Casts, ABC or 123 what does it mean to you?

[SwissBalletFan]

I see a lot of discussions in his forum about favourite pairs of dancers, and today just saw the words 'the third cast of winter's tale looks amazing', and it got me to wondering how the 'cast' system (no pun intended) gives any weight to how a dancer is doing, about partnerships, who is 'in vogue'

 

My knowledge of such things comes from Zürich mostly where a smaller group of Principal dancers means that a first cast really means the 'best dancers' who will dance 8/9ish out of the 13 performances with the rest to a second cast and maybe a trial 3rd cast.

 

With the riches of talent and resources at places like ROH, how does one read the casting list? Do you pick out your favourite couple? Take interest at who is chosen as first cast and think someone may have improved? Notice that a guest has taken the role of one of your favourites and ask why? Do you give a little cheer inside when you see one of your favourite (young) dancers getting recognised?

Sorry for the many questions, but from reading some posts on the forums, I could imagine you think 'what does this strange guy mean'? 

 

Thanks in advance for your views, they would help me get an insight

 

[Jan McNulty]

Well that is an interesting question.

 

I follow Birmingham Royal Ballet and Northern Ballet.  BRB usually post casting around 2 weeks before the performance and NB (if we are lucky) a day or so.  As I have to travel to see both companies I tend to book when it is convenient for me to go.  I also book early to make sure I can sit where I want to sit.  Therefore, casting is not so important initially.  However, when the casting is issued I may well book for more performances!

 

I am only an occasional visitor to ROH.  Previously I have booked for when I can go, usually matinees (which I can do in a day from Liverpool) but as there is currently a dancer I follow I try to book to see his major performances.  I am no longer familiar enough with RB for the casts to mean too much to me.

 

For excursions abroad, I have to take pot luck.

[SwissBalletFan]

Well that is an interesting question.

 

I follow Birmingham Royal Ballet and Northern Ballet.  BRB usually post casting around 2 weeks before the performance and NB (if we are lucky) a day or so.  As I have to travel to see both companies I tend to book when it is convenient for me to go.  I also book early to make sure I can sit where I want to sit.  Therefore, casting is not so important initially.  However, when the casting is issued I may well book for more performances!

 

I am only an occasional visitor to ROH.  Previously I have booked for when I can go, usually matinees (which I can do in a day from Liverpool) but as there is currently a dancer I follow I try to book to see his major performances.  I am no longer familiar enough with RB for the casts to mean too much to me.

 

For excursions abroad, I have to take pot luck.

 

Thank you Janet for your reply. I have read a lot of your posts and they have been great in getting to know the dancers at Northern Ballet and BRB, I fully understand your reply in terms of booking and going to see the performances.

 

I guess also as a dimension to the overall 'support' and taste of individual dancers where you see the casts, (you may not be able to attend=, and how it impacts your enjoyment of the Soap Opera, or 'goings on' (I can't think of a better word, and 'politics' seems a bit harsh) where you have your favourites in general and see how they are progressing, and especially being chosen.

 

Do you see the castings as a sign of quality? As in 1 is better than 2, is better than 3? And do you agree with how the AD sees the dancers? 

 

Thanks again and these are the thoughts 'bobbling' around in my head today

[alison]

SBF, I might need to digest this one before I reply!  In the meantime, here's another thread which might contain some valid responses: http://www.balletcoforum.com/index.php?/topic/10662-casting/?hl=casting

[Lily_883]

I see a lot of discussions in his forum about favourite pairs of dancers, and today just saw the words 'the third cast of winter's tale looks amazing', and it got me to wondering how the 'cast' system (no pun intended) gives any weight to how a dancer is doing, about partnerships, who is 'in vogue'

 

My knowledge of such things comes from Zürich mostly where a smaller group of Principal dancers means that a first cast really means the 'best dancers' who will dance 8/9ish out of the 13 performances with the rest to a second cast and maybe a trial 3rd cast.

 

With the riches of talent and resources at places like ROH, how does one read the casting list? Do you pick out your favourite couple? Take interest at who is chosen as first cast and think someone may have improved? Notice that a guest has taken the role of one of your favourites and ask why? Do you give a little cheer inside when you see one of your favourite (young) dancers getting recognised?

Sorry for the many questions, but from reading some posts on the forums, I could imagine you think 'what does this strange guy mean'? 

 

Thanks in advance for your views, they would help me get an insight

 

This is the main reason I pay attention to ROH casting. I live too far away to attend RB performances except on very rare occasions, but I'm a loyal fan on social media and certainly root for my favourites, even if I've never seen them perform in person (thanks to the cinema and World Ballet Day broadcasts, I've seen most of them perform live ). 

 

When it comes to local performances, I'm very fortunate that my hometown hosts a variety of dance companies throughout the year, although I'll admit that I book entirely based on my availability and pay little to no attention to casting! 

[Two Pigeons]

One thing that I would add to this discussion is that I have been very surprised with a number of created roles that often the second cast turns out to be more cohesive and effective than the first. I cannot say why this is unless it is a case that there is less pressure for a second cast to 'carry' a new work.

[Nina G.]

It is known that choreographers have their favourites and they will nearly always use those dancers in the 1st cast. McGregor (especially) and Wheeldon are examples of this and each time we get to see the same dancers as their chosen 1st cast.

 

Not so long ago I went to an Insight Evening and learned there is actually more pressure on a 2nd cast as there is never enough time for them to properly rehearse: new work is created on the 1st cast and the 2nd cast doesn't get the same amount of rehearsal time, if any.  A few years ago "Infra" was danced by a 2nd cast and they were much more vibrant and interesting to watch compared to the 1st cast. There are other examples.

[SwissBalletFan]

I enjoy watching the ascent of talented and hard working dancers over the years, and especially when they 'arrive' dancing in a role that shows them off in a way that was totally unexpected, but really exciting, when you hear the audience wondering 'who was the one...that...'

 

I find it also terribly sad, when a dancer for some reason falls out of favour and down the casting ladder, until invariably they end up leaving, or in rare cases fighting their way back. In these moments I see how difficult emotionally and psychologically to be a dancer, with the inner strength to carry on. It is at these times particularly, that I find myself moving in my chair willing them on during a challenging PDD or solo.

 

Unless I feel it is thoroughly deserved to be a choreographers favourite, I am very much a fan of the underdogs. 

[alison]

One thing that I would add to this discussion is that I have been very surprised with a number of created roles that often the second cast turns out to be more cohesive and effective than the first. I cannot say why this is unless it is a case that there is less pressure for a second cast to 'carry' a new work.

 

Perhaps the choreographer picks the dancers he thinks will best embody the parts he has in mind, with less concentration on how well they may gel?  I mean, say you need a lyrical dancer, a character dancer and a virtuoso, so you cast the company's best in each of those roles.  I can think of several examples where that appears to have happened.

[FLOSS]

It is a long time since the order in which casts are scheduled to dance at Covent Garden has been any sort of indication of the likely quality of their performances, or, so it seems to me. indeed there have been occasions on which the choice of first night casts has seemed more than a little odd.But dancers and audiences have to be humoured.If Miss X  or Mr Z are well known,enjoy great reputations both here and abroad,perhaps even enjoy star status they will probably be given the first night of some ballets. Indeed both they and their fans may be put out if they don't get that sort of recognition. However their reputation doesn't guarantee that they will give the best performances in the run.When it comes to scheduling performances availability and time for coaching will be a factor in determining when a dancer, who has overseas commitments, will perform.This could mean that the dancer concerned will appear lower down the batting order than their reputation or status would seem to require.

 

Most choreographers have their muses both female and male.Balanchine had them and so did Ashton,MacMillan and Cranko.I wonder is it unfair if a choreographer works with particular dancers because he finds they stimulate his creativity and that working with them is particularly productive? Is it unfair for a director to allow a choreographer to continue to work with a small group of dancers who make the creative process a pleasure rather than a chore because they are particularly willing,receptive and quick to respond to his ideas? Having created a ballet isn't the  choreographer entitled to try to ensure that his work gets the best possible performance by having a considerable say in casting? Dancers are not interchangeable however much some of us might want them to be.No one is equally good in everything. Only going to see a single dancer such as Acosta or Osipova doesn't mean that you will necessarily have seen the greatest performances in the run.Some dancers are fine actors,some excel in demi character work, some are technicians and others are the embodiment of pure effortless, elegant classicism.Each dancer brings their own gifts, skills,personality and potential into the rehearsal studio and onto the stage in performance. A choreographer casting a ballet will choose those dancers best suited to the type of work he wishes to create or revive from those available to him.In the case of a new work or a revival in which the choreographer is directly involved there will be occasions on which only the first cast truly embodies the choreographer's vision and other casts, are only there at the director's insistence.On other occasions there may be several casts each of which brings something different but equally valid to the stage in their performance. In the latter case referring to the casts as first, second or third tells you nothing about the relative merits of their performances only the order in which they will dance. 

 

I think that a choreographer is entitled to ensure that his work isn't undermined by compromise casting and to try to establish a performance tradition during his lifetime.Unless he sets up an organisation like the Balanchine Trust he will not be able to exercise any quality control over it from the grave.The point is that choreographers and directors have different prioritIes.A director needs to keep an entire company happy by providing a varied repertory which provide opportunities across the company.A choreographer's most compelling need is securing the best cast he can for his works.A director choreographer has to try to balance these two competing needs.Some manage better than others.  .  

 

 

Every ballet goer has their preferences,foibles and prejudices. Directors and choreographers are not exempt from this. I don't like dancers who treat the classics merely as an opportunity to display their technique.A dancer can only amaze you once with a display of technical tricks such as balances extended to such a degree that the score has to be distorted in order to accommodate them or multiple fouettes that seem to be performed to excite the audience rather than to entrance Siegfried. If you only see them once you will be astounded. If you see them again, particularly if you already know the work being danced, you may start to notice the damage that is being done to the overall structure of the ballet. If you throw all your skills and energy at the Rose Adagio the vision scene may be acceptable but the great pas de deux of Act III, which is intended  to be the culmination of the ballet is likely to fall decidedly flat.Of course if you enjoy pyrotechnics you may not find a performance marred by that sort of display.You may believe that the rest of the ballet is a boring wasteland of inconsequential choreography that could do with  reworking to add excitement to it.

 

As far as the casting for the Spring season is concerned I don't think that the order in which the various casts are due to dance should be taken as indicating the likely quality of their performances.When  the Winter's Tale was new we had to book performances without knowing who would dance.I ended up seeing the casts in reverse order and found that both casts were equally effective but in different ways.The third cast to dance in this revival will give us the opportunity to see Soares' Leontes which we were denied in the initial run, to see Calvert in a big dramatic role and two young dancers of which much is expected. I look forward to seeing all three casts.It will be interesting to see how the first two casts have developed and to see a new cast. i wonder whether the new cast are entirely new to their roles or whether some of them were understudies. As far as Frankenstein is concerned the casting is intriguing.

 

So what does first and second cast status mean? Not a lot as far as far as quality of performance is concerned which is why it is advisable with a work that has long been out of the repertory such as Sylvia or Two Pigeons to see more than one cast if you can as seniority is not the same as suitability.If I had only seen Bussell's first night performance in Sylvia I should have come away with the idea that its revival was a misplaced exercise in piety rather than the revival of a major work which deserved to be restored to the repertory.. As it was I saw Yanowsky who brought out the wonderful detail in the text which Bussell failed to deliver on first night.I am sure that Bussell improved throughout the run and her performance on the DVD is pretty good. As far as the casting of that run of performances is concerned what now strikes me is how bizarre it was to give that ballet to a dancer returning from maternity leave when I  don't think that anyone would have given Aurora  to a dancer in such circumstances.Was the decision made because the ballet is short? Was it a mistake because no one realised how demanding the role of Sylvia is?Yanowsky has said that it is essentially three separate ballets.Was it because it was thought essential to give the first night to a British ballerina? Whatever the reason it came close to scuppering the ballet as far as I was concerned.

 

If you have the money try to see as many performers in a role as you can.Seeing the first performance of a ballet doesn't guarantee that it will be the best performance that you will see of the work. The second cast has the advantage of having slightly less weight on their shoulders than the first cast in a world premiere even if they may have had slightly less care and attention in the rehearsal studio.sometimes it is because  sometimes it is because the balance is better sometimes it is because the movements are more striking when the second cast performs them better because they are unexpected. I am thinking of the brooding, jealous Leontes in Act I of the Winter's Tale where the choreography might be described as a series of "Watsonisms" which were far more powerful when performed by Gartside because they were so unusual and unexpected whereas with Watson they had less impact for me because they were the sort of thing that choreographers set on him.

Edited October 15, 2015 by FLOSS

[Jan McNulty]

Interesting final paragraph Floss (I most definitely agree with the rest of your post) given that the wonder woman known as Nao Sakuma's first UK performance 5 months after giving birth to her daughter was a master class in how to perform Odette/Odile in BRB's Swan Lake.  I understand she performed in a couple of galas in Japan in August!