Ratmansky SLEEPING BEAUTY for ABT, Bastille Opera House, Paris

[Bruce Wall]

A quick notation hurriedly scribbled on the Eurostar coming back from Paris vis a vis the four opening performances by American Ballet Theater (ABT) of Ratmansky’s Sleeping Beauty (a co-production with La Scala) currently lodged at the Bastille Opera House.  

 

It is in many ways an enchanting production.  Would that there were a theatre in London large enough to comfortably take the scope of this panoply.  It would, I fear, look squished at even the largest current addresses much as the Bolshoi’s Garden sequence from Le Corsaire did at the ROH.  The stunning Garland Dance alone  - a veritable Chelsea Flower Show on the gavotte – is ravishing but takes over 50 dancers at one time easily ... plus an army of children (students from the Paris Opera Ballet School – who are rapturously prevalent in various guises throughout.  In New York these roles are filled with young dancers from the Jacqueline Onasis School, ABT’s feeder outfit.)  That, of course, is small beer to the close to 100 dancers (including copious children) in Balanchine’s own thrilling Garland Dance which is firmly rooted in Peter Martins’ production of the classic.  There is, of course, no chance of seeing that Balanchine segment here … {It would be a matter of a 'being all dressed up with nowhere to go' syndrome.  Indeed, I suspect the Balanchine has probably not been seen outside of Manhattan.   (I find it strange to say – as I really don’t much care for much of his oeuvre – but I STILL think I prefer Martins’ Sleeping Beauty over any other – and certainly think that Sir Peter Wright’s for BRB stands head and shoulders above any other production in current UK reps.  … But back to Paris … 

 

Ratmansky’s use of the Stepanov notations ensures that the builds are always particularly Ashtonian.  (I pray that FLOSS is attending and will write a detailed review in her wonderful style as I would imagine this will be right up her street.)  You will find no hyper extensions here.  Serving the story is the prime – indeed sometimes it appears to be the ONLY - purpose here.  Continuously it is told with extraordinary clarity.  The score (sumptuously played by the Orchetre de l’Opera national de Paris) is refreshingly etched –and as clearly intended – is here done at the original dedicated speed.  The generous use of demi-pointe makes this particularly potent.  When a full arabesque or penche are achieved their very rendering fosters a sincere and rightful sense of wonderment as if such were not just a full stop ... but the most glowing of exclamation points!  It is so revealing to think that this is exactly the kind of thing that Ashton would have seen in his youth and such as he always said was his key inspiration.  

 

The physical design (both sets and costumes) by Richard Hudson is extravagant .. without evere being overwhelming.  The designs are rendered here ‘after Leon Bakst’.  One suspects that some of the colours have unquestionably been toned down to accommodate modern tastes ... but several vibrant examples remain ... my favourite being ‘Le Pincesse Florine et L’oiseau Bleu’.  The ‘Bleu’ in question – streaked across with silver -  is particularly vibrant.  It floats in the eye.  You can swim in it

 

Strangely it wasn’t the longer established principal dancers that really stood out for me as I thought might be the case over the four performances ... but a coterie of youngsters and some fine character work by three talented senior artists.  

 

Prime among that lot were  the truly enchanting Cassandra Trenary (bravely McKenzie gave her the opening night Aurora and she will have the closing too) and – most notably AMONGST ALL - the current corps member (although one suspects not for very long) Gabe Stone Shayer.  Both of these young people have life enriching smiles.  Indeed Trenary has the same kind of generous candour and open minded rapture such as frequently used to light across the countenance of Peggy Lee.  There too can be no question but that both have sufficient strength in technique to take on board the stealthy demands that this particular regime demands.  In another outing Trenary was electrifying as Le Fee, Canari Qui Chante and Shayer – an American with Bolshoi training - was simply OUTSTANDING as the Bluebird.  His hesitations in the air reminded me of no less than those of Vladimir Vasiliev who I was once lucky enough to see in this role.  He simply soared.  Certainly Shayer’s first solo outdid in my estimation that of Danill Simkin who is always a little too knowing for my taste.  Twice Simkin danced with the ubiquitous Misty Copland who brings her own team of cheering fans.  As I have in the past I found Ms. Copeland to be stiff whilst admiring her sincere industry .  Still the audience on Sunday afternoon who had been (understandably given the many weaknesses Hee Sao displayed in pitching her catalytic role) more than reserved suddenly sprung to life in the early evening and roared its approval for  Trenary and Shayer.  It was as if the King and Queen had decided to abdicate In favour – not of their own offspring-  but of the shining glory of the Aves kingdom!  (Indeed in face of the roars for the youngsters I thought I detected a slight – an ever SO slight - air of surprise from the talented Marcelo Gomes – by far the best partner of the week.  His fish dive circus was as if it were but a gentle stroll in the park.) His principal ballet days though – like those of Gillian Murphy – are numbered.  Trenary and Shayer are going to be ABT stars – much like Naghdi and Ball will assuredly be at the RB.  They ARE ABT’s future now that McKenzie has wisely veered away from the age old star system.  How wonderful too that both will have come out of ABT’s own ranks.  (I can well see our current [ENB] own Cesar Corrales ULTIMATELY ending up here as he has long said was his dream.  There is no question but that he would be in his element ... and he and Shayer - who is slightly older at 23 - would both dazzle beyond measure for yet another generation.)    

 

Another dancer who really – and consistently – stood out for me was young Skylar Brandt.  She was not only assured in the Ratmansky exploits but filled every movement with a generous dose of personality – so dominant in this particular regime.  Her Diamond flared with inner dazzle.  [Refreshingly ABT is much more diverse and clearly now illustrates the rapidly changing face of America.  Bravo Mr. McKenzie.]

 

Another high point was the rich character portrayals.  M. Gomes, C. Salstein and N. Raffa (yes, that brilliant prize winning dancer from the ‘80s is now an ABT Ballet Mistress) were all different yet equally superb as Carrabosse.  Gomes in particular was so clear in this responsive devices that I think he will easily be placed up there with Monica Mason (a long time favourite) or Merrill Ashley in the role.  Roman Zhurbin’s King was also entirely notable – and could easily give our own wonderful Gary Avis a run for his much deserved money.  Nothing was ever over done – nor any focus pulled – but the messages and authority were always crystal clear.  Bravo.

 

It was – as ever with this company – a delight to be reminded of the gifts of Britons Gemma Bond and Thomas Forster (both of whom danced quite a bit.)  Thomas Forster (as well as the talented Calvin Royal III) was telling as Prince Charming in the moving Cinderella segment.  

 

Still of the four performances I saw it really was Trenary and Shayer who owned the day … who stole their shows ... and that was potent as they are still both at the dawn of their careers.  They will be very much in the generation of other fine dancers like our own Naghdi and Ball; like Stix-Brunnell and Muntagirov.  

 

As ever it was lovely to have another chance to commune with DonQFan and SheilaC from the board.  Both are good friends and that too offered much to celebrate.  

 

I was amazed by the number of seats (the expensive ones) left unfilled at all but the Saturday matinee.  (I see next Saturday’s matinee is already completely subscribed.)  I even checked on the queue for the five euro seats for all four performances.  The highest it ever got to (and there are 32 places) was 16 for the Saturday night.  When the doors opened for their purchase for the Sunday matinee there were but six – and the majority of those just turned up at that time.  I, myself, had a ticket for the upper reaches … thinking it would sell out well in advance - but only ever sat in it once.  Certainly it was much more comfortable to sit in the 154 Euro seats – and often I had the majority of a row to myself.  As much as I was appreciative I did feel this was a tad sad.  

 

I will be going back for the final three Parisian performances next weekend – just to get a fully rounded picture of the current state of ABT – and if any other impressions arise I will drop it in note form here.

 

It would be grand to hear from any others who may have seen this production be it in Paris, in Milano or in New York or California.  

Edited September 5, 2016 by Bruce Wall

[Bruce Wall]

Could a monitor take pity on my folly and please correct my title ... So Basille ... reads, Bastille ... or just take it out altogether ... and just say Paris.  Thank you.  Only wish I could correct the title myself within the half hour window and not have to bother you.  Sadly I can't.  

Edited September 5, 2016 by Bruce Wall

[Jan McNulty]

Done!

 

It sounds like a fabulous production Bruce.

[Bruce Wall]

Bless you BIG TIME, Janet.  Much, MUCH thanks.   

[FLOSS]

I was also at the first four performances of the Ratmansky reconstruction and I am still in the process of collecting my thoughts and deciding what to say to give you some idea of how this  Sleeping Beauty compares with the standard "traditional" Royal Ballet version. If this version is correct, and I have no reason to doubt that it is a reconstruction based on the Stepanov notation in which the stagers have tried very hard to use period appropriate performance style then the authenticity of the Royal Ballet's carefully "conserved" text, which is said to be the one set on the company by Nicholai Sergeyev, is almost as questionable as that of the Mariinsky.

 

All restorations involve  compromise but this version is as close as we are likely to get to something which Petpa might recognise. In a performance lasting two hours and fifty five minutes with two intervals, one of twenty minutes and another of twenty five minutes ABT manages to show its audiences far more of Petipa's choreographic text than the Royal Ballet has done in years. This production reveals the fine detail and musicality of the original choreography by restoring small beaten steps to the text and extended versions of sections of dance,mime and gesture which are generally heavily cut today.

 

What else is different? The score is played at a speed that the choreographer and composer might recognise presumably on the assumption that as Tchaikovsky worked to a minutage provided by Petipa the score represents what the composer intended and the choreographer wanted. The dancers do not impose modern "improved" technique on the text but perform in period appropriate style with the surprising result that the music and text fit without distortion. The conductors follow the score to the letter rather than offering breaks to acknowledge applause to all and sundry with the result that the performance flows just as the individual dances flow. Only the Bluebird and the Prince are allowed a little breather before they embark on their solos which I suspect is a matter of expedience rather than indulgence.

 

I will give details of textual changes and individual performances later.But I will say that i agree with Bruce'S assessment of the merits of the performances of the four Auroras.  I have seen some adverse comment about the decision to give Cassandra Trenary  the opening night but of the four Auroras I saw she was  by far the most impressive. The two senior dancers were proficient but lacking in apparent youth and charm while Hee Soa .did not appear to be up to the task.

Edited September 5, 2016 by FLOSS

[DrewCo]

Thanks very much for these reports on ABT's Sleeping Beauty in Paris.  I enjoyed the production a lot when I saw it and I hope one day also to see Trenary's Aurora which I have not seen.

 

I don't know if there was a mistake in the French cast lists, but did want to mention that it's "Hee Seo" not Sao or Soa. 

Edited September 5, 2016 by DrewCo

[David]

Done!

 

It sounds like a fabulous production Bruce.

One can only hope that one day it will appear on DVD!

[David]

One can only hope that one day it will appear on DVD!

 

I should know this - does the American Ballet Theatre come over here? If they can pop over to Paris ............!!!!

Edited September 6, 2016 by David

[Jan McNulty]

Yes they have popped over here (but not on a regular basis).

[FLOSS]

There was a disappointingly little detail in the ABT programme about the sources used in the reconstruction.The Sleeping Beauty was a true collaboration between composer and choreographer and it marked a real artistic departure on Petipa's part. We need to remember that if Petipa had died in 1889 he would be remembered for ballets d'action such as Le Corsaire which we have recently seen in London. and even that ballet. if it had survived, would have looked very different from its final 1899 form. It would have looked far more like the French original as it would have included few,if any, of the Italian innovations in technique which Petipa incorporated into the ballets he created and revived in the 1890's.

 

The starting point for this reconstruction of course was the Stepanov notations of Petipa's ballets which Nicholai Sergeyev brought with him to the West when he left Russia in the aftermath of the Revolution. Here we need to remember that the Sleeping Beauty was created in 1890 but was only notated 1903 so the text  does not necessarily represent exactly what was danced in 1890. But it certainly records what was being danced during Petipa's lifetime and his tenure as Ballet Master at the Mariinsky and it almost certainly includes changes the choreographer made to display the skills of Antoinetta Dell-Era.However the notations are not complete. I think it was Doug Fullington who pointed out that while the legs and feet are always recorded, the upper body, head and arms are not always recorded.These are gaps where the stager has to make decisions about what he or she thinks that the dancers would have been doing with their head, arms and upper body. My money would be on following Cechetti to the letter since you rarely feel the need to record things which are self evident. I suspect that the people who eventually became responsible for notating the ballets ended up creating aide memoirs rather than full records.As I understand it Ratmansky has supplemented this basic source material with contemporary reports and photographs of the production.In addition he has looked at early films of the Royal Ballet's performances. I imagine he did this to see bits of the ballet performed in the performance style which had been introduced to the West by dancers from the Imperial Ballet who had danced this and other ballets by Petipa and had studied with Cechetti.  It does not say that in the programme nor is there an immediately obvious reference to the 1921 revival of Sleeping Beauty having taken place in London.

 

There are two points at which Ratmansky deliberately departs from the Stepanov notation and ties this reconstruction into the London based Western performance tradition of the ballet. Again I don't think it is very clearly stated in connection with these performances because it has caused a little controversy on the Dansomanie Forum where someone I think believes that they have caught Ratmansky out in his  claims about the authenticity of his "reconstruction" because they have noticed that Ratmansky has included the "Fish dives"  in the Act III Grand pas de Deux  which were first seen in Diaghilev's London revival in 1921. Again I believe that the original version of that section is an option for those who want to dance it. The other concession to the  Western performance tradition is the addition of the en Couronne pose in the Rose Adagio which is Fonteyn's contribution to the performance tradition..

 

The reconstruction is performed at the speed which Petipa expected it to be. it restores detail to the variations, gestures and mime which reveal contrasts and layers of meaning which are lost in standard stagings which emphasise the ballet's classicism at the expense of character and narrative. The absence of Soviet style choreography with its emphasis on steps of elevation and large scale expansive performances makes it feel very much lighter in character, far less of a monument to classicism and much closer to Bournonville in character and style than we normally see. This is Petipa the nineteenth century choreographer rather than Petipa the proto twentieth century one whose ballets,thanks to Russian stagers, always appeared cutting edge  

 

Petipa built contrast into this ballet by the minutage he gave to Tchaikovsky which prescribed the number of bars and the tempo for each section.If you look at the Fairy Variations, this is clear from the markings on the score and should be obvious in performance but current performance practice seems to require that everything should be played at the same speed wherever possible. It is this tendency to homogeneity which leads to the torpor and boredom which the Prologue tends to induce in the audience. I shall simply say that the Prologue was definitely a torpor free zone. 

 

In the reconstruction the Fairy Variations are not an exercise in lifeless classicism because they are danced as the distinctive demi caractere roles which they were almost certainly intended to be, rather than the lifeless exercises in classicism into which they have been transformed during the twentieth century. The Candide Variation is slow and graceful with little beaten steps between each movement forward. She does not look at all like someone wading through treacle in this version; Coulante flows and is charming;if you catch the right performance of the Miette qui tombant variation (Breadcrumb Fairy) you don't simply see general wafty arm movements  to the accompaniment of pizzicato violins because about three quarters of the way through the variation you see the dancer clench her fists as if her hands are full of something and then release her fingers and gesture as if she is throwing what she had been holding; Canari qui Chante (Songbird) dances at almost the same speed as Collier did in 1978 (which is about twice the speed of the current performance practice at Covent Garden) and if you are lucky she turns her back to the audience to reveal her beating wings; Violante ( Finger Variation) is far less stacatto than at Covent Garden and the dancer never points to the floor and her arms generally stay between her shoulders and her waist when she raises her arms above her head at the end of the variation, with the right dancer, you catch the suggestion of sparks of electricity passing between the fingers of each hand. The Lilac Fairy is very elegant, aristocratic, beneficent and restrained.She does not do the variation we usually see at Covent Garden. Although there are apparently two different variations which Ratmansky has sanctioned I saw the same version at each performance..

 

The Lilac Fairies' beautiful movements have meaning just as Carabosse's ugly movements do. These two character each have a distinctive mime gesture for the word "say" so Carabosse's gesture  makes it look as if she is pulling the words out of her mouth while the Lilac Fairy makes gestures with her open palms under just under her mouth as if her worlds are flowing in a beautiful stream. 

 

In this version we see the contrasts which the choreographer built into the various sections of the ballet and at the same time we are aware of the overall structure of the act in which they appear.It restores the Sleeping Beauty to the stage as an almost demi caractere work  created to charm and amuse its audience rather than impress it.It feels a bit like hearing a work by Chopin which you are used to hearing on a late twentieth century Steinway piano being played on a mid nineteenth century French Erard  or seeing a painting with the varnish of centuries removed. On the basis of this restoration I would say that Alexander Grant's comments about the loss of apparently minor detail which seem to be of no significance to the performer leading to the loss of what is essential to a particular ballet is as true of Petipa as it is of Ashton. I think that is enough for present if anyone is interested the Fairy Variations from this production are available on Youtube however the Breadcrumb Fairy does not throw anything. There are other sections to be found on line as well as some material from French Television on Ballet Alert.

Edited September 7, 2016 by FLOSS

[stucha]

Thanks Floss.  As to the fish dives, Ratmansky stated that they were included in a nod to the 1921 London performances, given that the sets and costumes were based on those for that same production. Other details where some claim to "have caught Ratmansky out" are on record as being addressed by him.  The La Scala programme has heaps of notes by him but sadly I can't read Italian and anyway, I don't think he is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

Edited September 8, 2016 by stucha

[FLOSS]

I thought that I should start with part of the Prologue because it has become something of an optional extra as it is often boring in performance. The reconstruction is a bit like a box of goodies where everything looks so good choreographically that you don't know where to look next. While not all the costumes are successful, Cinderella's Prince has a great deal to complain about, most work well enough and some work exceptionally well.

 

Years ago I read that Cattalabutte was based on a member of the Imperial court and would have been instantly recognisable to the original audience. I could never see that in Leslie Edwards portrayal fascinating though it was. He seemed to be excessively pleased with himself but that was all. In this version Cattalabutte is a fussing.unctuous,fawning individual.He opens the ballet by telling the audience that everyone is rejoicing at the birth of the baby and has far more to say for himself than usual in addition when Carabosse tries to find out who has left her off the guest list Cattalabutte tries to blame the hapless herald who is  his underling.

 

The Prologue over all is not that different from the Royal Ballet's in structure and content and yet it feels far richer largely because there is more mime for everyone, the fairies are quite chatty as a group, and there is more detail and contrast even within a variation lasting only 26 bars. The fairies are not on full pointe as much as we have become used to seeing but shift between demi pointe, quarter pointe and full pointe. Ashton's comments about "taking private lessons with Petipa" make real sense in the context of this production's Fairy Variations in a way that they don't in the context of the " standard" somewhat anaemic portrayals that we are used to seeing.The fairies' pages who hold the gifts and present them don't just march off the stage they dance off. The Prologue concludes not with the RB's diagonal facing up stage to the cradle but with the corps  and Fairies grouped protectively around Aurora in a semicircle with the King near the footlights banning the use of spindles in his Kingdom. This final tableau must once have been part of the RB's staging as John Percival bemoaned its non inclusion in Mason's revision of her production of the ballet in 2006,

 

Carabosse makes a splendid entry on a vehicle surmounted by black feathers attached to spiral  golden poles which looks a bit like a hearse. Her makeup makes her look like a close relative of the Immortal Kostchei. Her  rats do a dance that looks pretty innocuous today, which is probably why de Valoius had her rats slithering on the floor in 1977. The content of their dance is fascinating because it seems to me that it is sufficiently at variance with the rules of elegance, symmetry and balance of the danse d'ecole to be a reference to the grotesque style of dancing allocated to those portraying wicked spirits. It does not look that jarring in the world of McGregor and Forsythe. In fact some of it looks like the sort of dance which you might have seen in a place of popular entertainment in the nineteenth century but it is jarring in a seventeenth or eighteenth century context.The more I looked at this production the more aware I became of the amount of dance history Petipa had put into his choreography and that it was not merely confined to the hunting scene. 

 

As far as the first act is concerned the Garland Dance is very much the big production number of this section of the ballet. It  seems to have been one of the few things that the older ballet critics really liked at the ballet's premiere. Bruce has said that there are more than fifty people on the stage while it is being performed and that is clearly true but I think that the number of people actually dancing in it is no more than forty eight made up of an adult corps de ballet of sixteen men and sixteen women and a group of eight boys and eight girls. I am not convinced that this section was ever about moving dancers across large tracts of the stage at any one time or watching steps. I think that it was created to show movement of different types and qualities and in different planes . For that reason we are given juxtapositions of male and female, adults and children and objects being held at different heights and angles.I think that in this section Petipa was concerned with displaying changing floor plans and his ability to move the corps about the stage in blocks a bit like counter marching.It was devised to be seen at best advantage from above.Remember the Imperial box at the Mariinsky was in the centre of the first balcony with an excellent view of the stage. The Emperor wanted to see what he was paying for and showing him large groups of his dancers making changing patterns was a way of doing that.Again there is an element of continuity with the recent past in all of this.Russian dancers in the 1890's were only one or two generations away from a world in which they might well have been his Imperial  Majesty;s serfs. Serf orchestras and serf dancers were a very recent memory in 1890. The nineteenth century was a century of theatrical excess in which the stage was dressed with people. Moving people about on stage was entertainment and Petipa clearly knew that it appealed to his audience and it allowed the Tsar to see his servants and his property en masse.

 

The Garland dance begins with thirty two adult dancers in four rows of couples with the women holding baskets. They dance backwards and forwards in front of their male partners. After the opening section the children enter from the back of the stage and move towards the footlights in couples down the centre of the stage. The dance progresses and these lines move into other groupings At one point some of the dancers form a circle towards the back of the stage and move in a clockwise direction. At some points the men are at the sides of the stage with garlands which they move backwards and forwards over the women  at other points we see a block of garlands at the back of the stage. It ends in a beautiful stage tableau with all the dancers tightly grouped.

 

The knitters are generally seen as dispensable or at least as suitable candidates for editing. Sir Peter thinks that they are boring and unnecessary.  Until recently I might have agreed.In this production the six knitters enter like a group of conspirators. Each in turn produces her knitting and begins to knit. They are seen by Cattalabutte and the herald. Cattalabutte demands to see what they have in their hands. In unison they show first one empty hand and then the other. Cattalabutte discovers their knitting, seizes it and condemns them to death. This section takes about twice the time that the RB's knitters section does.The King and Queen enter and on discovering that the women have been knitting the King condemns them to death to music which expresses his anger and is usually cut. The Queen's body language at this point suggests that she thinks that the imminent execution might have a dampening effect on the birthday celebrations. She intervenes as do the four suitor princes. After persuasion the King relents and frees the knitters. Having seen the scene in this form it seems to be an essential element of the ballet as it shows a King who will listen to wiser counsel and exercises clemency. In this form the King's actions appear slightly less arbitrary than usual and the scene has a point much like other theatrical works such as La Clemenza di Tito which were created to emphasis the nature of royal mercy and the necessity of clemency in an all powerful ruler.

 

If you have seen the Fonteyn recording from the 1950's you will have a good idea of what Aurora's entrance and the Rose Adagio looks like in this production. When danced at the tempo dictated by the choreographer and composer, without exaggerated extensions or balances in period appropriate style with low arabesques the Rose Adagio which is a pas d'action is still a test of technique. Strangely when played at the right tempo ignoring your suitors seems to be less of an option than it is when "going for gold". At the right tempo raw power is very obviously not enough.The dancer has to do more by interacting with and acknowledging the presence of her four suitors throughout the pas. If she does not it will be noticed in a way it is not when this section of the ballet is treated almost as the sole reason for the ballet's existence.

 

During the course of this part of the act after meeting each of her suitors Aurora dances an extended section with one of the princes during the course of which she performs  a series of arabesques dancing parallel to a line of kneeling figures. In the current RB production she stops by each of them and seems to touch the side of her face for no apparent reason except that it is in the choreography. She is in fact listening to the music played by a line of musicians. In the ABT reconstruction she has a line of musicians played en travesti by students from the POB school. At the end of this section in the "traditional " version Aurora is lifted onto the prince's shoulder. In the reconstruction she is lifted by the prince who holds her in front of  him a couple of feet off the stage.The rest of the adagio is the same as the RB's but smaller scale,faster and potentially far more graceful and charming. 

 

The dance of the Maids of Honour  who we know as "Aurora's Friends" is more extensive than the RB's version but again the most noticeable difference is stylistic as with all the dances in the reconstruction a far less athletic approach is taken to performance. The musicians are given a little dance in this section in which the group that have been standing with the courtiers on one side of the stage, and those who have been kneeling, cross the stage in opposite directions. Perhaps I should say that apart from the dances allocated to the Fairy tale characters in the third act and Carbosse and her rats the choreography is flowing,soft, elegant, aristocratic,graceful  and apparently simple and effortless. In the final section of this act Aurora dances again at the request of the Princes.  Her dance does not cover the outer perimeters of the stage in the way we are used to seeing but of course she was not intended to be portrayed as an athlete. Carabosse in disguise  hands Aurora a spindle. She pricks herself and collapses to the floor. The King and Queen rush over Aurora  gets up.There is no "daddy kissing it better". When Aurora dances after she has collapsed she dances in a small space and there is no recoiling from Carabosse.  When Aurora collapses for the second time there is general consternation and a tableau of mourning before the Lilac Fairy appears and reminds the King and Queen of her promise and explains that everyone will fall asleep. She supervises Aurora's removal to the palace and the royal procession she then casts a spell over the courtiers in the courtyard who fall asleep. Her four helpers stand watching, protecting the palace.There is no  creeping foliage this is after all a production which must tour.

Edited September 8, 2016 by FLOSS

[Ian Macmillan]

No reviews in English yet, though Laura Cappelle may provide one for the FT.  However, if your French is up to it, you may want to look into links on this Google page.  If all else fails, there are pictures!

 

https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl=dzP2uXAu2X7A2JM&authuser=0&hl=fr&siidp=293ba9bf848bc12596d2a15d597960eb8994

[FLOSS]

It has been reviewed in the FT and if you are prepared to Google it and answer the paper's inane questions you can read the review in full. It does not really say that much and most of it could have been written without seeing any of the performances at all. Reconstructed from the Stepanov notation; restoration of forgotten steps; ironic that a company that has only recently celebrated its seventy fifth anniversary should be bringing this to Paris;company not as crisp on first night as they were in New York;the first night cast somewhat over played their parts.I wonder what the critic would have said about any of the other casts?

 

If you are interested in this reconstruction or reconstruction in theory and in practice then look out for the following:-

 

1)Tim Scholl's talk about Re-awakening Sleeping Beauty.

 

2)Doug Fullington's lecture/ presentations for PNWB about reconstructions of Petipa's ballets.

 

3) Look for Clips of the production on You Tube under the name of the choreographer who staged it.

 

You can also try Dansomanie Forum which has a discussion of the ABT's Paris performances some of the posts have links to bits of film as does the forum Ballet Alert. 

Edited September 8, 2016 by FLOSS

[FLOSS]

A new website is in the process of being set up. Some of the material about the reconstructions can already be found on the site of the Petipasociety.com

[Ian Macmillan]

FT, sometimes difficult but today OK for me and no inane questions, and hopefully ditto for others:

 

https://www.ft.com/content/0e06fd58-7358-11e6-bf48-b372cdb1043a

 

Floss: You, of course, have unrestricted space here and no dutiful sub-editor to ensure that your contributions fit into a given number of column inches.

 

 

 

Edit to say: Mea maxima culpa!  I've just realised that Janet had that FT review in Tuesday's Links.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Ian Macmillan

[Don Q Fan]

I enjoyed 2 performances on Saturday 3rd and Sunday 4th.  I really liked the production and the sets and costumes (once you get over some of them being rather garish!)   This is not a ballet full of bravura dancing so really the biggest bit of oomph comes with Bluebird.  I liked both performances by Daniil Simkin and Gabe Stone Shayer.  Of the 2 Auroras I think I preferred Gillian Murphy and I wish she had danced with Marcelo Gomes who was Sunday's Prince.  The cast were almost completely different both days apart from the character dancers and some of the variations so ABT really have brought a lot of dancers over. 

I liked the way that Ratmansky, and i assume the original version, has the first 2 acts together as this really helps the story to flow rather than some SBs where the Prologue and Act1 are split by an interval.  The loca POB orchestra were superb throughout.  

My photo of Misty Copeland and Daniil Simkin

Edited September 9, 2016 by Don Q Fan

[Bruce Wall]

That Petipa like Balanchine created a language is, I think, indisputable.  Ashton too – by his own admission - borrowed from those same – from the vocabulary of those he so admired – to forge his own unique and stunning confluence.  

 

In each case we are the benefactors.  

 

Tamara Rojo in ENB’s season launch said – and I here hastily paraphrase - that ‘heritage should not be frozen’.  I entirely agree ... and it is only through deep thaws such as Ratmansky’s glorious production of Sleeping Beauty for both ABT and La Scala that an onlooker’s eyes can scale back the varnish that has been fixed dried for oh, so many years and see our own ‘classics’ afresh.  Such adventures allow us to see the vigorous novelty of the original for ourselves.  Indeed, we are privileged to be able to do so.

 

‘Well done, sir’ I say.  ‘Well done’.

 

Suddenly the writing of the choreography one thought one knew so well in a ballet like Sleeping Beauty becomes fresh.  Of course, yes, it is re-freshed; it is re-newed.  Without hesitation it is fluid.  Were it to be otherwise I could not watch the same production – at almost three hours – seven times over less than a week and a half.  That’s almost an entire day.  But,here, you cannot help but be engaged.  This presentation is far from being lodged in any numbed state.  It offers us a warm and valuable continuum.  It IS humane.

 

For me THAT is the exact opposite of what I think about when I reflect on or speak of something being ‘frozen’ ... If I were a betting man – and I sometimes am given that our lives are progressively more and more about calculated risk - I would hazard to guess that even the zealously brilliant Ms. Rojo herself is open to a wide variety of interpretations in this specific regard within the ever rising aspic of her mind.    

 

That the humane and precise joy of petit allegro so dominates the Ratmansky/Petipa re-construction comes as a refreshing change – an Ashtonian ‘unfreezing’ if you like - in a balletic era frequently marked by hyper extended violence or – at certain times – seeming contortionism meanderingly rendered in oft jerking dollops.   

 

The more one watches this Ratmansky re-creation the more detail one sees in the music that guides it.  This monster cries. It laughs, sings – and, yes, prances – in equal measure.  But then that is true of Ratmansky’s own work in my experience ... and... at least for me.... he frequently rewards your perseverance with joy.  

 

‘Well done, sir,’ I say again.  ‘Well done’.

 

I returned to this production in Paris after a stressful week.  Again it is filled with delights.  For specific example I love the fact that Aurora involves her friends and not just her suitors and parents – if for only a brief moment it’s true, but still  –in the Rose Adagio.  Moreover the build of the vision sequence here is wonderfully strong and wrought in the very fibre of its community.  It doesn’t seem – as I have sometimes see it do – oddly coming out of left field.  By this sequence’s  end Aurora literally becomes a pinnacle for any military officer’s intended fantasy poised - as she literarily is here - on the top of a shell.  That story telling – that rendering of narrative – is superb.  It flows; it cavorts; it roisters.  It gambols with our delight. 

 

This production lets us see for ourselves why Petipa was perching on the very apex of his own zenith.  There is nothing frosty about Ratmansky’s work here AT ALL.  No.  It flames in Petipa’s rapture. 

 

‘Well done, sir’, I mumble one last time.  ‘Well done indeed!’

[FLOSS]

It is indeed a wonderful eye opener of a production. It retains the correct balance between the elements of each section of the ballet. You remain aware of the ballet's structure and the trajectory of Aurora's story; you see a different aspect of Aurora in each act and the Rose Adagio is given its due weight in the entire structure rather than being treated as the only reason for the ballet's continued presence in the repertory, Treating the Rose Adagio as the most important part of the ballet, which I fear is how Rojo , herself, tended to treat it, undermines the ballet's architecture and renders everything in act 3 especially the grand pas de deux something of an anticlimax.

 

If the powers that be at Covent Garden could be persuaded to dispense with the services of the Russian conductors it currently employs for the Tchaikovsky/Petipa ballets and secure the services of a conductor who would treat the composer and choreographer as competent men of the theatre taking the tempi indicated on the score seriously who knows what we might see on the Covent Garden stage? We might see the RB's current production restored to vitality looking more like the light,charming entertainment which the ballet was intended to be rather than the monument to a sort of abstract classicism and artistic self indulgence which it has gradually become since the 1990's.I suppose it's too much to hope that Kevin and some of the company's coaches have actually gone to see this production in Paris, or if they have, that they will have learnt anything from seeing it.

Edited September 10, 2016 by FLOSS

[Geoff]

If the powers that be at Covent Garden could be persuaded to dispense with the services of the Russian conductors it currently employs for the Tchaikovsky/Petipa ballets and secure the services of a conductor who would treat the composer and choreographer as competent men of the theatre taking the tempi indicated on the score seriously who knows what we might see on the Covent Garden stage?

Having read this and other posts by FLOSS and others, I went looking for clips on YouTube and found Vishneva dancing what is labelled "ABT Ratmansky SB Rose Adagio/ Variation". This clip seems to have some fairly dramatic distortions of tempi (exactly as highlighted by FLOSS and seen so often by us in the UK) so what am I missing here? Did ABT do this differently in Paris?

 

Fascinating discussion, in any case, and I am really sorry not to have found a way to see this yet.

[assoluta]

@ FLOSS

 

Considering your interest in this subject, I suggest you invest some time in studying very extensive discussion of what exactly we can say and what we can’t about the original productions of ‘Sleeping Beauty’ based on all available sources. The discussion took place in Russian scholarly balletological publications several years ago.

Edited September 10, 2016 by assoluta

[Bruce Wall]

Well, it’s now gone and done – the final three Parisian ABT SB’s that is.  T’was a happy turn all round and blessedly all performances were at capacity.  The word of this production’s quality got out and the Parisian audience clamoured to embrace its large capacity in the end.  

 

And the award for the best male Act III solo as Florestan goes unquestionably to the wonderful Hermann Cornejo.  Deservedly the crowd barked their approval.  Some pretty fancy partnering too it must be said.  

 

In reference to the above I should like to address the scribe, one Ms. Perry, who wrote the DanceTabs review of this production.  She is of course entitled to her opinions which I enjoy reading, but once again I find certain broad sweeping generalisations she makes therein somewhat distressing; most especially when they prove to be inaccurate.  I fear this may be something of a trait with this journalist.  She did exactly the same thing with NYCB when that company was in Paris this summer .  Perhaps it's just something about Paris and Ms. Perry.  Perhaps next time another DT critic might be called for.  Someone local perhaps?.  Certainly such inaccuracies are not worthy of as fine a publication as DanceTabs unquestionably is.  

 

If I can give but ONE example from Perry’s ABT article.  (a) She spends two different paragraphs going on about the fish dives – and how they were a later add on – and are perhaps not entirely appropriate for the overall clarity of intent in Ratmansky’s undertaking ... as well as -b- highlighting her own dismay that there weren’t different variations for the male principle – given that Petipa DID do different variations for different performers – much as Balanchine was famed for.  

 

Well, all I can say is that in the matinee this afternoon – in the Grand Wedding Pas with Lane and Cornejo – there was not a fish dive to be found; Nulla Ms. Perry.  It was an entirely different variation for the two and I have to assume it was approved by Ratmansky as i saw him sitting there watching and applauding it (aside K. McKenzie; I Kolpakova; S Jones and others) with my own two eyes.  Mr. Cornjeo’s Florestan variation also had certain alterations/differences from that of Mr. Whiteside in the evening.  (It was Whiteside that the DanceTabs scribe witnessed.)  

 

One thing that did remain constant however – and which even Ms. Perry praised – was the freshness of Ms. Trenary.  Her smile’s beam as she initially met each suitor melted the collective heart of the audience as well.  This is a star in the making. Of THAT there is NO mistake.  

 

And NOW that's me well and truly over and out

Edited September 11, 2016 by Bruce Wall

[Bruce Wall]

I'm so sorry ... I mis-spelled the critic's name referenced above.  It should be P'A'RRY.  My fault entirely.  Tiredness more like.  My apologies to all involved.  

[FLOSS]

I understand that any attempt at reconstructing a ballet involves taking artistic and editorial decisions whether it is a nineteenth century work like Sleeping Beauty or Ashton's Sylvia ,out of the repertory in any version for about fifty years, which is being reconstructed. There may well be cuts to be made and gaps to be filled and as performance style has altered considerably in the last fifty years there will be decisions to be made about the style in which the ballet is to be danced which will have an enormous impact not only on what the audience sees but on its readiness to accept it. Someone engaged in reconstructing a ballet has to choose between the Pierre La Cotte approach which tends to give the modern audience what it is comfortable with and expects to see as far as technique is concerned and the Doug Fullington, Ratmansky approach of actually attempting to stage a ballet in a form which attempts to recapture the essential balance between the elements of procession, dance and mime, and something closer to period appropriate performance style than we are used to seeing. 

 

Geoff. This reconstructed Sleeping Beauty is very much work in progress. There were considerable differences in how the role of Aurora was danced at each performance that I saw. This was not the usual difference in interpretation and emphasis of two or more dancers performing the same role but of something more basic. I was going to say that these differences reflected the extent to which the dancers concerned were committed to Ratmansky's vision of the Sleeping Beauty but that would be unfair because all the Auroras seemed to modify their approach to the way in which they performed the choreography and tried to abandon old habits, The truth is that some were more successful in achieving the "new " period appropriate style than others.

 

The reality, no doubt, is that a young dancer like Trenary whose only experience of dancing Aurora, is in this style in this production, does not have to adjust to its "new" demands simply because she has little or nothing to forget about the modern performance tradition. Both Murphy and Boylston who I did see tried to reproduce the "new" old fashioned performance style that Ratmansky wanted but I was always aware that they were engaged in the conscious effort of reining in their modern overtly powerful style and overriding their muscle memory during set pieces like the Rose Adagio but the "standard" distortions were less marked than they usually are. At no point did I form the impression that any of the dancers were trying to prolong their balances in order to establish the strength of their technique or that any of the dancers treated the Rose Adagio as the most important part of the entire ballet.I think that this is almost certainly true of Vishneva's approach as well.

 

I noticed similar variability in the performance of the Fairy Variations where I found that I saw more unfamiliar detail at the matinees than at the evening performances. It is the cumulative effect of the restored choreographic text and the chosen performance style on the ballet as a whole rather than individual performances which is most remarkable.Now not everyone achieves it all the time but in general legs are lower, arms softer and more rounded  and the approach of the entire company to the choreography is more nuanced and more musical than is usual today in other companies' productions. It is quite extraordinary  what effect taking Tchaikovsky seriously and treating the music as the frame within which all the steps were intended to be performed has on the entire ballet.

 

I don't think that anyone is saying that what ABT showed the Parisian audience IS  Petipa's Sleeping Beauty. It is merely a step on the way to restoring to the stage something as close as we can hope to get to it. Abandoning the idea that the score is an obstacle which can be manipulated and distorted to suit the the stager's whims and those of the star dancers appearing in it  to provide them with opportunities to dance where they were intended to have none, or to suit their own "artistic" needs in the big set pieces is quite revolutionary in itself. Even more so when you know that most of the dancers cast as the Prince have yet to gain mastery of their third act choreography which is full of steps many of which are unfamiliar to the dancers concerned. Petite batterie is not the usual domain of ballet princes, but it is here. and you feel sure that if the text is retained the dancers will eventually gain mastery of what they are required to dance and when they do so they will dance it with aristocratic ease and elegance.

 

So what have we gained? The restoration of the oldest versions of the floor plans and groupings that are available and a real commitment  to attempt to restore the musicality of Petipa's choreography which requires the dancers to dance rather than move from pose to pose. Even those dancers who can't quite manage to rid themselves of old habits still show an impetus to a flow of movement rather than to posing in this version.This is not always that obvious in the YouTube clips of Vishneva but it might become a little clearer if you compare that footage with, say Cojocaru's account of the Rose Adagio. 

 

 assoluta, I should love to be able to access the material which you mention but is it readily accessible to non specialists and in a language other than Russian ? Perhaps I am being unfair here but the impression that I have gained from both the St.Petersburg ballet establishment's negative response to Vikharev's reconstruction of Sleeping Beauty for the Mariinsky and the Russian experts who addressed the Petpa Colloquium in Bordeaux last year is that for the main part they are quite happy with the current performing tradition and in no great hurry to see what might lie behind Konstantin Sergeyev's version of the ballet.The French experts spoke with the same enthusiasm about Rudolph's Petipa productions that the Russians did about K.Sergeyev's . Neither group seemed to be at all interested in other versions or earlier performance traditions and of course there is always the inherent problem of Nikolai. Sergeyev himself. As he chose to leave Russia in the wake of the Revolution he became something of a nonperson, as did so many of the other emigres. As a nonperson all of his actions were open to suspicion as were the written materials which he had taken from the Mariinsky and had brought out of Russia. Both the man and the records have have been the subject of suspicion and a great deal of scholarly heat has been generated on discussing just how reliable the man and written material could possibly be.

 

Me? I keep an open mind on all of this as my job and reputation are not involved in the outcome of such debate but the position of some of the Russian scholars involved debating these issues may well be. I think that the bicentennial year will be very interesting. Will we finally get a biography of Petipa in English of the same quality as Ivor Guest's biography of Perrot ? If it is Russian in origin just how much of a French man will he be allowed to be? What recordings will be released and by whom? Will 2018 be the year when Ratmansky allows his reconstruction of Swan Lake and Sleeping Beauty to be released on DVD? Perhaps by then he will have casts for both ballets who can dance consistently in the appropriate style. Perhaps we shall see Trenary in the lead as Aurora and a Prince who has sufficient mastery of the choreography to dance it with aristocratic ease and elegance? Only time will tell.

Edited September 11, 2016 by FLOSS

[Estreiiita]

I happened to be at the yesterday "Sleeping beauty" matinee performance and though I can't but praise the virtuosity of Herman Cornejo's dancing, I'd certainly appreciate a bit more feelings involved in his acting; it was quite a restrained and serious prince at the wedding - at least that was my impression. Sara Lane seemed to be much happier and smiled more as well.

We were a bit disappointed by the absence of fouettes - does anybody know why there was none of the famous 32 fouettes in yesterday performance? Did Ratmansky decide that they don't belong to the ballet or was it just a "special occasion"? I should confess I haven't seen many "SB" performances , but the last one I saw was in Berln, Nacho Duato's choreography and I do believe Iana Salenko (as Aurora) performed the fouettes there.

[Estreiiita]

Sorry for misleading everybody - I've just checked my notes - and no, no 32 fouettes ever performed by Aurora, should be some other PDD I've been keeping in mind - my mistake!

[Sim]

The famous 32 fouettes are performed by Odile in Act 3 of Swan Lake.  Kitri also does a good few in Don Quixote....and there is Le Corsaire as well....

[Estreiiita]

Yes, thank you, of course! One week to wait then - next Sunday I'll watch the "Swan Lake" in Copenhagen!

[FLOSS]

Assoluta if you are able to advise me as to how I can access the scholarly debate on what can and cannot be gleaned from the Stepanov notation in  a language that I am able to read I shall be eternally in your debt. Do you know if the material is available in French for example and how it can be accessed? Perhaps this material is also something that will become more readily available in 2018 than it is now.

 

 I have gained the impression, perhaps unfairly, that one of the greatest obstacles which stands in the way of Russian ballet scholars accepting that the Sergeyev notations currently held in Harvard are a reliable source is Nicolai Sergeyev himself. In much the same way that the Russian dance establishment who stayed on after the Revolution were happy to state that Maria Petipa could not dance, largely because she did not support the dancer's strike, so the fact that Nicolai Sergeyev left the country taking the Mariinsky's records with him seems to have made these materials suspect in themselves because they had been in the custody of a "bad man".

 

It is interesting to note the different response which the attempts to restore Petipa's choreography to the stage have so far received in Russia. In St Petersburg the response to Vikharev's reconstructed Beauty was extremely negative and yet all that was restored were the floor plans and choreography without any real attempt to restore performance style. It would seem that after more than forty years being told that Konstantin Sergeyev's 1952 production of the Sleeping Beauty was the genuine article, the response to the new "old" Sleeping Beauty was a mixture of shock, anger and sadness at the loss of the ,now,familiar choreography. It all proved too much for everyone.The reconstruction was dropped and the familiar "real Petipa " was restored to the stage.

 

In Moscow the response to reconstructions seems to have been somewhat more enthusiastic perhaps because there attempts at reconstruction seem to have been restricted to ballets which did not have an extensive performance history at the Bolshoi and so did not displace a familiar version beloved by dancers, coaches and audiences alike. Perhaps that is the key to success in these ventures. The stager needs to work with a company that does not have an emotional attachment to the ballet in question.

 

I wonder what would happen if someone  had enough artistic clout to demand that the Royal Ballet should dance with lowered legs and observe the composer's tempi during the run of performances we are due to see this year ? Would people like it or would they complain that it was no longer the company's Beauty?

Edited September 12, 2016 by FLOSS

[Don Q Fan]

Just been looking at the online notes about this production at ABT - pick it up on the left hand side Sleeping Beauty (Ratmansky)

http://www.abt.org/education/archive/index.html I was interested in the original cast some of whom danced for me last week.

 

Bruce - did you see Veronika Part as Lilac in your many viewings?  I particularly like her and would be interested in your views of her performance(s).

[LinMM]

Where does it mention the original cast though?

[Don Q Fan]

At the bottom of the notes.

Gomes)Vishneva et all.

[Don Q Fan]

Here you go

 

"This production of The Sleeping Beauty, with choreography by Marius Petipa and staging by Alexei Ratmansky, received its World Premiere at Segerstrom Center for the Arts, Costa Mesa, California on March 3, 2015, danced by Diana Vishneva (Princess Aurora), Marcelo Gomes (Prince Désiré), Veronika Part (Lilac Fairy), Nancy Raffa (Carabosse), Isabella Boylston (Diamond), Daniil Simkin (Bluebird) and Cassandra Trenary (Princess Florine

Edited September 12, 2016 by Don Q Fan