Bolshoi Ballet: The Flames of Paris, London, August 2016

[godots_arrived]

I was there, and I do know, and this has clearly shown me you are a troll, and hope the mods see this. Goodbye.

 

Once again, a personal insult but you ignore the substance of the post where I explicitly pointed out why I justifiably used the word "mugging." You appear to like baiting me but to intensely dislike objective responses to your taunts. Troll? How do you work that out from my post, or is anyone who expresses a qualified opinion that differs from yours a troll?

[SPD444]

Baiting you. I will leave others to judge. No more,done with you, say what you will.

[MAB]

Do we have the ignore function here?  After around seventy posts of confrontational garbage, for the first time I'd like the opportunity to make someone disappear off the screen.

[Bruce Wall]

Am I alone in feeling that much of the later conversation today moves away from a direct discussion of The Flames of Paris - which is why I believe I started this particular thread in the first place?  Might it not be best placed under the realm of private messages?  Perhaps misguidedly that is where I feel much of it belongs.  Certainly if I wished to directly discuss the tone of someone's writing or a content item considerably away from the stated thread theme, a PM is where I would begin.  (Of course I am willing to believe I may just be strange in that regard.)  I will, of course, leave it to the moderators as they obviously know best.  I simply here question the relevance of the above itemised material to readers who may wish to review items specifically pertaining to the referenced title.  

Edited August 8, 2016 by Bruce Wall

[CHazell2]

Am I alone in feeling that much of the later conversation today moves away from a direct discussion of The Flames of Paris - which is why I believe I started this particular thread in the first place.  Might it not be best placed under the realm of private messages?  Perhaps misguidedly that is where I feel much of it belongs.  Certainly if I wished to directly discuss the tone of someone's writing or a content item considerably away from the stated thread theme, a PM is where I would begin.  (Of course I am willing to believe I may just be strange in that regard.)  I will, of course, leave it to the moderators as they obviously know best.  I simply here question the relevance of the above itemised material to readers who may wish to review items specifically pertaining to the specifically referenced title.  

 

You are quite correct, and I can only apologise.

[SPD444]

Do we have the ignore function here?  After around seventy posts of confrontational garbage, for the first time I'd like the opportunity to make someone disappear off the screen.

Sorry Mab if I have offended.

[MAB]

Sorry Mab if I have offended.

 

You haven't offended me at all, you have the patience of a saint.

[alison]

I think this would be a good time to remind *all* posters of the AUP (to which everyone signed up on joining), and particularly the part which states "Contributors must be respectful to others", which a number of posts on this thread have already breached.  Dissent is welcome, provided that it is kept respectful of others on this board.  Posts which do not comply may be removed, or other measures may be taken.

 

 

The AUP can be found under the "Community Guidelines" link at the bottom right of the page.

[ENBlover]

Do we have the ignore function here?  After around seventy posts of confrontational garbage, for the first time I'd like the opportunity to make someone disappear off the screen.

 

Click on your user name in the top right corner, select "Manage Ignore Pref" and add whomever you choose to ignore.

Edited August 8, 2016 by ENBlover

[Coated]

I was going to post about my impression of Flames, but that moment passed after reading through this thread.

[alison]

[CHazell2]

Sorry Mab if I have offended.

 

Sorry MAB, I didn't mean to upset anbody

[Anna C]

What is "honesty"? I think if you're going to toss that out there, you need to qualify what you're driving at to some extent. Is this honesty as in "true to yourself" or is it honesty as purely instinctive emotional honesty? Or something else. Pure emotion is, I think, not particularly "honest." It's deeply personal. It tells us more about the viewer, arguably, than it does about the quality of the artwork.

 

The truth is both are hugely valuable and the one mediates the other. "I love it, but I can still be objective about it." "I can see it's brilliant, but I didn't really enjoy it" are both valid responses.

With respect, I completely disagree that pure emotion is not particularly honest. Immediate emotional response to art is probably the most honest reaction of all, because it's instinctive. I can vividly remember crying my eyes out, aged 4 or 5, because the music I was listening to was "so sad". It was the Largo from Dvorák's 9th, out of interest, but I had the same reaction to John 19:41 from Jesus Christ Superstar, at the same age.

 

I had the same gut response some 40 years on when Muntagirov performed his first solo as Des Grieux in Manon. It was no less honest a response.

 

Anyway - off topic, for which I apologise. Back to "Flames"....

[godots_arrived]

With respect, I completely disagree that pure emotion is not particularly honest. Immediate emotional response to art is probably the most honest reaction of all, because it's instinctive. I can vividly remember crying my eyes out, aged 4 or 5, because the music I was listening to was "so sad". It was the Largo from Dvorák's 9th, out of interest, but I had the same reaction to John 19:41 from Jesus Christ Superstar, at the same age.

 

I had the same gut response some 40 years on when Muntagirov performed his first solo as Des Grieux in Manon. It was no less honest a response.

 

Anyway - off topic, for which I apologise. Back to "Flames"....

 

I actually think we agree with each other completely in the substance of our views. Where we differ is only the words we use to summarise them. What you call "honesty" I simply call a "deeply personal" response but I think we're describing the same thing and we both agree that it's entirely valid.

 

The only point I was trying to make earlier is that there's a difference between forms of honesty: "personal honesty" -- how something affected me, and "dispassionate/objective honesty" -- where the goal is to assess quality based on various metrics, not emotional response (example: a dancer with poor technique nevertheless reduces you to tears with their performance.)

 

What I meant to say, and probably didn't do it very well, is that I didn't think "personal honesty" is, on it's own, an adequate means of assessing the quality of a performance. It's a component, yes, but you need both personal and objective responses to really get to the heart of things. "I absolutely loved it" does not equate to "it was a brilliant performance, perfectly executed." It's the difference between "perfect" and "perfect for me."

 

I will accept that some accuse me of over-intellectualising and that's fair enough but for me while personal emotional response is an important component of enjoyment of the arts, I still want to be able to make dispassionate judgments about what I've seen.

[Jan McNulty]

There's been some very interesting discussion points here.

 

I was a member of the Merseyside Film Institute until it closed 25 years ago.  A group of the volunteer still meet on a monthly basis.  One of our members said she no longer looks for deep and meaningful films to go and see, she would rather watch something that she can let wash over her and enjoy.  Her life has changed in those years since we closed and so have what she needs from a film.

 

Perhaps we can all say that.

 

I have often thought that critics sometimes see too much and become almost jaded.

 

If we can't further the discussion on Flames of Paris and take other interesting points elsewhere  this thread will be closed.

 

And yes, I know I have contributed to taking it way off topic.

[godots_arrived]

 

I have often thought that critics sometimes see too much and become almost jaded.

 

 

Yes, I think you're probably -- well, definitely -- right.  Agree there have been some really interesting side discussion though but it has veered significantly from Flames of Paris. I think the line that I've highlighted above is bang on as a discussion point (and I suspect we'd take opposite sides of the debate!) If you'll feed me a bowl of Scouse I'll head north immediately and we can have at it. :-)

[FLOSS]

A very strange ballet, which I find stranger now than when I first saw it A  score created to laud the French revolution as a visual metaphor for the Russian Revolution. The score is a hotchpot of tunes from the revolutionary era including the jolly ditty "Ca Ira". Ratmansky chose to rework it as a more sophisticated ballet which shows that police informers are always with us and the innocent and good are as much in danger from revolutionary zeal as the wicked and lecherous. Not exactly an insight as far as Russian history is concerned.

 

The main problems is that  the reworked scenario does not actually fit the music and it is that disconnect that makes it difficult to take seriously. It was a mistake to retain bits of original choreography because they fit the music so well and highlight the mismatch elsewhere.It has a surprisingly limited dance vocabulary and there is no real difference between the vocabulary used in the Rinaldo and Armide entertainment and the narrative proper. This is particularly odd given the efforts taken to produce costumes for this section which look like stage costumes of the period. But then who looks for logic in a pastiche narrative ballet? I found the performances on Saturday night extraordinary as  displays of technical skill but I was not drawn into the narrative by the dancers. There is too much movement/dance that has no real justification as far as the narrative is concerned. The choreography provides plenty of opportunity for the dancers to display their technique but not the individual characters they are playing. The dancing was at a very high level but I am not sure that I need to see this ballet again. I would , however, like to see the original Soviet Dramballet  by Vianonen. I suspect that the scenario and the score are a much better fit.

 

As for the curtain calls, Russian curtain calls are part of the performance and should be accepted as such. 

Some of you are clearly far too young to have seen Frederick Ashton's curtain calls. They were an art form in themselves.

Edited August 9, 2016 by FLOSS

[FLOSS]

I think that we should all remember that while Ballet is an art form it is also a form of entertainment. Everyone has a perfect right to say whether or not they liked a particular ballet or a particular performance.The fact that we see things differently means that we like different companies,ballets, choreographers and dancers. I am sure that we have all read posts extolling the virtues of dancers we would not cross the road to see. Your personal response to such a post may be to wonder how anyone could see anything in the dancer in question but the truth is that there is no right or wrong responses to an individual ballet or performer.  Perhaps we should bear that in mind when we post here. 

Edited August 9, 2016 by FLOSS

[LinMM]

Thank you FLOSS you have somehow put into words why I'm not so keen on this ballet overall.

 

It's okay and some great moments for some star dancing from a Company like the Bolshoi and wouldn't turn down a standing ticket etc etc but I never think "oh good they are doing Flames of Paris....must get a ticket!!

 

On this occasion I would like to have seen Lantratov and Krysanova as I enjoyed them so much in Shrew but with this ballet it's always ....for me...much more about ....WHO is dancing it...than I really must see this BALLET. If people get my meaning ( I hope)

I have friends who really love it though ....so we're all different happily.

 

I must say I would have loved to have seen the dive under the curtain!!

Yes it is a bit OTT but I say give the dancers a bit of slack when they've picked up the flow of pleasure and warmth from the audience ..it's just a way of saying thankyou for appreciating us ...to me.

[Timmie]

...Some of you are clearly far too young to have seen Frederick Ashton's curtain calls. They were an art form in themselves.

 

Something for the Ashton thread Floss? Any clips on YouTube?

[bridiem]

 

As for the curtain calls, Russian curtain calls are part of the performance and should be accepted as such. 

Some of you are clearly far too young to have seen Frederick Ashton's curtain calls. They were an art form in themselves.

 

I have to mention that my first ever ballet performance (Oct 1977) was graced by an Ashton curtain call (he'd just been awarded the OM). I was (very rare for me) very near the stage so I saw it all close up. Now that was a performance. No wonder I was hooked.

 

Sorry, totally off thread again.

[godots_arrived]

Great post, FLOSS. I think you have managed to capture more or less what I said/felt but without offending anyone or being (unintentionally) patronising. I could not agree with you more and thank you for articulating a number of important points so clearly.

[alison]

It has a surprisingly limited dance vocabulary and there is no real difference between the vocabulary used in the Rinaldo and Armide entertainment and the narrative proper.

 

Isn't that part of the point?  I haven't got a programme at the moment, but I think I remember an early version of the synopsis specifically saying something to the effect that "the song remains the same - it's only the patrons who change".

[Don Q Fan]

Flower throw - it would  not surprise me if it was 5 years ago - time flies by too fast but I agree it was Krysanova and Merkuriev.  As an aside I wonder why Merkuriev did not come on this tour I like him a lot, and I really missed seeing Shipulina - is she injured?  The last time I saw FoP it was with Shipulina with Lantratov and they were very good.

 

In DonQ Alexandrova and Lantratov ran under the curtain at the end it was quite a thrill to see as I've never seen that happen before!

[godots_arrived]

 

In DonQ Alexandrova and Lantratov ran under the curtain at the end it was quite a thrill to see as I've never seen that happen before!

 

If we're going to discuss ballet technique, at the FoP performance it was actually a knee-skid under the curtain from a running start. Was the same choreography used in Don Q, or was yours a full-length run?  :-)

[godots_arrived]

Baiting you. I will leave others to judge. No more,done with you, say what you will.

 

FAO Mods. Surely an open admission that SPD444 has written multiple posts simply to bait someone they disagree with is against the conditions of membership?

 

"...abusive...language will not be tolerated"

 

Further, I note that a number of mods have "liked" these endless unfounded personal attacks which rather calls into question both the integrity of the board and its policing.

 

Let's sum this up. I posted a review about FoP. One line was condescending. I have admitted that and quickly apologised for it. Those who disagreed with my review and said so I have responded to politely, thoughtfully and carefully almost one-by-one. And mostly in a friendly manner. Yet one person, SPD44, has from the start has not offered a single constructive response to my observations...he has just provided a stream of what amounts to one personally abusive retort after another ending with an admission that he has simply been trolling me.  And this, apparently, is fine. 

Can you explain what is going on here, and if you think the above summation is unfair then let me know why?

[MAB]

Flower throw - it would  not surprise me if it was 5 years ago - time flies by too fast but I agree it was Krysanova and Merkuriev.  As an aside I wonder why Merkuriev did not come on this tour I like him a lot, and I really missed seeing Shipulina - is she injured?  The last time I saw FoP it was with Shipulina with Lantratov and they were very good.

 

In DonQ Alexandrova and Lantratov ran under the curtain at the end it was quite a thrill to see as I've never seen that happen before!

 

I'm disappointed not to see Merkuriev too, I believe he is dancing elsewhere, Shipulina is shortly to become a mother.

 

Bolshoi curtain calls are a joy to watch, their dancers are so spontaneous and uninhibited.  I also liked the way Lantratov tucked one of the thrown bunches of flowers into his waistband.  Those two are absolute darlings.

[Anna C]

Oh do grow up. Please. I'm expressing my opinion and qualifying it, not ridiculing other people's enjoyment. Your post is just utterly pathetic, below even contempt.

 

Incidentally, when a curtain starts to go down and a dancer positioned mid-stage goes into a full-on sprint for the front, sliding on his knees under the near fully descended curtain and ending with arms raised in a flourish milking the crowd, I don't really know what else you could call it if not "mugging." Were you even there on Saturday night? Do you actually know what you're talking about?

FAO Mods. Surely an open admission that SPD444 has written multiple posts simply to bait someone they disagree with is against the conditions of membership?

 

"...abusive...language will not be tolerated"

 

Further, I note that a number of mods have "liked" these endless unfounded personal attacks which rather calls into question both the integrity of the board and its policing.

 

Let's sum this up. I posted a review about FoP. One line was condescending. I have admitted that and quickly apologised for it. Those who disagreed with my review and said so I have responded to politely, thoughtfully and carefully almost one-by-one. And mostly in a friendly manner. Yet one person, SPD44, has from the start has not offered a single constructive response to my observations...he has just provided a stream of what amounts to one personally abusive retort after another ending with an admission that he has simply been trolling me. And this, apparently, is fine.

Can you explain what is going on here, and if you think the above summation is unfair then let me know why?

 

I rarely Moderate in "Performances Seen" as my usual area is "Doing Dance", but from observing your conversations with SPD44 and with my "Mum head" on, I would say that in my opinion this is six of one, half a dozen of the other. You have been equally disrespectful on occasion.

 

You may not be aware that all Moderators and Committee Members are unpaid volunteers, without whom there would not be a forum. We do our best to be impartial and consistent. That said, there is nothing to prevent us commenting on threads, nor "liking" posts. That is the way this forum has been run for quite some time.

 

If you genuinely feel that one or more posts breach our Acceptable Use Policy then please follow proper procedure and use the forum's "Report" function.

 

Many thanks.

 

Edited for clarity.

[Scheherezade]

I didn’t see ‘Flames’ this run. I saw it last time and wasn’t wowed, even with Vasipova burning up the stage – too similar, in some ways, to their double act in Laurencia with the Mikhailovsky at the Coliseum round about the same time. I would have loved, though, to have seen more of Lantratov. I liked him last time round and he was even better this time in Taming of the Shrew (ditto Tikhomirova who also brought the disappointing opening night of Don Q alive for me).

 

I have a feeling that the controversy surrounding the recent posts by godots_arrived is shortly going to be put to sleep by the moderators so wanted to add my two penn’orth while I can.

 

So firstly to ‘contrary opinions’. Of course these should be encouraged on the forum but not where the content implicitly suggests that those who disagree with the poster have a diminished level of appreciation of the art form or, to put it another way, ‘must be a bit thick’. This is sheer provocation, it does not encourage healthy debate and has no discernable merit.

 

Next, the question of whether an emotional response is more honest than an intellectual response. In my view, this is a no-brainer. An emotional response is instinctive, an intellectual response depends upon received learning. The intellectual response will be better informed but the emotional response is unquestionably more honest. Great art has to engage the emotions as well as meeting the technical requirements and where performance art is concerned, this is dependent upon the individual performances on the night (and these are also informed by the chemistry between the performers) as much as the music and choreography.

 

However subliminally, there is a suggestion in some of the posts that those whose chief response to an art form is emotional, or those who enjoy ‘inferior’ types of entertainment, may lack the capacity to fully appreciate ‘high art’. I have enjoyed ‘high art’ for decades yet I will happily watch Made in Chelsea with my children or read the Daily Mail for light relief. As a young teenager, I cried just as much watching Barbra Streisand’s Fanny Brice on screen as Rita Hunter’s Leonora on the stage. It is the honesty in the performance that reaches out and touches us and transforms a work of art from something that has objective and intellectual merit into something that we can recognise as great art.

 

So what if Lantratov and Alexandrova mugged for the crowd by ducking under the curtain? You could say the same about the Lantratov/Krysanova ‘rose’ routine at the curtain call for ‘Shrew’. It engages with the audience. It injects life and vitality and humanity. It is what performing is about. People respond.

 

And on that point, Nureyev, whom godots_arrived clearly does appreciate, was a shameless mugger and none the worse for it.

 

Finally, godots_arrived does seem to have apologised repeatedly on this thread. I have no problem with stirring controversy as long as this does not descend into personal attack, and some of the posts were getting close, but hopefully everyone can now move on.

[MAB]

I didn’t see ‘Flames’ this run. I saw it last time and wasn’t wowed, even with Vasipova burning up the stage – too similar, in some ways, to their double act in Laurencia with the Mikhailovsky at the Coliseum round about the same time. I would have loved, though, to have seen more of Lantratov. I liked him last time round and he was even better this time in Taming of the Shrew (ditto Tikhomirova who also brought the disappointing opening night of Don Q alive for me).

 

 

Much as I adore Osipova, I couldn't help thinking the Vasipova partnership upset the balance of the ballet as a whole as I see it very much as an ensemble piece.  Do give it another chance if you get the opportunity to see another cast, you may revise your opinion.

[godots_arrived]

 

Next, the question of whether an emotional response is more honest than an intellectual response. In my view, this is a no-brainer. An emotional response is instinctive, an intellectual response depends upon received learning. The intellectual response will be better informed but the emotional response is unquestionably more honest. Great art has to engage the emotions as well as meeting the technical requirements and where performance art is concerned, this is dependent upon the individual performances on the night (and these are also informed by the chemistry between the performers) as much as the music and choreography.

 

However subliminally, there is a suggestion in some of the posts that those whose chief response to an art form is emotional, or those who enjoy ‘inferior’ types of entertainment, may lack the capacity to fully appreciate ‘high art’. I have enjoyed ‘high art’ for decades yet I will happily watch Made in Chelsea with my children or read the Daily Mail for light relief. As a young teenager, I cried just as much watching Barbra Streisand’s Fanny Brice on screen as Rita Hunter’s Leonora on the stage. It is the honesty in the performance that reaches out and touches us and transforms a work of art from something that has objective and intellectual merit into something that we can recognise as great art.

 

So what if Lantratov and Alexandrova mugged for the crowd by ducking under the curtain? You could say the same about the Lantratov/Krysanova ‘rose’ routine at the curtain call for ‘Shrew’. It engages with the audience. It injects life and vitality and humanity. It is what performing is about. People respond.

 

And on that point, Nureyev, whom godots_arrived clearly does appreciate, was a shameless mugger and none the worse for it.

 

Finally, godots_arrived does seem to have apologised repeatedly on this thread. I have no problem with stirring controversy as long as this does not descend into personal attack, and some of the posts were getting close, but hopefully everyone can now move on.

 

S -- thanks. Your take on emotional vs. learned response was fascinating and the point about received learning was bang on and one I should have made myself. You did what I had hoped would happen all along: I wasn't ever trying to say that my view (or any view) held supremacy...just that a discussion of our different responses to art was interesting and it'd be engaging to hear what people thought. You picked up and covered all the areas I was hoping everyone would dig into. It's a fascinating subject.

 

With regard to the curtain-ducking episode, your justification is beautifully put and, I think, rather makes me eat my words. You are right. As for my thoughts about Nureyev, you're right about that as well but as I can't come even close to talking objectively about him he's a subject I'll avoid.  I think as I said some time earlier, our response to a performance does tell us a lot not only about the performance but about ourselves, too.

[Vanartus]

I've been told off too. For stuff. Once quite unfairly. Take it on the chin. I loved Flames - saw the matinee. I took it as a (post-) ironic take on the original but done with real feeling and understanding of the historical context. I'm a big Ratmansky fan, so...

 

Re the forum - I've found it very useful and get quite a lot from it.

[MaggiM]

Thank you, Sheherezade, I was trying to write along exactly the same lines, but you did it beautifully.