The Royal Ballet: Anastasia, October 2016

[Jamesrhblack]

I appreciate that Nuñez is a technical marvel and Bonelli usually no slouch, but Sibley and Dowell, as well as being astounding technicians in their prime, were also fairly compact physically (with a remarkable shared musicality too) and I wonder if this might be why yesterday evening they seemed so uncomfortable, being longer of limb and, perhaps, larger of frame. Has anyone seen Takada and Hay?

[MAB]

I appreciate that Nuñez is a technical marvel and Bonelli usually no slouch, but Sibley and Dowell, as well as being astounding technicians in their prime, were also fairly compact physically (with a remarkable shared musicality too) and I wonder if this might be why yesterday evening they seemed so uncomfortable, being longer of limb and, perhaps, larger of frame. Has anyone seen Takada and Hay?

 

 

I've seen them, more assured than the other couple, but compared to Sibley and Dowell the choreography defeats them too.

 

edited typo.

Edited November 3, 2016 by MAB

[Harwel]

I appreciate that Nuñez is a technical marvel and Bonelli usually no slouch, but Sibley and Dowell, as well as being astounding technicians in their prime, were also fairly compact physically (with a remarkable shared musicality too) and I wonder if this might be why yesterday evening they seemed so uncomfortable, being longer of limb and, perhaps, larger of frame. Has anyone seen Takada and Hay?

I saw Takada and Hay on the Saturday matinee. I was underwhelmed by their performance to be honest. It is incredibly difficult choreography but that is no excuse for dancers of this standard. At one point I really wondered what on earth Hay was doing, wasn't sure if he had over balanced or it was choreographed that way, but parts of the pdd looked very stilted and clunky.

 

Just to add, thought Morera was fantastic and the 3 soldiers in the first act where wonderful, especially Sambe and Clarke - I have seen Ball on other occasions and have been blown away by him but he did not shine in his normal way on Saturday.

[cavycapers]

I was most engaged during Act 2, which I loved. It demonstrated beautifully Anastasia's confusion about the various different relationships that existed within the family. When the Tzar and Tzarina, and Mathilde Kschessinska and her partner dance, the couples intermingle so that one is never quite sure who is dancing with whom, and then mixed in is Rasputin, who seems to be everywhere at once, taking the hands of the dancers. Brilliant! Although I can admire the artistry of Act 3, I personally didn't enjoy it as much.

[Sim]

Bruce, you are so right about flute boy in Fille. I have always thought that was a glaring omission. The first time I ever noticed James Hay was when he was dancing flute boy. I was mighty impressed but had to ask around until someone told me who he was! Very silly.

 

I thought Lamb and McRae gave a pretty good rendering of the pdd on Monday night.

[Mary]

How funny Sim I fell asleep wondering who would be able to do that pas de deux and 'Lamb and McRae' was the last conscious thought! I hope to see them.

[Sim]

Mary, they dance it in the Cuthbertson cast. I also hope you get to see them!

[Orlandau]

https://youtu.be/OUux8o_B5k0

 

Darcey interviewing Viviana about rehearsing Anastasia.

[alison]

Thanks, Orlandau.  I hope that's the extended version they were talking about?

[FLOSS]

Whatever MacMillan thought he was doing when he created the three act version of Anastasia I don't think that he thought of the ballet in terms of docu-drama. In 1971 Anna Anderson's true identity had not been resolved. As a result MacMillan's could not be certain whether the ballet which he was making was really about a mental patient who was the sole survivor of the Tsar's children or one who was an imposter . I have always assumed that the inaccuracies and incongruities in the three act version such as showing a ball being held at a time when such events could not have occurred,soldiers wearing military headgear when dancing at the ball and Rasputin apparently playing an active role in events occurring after his death, were intended to demonstrate the manifest unreliability of Anastasia's "memories" leaving the audience wondering about the truth of her claims. The errors in the staged events I think are intended to create uncertainty in the audience as to whether they are merely the product of a disordered mind which do not necessarily undermine Anderson's claims or whether they are evidence that Anderson was an imposter who had not been coached well enough. 

 

It can be interesting to hear what Lady M has to say about the circumstances in which her late husband's works were created but I think they have to be handled with care. She is keen to establish her husband's unique voice and sometimes she over does it. Although Lady M would have us believe otherwise, there were other older choreographers such as Walter Gore and Antony Tudor who were adept at creating ballets about their character's psychological states. I  am not sure that it is much of a revelation to tell the world that MacMillan had just become the Director of the Royal Ballet and wanted with his first work as director to create a ballet which employed the whole company.That account can almost sound like an excuse for the work's flaws. Does anyone find it strange that no one actually involved in the creation of the 1971 version has been in the rehearsal room preparing this revival.? While some aspects of the ballet were altered for the 1996 revival only Rasputin's role was subject to significant rewriting, other characters and their motivation was not greatly altered. Is their absence simply a question of their age and availability or has it got something to do with Lady M's developing position as the fount of all knowledge concerning her late husband's ballets?

 

Several people have suggested that the work's "weaknesses" could be remedied by editing  I  should be interested to know which elements or sections it is thought could be jettisoned and how it is proposed to deal with any of the music which would be rendered superfluous by the cuts? I have to confess that I am not convinced that revising and cutting would help. I don't think that the remedial work carried out on Isadora which reduced it to a single act strengthened it. If anything it simply drew attention to the very things it was supposed to eliminate. 

 

Perhaps everyone needs to grasp the simple fact that Anastasia is not a failed attempt to create a ballet like Manon or Mayerling. Its first two acts occupy very different territory. At the time of its premiere one of the criticisms of the work was that the choreographic text of the two new acts represented an unfortunate combination of Enigma Variations and Spartacus. The parallel with Enigma Variations was drawn because of the obvious similarities between the two works as far as content and casting were concerned.Much of the content of the new acts is a depiction of mood, place and time rather than action. Was MacMillan setting out to prove that anything Ashton could do in Enigma he could do at least as well if not better? His choice of cast for the Tsar and Tsarina, Dereck Rencher and Svetlana Beriosova,Ashton's Elgar and Lady Elgar, suggested that he was. The fact that their most important function in the ballet appeared to be to establish familial  affection gave strength to this idea .The choreographic language which their characters were given,classically based and expressive, reinforced the idea as did the use of a telegram to bring the first act to an end. In Enigma the telegram which brings the ballet to a close heralds Elgar's recognition in Anastasia it heralds the outbreak of the Great War and the imminent fall of the Tsarist regime.

 

Did the original cast mange better in conveying mood and feeling? I think that they did because they were cast with care and were a constant  whoever was dancing the title role. Perhaps the mistake in this revival was to put three separate casts on stage for what are in effect cameo roles when what is really needed are dancers who can establish with pinpoint accuracy and etch with clarity every aspect of their characters by merely being on the stage. I do not mean to suggest that no one succeeds in doing this with their roles merely that those that did were scattered across the three casts rather than being the setting within which each Anastasia would perform.Much as I admired Arestis I thought that it was the third cast's Christine MacNulty  with Avis as her husband who came closest to capturing much of what Beriosova brought to the role of the Tsarina. She made every gesture in her performance count  The three Grand Dutches in the Osipova cast were the most efffective at establishing their effortless authority and position, the three officers in the second cast made more of thier roles than the senior dancers in the first cast did. The younger dancers looked as if they were enjoying life, the older "safer" hands looked as if they were somewhat disconcerted by being required to undertake roles more properly assigned to junior dancers. Only Campbell seemed unaffected by this.

 

.As far as the Kessheskaya pas de deux is concerned I think that some people have misunderstood what it was intended to do. It was not created as a flashy bravura number nor as a role comparable to Larisch. It was created to show off the company's greatest classical dancers and was intended look like a piece from a lost Petipa ballet. In style it is nineteenth century Petipa in almost period appropriate style rather than early 1970's "after Petipa" choreography. At the time of its creation I  seem to recall that, like other classically based choreography, it was  danced as an almost continuous seamless flow of movement.  If you analised the choreography it was clear that it was  technically difficult but in performance you were far more aware of the dancer's command of the text and the impression of beauty and elegance they created than anything else.It  certainly did not look clunky and awkward  I think that it is the current move and pose performance style which  makes it look clunky and staccato and very like a piece of choreography by Nureyev in which  technical challenge is followed by technical challenge like a series of gates in a show jumping competition.I think that it is too easy to suggest that the reason for it not working is that it was created on Sibley and Dowell who were so well suited to each other physically and musically. That suggests that no one else could dance it and yet they did. Park danced it with Dowell, Wall danced it with Sibley and Penney and Mason appeared in it. What all these dancers had in common was that they had developed as dancers in a company whose repertory was dominated by Ashton's and Petipa's choreography.They danced in a seamless flow of movement rather than the modern move and pose style and they could handle transitions and the quick changes of direction. 

 

 The pas de deux was created to display the company's top classical pairing who in turn were portraying the Imperial company's Assoluta and her partner. Both dancers were expected to display mastery of the choreography and to perform it with stylish elegance.The dancer cast as Kessheskaya was also expected to dance with nuance and allure and to play with the music with her choreography. The pointe work is particularly important as Kessheskaya's pointe work was renowned.Bonelli made heavy weather of the choreography in his solos and a couple of times he seemed to be taken by surprise by his partnering duties. His attempts to capture elements of late nineteenth century style did not come off. McRae opted to ignore them.Nunez's account of the choreography was surprisingly flat, four square and lacklustre. McRae seemed to think that finishing each step in modern classroom style was what was needed. Unfortunately this made the whole thing look staccato when it should have flowed. For the first time I noticed his lack of epaulement and his short arms.Lamb proved to be a marginal improvement on Nunez as she did mange to draw the audience's attention to her feet. For me the most junior cast made the best stab at the pas. Takada managed to make her footwork sparkle and made full use of the allusions to other ballets  in the epaulement that her character has been given. Hay. given his comparative lack of experience partnered well and sustained the impression of his solos being a flow of movement.He even managed to successfully reproduce  elements of style in his upper body that MacMillan sought to capture.

 

The truth about this ballet is that even in its three act version it is Anastasia's show. Of the three casts I thought that Morera's account was the strongest and most compelling. In act 3 she managed to make you forget that she was dancing. Osipova tried too hard to be the young girl of the first act. Cuthbertson was more successful in this but it was Morera who succeeded in fully portraying the Anastasia of each act. It is not just that she is a an exceptionally good dance actress. I think that all those years working in the specialist niche Ashton repertory with all its technical challenges which must never be revealed to the paying public have given her the technical skill required to carry off the sections like her act one entrance as if they are nothing..

Edited November 4, 2016 by FLOSS

[trog]

In 1971 Anna Anderson's true identity had not been resolved

Actually, they isn't true. Her identity was positively established in 1927, but various people chose to ignore this, probably in the hopes of financial gain. Media frenzy helped keep the "mystery" a mystery. Stories of mental illness were always media fare - plenty of examples are to be found.

 

As to the ballet, I liked the first two acts but I didn't think much of the third. It made no sense, other than to show somebody in an asylum. In it's original format, it would have made even less sense, unless you had read a complete synopsis first.

 

Still, it was nice to see something that I haven't seen before. The MAC was almost full - maybe 375 people. When I've been to see the Bolshoi at the cinema, there are maybe 10 in the audience.

[Jane S]

 

.As far as the Kessheskaya pas de deux is concerned I think that some people have misunderstood what it was intended to do. It was not created as a flashy bravura number nor as a role comparable to Larisch. It was created to show off the company's greatest classical dancers and was intended look like a piece from a lost Petipa ballet. In style it is nineteenth century Petipa in almost period appropriate style rather than early 1970's "after Petipa" choreography. At the time of its creation I  seem to recall that, like other classically based choreography, it was  danced as an almost continuous seamless flow of movement.  If you analised the choreography it was clear that it was  technically difficult but in performance you were far more aware of the dancer's command of the text and the impression of beauty and elegance they created than anything else.It  certainly did not look clunky and awkward 

 

 

 

FLOSS, I have to say my recollection of the pas de deux at the original performances is very different from yours - I remember it as looking, above all else, very difficult indeed , and that Sibley and Dowell looked far from at ease in it. Maybe they mastered it at later performances.

[alison]

Thank you, Jane and FLOSS.  It would be good to hear more from people who saw the original run of the ballet, or even those who saw the 1996 version, so we can get a better idea of how much has changed.  I'm putting together a better picture of Act III from what I can remember of the '96 run, but my memories are distinctly hazy and may be flawed, too.

[bridiem]

I'm putting together a better picture of Act III from what I can remember of the '96 run, but my memories are distinctly hazy and may be flawed, too.

 

Is your middle name Anastasia?!!   (Sorry, couldn't resist.) 

[Odyssey]

I assume most people here know that you can see Durante & Sansom in the act 2 pas de deux on You Tube as part of a gala performance. What I find most noticeable about this version is that it is danced at a faster pace. Viviana's fluidity and wonderful epaulement shines through. Both dancers were slighter in stature, but I agree with Floss that this is not the main cause of being underwhelmed by the performance on Wednesday evening..

[MAB]

Everything was a faster pace, soon dancers will just walk on stage and pose, and even that will injure them.

[alison]

Bonelli made heavy weather of the choreography in his solos and a couple of times he seemed to be taken by surprise by his partnering duties. His attempts to capture elements of late nineteenth century style did not come off. McRae opted to ignore them.Nunez's account of the choreography was surprisingly flat, four square and lacklustre. McRae seemed to think that finishing each step in modern classroom style was what was needed. Unfortunately this made the whole thing look staccato when it should have flowed. For the first time I noticed his lack of epaulement and his short arms.Lamb proved to be a marginal improvement on Nunez as she did mange to draw the audience's attention to her feet.

I did think that the second cast were an improvement on the first, though I think I did find myself wondering at the seeming lack of off-kilterness of the pdd. But why was McRae wearing a yarmulke(sp?)? It looked very odd.

 

Other questions which I've been meaning to post include whether the choreography for the soldiers in Act III is pretty similar to that in Different Drummer: I was certainly getting a feeling of deja vu.

[Beryl H]

I find it a strange pdd and difficult to like although it's the only real one in the whole of Anastasia, best cast so far has been Lamb/McRae, the Durante/Sansom performance is available on a DVD that the ROH amphi shop had last week called Tchaikovsky Gala, opera and ballet excerpts including the Tchaikovsky PDD with Darcey Bussell and Zoltan Solymosi, he was a favourite of mine!

[JohnS]

Thank you Floss, Odyssey and all for the recent comments, particularly re the Act 2 pdd.

 

I've been more and more struck by the Durante/Sansom 1993 performance and have tried to add a YouTube link below. It just looks so easy for these two and almost nonchalant where Sansom seems to lift Durante with one hand (twice).

 

Viviana Durante I think was coaching both Anna/Anastasia and the pdd roles so I'm not sure why for the performances we've seen, the pdd hasn't yet come off when all three Annas/Anastasias have been mesmerising. We're looking forward very much to seeing the final two performances on 12 November as we've only seen Sarah/Steven in a rehearsal and think Akane/James will gain from experience: we're also seeing the cinema encore (but I don't imagine the pdd will spring to life unless the Durante/Sansom film could be spliced in).

 

[Fonty]

That was lovely, John, thank you.  I am always overjoyed to see Durante dance, she was one of my all time favourites.

[Geoff]

me and a couple of other old timers are arguing this out in email exchanges right now.  I would say that the radical changes to the sets tend to be so overpowering that the other changes diminish in comparison.  Memories fade over time but there is an uneasy feeling that something isn't right without being able to precisely put your finger on it...When I've researched this a little more I'll comment further.

Much looking forward to whatever you discover MAB. Also, might I expand this to include (as I asked earlier but no one picked up) the question to what extent, if at all, the last act was changed when the other two acts were added?

[MAB]

Much looking forward to whatever you discover MAB. Also, might I expand this to include (as I asked earlier but no one picked up) the question to what extent, if at all, the last act was changed when the other two acts were added?

 

For that we would need a critic that had seen the original Anastasia in Berlin.  I'll see what my back copies of Dance and Dancers turn up.

[Jane S]

John Percival, D&D August 1967, p28

 

(Just been reading it this afternoon!)

[alison]

My *guess* - although I wasn't there back then! - would be that nothing about Act III would have been changed when the other 2 acts were added.  Unless anyone knows differently?

[alison]

Okay, I'm going to stick my neck out on changes made to Act III for the 2004 production.  This has been prompted by the realisation over the past few days that the Brother has become such a non-role that I wonder why they bother naming him in the cast sheet, and I suspect that what's happened in a number of cases is that Rasputin has been moved into choreography originally written for the Husband, who in turn has been shifted into the Brother's shoes, so to speak.  I'm sure I remember the Brother having more to do than he now has. So my guess is that the Olga/Rasputin/Husband trio where they all keep changing places was originally Olga/Husband/Brother, and also that the part very early on where Rasputin and the Husband are forming a protective circle around Anna (but all facing in the same direction) was originally Husband/Brother.  Also, I think there was an early and relatively violent pdd between Anna and the Husband which Rasputin now performs: I think I always wondered why the husband would be treating the wife like that - plus I'm wondering whether all the parts where Anna is being carried around in inverted splits involved the Husband rather than Rasputin. 

 

 

OTOH, as I've said above, my memories of 1996 are pretty hazy, so I could be completely wrong, but I wonder if anyone recognises what I've sketched out above?

 

Talking about haze, though, I am *very* glad that they've got rid of the incense in Act II: the smell of it always used to turn my stomach!

[Beryl H]

What has struck me is the fact that Anastasia has no real pdd in the ballet (this is a major flaw), and what Alison says above about the Husband partnering her more in the third act makes sense, instead of keep switching between Husband and Rasputin, also it would have made more of the role of Rasputin for Irek Mukhamedov.

 

My own memory is useless, can't even remember who I saw in it, I found the 2004 programme but must have a hunt for cast lists!

 

I'm looking forward to seeing tonight's but don't think I can stay for the last act, Southern rail strike today!

[Scheherezade]

I saw the 1st cast on Wednesday and have to say that I didn't find the first two acts quite as dreadful as most of the other posters. Whether this is because, having read so many reviews on this forum and elsewhere, my expectations were lowered, I can't say. I do, however, feel that the third act on its own, whilst clearly a powerful study into mental angst, would have lost all context and meaning without the earlier two acts by way of 'back story'.

 

The difficulty for me was - again as others have pointed out - that the overall impression was one of two entirely different ballets. I do not feel that this, in itself, is necessarily fatal but I do feel that something needs to be done to diminish the initially disconcerting juxtaposition of the two.

 

How best could this be done? If MacMillan were still alive perhaps a more cogent link to 'Anastasia's' madness at the end of act 2 would help set the stage, as it were, for what follows in act 3.

 

Since this clearly cannot be done unless further choreography is superimposed, would the whole ballet hang together in a more satisfying way if restricted to one interval rather than two, with the more traditional Imperial acts pre-interval and the markedly different mad act post-interval? I can't help but think that the fact that the first two acts, with an interval after each, share one distinct musical and choreographical style, leads the audience to expect something similar in the third act and when this does not happen, a period of adjustment is required to overcome the initial impression of a very definite non-sequitur.

 

Could this problem perhaps be avoided with only one interval? In that way, there could one distinct style either side of the interval without the feeling that the last act does not sit happily with what has gone before. What does anyone else think?

[Jan McNulty]

I saw the 1st cast on Wednesday and have to say that I didn't find the first two acts quite as dreadful as most of the other posters. Whether this is because, having read so many reviews on this forum and elsewhere, my expectations were lowered, I can't say. I do, however, feel that the third act on its own, whilst clearly a powerful study into mental angst, would have lost all context and meaning without the earlier two acts by way of 'back story'.

 

The difficulty for me was - again as others have pointed out - that the overall impression was one of two entirely different ballets. I do not feel that this, in itself, is necessarily fatal but I do feel that something needs to be done to diminish the initially disconcerting juxtaposition of the two.

 

 

 

 

I have only ever seen the third act, as performed by LFB (now ENB) in the late 80s.  I found it very powerful and IIRC the programme notes made the context and the making of the ballet very clear.  Anna Anderson was in the news for some reason around about the time I saw it so perhaps that is why it resonated so much at that time.

[FLOSS]

It is fascinating to read the comments of professional critics and those who make up the audience on the subject of the flawed nature of this ballet and the possible remedies that might improve it.That it is flawed is evidenced by the infrequent revivals which it receives, There can be little doubt that if it were a stronger piece of theatre it would be on the regular revival schedule. I can't help thinking that immediately after Petipa's official departure from the Russian ballet scene there were similar discussions about the perceived weaknesses of Petipa's mid century melodramas accompanied by expressions of disquiet about how, even in their final revised form, they lacked that certain something deemed essential by the modern audience.Those concerns led to so much reworking of those ballet that the man whose name appears on all the publicity material as responsible for their choreography  would scarcely recognise them in their  present form.

 

So far what I have seen of attempts to remove the improvements imposed on Petipa's ballets have left me preferring the original to the edited re-worked "improved" versions. I have a feeling that whatever changes were made to MacMillan's Anastasia they would not do a great deal for it. Perhaps we should simply accept that as MacMillan officially re-worked this ballet twice, first by giving it a first and second act and later by building up Rasputin's role that the version currently being performed at Covent Garden is the one he wanted to be seen and that it represents his final thoughts on the subject. I find it difficult to believe that the absence of a pas de deux for Anastasia is at the root of its weakness and I don't think that butchering it would do much to improve its theatrical effectiveness.It's almost as if the legend of MacMillan the innovative choreographic genius prevents people accepting that this ballet is not a forgotten masterpiece and certainly not as great as MacMillan's fans believe it should be.

Edited November 5, 2016 by FLOSS

[alison]

That it is flawed is evidenced by the infrequent revivals which it receives,

 

Careful, FLOSS.  There are an awful lot of infrequently-revived Ashton and Tudor works out there

 

So far what I have seen of attempts to remove the improvements imposed on Petipa's ballets have left me preferring the original to the edited re-worked "improved" versions. I have a feeling that whatever changes were made to MacMillan's Anastasia they would not do a great deal for it. Perhaps we should simply accept that as MacMillan officially re-worked this ballet twice, first by giving it a first and second act and later by building up Rasputin's role that the version currently being performed at Covent Garden is the one he wanted to be seen and that it represents his final thoughts on the subject. 

 

But that's the question: does it?  Yes, we know he expressed a wish to beef up Rasputin's role for Mukhamedov (but as I've said before, since he's no longer dancing it that begs the question of whether the ballet should just revert to what it was previously), but did he actually rework it?  My guess is that if he had parts of Act III would have been rechoreographed, rather than (if I'm recalling correctly) simply assigned to a different character.

[FLOSS]

Alison there is a  world of difference between infrequently performed works created by a choreographer who has an active advocate and infrequently performed works created by choreographers who unfortunately do not have one . Clearly what I should have said is that given that managements favour three act ballets because of their popularity with audiences and the fact that MacMillan has an active advocate promoting his works the fact that Anastasia is rarely performed is evidence that it is a flawed work.

 

Lady M works hard to promote her late husband's works, or at least those that fit in with the carefully constructed image of the innovative choreographer genius who had to fight all the way against the ballet establishment to get his ballets staged. I don't blame her for having tried to make MacMillan's flawed three act  ballets work but she really is flogging a dead horse with at least two of them. Pagodas might just be made to work if the dancers appearing in it were actively encouraged to "go for it" and simply dance the ballet rather than being ultra careful with the choreography. The youngest least experienced cast of Stix-Brunell and Hirano were the only ones to give a performance when the ballet was last revived.But as far as the other two are concerned I would suggest that while she might occasionally dust off the third act of Anastasia if she has a real dance actress or two available, Isadora should be quietly locked away and never staged again.There are a number of early works she should think about reviving such as Danses Concertantes and Solitaire.

 

As far as Tudor is concerned his ballets almost seem to have disappeared from the stage, Even his home company ABT appear reluctant to stage anything except "The Leaves are Fading" presumably because his ballets require so much time in rehearsal to produce results .If they are not cast with care and are given in superficial performances without the requisite detail or are performed too broadly they look like nothing very special and their neglect appears justified.In Tudor ballets it is rarely a question of footwork and epaulement it is usually a question of fine detail for the entire body, how the head is held, the precise angle of the upper body and precision in small apparently unimportant details such as the exact distance from the body of the lower arms, and the ability to give the right weight to the characters being portrayed.Getting the weight right and capturing with absolute pinpoint accuracy the physical state of the characters was something which eluded Rambert entirely when they revived Dark Elegies and The Judgment of Paris a few years ago. The dancers in Elegies looked like dancers rather than heavy moving peasants while the whores in Judgment looked far too fit, healthy and alert to portray the bored, unfit, tired women of the original who just about manage to perform their routines for their drunken client.

 

As far as Ashton is concerned there is no advocate pushing for the revival of specific works or someone maintaining the image of the master choreographer. The frequent use of words like "camp" and "twee" in connection with his works does little to maintain his reputation as one of the greatest choreographers of the twentieth century and certainly does nothing to keep more than a handful of his works in the company's living repertory. Insensitive casting does not help either as the paying public is entitled to assume that the dancers who they see on stage are the best that the company can offer in the ballet they are watching and represent Ashton at his best. Casting big names who make heavy weather of the choreography does him no favours when it comes to established repertory pieces such as "Rhapsody" and "The Dream" and destroys a work like Birthday Offereing which last time it was revived seemed to be performed by dancers who were incapable of capturing the fine detail of the choreography and its musicality . Contrary to the opinion of some dancers Ashton's style is not something that can be put on and taken off like an overcoat.

 

I don't think that the company does enough to ensure that the full range of Ashton's works are maintained as part of the active repertory with regular revivals or that they are cast with sufficient care.Hand picking casts from dancers most suited to the ballets concerned would certainly improve the audience's chances of seeing exemplary performances. Fewer casts would give the individual dancers more rehearsal time and more opportunity to master their roles because they would have more performances.

 

At the end of the day the infrequent performances of Tudor's ballets and the failure to maintain the bulk of Ashton's works in the company's active repertory says little about their quality.The situation with MacMillan's infrequently performed works is different .He has an active advocate who endeavours to get full value from her assets, or at least those that fit in with her carefully cultivated image of her late husband as an innovative choreographer who challenged the comfortable world of the ballet establishment. The result is she tries to breathe life into works which resolutely refuse to rise from the dead and ignores works which would suit the company in its present state such as Solitaire, Danses Concertantes, Triad and The Four Seasons.

Edited November 6, 2016 by FLOSS

[Lynette H]

Okay, I'm going to stick my neck out on changes made to Act III for the 2004 production.  This has been prompted by the realisation over the past few days that the Brother has become such a non-role that I wonder why they bother naming him in the cast sheet, and I suspect that what's happened in a number of cases is that Rasputin has been moved into choreography originally written for the Husband, who in turn has been shifted into the Brother's shoes, so to speak.  I'm sure I remember the Brother having more to do than he now has. So my guess is that the Olga/Rasputin/Husband trio where they all keep changing places was originally Olga/Husband/Brother, and also that the part very early on where Rasputin and the Husband are forming a protective circle around Anna (but all facing in the same direction) was originally Husband/Brother.  Also, I think there was an early and relatively violent pdd between Anna and the Husband which Rasputin now performs: I think I always wondered why the husband would be treating the wife like that - plus I'm wondering whether all the parts where Anna is being carried around in inverted splits involved the Husband rather than Rasputin. 

 

 

OTOH, as I've said above, my memories of 1996 are pretty hazy, so I could be completely wrong, but I wonder if anyone recognises what I've sketched out above?

 

Talking about haze, though, I am *very* glad that they've got rid of the incense in Act II: the smell of it always used to turn my stomach!

 

 

I think you are correct about choreography for the husband being shifted to Rasputin. I've found some reviews from 2004 which make this explicit.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/reviews/anastasia-royal-opera-house-london-57678.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2004/apr/24/dance

 

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2004/apr/25/dance

 

And here is something from 1996 when the revival was being prepared

 

http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/20th-april-1996/45/identity-crisis

 

Edited November 6, 2016 by Lynette H

[capybara]

Well, although I can identify with some of the criticisms of Anastasia and would not protest that it is faultless, I am  loving every minute of it in the theatre and on screen.

 

It was interesting this afternoon to be in a smaller cinema than on Wednesday and nearer to a larger screen. There was no light reflected onto the screen today and, therefore, the stage did not look dark at all. I hadn't realised before that the viewing experience differs so much from venue to venue.

 

What didn’t change, of course, were the stunning performances – all enhanced by the close-ups. I would have liked to have seen all three Anastasias this way as well. Binoculars don’t quite do it for me.

 

What I wish could have been changed were the early shots of patrons enjoying wine in their boxes and the fur stole worn by Darcey Bussell. She did not, alas, improve on second viewing and I wish that we didn’t always have to cut back to the ‘hosts’ at the end of an act rather than simply moving seamlessly into an interval.  Moreover, yet again, the director cut away from the most important curtain call (Osipova’s last one) to Darcey and Gethin signing off. So discourteous to the artists.

 

Three more shows to look forward to this coming week. Hurrah!