The Royal Ballet: Manon, London, March-May 2018

[Richard LH]

6 hours ago, Odyssey said:

Not forgetting there is Hamilton and Cuthbertson too.

Yes, true ...I was just referring  to the casts I would be seeing myself.

[sanj2000]

We went on Friday night. My 2 (female) companions enjoyed it, although I (male) did not. Perhaps I didn't enjoy the subject matter, and found the throwing of Manon from man to man unsettling and misogynistic.

 

I had high hopes for the Natalia Osipova/Vladimir Shklyarov pairing having seen them before in Marguerite & Armand but I felt Osipova was restrained (my perception is totally different from reviews above!) and Shklyarov performed better than Osipova. I think I was comparing Natalia Osipova to last month's performance in Giselle where she took our breath away, but they are 2 totally different productions written a hundred years apart, so my comparison is flawed and I accept that.

 

We went specifically to see Natalia Osipova and Vladimir Shklyarov - hopefully they will reignite the passion again in next month's Marguerite & Armand in the Obisidian Tear/Elite Syncopations triple bill.

 

 

 

 

[loveclassics]

On 15/04/2018 at 15:38, Bluebird said:

 

 

 

 

 

Not to forget English National Ballet. They staged it some years ago and are about to do so again next season.

Obviously, I need to get out more!

 

Linda

[alison]

2 hours ago, sanj2000 said:

Perhaps I didn't enjoy the subject matter, and found the throwing of Manon from man to man unsettling and misogynistic.

 

There's nothing wrong with that, I think.

[penelopesimpson]

I must say, I find it worrying how many people are troubled by the subject matter, given that Manon's story is an old and familiar one, ergo one can hardly claim that the content is a surprise.  Manon was written in another century and it depicts life as it was then.  If we start applying today's standards of acceptable behaviour to our artistic treasure trove, I worry that it is then a short step to censorship and/or revisions.

 

Act II is set in an eighteenth century brothel.  Did anyone seriously believe that in such places all that took place was a game of cards, some light spanking and cocoa all round?  Having read the comments on this forum before my visit last Friday, I scrutinised the dancing to try and find what it was that people, apparently, found so upsetting.  I saw nothing that I couldn't have anticipated and nothing that wasn't an important part of the drama unfolding. 

 

Drama does what it says on the tin - it depicts dramatic events and is always based on conflict.  Surely the very fact that the audience is disturbed by what they see is an essential element in heightening our emotions so that we may better appreciate the story?  Manon meets a tragic end, I presume largely brought about by the life she has been living.  If we do not see that life, how will we understand her circumstances?  

 

In the context of opera and ballet, Manon is surely pretty tame stuff?    Butterfly is far more shocking with its colonialist attitudes.  Macbeth is one violent scene after another, and poor old Desdemona is murdered on the hearsay of one embittered man.  Fidelio and Tosca both contain torture, and then there's Turandot where you can surely make a case for racism, colonialism and gratuitous violence.  As for Lulu, well... The list is never ending simply because it is drama.

 

Manon is an important work and I, for one, would not change a thing.

[Sim]

And we'd better forget The Taming of the Shrew altogether...!

 

The word 'misogynistic' keeps being used in regard to Manon, but let's face it, the men don't exactly come off well in this ballet either (with the exception of Des Grieux, of course).   They are either evil, or silly pathetic fops, or thieving beggars. The story is simply presenting the low life at all levels of society. It helps to make us understand why there was a revolution in France 57 years after the book was written. 

[aliceinwoolfland]

Agree with the posts above. I think one of the reasons why Manon is so compelling and tragic is because it depicts the brutal misogyny of 18th century Paris. Is Hardy’s ‘Tess of the D’Urbervilles’ outdated and sexist because it charts the horrific treatment of a young peasant girl? No, because it seeks to highlight her plight rather than condone it. I agree that the ‘jolly harlots’ stereotype is a little tiring, especially as it arguably makes light of the conditions of many Parisian brothels, but it didn’t spoil my enjoyment of the ballet at all. 

[Lizbie1]

9 hours ago, penelopesimpson said:

I must say, I find it worrying how many people are troubled by the subject matter, given that Manon's story is an old and familiar one, ergo one can hardly claim that the content is a surprise.  Manon was written in another century and it depicts life as it was then.  If we start applying today's standards of acceptable behaviour to our artistic treasure trove, I worry that it is then a short step to censorship and/or revisions.

 

Act II is set in an eighteenth century brothel.  Did anyone seriously believe that in such places all that took place was a game of cards, some light spanking and cocoa all round?  Having read the comments on this forum before my visit last Friday, I scrutinised the dancing to try and find what it was that people, apparently, found so upsetting.  I saw nothing that I couldn't have anticipated and nothing that wasn't an important part of the drama unfolding. 

 

Drama does what it says on the tin - it depicts dramatic events and is always based on conflict.  Surely the very fact that the audience is disturbed by what they see is an essential element in heightening our emotions so that we may better appreciate the story?  Manon meets a tragic end, I presume largely brought about by the life she has been living.  If we do not see that life, how will we understand her circumstances?  

 

In the context of opera and ballet, Manon is surely pretty tame stuff?    Butterfly is far more shocking with its colonialist attitudes.  Macbeth is one violent scene after another, and poor old Desdemona is murdered on the hearsay of one embittered man.  Fidelio and Tosca both contain torture, and then there's Turandot where you can surely make a case for racism, colonialism and gratuitous violence.  As for Lulu, well... The list is never ending simply because it is drama.

 

Manon is an important work and I, for one, would not change a thing.

 

I guess it's just a difference of opinion, isn't it? Some people see the 18th century tale, others the 1970s filter which MacMillan applied, others (me included) see both.

 

There are no right or wrong answers.

[ninamargaret]

I think it's very important to consider all works of art, whether art, drama, opera, ballet or whatever as being of the time in which they were written. Audiences today dislike plays like Taming of the Shrew, Merchant of Venice, even an opera like Marriage of Figaro because of their attitudes to women, Jews, etc and attempts to update and 'improve' them are frequently muddled and unsuccessful. Far better for audiences watching them today to do a bit of homework and understand life/morals/thoughts of the time in which they were written. Works that deal with contemporary issues could not be transposed to earlier eras so why should we try to alter works from other periods to fit in with our current ideas?

[penelopesimpson]

Brilliantly put, NinaMargaret.  There is an urge in some quarters of the country to constantly 'modernise' which actually means censor!  At the risk of being shot at (!), I am getting sick of the Me-Too campaign in Hollywood.  Many of the stars jumping on the bandwagon are the very people who preferred to stay silent whilst furthering their careers.  

[ninamargaret]

Just now, penelopesimpson said:

Brilliantly put, NinaMargaret.  There is an urge in some quarters of the country to constantly 'modernise' which actually means censor!  At the risk of being shot at (!), I am getting sick of the Me-Too campaign in Hollywood.  Many of the stars jumping on the bandwagon are the very people who preferred to stay silent whilst furthering their careers.  

OK - I thoroughly agree, so will join you In being a,target!!!

[Lizbie1]

15 minutes ago, ninamargaret said:

I think it's very important to consider all works of art, whether art, drama, opera, ballet or whatever as being of the time in which they were written. 

 

But, as I've said above, there is more than one era in play here - it's not straightforward.  We've recently become very squeamish about a lot of what passed without comment in the '70s: that era being adjacent to our own might mean that it is more difficult for many to hold their noses.

 

I'm by no means in disagreement with the point being made, but no-one here (as far as I can remember) has suggested any form of censorship and I don't think we can mandate that people like what they see on stage.

[Josephine]

Sorry - I can't get the system to include quotes as well as my comment.

 

I agree with ninamargaret that it is very important to consider the period in which a work of art was originally created. But I strongly disagree that this should be the determining factor for all subsequent revivals. In my view this would lead to a very static and repetitive experience for audiences. I am not in sympathy with retrospective censorship, as for example in some Victorian productions of Shakespeare. But it seems to me hugely important to give space for revivals which have the potential to resonate deeply for the audience of their time. This does not mean changing the text, but thinking creatively about the interpretation. Of course the result may not succeed, but neither do all works succeed when they are first created. When reinterpretation does succeed it can be thrilling, e.g. Trevor Nunn's 1976 RSC Macbeth (old now I know, but extraordinarily powerful both as a theatrical experience and in terms of its stylistic influence in British theatre history).

 

Given the unchanging nature of the human condition there must be some contemporary works whose themes could be reinterpreted in the context of an earlier period in time?? I admit that I can't think of an example offhand but I'm now a little out of touch with contemporary work!!

 

I would strongly defend the space for artistic reinterpretation even if I don't personally enjoy the result. Lizbie1's comment above sums it up perfectly: 'I don't think we can mandate that people like what they see on stage.'

[ninamargaret]

Josephine, I think it's a very tricky problem, particularly in the theatre. I agree that producers should be able to explore how plays can be made,more relevant to modern audiences. I do not think producers should adapt plays to suit their pet theories, as I have seen in As You Like It, where Rosalind's last speech is often cut. I.hasten to add I've seen quite a few pretty daft productions in the theatre recently, hence my enthusiasm for ballet!

[Fiz]

I really don’t understand why people can’t lay their modern sensibilities aside when it comes to seeing plays or ballets set much earlier. I studied history at university and many revolting persecutions, wars and other evil acts made up much of what was studied. Did I dislike these actions? Yes. However value judgements do not make a historian. Jane Austen was writing only a little later than Abbé Prevost and her society held that a woman was only as good as the man she married. It’s objectionable but I have yet to see this advanced as a reason for not reading Jane Austen.

[loveclassics]

Des Grieux is not exactly a shining example either.  Cheating at cards, murder?  Provocation perhaps but still ....

 

Linda

[ninamargaret]

5 minutes ago, loveclassics said:

Des Grieux is not exactly a shining example either.  Cheating at cards, murder?  Provocation perhaps but still ....

 

Linda

Yes, but don't most women go for the sort of men their mothers wouldn't approve of?

[alison]

1 hour ago, loveclassics said:

Des Grieux is not exactly a shining example either.  Cheating at cards, murder?  Provocation perhaps but still ....

 

Yes, but that's the tragedy of Manon: a decent, honest, innocent, well brought-up and educated young man (don't forget, he was going to enter the priesthood until he met Manon) ruins himself for love of a woman who is arguably not worth it.

[Tony Newcombe]

6 minutes ago, alison said:

 

Yes, but that's the tragedy of Manon: a decent, honest, innocent, well brought-up and educated young man (don't forget, he was going to enter the priesthood until he met Manon) ruins himself for love of a woman who is arguably not worth it.

However one Manon I have seen probably was worth it. Totally dominated by her brother.

That’s why it is such a great role

[alison]

Who was that, Tony?

[aliceinwoolfland]

2 hours ago, Fiz said:

I really don’t understand why people can’t lay their modern sensibilities aside when it comes to seeing plays or ballets set much earlier. I studied history at university and many revolting persecutions, wars and other evil acts made up much of what was studied. Did I dislike these actions? Yes. However value judgements do not make a historian. Jane Austen was writing only a little later than Abbé Prevost and her society held that a woman was only as good as the man she married. It’s objectionable but I have yet to see this advanced as a reason for not reading Jane Austen.

In fairness though, Austen’s female characters are rich and complex, and she subtly satirises and criticises the social norms. As such I would see very few people claiming that her writing is misogynistic or limiting to women!

[JennyTaylor]

Can I just say - Marianela Nunez and Roberto Bolle - stunning. Even more extra curtain calls than last week. 

[Blossom]

I have been reading this thread with great anticipation for my visit to the ROH tonight. A fabulous performance - Hayward went from demure to in love to a very regal mistress and then of course to her downfall. An excellent performance.  Also hugely rated Campbell as Lescaut. Knowing he is also playing Des Grieux, I wonder which he enjoys more... Being one of the nicest people in ballet (love watching when he presents Insights and World Ballet Day) I thought he did a phenomenal job of playing...a rat, for want of a better word. Particularly loved his drunken pdd with Calvert, she was also fabulous tonight. Bonnelli also danced well but I just think I preferred the dynamics of Lescaut to Des Grieux. 

 

Onto the much described lewdness... Actually I don’t think that there was anything inappropriate for the time which was being portrayed - and I’m quite a prude! In terms of the story of a woman’s demise being told from a man’s perspective, it’s worth remembering how women lived in those days- completely beholden to men, couldn’t vote, weren’t in charge of their own finances and effectively went from their father’s house to pretty much being the property of their husband, or to get a step up, becoming a mistress with all of the financial trappings that brings and perhaps even a little more independence. From Hayward’s portrayal at least, I don’t see this as a the story of an immoral woman but a tragic love story of a woman who made a choice perhaps to ensure herself a good life - before love won over. Her fate and fortune were very much controlled by her scheming brother - and oh what a schemer Campbell made! 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Blossom

[alison]

I think Manon is more amoral than immoral ...

[ninamargaret]

9 hours ago, Blossom said:

and oh what a schemer Campbell made! 

 

Just thinking idly here. I'm greatly looking forward to seeing him as De Grieux and my mind wanders to the idea of Bonelli  as Lescaut. it's always interesting to see dancers take on two very different parts in the same ballet, even more so if it is in the same run of performances. I see that the castings for Mayerling and Bayadere both have dancers taking on two roles and I feel this makes for interesting casting and is also an excellent chance to give dancers the opportunity to increase their range. Particularly important, when a major ballet only appears every couple of years or so. And given the inevitable need for replacements for sick or injured dancers to have a dancer who can cope with a couple of roles must be very useful.

[JennyTaylor]

I went to last night's performance and cannot praise Alexander Campbell too highly. It was a superb portrayal of Lescaut and I enjoyed it hugely. I had warmed to Marcellino Sambe last week, but this was on a completely different level in terms of stage presence, acting and dancing.   

 

For me, the Hayward/ Bonelli partnership did not take off. Nothing they did wrong, but after the extraordinary heights of Nunez/Bolle last week I didn't feel any real connection. Hayward is a beautiful dancer and I love watching her lyricism, but no spine tingles for me last night. 

 

One amusing interchange  I noticed last night: Campbell as Lescaut called for a chair from one of the lackeys in Act 1.  When it arrived, he said thank you. I suspect Lescaut in character, would not have said thank you, so that was a "Campbell" moment! 

[Bluebird]

Yesterday afternoon's performance of Manon has so far passed without comment.  Possibly it wasn't seen by many forum members. In my opinion, Melissa Hamilton and Nehemiah Kish gave an inspired performance.  In particular, there was an astonishing amount of detail in Melissa Hamilton's portrayal of Manon and  Nehemiah Kish's Des Grieux was full of warmth and passion.

 

It was good to see Valentino Zucchetti back on stage as an excellent Lescaut and to see Meaghan Hinkis make her debut as his Mistress. Luxury casting to have both Bennett Gartside and Gary Avis on stage as Monsieur G.M. and the Gaoler.  I was interested, but not surprised, to hear that a number of audience members had remarked that it was one of the best performances they'd ever seen of the work.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Bluebird

[Blossom]

Love this quote from a review in the Independent which is a perfect description!

 

‘The brothel scene plays out in Hogarthian detail’

 

 

[JohnS]

Just back from London with chance on the train to reflect on what I’d seen.  What a fabulous performance of Manon on Thursday evening with Francesca Hayward and the full cast delivering a performance I’ve been longing for.  Francesca is utterly captivating, intoxicating in her zest for life and torn between her lover and riches - the desperation of wanting your cake and eating it laid bare.  Her dancing is crystalline as we know so well.  She seems to have so much time and the arcs she shapes have the perfection of Giotto’s free hand circle whether she’s partnered by De Grieux, Lescaut,  GM, or any of her myriad partners in Manon.  

 

I love the detail in her characterisation, the first encounter with De Grieux and the realisation that here may be something so much more than she’s experienced to date, the playfulness with the beggar musicians as she sits back stage, the touch of the bed when she chooses GM’s riches in preference to her love for De Grieux at the end of Act 1, the horror at finding De Grieux muscling in on the Act 2 ‘pass the Manon parcel’ PD too many to count, and then how she melts when De Grieux shoves the last gentleman out of the grand chain, how she can twist GM not so much around her little finger but a flick of her foot or a suggested caress of her foot.  I love her disgust of the gaoler and how she flings her bracelet so brutally forced upon her a few moments earlier by the gaoler at his body.  Here we see Manon has ultimately chosen love not riches and perhaps that is why we love her and are so moved by the final, devastating pas de deux.

 

With Francesca as Manon she demands are attention whenever she is on stage.  I’ve highlighted the scene with the beggar musician and the first meeting with De Grieux, all very much back stage.  The control she has over GM at the card table is riveting.  Inevitably some of the ‘entertainment’ performed centre stage is relegated to a side show when so attracted to Manon and her performance but how satisfying to know that the rich backcloth is being presented by the Royal Ballet on top form and the audience can choose what to follow.  It will be interesting to see what the cinema director chooses for us.

 

Christopher Saunders and Gary Avis made for a suitably appalling pair as GM and the Gaoler, encapsulating the arrogance of wealth and absolute power.  I very much enjoyed Claire Calvert’s Mistress although because I was drawn so much of the time to Manon I know I missed seeing the detail of some of her performance.

 

But I was spell bound by Alexander Campbell and Federico Bonelli as Lescaut and De Grieux who provided such well crafted characters to make this Manon so special.  

 

Alex is such a brilliant dancer with formidable technique.  You know his jumps and spins will be immaculate.  And he fleshes out Lescaut so vividly - that beckoning signal to his Mistress’s foot during the drunk PDD when it was out of reach was one of countless details, perfect timing and delivery showing his absolute control.

 

I thought Federico made for a fabulous De Grieux, the reserved student, at first doubting whether Manon would fall for him, but then utterly intoxicated by her.  Beautifully presented solos and a passionate performance with fabulous, breathtaking PDDs.

 

I’m so pleased to have seen this performance and had chance to have a word with Francesca and Alex at the stage door.  Fortunately I’ve tickets for the originally scheduled performances by these three principals in May but before then I’ve been able to pick up a good return ticket for 28 April for Akane Takada and Alex’s De Grieux debut, with James Hay as Lescaut.

[JohnS]

As a footnote I did see yesterday’s matinee.  Some good news with Valentino Zucchetti back on stage after injury as Lescaut and much was enjoyable, particularly Meaghan Grace Hinkis’s Mistress, Bennet Gartside as GM, and Gary Avis as the Gaoler.  Is was good to see the detail from so many characters in the rich tapestry presented through much of Manon.  I enjoyed Melissa Hamilton’s Manon.  Nehemiah Kish was De Grieux and I’m afraid I spent some time asking myself why, without managing a convincing answer, and worrying about Swan Lake.  I’ve enjoyed his Song of the Earth, Monotones and the Creature, and found his Albrecht this time much more sympathetic than previously.  But on getting home I saw the favourable comments of others and am very pleased that clearly a number of members of the audience were enthusiastic.  There certainly was good applause for all the principals and the entire cast at curtain call.

[ninamargaret]

Johns's comments prompt me to say that I still find, after watching ballet for many yesrs, that probably the most fascinating thing about it is the very different interpretations we can see in just one ballet.My ballet going now is very much limited to the ROH because of mobility difficulties so my comments relate to the Royal Ballet, but I am sure they apply to the many excellent companies we have now.  we can, generally, assume that roles will be well danced, but I think, with the rise in popularity of 'story'  ballets dancers have had to do far more than just dance. As actors nowadays seem to be pretty competent at singing and dancing, so we expect, and get, dancers whose acting ability is very well developed. I speak as someone who's seen some pretty wooden performances in the past!  Do Companies employ the equivalent of a producer to help dancers 'act' their roles or do we just have even more talented dancers than I thought we had? I believe Nicholas Hytner was bought in to do sessions when Winter's Tale was first out on  - is this something that sometimes happens?

[jmhopton]

Judging by all the rehearsals/insight evenings I've seen online (a brilliant idea for us non-Londoners) I get the impression that ballet coaches put as much emphasis on the acting element of a performance as on the technical aspects. Indeed, I'm sure  Christopher Saunders said as much in the 3 gents Manon rehearsals when he was emphasising their characters as much as the technique. Also Christopher Carr and Lesley Collier have said something similar and suggested different scenarios that characters might be feeling. I especially like Lesley Collier's suggestion that the girl in 2 Pigeons could be fidgety because she 'might be wanting to go to the shops with her friends'! Obviously knowledge of the steps and technique is needed to give the dancer confidence to know what they're doing and where they should be on the stage but after this has been mastered then individual character interpretations are equally important to make the ballet come alive and the audience engage with that character and not just be a series of steps. I hadn't heard before about Nicholas Hynter possibly being involved as an acting coach. It is an interesting idea but I think the ordinary RB ballet coaches are very aware of the need to develop acting skills and not just for the principals but all the way down the cast to the humblest beggar or most obscure prostitute or gent.  To me, this emphasis is what makes RB productions of story ballets among the best (if not the best) in the world today.

[Odyssey]

6 hours ago, Bluebird said:

Yesterday afternoon's performance of Manon has so far passed without comment.  Possibly it wasn't seen by many forum members. In my opinion, Melissa Hamilton and Nehemiah Kish gave an inspired performance.  In particular, there was an astonishing amount of detail in Melissa Hamilton's portrayal of Manon and  Nehemiah Kish's Des Grieux was full of warmth and passion..

Thank you for posting this Bluebird. I have followed Melissa's progress through the ranks and, what I considered at the time to be a brave move, spending  two years in Germany. Inevitably, the promotion of Francesca and Yasmin and the way in which they have both grown as artists during this time, has meant she has not had too many opportunities to show how she has also developed and benefited from regularly tasking leading roles. She has danced Manon quite a few times now and I would like to hear more about her interpretation in comparison to others.