Jump to content

Mariinsky Ballet: Swan Lake, London, August 2014


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Lopatkina was wonderful. This was the first time I've seen her on stage and I was just blown away by her presence and exquisite movements.

 

I decided that my version of heaven would be the Mariinsky Swanlake on a loop, with the incredible corps (I now know the sound of 24 pointe shoes hitting the stage within milliseconds) and the fiendishly awesome Rothbarts (Yermakov tonight, and I'm ignoring the fact that at least one Siegfried seemed to beat him to death with his own wing). Though I'd probably want a sofa to go with that, rather than standing for eternity....

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The partisanship in some of the Parish reviews is a little too strong for my taste. It also does him a disservice by making it seem as if his performance needs to be defended by blaming his partners. The Swanlake wasn't faultless, but it was easily good enough that a few little slips didn't distract from the very enjoyable performance of both leads.

 

Xander Parish's performances seem to me to have been subject to far more forensic scrutiny in the press than would normally be the case for, say, an RB or ENB leading man - or even for other Mariinsky Principals.

One person's partisanship is another persons reality of course. His has been a big homecoming and he featured prominently in the pre-season publicity, then slots on BBC radio and TV and the first 2 photoshoots have featured him prominently too - all unprecedented for a soloist level dancer I think. I truly don't see his partners have been done down to boost his reputation particularly but, for my taste I thought the reviews of him in Romeo were rather too kind. In Swan Lake he was more credible and enjoyable. The partisanship angle has additional spice because of the RB position. Did RB really screw up in allowing him to languish undeveloped or not? And that's connected with RB routinely being accused of importing stars rather then growing them.

 

In their various ways I think reviewers have sought to be fair to Parish and those on stage with him. If he had done a Vasiliev and wowed everybody senseless it might have been different, but I think there were nuanced things to say about what he did on stage and the interesting context around it all. It's certainly been big news for all of us! And he still has Apollo to do...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lopatkina was wonderful. This was the first time I've seen her on stage and I was just blown away by her presence and exquisite movements.

Sad I missed her and I envy you seeing here for the first time - she is from another world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lopatkina was wonderful. This was the first time I've seen her on stage and I was just blown away by her presence and exquisite movements.

I decided that my version of heaven would be the Mariinsky Swanlake on a loop, with the incredible corps (I now know the sound of 24 pointe shoes hitting the stage within milliseconds) and the fiendishly awesome Rothbarts (Yermakov tonight, and I'm ignoring the fact that at least one Siegfried seemed to beat him to death with his own wing). Though I'd probably want a sofa to go with that, rather than standing for eternity....

Please make space for me on that sofa too!

 

Lopatkina was mesmerising, a masterclass in ballet, partnered by a rather dull (but technically competent Evgeny Ivanchenko) who was being shown up by a wonderful Jester (Tkachenko) and the magnificent Yermakov, who's leaps and jumps were jaw dropping (I wish we could have seen more of him)

 

The Corps were absolutely stupendous. Looking down the lines of swans was like looking at a computer generated rendition of what a perfect line should be.

 

An all time great Swan Lake IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought that Lopatkina's fourth act performance oh, so beautifully constructed last night especially when being partnered by Andrei Yermakov's aerially fine Von Rothbart.  As Bruce Marriott suggested she is a unique presence and even though there is now an occasionally obvious lack of upper leg strength this graceful artist does oh, so carefully husband her resources (with several obvious changes to this staging); never allowing herself to undertake anything that she can no longer deliver on behalf of her audience.  Even now she offers the previously uninitiated visitor a sense of what made her so special in the first place (and I say that having had the pleasure of her O/O more than a few times in the past.)  Those dark eye'd side glances towards her Act III target remain piercing.  

 

For me Ivanchenko as her prince brought new meaning to the word 'blandness' and certainly allowed the tension of the overall proceedings to frequently loosen when left to his own devices.  Whereas the enticingly vibrant Shklyarov had tossed that bouquet of white roses he was meant to present as a trophy to one of the princesses to one side in clear frustration, Ivanchenko squeezed them up behind his back into the hands of the waiting Jester in embarrassment as if this had been but a production error.  I found myself laughing (quietly in respect for those standing next to me in the upper reaches of the amphi) for quite the wrong reasons.  Little was left by him to register with anyone.  I equally found myself pondering on those hereabouts who are so flummoxed by the placement of Matthew Golding's mouth during performance (largely I think in order that the poor boy might breathe).  Here Ivanchenko's face was so often but a blank.  When expression did dare to glimmer it looked to me as if it was in (surely unintentional) disdain.  'What do you mean?' I hear you murmur.  Well, I'm not sure I have sufficient powers of description to relate such  unremarkable commonplace.  If I were to attempt just one I might say that he sometimes looked for me (if not all the world) as if the Pilsbury dough boy had been smitten by a vampire.  In turn Lopatkina's Odile was animation itself when she tossed a similar bouquet into Ivanchenko's face with an evil dose of thrill similar to that which I remember being exorcised by Makarova in face of Baryishnikov.  Sadly even that did nothing to inspire a passionate response from her partner.  Vasily Tkachenko was I felt the best Jester of the three I have seen by the Mariinsky this time round (certainly the most precise in his finishes, spontaneous in his reactions and, without hesitation, the most sparing in his make-up) and did what he could to pick up/support the strands of Ivanchenko's disinterested reign.  Bless him. 

Edited by Bruce Wall
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is interesting:  just got off the plane and thought I'd check out the reviews of Julia Stepanova after reading so much about her around the internet beforehand.. I imagined you guys to be gurgling with delight and declaring a star had been born at the very least, but that doesn't quite seem to be the case.  Could it be her lobbying group did her a disservice with all their advance propaganda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The name of the man who did her disservice is Fateev. He fed the press with the notions that Stepanova was an inexperienced beginner. They bought it. Some were even wondering why Xander was given such an unworthy partner. Tonight Fateev placed Stepanova unannounced as one of the Swans. Happy?

Edited by assoluta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of the corps swans, or in one of the solo roles?

 

Stepanova was one of the four Big Swans both last night and the night before.  It was presumably a late substitution as her name did not appear on the cast sheet. 

Edited by Bluebird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The name of the man who did her disservice is Fateev. He fed the press with the notions that Stepanova was an inexperienced beginner. They bought it. Some were even wondering why Xander was given such an unworthy partner. Tonight Fateev placed Stepanova unannounced as one of the Swans. Happy?

 

I have press contact around this London visit and am not aware of press being 'fed' any particular messages re certain dancers. In any event the London critics tend to be pretty independent minded. I truly think they commented on what they saw and not on what they didn't see. Of course taste is different for all of us, so people pick up on things differently.

 

"Some were even wondering why Xander was given such an unworthy partner."  I've not seen this - can you point us at the press reviews where this specific point was clearly made?

 

Understand you feel passionately about the accusations you make but to some they read as Highly Critical in nature.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is ordered to dance in the corps de ballet until the end of the tour. 

 

Assoluta, I don't know whether or not you are familiar with British ballet companies? Here, also, dancers at coryphee/first artist or, even, artist rank have occasional opportunities to dance major leading roles; but, when they do so, it is not at all unusual to see them back in the corps almost immediately. Moreover, in English National Ballet, Principals also appear in what  are really corps roles. For example, recently, Elena Glurdjidze (a Lead Principal) danced as one of the group in Akran Khan's Dust and Begona Cao (a Principal) was cast one of Swanilda's Friends in Coppelia. Also, in both ENB and the Royal Ballet (and probably in other companies too), Soloists and First Soloists are often to be seen taking roles which may seem on the surface to be 'below their level'.

 

Regarding practice at the Mariinsky. I recall that, when Vaziev was in charge, a young Svetlana Zhakarova was dancing both lead roles and Big Swans on a London Tour. So what is happening to Stepanova is proably not that out of the ordinary.

Edited by capybara
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip] .... I truly don't see his partners have been done down to boost his reputation particularly ....[/snip]

 

 

You're right, that was not a common stance in reviews - I'd come across a few comments on those lines and then got annoyed with the one review that seemed to be along those lines

 

I probably should have said "The Internets" instead of reviews

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have press contact around this London visit and am not aware of press being 'fed' any particular messages re certain dancers. In any event the London critics tend to be pretty independent minded. I truly think they commented on what they saw and not on what they didn't see. Of course taste is different for all of us, so people pick up on things differently.

 

"Some were even wondering why Xander was given such an unworthy partner."  I've not seen this - can you point us at the press reviews where this specific point was clearly made?

 

Understand you feel passionately about the accusations you make but to some they read as Highly Critical in nature.

See todays links

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the sudden decision of Fateev to show Stepanova 'her place', maybe it has something to do with the fact that Skorik and Fateev were furious when they saw upon their arrival that the Hochhausers made Stepanova the 'face of Mariinsky'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assoluta, the scenario you describe sadly also happens in many other companies, incl. here in the UK.  

 

Artistic Directors DO have their favourites and those dancers will have it far easier than those (sometimes more talented and more loved by the audience!) who have to fight for their roles.  Some dancers must be hiding a lot of sadness I think and when we, the audience, settle into our seat we just cannot imagine what they must be hiding behind their smile.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See todays links

 

Forgive me but before I wrote I looked at all the links I could find in TodaysLinks and didn't see one where Stepanova is called up as an 'unworthy' partner.

 

I see great things said about her and some less great things. I have seen some great things written about Parish and some less great things. If I have missed the reviews that said she was unworthy (there was a plural used, so not just one review) then my profuse apologies to all.

Edited by Bruce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Skorik be furious? There are other more illustrious (famous) dancers who would have a much greater entitlement to be furious than her, even if I accepted that Stepanova is 'the face of the Mariinsky', which I don't. Rightly or wrongly, it is Parish who has received all the publicity, for understandable reasons. Stepanova has been drawn into some of that publicity because she is Parish's partner. There are both benefits and drawbacks for her being Parish's partner on this London tour.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow. Neither ballerina is cast as Cinderella, as far as I can see, and Stepsister is not usually a particularly coveted role, at least in the productions which I know about. Skorik, however, is cast in all three performances of Apollo/Dream and seems to have two different parts. I must say, Assoluta, that from everything that I've seen, read, and heard (from you) I'm inclined to avoid Skorik if she returns to the UK. You do her no favours by painting her as so jealous and petty. If she's really good she will show everyone this in her performances. She had the opening night of Swan Lake, which is an iconic, and probably the most popular, ballet in the UK and so she's not done too badly on this tour.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A word about choices of photos for posters, very often it is a case of choosing an image that can be adapted to accommodate the written information as much as the perceived attractiveness of the actual picture.  I imagine the picture was selected for suitability rather than the featured dancer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A word about choices of photos for posters, very often it is a case of choosing an image that can be adapted to accommodate the written information as much as the perceived attractiveness of the actual picture.  I imagine the picture was selected for suitability rather than the featured dancer.

 

If we are thinking of the one of a ballerina in Firebird, I agree. It looks good on the Underground and catches the eye in the Sunday Papers. But, in common with many others I suspect, I had no idea who the dancer was.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...