 |
   |
Kirov BalletOctober 2002 Paris, Théâtre du Chatelet by No7 |
|||||||
|
One reason that I like to watch different casts is to see different interpretations. Vishneva in the first night was more convincing as Nikiya than Zakharova. Her dancing had both pride and remorse. Zakharova on the other hand created pitiful Nikiya that reminded me of Odette in Swan Lake. But the audience went nuts for her. Fadeyev has gained some weights and this sometime affected his movement onstage. He made elegant Solor and showed more technical brilliance than Kolb who danced in the second night. Kolb displayed extraordinary leaps and smooth rapport with Zakharova. The pair made me feel as if they were real lovers. This hardly happened in Vishneva and Fadeyev's duets. Different from Fadeyev's, Kolb's Solor was rather cool and heroic. I was there to see the third cast as well. Pavlenko made passionate Nikiya but lacked a magnetic personality as an actress. Speaking of her dancing, although displaying a pure classical style, I wish she could have had softer arm movements. I was a bit disappointed with Samodurov, a sombre Solor. He lost his sense of orientation for a while during executing his big circle in Grand Pas act III. And he landed just an inch away from one of the Shade's tutu.
 Svetlana Zakharova as Nikiya Photograph by Natasha Razina ©
After seeing the three casts, I think all interpretations are just valid. But still one question arises. What should the true character of Nikiya be? To my understanding, Nikiya is sort of a girl 'stay away from my man, or die'. That's why I like Vishneva's interpretation in particular, despite admiring Zakharova much better. Vishneva's Nikiya wasn't just an innocent girl but dignified and calamitious. I felt strange with some set design. It's that Buddha image in act I. Religiously, the Buddha has nothing to do with Hindu temples where the celebration of fire takes place.. This will be like placing the Holy Jesus in the mosque, I think. Each interval took ages. I even thought of walking back to my hotel and take a nap. Thanks heaven that in the second performance time was shortened from 3 hrs 55minutes to 3hrs 30min. But it's still long. Not sure if adding act IV is worthwhile. The climax of the story (definitely not the collapsing of the palace's columns) has passed and act IV is only to lenghten the plot. But if we won't take it seriously, this new LaBayadere is a beautiful production. Three stars!
I also noticed that there were some Kirov fans from London. At least a gentleman whoworks at the Royal Opera House's boxoffice was there.
|
||||||||
|
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
