chrischris

Thanks for the responses. I hate the idea of forced retirements. It must be a hard enough decision to retire anyway, without feeling you didn't have a choice or could have gone on.

God I didn't realise it was that big. They must be expecting (hoping) lots of people to buy tickets.

Interesting. Did dancers from previous era's do more performances? I read that Nureyev was at one point doing about 250 performances a year, but I think he was a special case.

Quick question. I read recently that ballet dancers tend to retire later now than they used to, mainly due to advances in injury prevention and medical treatment. I know there are people on here who have followed ballet for decades, and I was curious whether this is a trend people have seen? Ballet has an image of being full of very young dancers, but at the RB, for example, nearly all of the top dancers are in their 30's, and I get the impression that is the case at many companies.

I've always been of the belief that the arts should fund themselves, but I did wonder watching Mayerling the other day whether a ballet as complicated as that would be created and performed if there wasn't the safety net of funding (and whether i'd be able to get a good seat for £13).

Great programme for this gala. If only I was rich....... http://noureevandfriends.com/enprog.html

I get what you mean. I didn't notice this myself. I guess that would be down to nerves or lack of rehearsal?

I don't know anything about technique, but is that not something that is unavoidable when you are doing complicated lifts? I assume they physically need a bit of set up/ your body to be in the right position?

Still thinking about the Pennefather/ Hamilton performance today, it was that good. One of the things I think worked really well is that both Melissa and Rupert look very young, which makes it quite tragic (I have no idea how old the characters are supposed to be). I'm hopefully going to see either Watson or Acosta soon, and I wonder if having a slightly older dancer changes the dynamic at all. Will be interesting to find out.

Agree. Is it just me that kept getting Stephanie , Marie Larisch and Empress Elisabeth confused though? Maybe I was too far away from the stage, or i'm just an idiot, but I swear this must be the most confusing ballet ever created.

Saw the Pennefather/ Hamilton matinee today. Christ, those two have chemistry. Pennefather's dancing was brilliant throughout. I didn't think he projected the character of Rudolph enough in scene 1 as I was struggling to work out how he felt, and to whom, but he improved in scenes 2 and 3 and hit his stride in acts 2 and 3. Hamilton was also brilliant, and the final pas de deux was extraordinary. Really great pairing, and it would be good to see them in more together. The rest of the cast were really good, though I was struggling to tell characters apart. A lot of the females seem to have similar wigs on and i'm still not entirely sure who was who.

A lot of theatres seem to be doing Friday matinees now. I guess to take advanyage of people having a long weekend?

I got back from work today and there was an A5 sized leaflet advertising ENB Swan Lake at the albert hall underneath the letter box, so that's a pretty good development. I've never had a flyer from ENB before and it's made me look in to dates.

Just want to add my two cents, as someone who has said things on this forum people haven't liked. There is a debate to be had about the rights and wrongs/ positives and negatives of the different funding models, and whether the governemnt should be funding some of the arts organisations, and just because somebody has a different opinion doesn't make them a troll or give them an ulterior motive. I don't know the background to restor's comments, but I think not listening to outside opinions is generally one of the problems of the arts world, and i've noticed on this forum that some people (and I stress that it is just some people) don't seem to like hearing views different to their own, and I don't think that's particularly helpful.

Anyway, i'm going to bow out of this conversation now. I'm sorry if I came across as hostile, or offended anyone. I think that the future is going to be very different for all arts companies, especially after the culture secretary's comments this week about arts organisation having to justify their funding from an economic rather than an artistic perspective, which is not something I necessarily disagree with. Personally, I find ENB a rather curious company, but I understand it is one that a lot of other people love. I have come to love ballet, and though I think you can still love something and still see the case that it might not necessarily deserve government subsidy, I hope it thrives in the future.

It is a big issue, and I think it is something ballet companies have to look at if they want to remain economically viable, but it is one part of a big picture. And I didn't say I wasn't bothered about it, I said 'it's not so much the nationaility thing', and that was in the context of the future of the ENB. I actually think the lack of British dancers is more of an issue at the RB, because it is the national company and because of the shadow Darcey has cast over it.

Yep, but I reckon the RB could probably survive long term without subsidy, if they were allowed to keep the royal title.

It's not so much the nationality thing. I didn't even realise there was an ENB until a few months ago. I went to the RB because someone took me to the ballet and I just assumed that was the only ballet company in London (it's the only one i've ever heard of) and ballet is such a niche art form anyway that I guess I just assumed. When I found out there was another ballet company nearby and it did the exact same ballets (exact for someone like me, who I think like most new people goes to the famous ballets first) I found it really surpirisng, and I guess it is not something I really understand, how two companies in an art form not many people watch anymore can be doing the exact same thing, often at the same time, and this can be considered viable, especially in the current climate.

No, no agenda, I think it's just because i'm new to all this, and I have no emotional attachment to the ENB (the RB is more local to me and it's easier for me to get to the ROH) I just look at the ENB and the idea of two compoanies near each other doing the exact same thing as completely bizarre.

I don't mean to sound hostile, and i'm not, it's just i'm very new to ballet, and getting involved in the ballet world has sometimes felt like what I imagine joining some secret society would be like. Some people don't seem to live in the real world, and seem to think that there is unlimited cash about and these companies should be able to spend it as and when and on whom they wish, without any criticism and without any concessions to the changing economic and political climate, and the general publics quite rational assumption that subsidised dance companies should at least employ some British dancers. Some of the conservations i've seen on this forum and the conversations i've heard in the intervals at ballet performances make me wonder whether I inhabit a different universe.

Aileen, I agree with a lot of what you say, and I don't want to sound rude, and I imagine my views are formed by the fact that I am really new to ballet, but you refer to the companies as 'our cherished ballet companies' and the truth is they are not cherished; the overwhelming majority of the population probably don't even know they exist, and don't care, and most likely wonder why their taxes are going to an art form that cannot attract large audiences. It's probably only a few thousand that cherish them, and If they are not even employing British dancers in significant numbers than it becomes even harder to justify a subsidy.

That's true, and there is an argument about whether all those events should be funded with public money. The obvious other side of that though is that all those events attracted large crowds and a worldwide audience, whereas ENB is struggling to attract audiences.

No, I haven't, and to be honest I don't notice much difference in quality between London theatre productions and the theatre productions put on in my home town.

I know how it works, see my other comment. It would require changes to the tax system. Yes, i'm aware that the US doesn't have a national theatre. So what? Does there have to be a national theatre? Are productions put on at the national theatre better than productions put on elsewhere? Sorry, I don't understand your point.

I have no doubt that the ENB would struggle to survive, but ENB is not 'the arts' and there are many companies, theatres, production companies etc that would do fine because people are willing to pay to see the things they produce. It is very complicated, would likely require an overhaul of certain parts of the tax system etc, but it is an avenue that has its merits (and its negatives, like everything), and I think grand proclamations that 'the arts in this country will die' are unhelpful.