The London critics seem quite unhappy with the Lavrovsky "Romeo and Juliet" writing -- oh, so kindly -- that the audience must remember it is a museum piece. I'd call it a timeless classic When the company brought it to DC a copule of years ago it was not in good shape -- even seeing it for the first time, one had the sense that Lavrovsky would have had more than 12 townspeople, and in the 1940s, they would have been, well, heartier, the men capable of doing battle. But still.

I wonder what others who've seen the ballet think. And if there are any Londoners around who've seen the ballet this run, are people hating it? Or just the critics.

I have the Ulanova tape, and I'd say it's certainly no worse, and probably quite a bit better, than the MacMillan version, which people swoon over.

It's awesomely great.

I saw it when the Kirov brought it to SF in 1990 or so, with Ayupova and Liepa and a cast of thousands.

I thought I knew it from the Ulanova film but was astonished by the magnificence of the stage-craft, and the presence in it of the great old Shakespearean way of staging huge crowd movements. I'd read about it in my Shakespeare studies -- and what else could have made plays like King John and Henry 6th so popular as they were except huge, thrilling battle scenes and turbulent mob scenes, which also would have been needed in Julius Caesar. I'd seen something like it in the movies of Cecil B de Mille and DW Griffiths -- but I'd never seen the complexity of it in live theater.

The tops of people's heads become in effect a tree-line --and into the empty space overhead Lavrovsky was constantly elevating Juliet -- it was like a close-up in a movie, all those lifts -- and of couse, it was like the Catholic Mass, where the elevation of the host is the most holy moment in hte whole ritual -- it actually happens several times in the mass, but it's always showing you THE thing that matters -- and it's just the same in Lavrovsky's ROmeo and juliet. His love for her is something worth smashing the state to protect.

I was at the performance on Thurs 6th. I wish I could say that the company made a case for this work to be a masterpiece, but they didn't, at least not for me. I didn't feel that all the performers really believed in it, and that it was real for them. Coherence of purpose seemed to be lacking: the performers seemed to be in different ballets. I last saw this in London in 2000 with Asylmuratova and Zelensky, and I admit I remember far more about her glorious performance than the work itself. She outshone everything. The critics at that time were certainly not so dismissive of the work (there is a review from 2000 available on Ismene Brown's web site).

But I did come away last night wondering how a production where some performances in the past had been so revered could prove such an unrewarding evening in the theatre. It makes you gloomy about the fragility of the art form.

Although I went on a different night, I came away with the same feeling. I last saw the Kirov dance this ballet in London in 2005 and seem to remember enjoying it far more than I did this week, frankly it was a shambles and even the company’s most ardent supporters are expressing disappointment at the current run of performances. Personally I found the standard on a level with the Royal Ballet’s R&J which has been blighted by poor ensemble work for years now, but I expected more care from the Kirov and can’t help wondering if this traffic accident isn’t the result of indifferent coaching.

This doesn’t show Fateev’s directorship in a very good light I’m afraid as he’s brought to London a seriously flawed ‘product’. I hope for everyone’s sakes that things get better.