bridiem

Thank you. And I see that Corybantic means 'wild, frenzied'. Not sure you should have to look up the meaning of a work's title though. Or maybe we shouldn't bother, and just accept that the meaning is too deep and mysterious for words.

If this has been his entire experience/understanding of the ballet world, no wonder he feels so negative about it. But what seems strange /sad to me is that he doesn't seem to be able to acknowledge all the wonderful, creative, mature artists (who also went through ballet training and work in companies) with whom he has worked - i.e. his experience/understanding is not universal, even if no doubt some of his concerns are shared to varying degrees by other dancers.

I did wonder though if the principals would have found it quite as amusing as the audience... Scene-stealing or what.

That's interesting, Sunrise. I suppose when you've been watching ballet for a while it's easy to forget how stylised it is, sometimes even 'operatic' (though actually I don't really enjoy opera). Even with the RB's 'naturalistic' style, it's not a 'normal' medium. So if you don't find yourself drawn into it it could easily seem OTT etc. I think it's necessary to suspend disbelief and enter into a new world, so to speak. It seemed to happen for me automatically; but clearly not for everyone.

I know that nothing is guaranteed and etc, but I can't help thinking that SOME sort of explanation should be given if a principal cast is changed, since at least some members of the audience will have booked specifically for them.

Oh dear. Perhaps it was chilly in the mausoleum...

I was really impressed by David Hallberg in Act 1 (having never seen him dance before) - truly aristocratic, a mature and convincing portrayal. I saw nothing to suggest an injury, which does him great credit. And the partnership with Osipova was thrilling. She is astonishing - like no other Giselle. Hypersensitive, hyper-elevated, almost febrile in her intensity. And yet - she doubts her Albrecht. At one point she stops, looks into his eyes, and fears what she sees. So when the deception is revealed, she is already only one step away from collapse. Her mad scene is genuinely frightening; she can no longer bear reality, and so she retreats completely from it. And Hallberg's shock, guilt and anger are moving to behold. So I was dismayed that their tale was brought to an abrupt halt. Matthew Ball did an excellent job in Act 2, and Osipova gave him generous acknowledgement in spite of what must have been great disappointment for her. But it felt completely anticlimactic to me. She danced superbly - the most dramatic, the wildest, the most abandoned Giselle. She will save Albrecht at all costs. Tremendous turns and jumps throughout the performance. If only the drama could have continued from Act 1. But huge thanks are due to Matthew Ball for enabling the performance to continue. And I hope David Hallberg's injury is not serious.

I saw nothing to object to in BBB's reply. He said 'please' and stated forum policy.

Oops! Meant upstage. (And he did upstage the dancers, in fact.)

Just remembered that performance of Fille a few years ago when the pony (can't remember his name) came on a little too far downstage; and so with every step he took, the backcloth came with him... Even the dancers were laughing.

Or if Alexander Campbell as Albrecht, a little cricket practice?

What a wonderful film. Interesting and honest and I found it desperately moving. Both clearly had an innate talent. Their families were so full of love and so brave about 'losing' them. And must have given them a superb base which enabled them to fulfil their talent and launch their careers. So I hope that in spite of the loss they know that they 'did right' by them.

I think this discussion has deteriorated somewhat...

When I was young, I did used to sympathise with Hilarion. I thought that he was the one who really loved Giselle, and that it was only right and in Giselle's best interest that he should expose Albrecht's duplicity, and that the subsequent tragedy was not his fault but Albrecht's. It's only as I've got older that I've realised that Hilarion's behaviour is not necessarily entirely nobly motivated. On the other hand, Giselle had to find out some time! And would she have reacted any less violently if the exposure had happened in some other way?

I saw Curry and his company at least once at the Royal Albert Hall. That After All solo is magnificent.

Maybe Albrecht nicked it.

Good thing Giselle isn't set in Lincoln, then.

Well they clearly do so in a very poor/arbitrary fashion in that case! I've read the most appalling comments that couldn't possibly be considered acceptable by anyone in their right mind.

If you're going to make errors like that one, maybe we should reduce the edit time even more to maximise the entertainment value!

Yes - in fact I often wonder why online newspapers etc with large paid staff can't moderate their 'comments' sections (and so they often descend into ridiculously abusive, foul-mouthed ranting) when this Forum is so expertly moderated by volunteers. I sometimes cite it to other people as evidence of how a public forum CAN be well run and a force for good.

And from me too. You do a wonderful job with great skill, patience and good humour.

Thank you, JohnS. I'm aware that I 'like' a lot; there's a lot to like. in fact sometimes the system tells me that I've reached the limit of 'likes' so I can't use it again for now. I find that MEAN! Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself, I do agree that posters should be slow to take offence, both in terms of opinions with which they disagree and in terms of people disagreeing with them. I wouldn't support self-rationing of the use of appreciative terms. I think that sometimes 'wonderful' is the only sensible response in the aftermath of a great performance. If more critical analysis follows, that's great, but not compulsory. All input - overflowing enthusiasm, critical analysis, negative reaction - is welcome.

I quite agree, Fonty. But I have to say that I can't recall ever seeing criticism like that on this forum - at least not about ballet matters.

But that works both ways - people also take offence too easily at being disagreed with.

It may (or may not) amuse you to know that the reason I didn't like that post of yours was because it was entirely unlike your usual posts - it was short and rather bland and, as you say, merely mirrored another post. I should perhaps have guessed that it wasn't a genuine post!