Jump to content

The Royal Ballet: Anastasia, October 2016


Recommended Posts

Bringing this discussion back to the role of the Revolutionary, the Opera House have confirmed it was Vincento di Primo. 

 

Shame not to have listed him in the cast sheet. (At risk  of going way off topic....also the flautist in Fille never gets a mention either).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 317
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't interpret a dissenting view as an attack MAB.  I interpret the words "Art holds up a mirror to life; sometimes our own interpretations may say more about ourselves than the artistic creator intended" as a a clear insinuation that the sexual implications of the choreography exist only in my mind.  

 

Your response that no one else has ever found this untoward in 40 years implies the same thing (and is in fact incorrect, since one critic who saw the last revival has today told me they are surprised this element has been retained since it caused some raised eyebrows on that occasion).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I have tried very hard to be civil but I strongly resent the implication from Jamesrhblack and MAB that I am projecting this issue out of my imagination.

 

I know from real life conversations, and from other posts here that I was not the only person to find this disturbing. I also have huge problems with much of the ideology pushed by the "safe spaces" movement, and would strongly defend freedom of artistic expression(see my posts on Judas Tree, The Invitation and Turn of the Screw above). However, it does not follow that anything done with child performers on a stage must automatically be acceptable. There is a limit. That limit for me was crossed by this choreography.

 

Jamesrhblack has not been able to come up with a convincing argument as to why the choreography was necessary to the ballet, or indeed appropriate, so he has decided, ad hominem, to attribute the problem to my dirty mind.

Lindsay, apologies if you felt I was implying a "dirty mind." That was absolutely not my intention and I am sorry if it came across in that way.

 

As I have written, I would not advocate advantage being taken of a performer, child or adult. Different people will react in different ways to what is presented and perhaps I will feel differently after I have revisited Anastasia in performance next month.

 

However, my recollection of this moment in the ballet (which is indeed an unsettling image even in memory) is far more to do with an evocation of Rasputin physically manoeuvring Alexei in a way that read to me of his using his influence over the child to gain control physically and emotionally. The sudden discarding is shocking too. An earlier poster has also referred to how this moment is a nightmare version of Rasputin helping Alexei to walk again from a previous act.

 

However, given that the scene is set in a madhouse and dealing with the memories of a woman who believes she is Anastasia (and is processing those memories) we should not be surprised to see some unnerving images.

 

I appreciate that MacMillan was a probing, even provocative choreographer, and not all his work reads to me, but I don't believe he was an irresponsible one. I guess one positive out of these exchanges is that we are at least addressing our responses to choreography and theatrical invention rather than just comparing performances.

 

I've probably written more than enough now but would like to reiterate Lindsay that nothing personally adverse to you was intended.

Edited by Jamesrhblack
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bringing this discussion back to the role of the Revolutionary, the Opera House have confirmed it was Vincento di Primo. 

 

Shame not to have listed him in the cast sheet. (At risk  of going way off topic....also the flautist in Fille never gets a mention either).

 

Agree on both points when they dance Fille in Paris, the flautist gets a proper credit and is referred to as 'Un danseur a la flute'

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bringing this discussion back to the role of the Revolutionary, the Opera House have confirmed it was Vincento di Primo. 

 

Shame not to have listed him in the cast sheet. (At risk  of going way off topic....also the flautist in Fille never gets a mention either).

Many thanks Mummykool....we had confirmed this a few posts up, but it is now such a long thread you probably missed it!!  You raise an interesting point about the solo flautist in Fille....some soloists (usually violin, cello and piano) get mentioned in the programmes sometimes, but it should probably happen more.  However, that is for a different thread!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that the short section of act 3 that is being discussed has not struck me with any force previously, or at least not as forcibly as it did on Wednesday night. I can not account for this. The ballet was reworked by MacMillan late in his career but I am unable to say whether this section was part of the reworking, part of the original or a piece of subsequent tinkering. Perhaps it does not matter.The fact is that it is not at all clear what this piece of choreography was intended to convey, It certainly does not reflect anything that the audience has previously seen in the ballet. I am not sure that  comments such as "life mirrors art" or this says more about you,the observer, than it does about the content or what the choreographer meant by it are much more than platitudes. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that "challenging" content should be cut from every ballet. what they are doing is expressing a level of concern about a small segment of the third act involving a child performer.

 

Now it probably speaks volumes about our earlier sensitivity to child protection that no one has noticed this element or felt at all uncomfortable about it at earlier revivals or felt the need to comment about it  In the last thirty years or so members of a number of professions have been required to undertake child protection training this has led to their increased sensitivity to the possible intentions which lie behind the creation of some ambiguous and apparently innocuous images. If you have received that training you can't simply switch it on and off according to whether or not you are at a theatrical performance.This may seem like hypersensitivity to those who have not had to work in the area of child protection and safeguarding but it certainly does not mean that it is inappropriate to raise the issue here. It may be true that "to the innocent all things are innocent" but that does not mean activity involving child performers which now appear questionable can or should be ignored even if it was created by an eminent choreographer and has, apparently, passed without comment during the last forty five years. 

Edited by FLOSS
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while I appreciate that your sentiment is well meant Janet, I find it difficult to reconcile with the fact that you 'liked' the post that contained the personal attack on me and only asked that the discussions should cease after I had responded.

 

 

 

I liked the post because it seemed reasonable to me and I'm sorry but I did not see it as a personal attack on you.  Often the things we perceive are more a reflection on ourselves than what we have seen.  I don't mean that in any bad way but we are all different and we all see things differently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that the short section of act 3 that is being discussed has not struck me with any force previously, or at least not as forcibly as it did on Wednesday night. I can not account for this. The ballet was reworked by MacMillan late in his career but I am unable to say whether this section was part of the reworking, part of the original or a piece of subsequent tinkering. Perhaps it does not matter.The fact is that it is not at all clear what this piece of choreography was intended to convey, It certainly does not reflect anything that the audience has previously seen in the ballet. I am not sure that  comments such as "life mirrors art" or this says more about you,the observer, than it does about the content or what the choreographer meant by it are much more than platitudes. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that "challenging" content should be cut from every ballet. what they are doing is expressing a level of concern about a small segment of the third act involving a child performer.

 

Now it probably speaks volumes about our earlier sensitivity to child protection that no one has noticed this element or felt at all uncomfortable about it at earlier revivals or felt the need to comment about it  In the last thirty years or so members of a number of professions have been required to undertake child protection training this has led to their increased sensitivity to the possible intentions which lie behind the creation of some ambiguous and apparently innocuous images. If you have received that training you can't simply switch it on and off according to whether or not you are at a theatrical performance.This may seem like hypersensitivity to those who have not had to work in the area of child protection and safeguarding but it certainly does not mean that it is inappropriate to raise the issue here. It may be true that "to the innocent all things are innocent" but that does not mean activity involving child performers which now appear questionable can or should be ignored even if it was created by an eminent choreographer and has, apparently, passed without comment during the last forty five years. 

 

I very much agree with this, FLOSS; I just wanted to say that I have received no training in child protection but that passage still disturbed me. I don't remember it from previous performances/revivals - whether that's because it's changed, or because I've changed, I can't say.

Edited by bridiem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may need binocs and specs as well as lenses next time then. I didn't realise that Vincenzo was also so slight in build and stature.

Does anyone know for sure whether on Wednesday it was David or Vincenzo? Whichever it was, he should have been credited in cast list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opening and closing of a child's legs like that is one thing (which struck me initially as hard to watch). The link between that and some sort of perceived (by Anna in her emotional turmoil or otherwise) devious behaviour with Rasputin is another.

 

The fact is MacMillan chose to have this section in ACT III. It wasn't a fleeting moment. The child was held aloft and his legs manipulated into those positions 3-4 times across maybe 2/3rds of the front of the stage. One can only surmise that this was an important message he was trying to convey. It takes time and effort to devise THAT as MacMillan's best effort to manifest whatever message he wanted to relay. If it was just a message of manipulation of the Tsarina via the child, that could have been done in a myriad other movements - so I'm not convinced by that argument.

 

The not unnatural surmise here is that Anna perceived Rasputin as a deviant.

 

One is shown her perception of Rasputin sharing the Tsarina with her father in the dance sequences. Anna thinks something is going on between them. On the other hand, we are also shown Rasputin helping Alexei up from a fall, and encourages him to walk freely again.

 

How then can she think he helps the child, whereupon she then performs a volte face, presenting him to us as a man having an unnatural relationship with Alexei? I don't think that is the conclusion we can reach either.

 

It is very nebulous. In this day and age, a child should not be made to do that. Dance is infinite in range, and audiences perceptions have changed with time. It is no longer necessary regardless of what Macmillan intended.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know for sure whether on Wednesday it was David or Vincenzo? Whichever it was, he should have been credited in cast list.

It was Vincenzo...confirmed further up in this thread. That role should definitely be credited as we all noticed him!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A deviant?"

 

Surely, it's a nightmare memory of Rasputin helping the child to walk with Anna (thinking of herself as Anastasia) then rejecting that memory, hence the throw to the wings.

 

Yes, it's an unsettling image but perspective please.

 

I also read the movement as being associated with treating the child's haemophilia. Joints become incredibly painful and may just be Anna's memory/vision of the exercises used to help alleviate the pain and keep Alexey's legs moving.. It is also a powerful reminder of Rasputin's power over the Romanov family that he was able to manipulate the child in such a way. I think we often read too much into things these days...it's a sad reflection of the times in which we now live.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A second cast last night every bit as wonderful as the first, I dislike comparing but have to say I was more moved last night!

 

The sheer beauty of music, designs and sometimes choreography in acts 1 and 2 is enough for me, and I don't agree with the critics who say it all goes for nothing, it's shows the unease and fear beneath all the opulence.  I appreciated act 3 more as I was able to pick out solo's and short pdd amongst the hysteria, still think the ending is odd but it reminded me of Greta Garbo, Queen Christina, the last moments as she stands on the ship, her face absolutely blank, this could work incredibly well in the cinema on Wednesday if they do a close up.

 

Whatever people may think of Anastasia, all the dancers gave it everything last night, must just mention Reece Clarke, Matthew Ball and Valentino Zuchetti as the officers who have very good solo's at the beginning, and I think the "spinning revolutionary" was the same dancer, difficult to see as the lighting is low, shame as he does fantastic turning spins offstage!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So glad Mummycool I wasn't the only one to see the legs incident as reflection of Rasputin power over the royal family. I was sad that an evening I enjoyed was seen by so many people who clearly didn't enjoy it. It was a luxury evening for me as I took my granddaughter and sat in grand tier (also a few rows back from Dame Monica and some rather talkative Russians and within sight of Kevin O'hare ) granddaughter is mother of three little boys and didn't feel it was a sexual act. I watched the ballet through her eyes and she found Acts 1 and 2 helpful in understanding of Act 3. She is average audience and sits back and enjoys an art form fairly new to her. Like her I enjoyed the variety of dance in first two acts, the ball a kaleidoscope of colour and movement. OK not great ballet but not yawn making for me. I agree with so many comments but in general I had a good evening. Lauren was excellent both as a young girl and a mental patient. Perhaps it is a pity we know the possibly true story. Thank you for all the stimulating posts, great that we don't all think alike and can respect each other's opinion and wide knowledge. I learn something new from so many of your posts but can still enjoy what I enjoy!

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll catch this revival at one of the cinema performances coming up, but I did see it last time around and, given the significance it has assumed here over the past 48 hours or so, have no recollection of any such discussion of this Rasputin scene on ballet.co at that time.... but I stand to be corrected on that.  So, somewhat related:

 

1.  In the Review supplement, today's Times has a long review of a new biography, "Rasputin - Faith, Power and the Twilight of the Romanovs" by Douglas Smith.  It's headlined 'A heavenly messenger or just sex mad?'  He appears to have been strong on 'touch' in a number of ways.

 

2.  Cathy Marston's first work in Bern was a "Firebird" based in the Romanov court circa 1915, where her Firebird was the monk, Rasputin, wth his influence over the Tsarina through his seeming ability to cure the young prince.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself in opposition to the common concencus it seems; I enjoyed acts 1&2 (I was there Friday night, the Cuthbertson, Lamb, McRae et al cast), but found act 3 somewhat uninvolving. There seemed to be a lot of sitting about watching home movies, some utterly unthreatening dandy soldiers hop-skipping about, some running around the far flung corners of the stage, and a load of angst while doing so. Music was good though, once it started. I just enjoyed the dancing in its response to the music (and lovely music it was too) in the earlier acts, they seemed to fly by. Perhaps it needs another viewing, as all I could recall from when I saw it in 2004 was that I couldn't remember much, except the feeling I didn't enjoy it at all (though I was a complete ballet novice back then).

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have much time - but having now seen all three casts - I just wanted to pay respect to some truly fantastic performances in this run of Anastasia.

 

FIRST AND FOREMOST - to an UTTERLY MESMERIC Rasputin from Eric Underwood.  It is quite the best thing I have EVER seen him do.  MacMillan gives him the bones and Underwood scores with the most fantastic flesh.  His eyes positively loom over the house.  Those black pupils are as light lasers set in a pool of white.  They purvey.  His dominance is supreme.  When Underwood stalks that bible he demands that people pray.  It is little wonder the force of his person animates the Tsarevitch.  Too the flippant manner in which he tosses behind the Tsar's letter of impending doom telegraphs his illiteracy.  The audience laughed because it was oh so easily registered .. and EXACTLY RIGHT.  Underwood's gorgon deserves its myth - and his haunting of all three acts literally holds any performance he appears in together.  That glue is a fantastic achievement.  

 

How I wished Underwood could have appeared opposite Laura Morera who is - for my money - the best of the three ladies etching the title character.  The electrifying match of those two sets of eyes - of Morera's and Underwood's - would have lit up any cinema screen.  They both galvanise.  They ignite.  How i wish these two had been given the privilege they so richly deserve.  In the last act - which, again for me, IS the ballet - Morera - more than Osipova and Cuthbertson - (both of whom made the error of trying to 'dance it' when all it really needs to be is acted - any request for upper leg strength here being partnered) - reminded me most of the glory that was Seymour.  In some ways this afternoon Seymour lived large.  Certainly Morera's take was the most fleshed out.  (How I would have loved to have seen Ferri be given a chance at this last Act.  It is well within her current powers and you know MacMillan would have agreed to that certainly.)  

 

At the very end - once Anastasia has finally done with her memory of Rasputin - Morera glares out at the audience much like the originator did - 'This is the moment of MY triumph' she seems to silently scream.  It is with deserved determination therefore that Morera proceeds to that bed - and as it turns (originally the Anastasia's world turned on a revolve) Morera takes it as her own last royal progression.  Now the dance ends - her memories having come to her cusp - rather than merely stop.  

 

How I wish MacMillan had the foresight to involve the figment of Anna Andersen - who prologues the entire piece - take active part in the previous two acts - to let the audience know - and KEEP reminding them - that this is Anna's take; that in her mind the world owes her reverence; that her father the Tasr should wait; that faith alone - hers as much as anyone elses - can never be enough.  

 

It was so lovely this afternoon to see the dancing trio (out of the four principal officers) in the stunning balletic personages of Reece Clarke, Matthew Ball and Marcelino Sambe.  The ARE surely a trio of principals in waiting.  It must come soon.  How rich the RB is just now in the beaming sparkle of their placement.  Each is supreme in their own detail.  The future - if not for the country - for the RB certainly looks bright.  

 

As the husband Bennet Gartside fills out the shadows of MacMillan's world much as he did in his riveting deployment of Rudolph in Mayerling.  For me Hay and Takada were best at honouring the Act Two PDD ... although I still so wish I had seen Dowell and Sibley in it ... and - that said - it still appeared at times to be rather heavy weather against that music which remains owned in my mind by Balanchine.  

 

For many of the young RB lads playing Imperial officers the moustaches are a somewhat ill fit; uncomfortable shall we say.    For me though one stood out - as did his line: Leo Dixon.  That future - once again - like Dixon's salute - is crease sharp in its potential.  Thanks so KO'H.  

Edited by Bruce Wall
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself in opposition to the common concencus it seems; I enjoyed acts 1&2 (I was there Friday night, the Cuthbertson, Lamb, McRae et al cast), but found act 3 somewhat uninvolving. There seemed to be a lot of sitting about watching home movies, some utterly unthreatening dandy soldiers hop-skipping about, some running around the far flung corners of the stage, and a load of angst while doing so. Music was good though, once it started. I just enjoyed the dancing in its response to the music (and lovely music it was too) in the earlier acts, they seemed to fly by. Perhaps it needs another viewing, as all I could recall from when I saw it in 2004 was that I couldn't remember much, except the feeling I didn't enjoy it at all (though I was a complete ballet novice back then).

 

I'm with you, zxDaveM. I really enjoyed the first two acts last night. Lauren Cuthbertson has such a fluid and elegant port de bras, and I thought the music, designs and choreography were really beautiful. 
 
I will say that I wasn't particularly taken with the pdd between Steven McRae and Sarah Lamb - it seemed a bit clumpy, but I'm not familiar enough with the ballet to know whether that was down to the choreography or the performance. From where I was sitting, McRae's costume also made it look like his shoulders were up around his ears every time he raised his arms. 
 
I had such high expectations of the third act after the reviews here, but I can't say I was very moved by the performance. I was itching for some activity on stage during the film clips, and I'm afraid I find the short hair / grey smock / inverted movements combo to depict someone in an asylum a little clichéd. Each to their own. I'm planning to catch the cinema broadcast, so perhaps a second viewing with a different cast will alter my view.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm afraid I find the short hair / grey smock / inverted movements combo to depict someone in an asylum a little clichéd.

 

Of course, it probably wasn't back in 1967, but has been overtaken by events :)

 

Well, having sat (or stood) through two performances back-to-back today, I thought I'd add a few random thoughts which have struck me.

 

First of all, and at the risk of starting the debate up again, the section which has excercised so many in this thread already comes immediately after the replay of Alexei's fall, so I would guess that it is indeed a distorted recalling of Rasputin's attempts to get the boy walking again.

 

I registered for the first time today that the sets for Acts I and II are simply set *over* the Act III set, which breaks through into them at points, namely the doors through which some people enter and leave.  A clever theatrical conceit which helps to emphasise the unreality of the first two acts (was it the same with the original Barry Kay designs?).  Incidentally, this ballet must take the biscuit for being one of the most annoyingly centric ballets: if you are any less than centrally seated in the Opera House you are likely to miss happenings along the sides of the set, of which probably the most significant is Anastasia observing the interactions in Act II.

 

I've now seen 3 performances, two evening ones from stalls circle standing, and one matinee from the amphitheatre.  I appreciated the ballet far more from the amphitheatre, and I'm not sure whether that had anything to do with cast, although tiredness or lack thereof might have been a factor.  I think that from the amphi you get a better overall view of proceedings and the set, and the feeling of a golden period/halcyon days or whatever you like to call it, whether real or not.  Not to mention that you can see the film properly, and that the revolutionaries are rather more effective when you can see up to the top of the Winter Palace and so forth.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was funny to come back from London yesterday and read your comments, as I was thinking quite the same after the performance on Friday (with Cuthbertson). Sadly I couldn't stay for the Morera matinee - I knew I'd miss something exciting!

 

The first two acts very beautifully staged but quite empty of interesting choreography or characterisation, so unlike other MacMillan ballets. Fabulous dancing, glamourous costumes, great music – I can’t say I was bored, but I wasn’t thrilled either.

 

Maybe there was more to it but from my seat in the Amphi I couldn’t see much acting.

 

And then the change in the third act, when everything is told through the choreography. I’d be happy with a one act-ballet, too. The Martinu score is fantastic.

 

But I’ll go and see the cinema relay, I’m curious what I’ll discover then.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at what tickets remain, I'd guess that Anastasia has probably sold beyond the ROH's wildest dreams.  Rarity value?  Cheaper prices?  The subject-matter?  I know that I've appreciated the opportunity to be able to afford to sit down, and not necessarily in the worst seats :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at what tickets remain, I'd guess that Anastasia has probably sold beyond the ROH's wildest dreams.  Rarity value?  Cheaper prices?  The subject-matter?  I

 

All of the above plus enticing casting; people wanting to catch more than one cast; interesting reviews..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at what tickets remain, I'd guess that Anastasia has probably sold beyond the ROH's wildest dreams.  Rarity value?  Cheaper prices?  The subject-matter?  I know that I've appreciated the opportunity to be able to afford to sit down, and not necessarily in the worst seats  :)

 

Or more likely two Tchaikovsky symphonies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...