers all the time( I am not even sure how fair that was but it felt like it.) I don't know, I am far from an expert on how the company works, but in a way it might be just inevitable that casting works differently in 2014 to how it worked in 1944 or 1964. ?

Thanks Bruce-I don't think you need to defend your comment as I was not criticising it, merely pointing out another example of a post that made negative comments on a performance - in my view, entirely legitimately. I shall be listening out for the piano in particular on 28th.

The comments about the pianist are extremely critical and suggest her not being re employed-with reasons given. It is harsh perhaps but fair. Noone has leapt to her defence, and suggested she was having an off night, it was her debut or she might improve. I do think we should all be free to comment frankly on performances-so long as they are comments on a performance not on the performer's character.- and to disagree. But I think if one disagrees one should say why rather than just telling the poster 'not to be so critical'.

Indeed that is a shame and I would have thought some posters and wider advertising for the screenings would be a better use of ROH resources than all the encouragement to tweet and give comments all the time...the tweeters already have their bums on the seats!

I have been re-watching the 2004 RB DVD which unfortunately uses too many camera angles for Scenes- ironically!- but it does have Miyako Yoshida who is perfect in the part. (This Ashton DVD also has Les Patineurs with a young and fizzy McRae and I love the Sleeping Beauty Awakening pas de deux with Bussell and Cope- a treasure.)

Defintely see it from amphi -as near the middle as you can get! Avoid the stalls for this one :-) It is a complete joy, I agree. For me, it provides a huge amount of emotion-although of a completely different kind to the Macmillan narrative ballets which are all about passions of various kinds. This is about the pure joy of the beauty of the shapes, patterns and incredible grace of the dancer, and most of all, of dancers making shape and line together in harmony. I am surprised it left some cold, but perhaps the earlier performances were not quite of the best? I can't wait for 28 October.

I agree it is a bit of a luxury to see so much variety, or read about it! Looking forward to the live screening- and remembering the debate, ahem, about presentation last time, does anyone know who is presenting this time?

Thanks to Nevsky and Floss for such vivid descriptions of this cast-how I wish I had seen Muntagirov. I am loooking forward to seeing him in Symphonic Variations soon though. I first saw him in the background of the T Rojo programme on Swan Lake and immediately thought- Hello! Here is a very beautiful dancer! - I heartily agree with everyone who has rejoiced at his presence in the RB. It is a good run of interesting casts for Manon-even if not all are completely successful, it is always a luxury to see new pairings and compare them, is it not, and good for the dancers to get the chance. Yes, that drunken dance should surely not be performed as jolly knockabout fun...because it makes no sense to invite the audience to laugh in merry fashion at Lescaut -who is far from a clown: he is a vicious, amoral thug.

But the individual dancers have not "put themselves on line" have they- they are there because the company have decided to take part. I still think it is rude and ignorant of anyone who is taking advantage of this visual eavesdropping to criticise those individuals -it is not in the spirit of the thing at all.