I don't think Macauley sounds jaded in the least. What he sounds like is someone who passionately loves the art form and the company -- "I have loved and been awestruck by this company in the past and await its return with hope that is too strongly mixed with frustration" -- and wants to see it at its best. This is why expresses not boredom but disappointment with specific aspects of the production.

I meant jaded as in "weary," not bored or cynical. Until the finale of the review, quoted above, the reviewer struck me as being at a bit of a low ebb. I mean, were the good old days really so much better? Maybe so, but he sounded so hopeless to me. He rallied at the end, absolutely (and expressed some hope, good for him).

An opinion is an opinion is an opinion.

Whilst I have admired Lopatkina's remarkable control in the white acts of both Bayadere and Swan Lake, she remains offensive to me in the hyper-extensions and lack of involvement in her role. An exquisite class room rehearsal is not a performance in my opinion.

For me Lopatkina's hyper-extensions might be called neo-classical, but they are a long way from the academic classical ballet aesthetic and I cannot understand why anyone would want to see such dancing in a Petipa(esque) ballet.

I envy everyone who has seen these latest performancesas it appears the company is in good form, as I had heard a number of negative comments of late about the state of the Kirov.

While I agree that Lopatkina's performance had the careful calculation that can be off-putting I'm puzzled that you refer to her "offensive" hyper-extensions. She really is not an ear-whacker at all. She is very long-limbed yes, and flexible, but definitely not hyper-extended in my opinion.

When I saw Lopatkina perform the Lilac Fairy in Berkeley a few years ago, I was surprised by the height in her developes in second, having read her described as a classicist. They weren't the 185 degree type performed by Somova, and they were performed quietly, but they still were in the 160-170 degree range.