Jump to content

Royal Ballet - Ashton mixed bill


Recommended Posts

In the play A Month in the Country Natalya Petrovna is described as 'headstrong'. For research purposes Frederick Ashton took his first cast to see a production starring Dorothy Tutin and Derek Jacobi.

 

How wonderful.  That fine Chitchester production was actually the first time I saw Turgenev's play.  I had the privilege of co-founding the charity I currently run with Dame Dorothy.  She was in every way quite extraordinary.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think Osipova is an amazing dancer but for me, her style of dancing is very different to the rest of the RB company and therefore I find it quite jarring and have not enjoyed watching the couple of performances I have seen her in. I think I would feel differently if I saw her in a company which danced in a similar style.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must confess I have found the commentary on this particular Forum page a most alluring read.

I, too, saw the 2014 Ashton bill (myself for the first time) on 22.10. I was not AS troubled by Osipova's Natalia Petrovna as some other commentators hereabouts. While I agree that some of Osipova's detail (especially in the opening) was more skittish/fussy than it might otherwise need have been (a phenomena that I'm sure will settle in the playing) I was intrigued at just how much she managed to capture - especially in the precision of the heart wrenching escalation of her opening solo - elements of the flighty and capricious behaviour of this character as are so clearly defined in the opening acts of Turgenev's original play. (Indeed, I, myself, wondered if Osipova might well have read the original in Russian.  So much for us depends are varying translations.) By adding such I thought she made for a substantial character arc - albeit different from the simpler, more mature (and stunning) ones of both Seymour and Sibley - within the overall framework of this Ashton masterwork. The insolence of ever receding joy sliding into humane anguish as expressed by the sublime Ms. Hayward as Vera was entirely enthralling and - without hesitation - was delivered all of a piece from the very get go. Indeed so strong was Hayward's etching that I felt she thrust the mother/daughter scenarios into a particularly telling relief. What did MOST disturb me here, however - and even more with the Brahms - was the actual (and sometimes cruelly inaccurate) playing of the piano score. I sincerely hope the RB will toy with the employment of another keyboard player in the future. The musical landscape of both pieces is much more rich than was represented last night and heaven knows the Ashton deserves to have his own magical musicality rightly cherished. The musical direction otherwise under the baton of the talented Emmanuel Plasson was fine.

I so adore SV. This is a piece that deserves to be seen as a core work by the RB, if not every season, then every second season at least. If such were the case it would I feel remove some of the telling pressure on the casting scenarios such as we have and are experiencing. While I certainly would not hold this performance up to be the best that I have ever seen, Muntagirov's entrechats were simply spectacular and it was - as I think I have suggested - just such a happy occasion to once again to be reminded of the overall shape of the SV brilliance. So too was it with Scenes de Ballet. What a SPECTACULAR work this is, and rightfully deserving of the Stravinsky touches of genius. I can well understand why Ashton chose it as a personal favourite. I did mark with interest one point Sarah Crompton made in her notation vis a vis SdeB: I will quote but a few sentences to abide by the BcoF regulations:

"Ashton’s stillnesses exposed some wobbly technique, which was also a problem with Scènes de Ballet, which opened the night. It’s clear that despite the post-war vintage of these works, they are a challenge for the Royal’s dancers. Their director Kevin O’Hare clearly recognises Ashton’s deep significance for his company; if they dance his works more, they will begin to perform them better. There is clearly the talent there but perhaps not the familiarity."
 

I agree. Watching this extraordinary piece again I knew instinctively that this is very much a ballet to be seen (as are so many of Balanchine's 420 works) from above. (On the couple of occasions when I had the GREAT good fortune to actually speak to Balanchine during the late 70's/early 80's he himself made this point. [He was, happily very approachable once one had summoned up sufficient courage to simply dane,] I remember him saying that he usually watched the performances - and he was at most of them - from a seat in the wings, but that it was from the Fourth Ring standing room that you could really appreciate the whole he said. Indeed, I think ALL critics who similarly review Ashton's SdeB and SV should best do so from above as opposed to their usual stalls perch. Again, it was just so damned refreshing to be in this masterwork's (SdeB) presence once again. That said I did feel that it was slightly fudged; the womens' lines were - as Ashton might have put it - oft 'buttery' .... and the men were sometimes wayward. I'm sure with greater exposure the RB will build up its company strength. Under K O'Hare's fine direction I'm sure of it. (The last two years' intake from the RBS is already proving a firm foundation and the 2015 RBS graduating class is particularly strong. Things can but improve.) Yet how (he thought to himself) I would love to see the current NYCB (now in fine stead) dance this piece. I can see in my current mind's eye the brilliantine bedazzlement and the 'smiling' play within the scales of dramatic phrasing - for the score and Ashton deserve nothing less - being there well celebrated at this particular point in time (as opposed - from a NYCB perspective - to say, six or even four years ago). Again, - that said - I am sure (like Ms. Crompton) that the RB team will come into focus much as they did with that DAZZLING performance of Rubies as led by Osipova and McRae ... and THAT a work that had once been removed by the Balanchine Trust from the Royal Ballet's rep because it was not felt to be 'in its character'.

 

In the word's of yet another telling Russian heroine gifted with foresight, Chekhov's Sonya:  'Have faith, Uncle Vanya.  Have faith'

Edited by Bruce Wall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Osipova is an amazing dancer but for me, her style of dancing is very different to the rest of the RB company and therefore I find it quite jarring and have not enjoyed watching the couple of performances I have seen her in. I think I would feel differently if I saw her in a company which danced in a similar style.

 

Interesting comment Ribbons.  I've noticed dancers coming in from other companies to companies that I follow where they have not initially had "the company style" but that his come with varying degrees of time and it has been good to watch these dancers transformations.  Hopefully Ms Osipova will continue to grow as an artist and subsume the RB style ... and perhaps the RB can also learn something from her style.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, Ribbons. I don't know whether it's a matter of temperament or her Bolshoi training. Everything is big with her, both movement and expression. There is also the question of whether she will be able to form a truly successful partnership with anyone at the RB. When she danced with Vasiliev we found the partnership and her dancing thrilling because they were perfectly matched in their big, bold dancing. Some people have said that she should dance with Vadim (they are both Russian) but they are polar opposites and there is a danger that his understated, refined style of dancing and acting, which his admirers so appreciate, could be made to look bland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'..there is a danger that his understated, refined style of dancing and acting, which his admirers so appreciate, could be made to look bland.'

 

But  no-one who truly understands and loves ballet could ever be made to consider Muntagirov's dancing and acting 'bland' unless of course they were expecting 'Spartacus' style dancing and acting in an Ashton work!

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'..there is a danger that his understated, refined style of dancing and acting, which his admirers so appreciate, could be made to look bland.'

 

But  no-one who truly understands and loves ballet could ever be made to consider Muntagirov's dancing and acting 'bland' unless of course they were expecting 'Spartacus' style dancing and acting in an Ashton work!

 

And don't seeming opposites attract in our so-called 'natural' world ... and even sometimes enhance?  Certainly I've been told they can.  (From a balletic perspective look at Makarova and Dowell for example.)  

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

Please give the lady a chance!  You saw her dance in one performance of Month - often a debut performance is very different from the final performance.

 

I remember seeing Mukhamedov dance Des Grieux and thought he was awful and would be better suited to Lescaut.  I later saw him dance Lescaut and thought I was right but then I saw him dance Des Grieux again and he had become, to my eyes, totally subsumed into the role.  Most dancers continue to develop and change during their careers, even when they have reached the heady heights of principal.

 

I've only seen Osipova dance once, in Rubies which I very much enjoyed, but to write her off on the basis of her first few performances with the RB seems somewhat harsh.  OK don't see her in Month again but don't write her off completely!

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love what I have seen of Osipova so far...... she really highlights the choreography fully ...which is a delight. I don't know for sure of course but am sure she joined the RB to gain opportunities to develop herself as the great artist I happen to think she is. So she may take time with certain choreography like some of Ashton's Works. As I also love Month in the Country and was lucky enough to see the very first performance with Lynn Seymour a delightful Vera in Denise Nunn and Wayne Sleep at his best in the young boys role and lovely Marguerite Porter as the maid... And I think Anthony Grant was in another role.......it was an age ago now......however I have never forgotten that evening ......the music and ballet coming together to condense the original story in quite a wonderful and humorous way so have seen practically all performances of this ballet with different casts. Seymour is still my favourite so far but maybe because of the intensity of that first evening and my youth at the time!!!

 

I am hoping that on the 4th Osipova will not disappoint and even though I love her I don't consider myself a fanatic of any particular dancer but if I was disappointed I would feel I could say this ....at least to friends in private ....but would be very hesitant to give a very critical assessment of any individual dancer on a public forum.......even though any dancer could have an "off" night.......they are human after all!!

Rightly or wrongly I always assume every dancer is trying their best.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also the question of whether she will be able to form a truly successful partnership with anyone at the RB. When she danced with Vasiliev we found the partnership and her dancing thrilling because they were perfectly matched in their big, bold dancing. Some people have said that she should dance with Vadim (they are both Russian) but they are polar opposites and there is a danger that his understated, refined style of dancing and acting, which his admirers so appreciate, could be made to look bland.

 

Well, assuming that she stays around, I presume that question will be answered in due course, but it will take a lot of trial and (probably) error, I assume.  Opposites can attract, of course.

 

Incidentally, since we've got sidetracked onto partnering, perhaps I'll just mention here - having publicly doubted the appropriateness of pairing her with Acosta so much when he's on the verge of retiring, rather than looking for the longer term - that in the Evening Standard article/interview the other week she did say how much she appreciated dancing with Carlos.  (The article did, I think, go on to say that she also felt a particular - affinity, I think was the word - with Ed Watson, but that's yet to translate into anything further than a couple of new modern works.  Might be worth exploring, though.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any one of us holds the rights to how different parts could be interpreted.  While Osipova is a vibrant dancers, I have never felt that she could be blamed of self-indulgence, trying to outdance her partner or steal the limelight.  There is nothing remotely diva-esque in her performances and demeanor. 

 

She is Russian after all - can't she dance a Turgenev character as she feels her?  Maybe she has a point she wants to make after all.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen Osipova in several ballets now and so I have given her 'a chance'. I don't have the time, money or inclination to see her repeatedly in the same ballet or even in different ballets and neither do most other people. I really can't see why I can't have, and express, an opinion on her and I'm surprised that so many people feel the need to rush to her defence (she's a big star and really doesn't need it). I haven't seen that in relation to other dancers who have been criticised, sometimes in far blunter terms. I'm not suggesting that she's selfish or self-indulgent. My comments are not a judgment on her character but on how I personally feel that she relates to the choreography and to the other dancers on the stage. I really can't understand why so many people have got so worked up about this one dancer and why they feel the need to persuade me to change my opinion, give her a break or keep my views to myself. As for Muntagirov, he is certainly not a bland dancer but a mismatched partnership can be disastrous artistically. I note that they have not yet been paired together in anything. Don Q, Swan Lake and Fille would all have been possibilities. For what it's worth, I think that she is most suited to Watson on the basis of what I have seen. She and McRae are also well suited artistically but she is a little tall for him. Frankly, it doesn't much matter what my views are as she has legions of admirers who will go and see her in whatever she is in. She is a box office draw; there is no doubt about that. Personally, I would prefer to see other ballerinas in most roles. I may, however, go and see her in Don Q.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pc/opinion/whatnot issues aside, i just wanted to momentarily gush about this forum and declare how much it is has expanded my appreciation of ballet! I've know close to nothing about Ashton but have learnt so much from this thread alone, and this and all others have helped me to really refine my understanding of the dancers' and choreographers' intentions and interpretations. It's one thing to have done ballet and to know just how much ridiculous core strength is behind that perfect penche, but it's another thing altogether to appreciate the history, culture and context of it that expose the myriad ways a ballet can make me feel -- so that i may graduate beyond my prior caveman-tinged "ME LIKE". For example I never even knew a dancers' relationship with the rest of the ensemble was something discernible before, but now will look out for it. So um, thanks! :)

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comments about the pianist are extremely critical and suggest her not being re employed-with reasons given. It is harsh perhaps but fair. Noone has leapt to her defence, and suggested she was having an off night, it was her debut or she  might improve.

 

 

 

I do think we should all be free to comment frankly on performances-so long as they are comments on a performance not on the performer's character.- and to disagree.  But I think if one disagrees one should say why rather than just telling the poster 'not to be so critical'.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comments about the pianist are extremely critical and suggest her not being re employed-with reasons given. It is harsh perhaps but fair. Noone has leapt to her defence, and suggested she was having an off night, it was her debut or she  might improve.

 

 

 

In my own defense on this issue, Mary:  In my notation I didn't suggest that she 'be replaced' but that perhaps the RB might like to try/experiment with alternative keyboard artists when addressing these particular scores in the future. (They do the same with dancers - and often conductors - do they not?) This is, of course, a matter of personal taste.  There may well be those who thought her particular renderings of 22.10 outstanding.  Sadly, I, myself, could not honestly join in that particular throng.  As ever we can only comment on the particular mesh of moments - the specific slice of history - which we shared.  

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

Thanks Bruce-I don't think you need to defend your comment as I was not criticising it,  merely pointing out another example of a post that made negative comments on  a performance - in my view, entirely legitimately.

 

 

 

I shall be listening out for the piano  in particular on 28th.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aylmer I should be interested to know whether the performances that you refer to as occasions when the Royal fielded two casts for Symphonic involved two completely different casts of six dancers or whether they merely involved changing the two main dancers?

 

The fact that the company may occasionally have been able to provide more than a single cast of six dancers during Ashton's lifetime does not mean that it is able do so now.Performances that took place in the seventies would have required Ashton's approval on casting and would have been rehearsed by Michael Somes. No one would have been allowed on the stage who was not fully capable of meeting the demands that this ballet makes on those who perform it. At that time all the company were immersed in his works in a way that is far from true today where, apart from the works owned by Anthony Dowell, they struggle to maintain a secure place in the repertory.

 

Casting Symphonic is not easy because apart from the physical demands it makes on the dancers it requires six experienced dancers with natural stage presence willing and able to dance with the precision and cohesion of the the very best dancers in the corps de ballet . Even at a time when Ashton's choreographic style was familiar to the entire company and everyone had lots of experience of dancing in his works it was not performed regularly.I do not think that the ballet,its creator's reputation or the audience are done any favours by having two casts for Symphonic if in order to obtain the second one you mix suitable and not so suitable dancers across the two casts or you put one cast on the stage that really is not up to it.

 

Like the opera Norma,Symphonic should only be revived when the right cast is available to do it justice.Seeing Symphonic danced by an exemplary cast is a very different experience from seeing it danced by a cast which is struggling to dance at the tempo required or with the necessary stylistic cohesion and precision.In the absence of suitable casts regular revivals are more likely to bring the reputation of Ashton and this work into disrepute than they are to improve its performance.

 

There are plenty of other Ashton works languishing in the shadows that deserve to be seen regularly.It would be lovely to see Les Patineurs as a repertory piece rather than as part of he Beatrix Potter Christmas package and Les Rendezvous in the Chappell designs. Daphnis and Chloe is due for revival and having gone to the trouble of reviving both Monotones it would have been nice to see it again this year. Then there is Capriole Suite , Facade and it would be wonderful if someone would reocnstruct Persephone while there are still people around who danced in it

 

.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with having one cast is what happens when a dancer is ill or injured. Do you just cancel the whole performance or do you put on an understudy who may well do less justice to the piece than a dancer who has been fully rehearsed for an upcoming performance? When one of the performances of the new McGregor ballet had to be cancelled earlier this year because of injury (and illness?) many people were very scathing about the RB allowing McGregor to dispense with a second cast. Returning to this run of Symphonic, what does seem to be unwise on the face of it is the mixing of the two casts, particularly as so many of the dancers are making debuts and, in some cases, are (relatively) inexperienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aylmer I should be interested to know whether the performances that you refer to as occasions when the Royal fielded two casts for Symphonic involved two completely different casts of six dancers or whether they merely involved changing the two main dancers?

 

If you look through the ROH performance database there have usually been two distinct casts though going back to 1972 there was some mix and match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Aylmer I should be interested to know whether the performances that you refer to as occasions when the Royal fielded two casts for Symphonic involved two completely different casts of six dancers or whether they merely involved changing the two main dancers?"

 

Not two completely different casts but Muntagirov and Naghdi were made to dance in both casts: 

 

Opening Night (or 1st cast)  was: Marianella Nunez/Vadim Muntagirov/Yuhui Choe/Tristan Dyer/Yasmine Naghdi/James Hay

 

The 2nd cast was: Melissa Hamilton/Vadim Muntagirov/Yasmine Naghdi/Luca Acri/Laeticia Stock/Valentino Zucchetti   

Muntagirov and Naghdi thus joining this 2nd cast

 

When I look at the performances coming up, on 28th the 2nd cast will be dancing - but with Muntagirov and Naghdi from the 1st cast again

 

Next on is Nunez, not with Muntagirov but with Clark (a young Artist who recently joined the company), together with the Naghdi/Hay-Choe/Dyer cast

 

The following performance we'll get a mix again of Nunez/Clark/Stock/Dyer but with Magri and Hay

 

(and if by any bad luck one of the 1st cast dancers got injured they could have used one of their "2nd cast" dancers or covers

 

As I have said before: why oh why not just stick with that 1st cast? 

Edited by Nina G.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Naghdi switching roles or staying on the same side? It does seem extraordinarily mix and match for what I think of as a very integrated work. Seeing this on 5 November. In the play, isn't Natalua meant to be 28? I appreciate that Seymour was older than that when she created the ballet and that there has been a tradition of more mature ballerinas taking the role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have looked at the Royal Ballet casts who danced in Symphonic during the period 1972-1979. What is noticeable is that only fifteen  dancers were involved in the twenty performances of Symphonic listed during that time.There was a far greater degree of consistency in casting this ballet than is the case now .Sibley took the lead in one performance,Park in twelve,.Collier in three, Penney who took the lead role in four performances danced one of the other roles on nine occasions usually partnered by Michael Coleman. Indeed it was Michael Coleman whose name appeared most regularly in the cast of this ballet during this period; appearing in the subsiduary male roles no less than eighteen times. On thirteen occasions dancing the role that James Hay took last Saturday It is of interest to note that during this time if you went to Scenes de Ballet you were more likely to see Coleman in the main male rolein that ballet than anyone else. The other main female dancers were Ann Jenner and Marguerite Porter with nine performances each, Ellis with eight  

 

Eagling took the lead role at eight performances,Dowell at six, Wall and McLeary both danced the lead on three occasions.The subsiduary male roles were taken by Sherwood on five occasions Eagling and Silver on seven occasions each and Jeffries on three .

 

During this period there were often only a couple of performances in a season and on only one occasion was more than one person who was new to the ballet cast in it. No wonder it looked so good when it was the preserve of Principal dancers who were familiar with their roles. Only three performances are recorded for the period 1980 to 1990 but then  that was a period when the company was going through a bad patch,After that, particularly after Michael  Somes was retired  it was performed more frequently but was not necessarily seen to best advantage as nearly every cast was something of a curate's egg.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Naghdi switching roles or staying on the same side? It does seem extraordinarily mix and match for what I think of as a very integrated work. Seeing this on 5 November. In the play, isn't Natalua meant to be 28? I appreciate that Seymour was older than that when she created the ballet and that there has been a tradition of more mature ballerinas taking the role.

Perhaps somebody on this forum who watched last Wednesday can tell us?  On Opening Night Naghdi was positioned on the right (as we can see in DaveM's photos). It must be hard for her to dance with two different casts and two different partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps somebody on this forum who watched last Wednesday can tell us?  On Opening Night Naghdi was positioned on the right (as we can see in DaveM's photos). It must be hard for her to dance with two different casts and two different partners.

 

Well, not only that, but she has to synchronise with the other "side girl" in a way that I don't think the "side boys" have to, so that's more demands on her.

 

When I look at the performances coming up, on 28th the 2nd cast will be dancing - but with Muntagirov and Naghdi from the 1st cast again

 

Next on is Nunez, not with Muntagirov but with Clark (a young Artist who recently joined the company), together with the Naghdi/Hay-Choe/Dyer cast

 

The following performance we'll get a mix again of Nunez/Clark/Stock/Dyer but with Magri and Hay

 

(and if by any bad luck one of the 1st cast dancers got injured they could have used one of their "2nd cast" dancers or covers

 

As I have said before: why oh why not just stick with that 1st cast?

 

Confusing, and frustrating.  I could see why the first-night cast was changed, but why not just stick with the supposed first- and second-night casts after that?  Having all this mixing and matching is very confusing: I was trying to work out whether I would actually get to see everybody in the 4 performances I've booked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully, if Kevin O'Hare is taking the Ashton repertoire more seriously than Monica Mason did and there are more programmes scheduled that are all or part Ashton, the company will be more used to the particular demands of his works and will be more comfortable in them from the start. I remember watching that reality TV series about Ballet West (the American company) while they were rehearsing Ashton's Cinderella with Wendy Ellis Somes, and some of the dancers were saying how difficult the choreography was, and sounding rather surprised. Ashton seems to have got the reputation of creating mostly trivial fluff, and people don't seem to have much appreciation of the technical challenges involved.

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

I am just sorry this bill was not on the cinema list and then DVD I loved opening night. I now shy away from Osipova in anything but Don't Q and Rubies as I have been very disappointed with her Swan Lake and Giselle not to mention Solo for Two. I am even apprehensive of her Onegin. I personally think the issue may be she is too young for some of these roles. So, as someone up thread said similarly, I've not got the time or money to spend on tickets for her performances in the now vague hope of her bringing her Don Q magic to other roles it's just not happening for me. That's why I booked Zenaida for Month she is IT for me. I saw Alina Cojacaru in the role and did not like her interpretation at all. C'est la vie.

Edited by Don Q Fan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to be accepted opinion, in some circles, that because she was a noted interpreter and custodian of MacMillan's ballets Monica Mason failed to take sufficient care of the  Ashton repertory while she was director of the Royal Ballet .I really wonder if that is true. It seems to me that in her ten years in charge she did far more to ensure that Ashton's works were part of the active repertory than her three predecessors had done. After all it was she and not Dowell who restored Sylvia to the active repertory and put Daphnis and Chloe back on stage in the original Craxton designs.

 

During Mason's directorship while Scenes de Ballet and Symphonic Variations may have been treated a little more like repertory pieces than they had been while Michael Somes was in charge of their staging the casts, including the corps in Scenes, were carefully chosen and appeared better rehearsed than they do in the current revival. While the first night cast in Symphonic were good the way in which the casts for the rest of the run have been put together suggests that the management believes that any combination  of dancers will do in these old ballets,At the moment I am afraid that I do not see Kevin O'Hare as someone who can be relied upon to ensure that  the full range of Ashton's works are performed with regularity and cast with sufficient care to entitle the Royal Ballet to retain its reputation as the custodian of Ashton's works .It seems to me that it is Ian Webb and Margaret Barbieri  at Sarasota who are currently the true custodians of Ashton's ballets and style.

 

While it is understandable that the Royal Ballet would like to be the creative force that it was during its first fifty years that should not mean abandoning the repertory that established the company reputation.However the management's enthusiasm for new works, particularly those by Wayne McGregor, regardless of their quality,suggests that some of the so called heritage works are not as safe and secure as they should be.I sometimes wonder if describing the Ashton works as classics would alter the view that management and audience have of them and ensure that they are allocated more than 5% of the time allocated to ballet performances on the main stage? .

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Added to the views expressed above, which I heartily endorse, may I add my regret that BRB's rep is entirely Ashton free this year. This company used to be a bastion of his work and the last time they mounted Symphonic Variations they garnered rave reviews across the board.

 

I do hope that this issue will be redressed before it is too late for BRB as well.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do wonder how keen to dance Ashton the current crop of dancers are. The attraction of the RB (and the RBS) seems to be the Macmillan repertory rather than the Ashton one. When you read interviews with young female dancers, not just those who are dancing with the RB but others, they frequently mention Macmillan, and Manon and R&J in particular. Manon and Juliet seem to be dream roles for most young ballerinas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading all the fascinating posts  on this thread about the casting of key works such as Sympohonic Variations, I now wonder  whether, in the past, the directorship of the ballet was more of a dictatorship-some might say a benevolent and ideal one- and certainly reading biographies of Ashton  or David Vaughan's book about his ballets, (and I defer to the actual experience of many forum posters who were actually there!)- it is clear that he had absolute discretion and power over casting-at times.

 

Is the same true now?

 

Is a modern company a bit more- well, modern, in that dancers expect to get their turn, and the management want to nurture talent across a wider number of dancers?

This may have a downside,  as many obviously feel it does, in that we don't all get to see the perfect cast or the perfect cast don't get enough perfomances.On the other hand, doesn't it give more chance for more really good dancers to come to the fore? and just as importantly give them experience of performing Ashton which is so important to the RB?

 

I also recall some of us, including myself, complaining that McGregor seemed to use the same -few- dancers all the time( I am not even sure how fair that was but it felt like it.)

 

 

I don't know, I am far from an expert on how the company works,  but in a way it might be just inevitable that casting works differently in 2014 to how it worked in 1944 or 1964.

?

  • Like 2
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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...