![]() |
![]() London, Coliseum by Lynette Halewood |
||||||||
Both these programmes by the Mikhailovsky at the Coliseum offered considerable pleasures, but also had their perplexing moments. Earlier articles in the press had stressed that the version of Giselle mounted by Nikita Dolgushin (who appeared on the 24th as the Duke of Courland) was an attempt to go back to the earliest known production in Paris in the 19th century, sweeping aside later accretions. Of course there have been many similar attempts (such as Mary Skeaping’s version of the work for ENB). It’s a pity that the printed programme does not give us any statement from Dolgushin about his research or the rationale behind choices he made. It is a very handsome production, very traditional in appearance. The costumes are very rich, perhaps too much so – Albrecht looks a little too well dressed to be a convincing peasant. They are approximately 16th century in style (so why does Hilarion, or the Game-keeper as he is named here seem to be carrying a gun ? ). The production includes a considerable amount of mime, and yet some of these choices are odd. For example, Giselle’s mother does not make her customary warning about the wilis in the forests in Act 1: I did miss this. Something that was entirely new to me was in the opening scene where Albrecht is attended by his servant who clearly reminds him “what are you doing here – you are already engaged “(pointing to the ring finger). This is an interesting twist – usually this isn’t telegraphed to the audience so far in advance, and the audience sees Albrecht more or less as Giselle does, as an importunate lover. It would fit well if the Albrecht was tending towards the “Albrecht as cad” interpretation, but that wasn’t necessarily the case in Denis Matvienko’s performance. The business with plucking the petals from the flower (he loves me, he loves me not) was also very truncated, which made less sense of the mad scene (where the gesture is replayed) than usual. Giselle’s grave is at the front of the stage rather than the back, which makes management of her appearance a little less magical. ![]() Scene from act 1 in the Mikhailovsky Ballet Giselle © Mikhailovsky Ballet
The mixed programme was stuffed full of rare items and works not at all well known in London. It was long and generous, though by the end the effect was of eating a whole box full of chocolates. No, no, not another pirouette thank you – I really couldn’t. While I was pleased to see items like Dragonfly and the Fairy Doll, it was deeply frustrating to have almost no information or context about them whatsoever. The printed programme gave a synopsis of the plot for Le Halte de Cavalerie, but credited no choreographer or composer. (Both are credited on the company’s web site – Petipa / Armsheimer). For the divertissements, the printed programme gave details of only two items (Spring Waters and Ocean and Pearls), though there were pictures of some of the others. For the other four items the cast list gave no details of choreographer or composer, and failed to list the last item (Corsaire pas de deux) at all. Context would have helped. Why is Esmerelda so sad ? There were some very puzzled people in the interval next to me trying to work out what (and who) they had seen.
Despite these annoyances, the performances were very enjoyable and the audience responded warmly (this was rather better attended than the somewhat thin house for Giselle.) I enjoyed the three soldiers in Halte each trying it seemed to out-camp the other in their pursuit of Teresa. I have the nagging feeling that the Trocks may already have seen the Fairy Doll. The Matvienkos in Corsaire certainly knew how to wow the audience.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||