Dancers Criticizing Management

[Ari]

In this thread, Natalia mentions the high visibility that Uliana Lopatkina enjoys in Russia -- not just as a ballerina, but as a commentator on the arts. She has been outspoken in her criticism of certain decisions of the Maryinsky Ballet's management, such as mounting the historically reconstructed Sleeping Beauty and Bayadere. Thalictum replied that Lopatkina is "a wonderful ballerina but qualified only to determine what she wants to do, not what the direction of the company should be. She is not a ballet scholar, not an executive, not a person whose artistic judgment is at all infallible."

Retreating from this particular instance and looking at the overall picture, is it proper for dancers to criticize their companies in public? Is it healthy to stimulate public debate on arts issues, or does it erode discipline? Is a ballerina (or a danseur) incapable of judging what is best for her or his company as a whole, or is the issue really that we might suspect that they might be motivated by selfish concerns? Looking for parallels in the other arts is hard because few opera or theater troupes are run like ballet companies. Or is it just that the traditional ballet model is male director/female star, and the woman is expected to be submissive?

[canbelto]

I dont know whether they *should* but I know that they *do*. Examples:

- much of the Kirov criticizing Oleg Vinodograv during the 1990s for his reportedly avaricious, unfair ways, and also for promulgating the career of his mistress Yulia Makhalina ahead of other dancers. I've read critical comments in print from a lot of the Kirov dancers from that era.

- the petition against Frederick Ashton for his favorable treatment of Michael Somes

Then there are the angry dancers quitting, such as Tallchief (the "alphabet" comment), or Farrell leaving NYCB.

Personally, I think dancers have a right to speak out if they feel unfairly treated. Whether they're simply bitching or have genuine grievances is another matter but in a business as competitive as ballet I think it's every dancer for himself.

[Farrell Fan]

Farrell left NYCB in 1969, after her husband, Paul Mejia, was shut out of his former roles and she, though still dancing, was ostracized by Balanchine. She had a glorious second coming in 1974 until her retirement in 1989. Afterwards, she continued her association with NYCB and SAB until she was fired in 1993 by Peter Martins.

I don't think many NYCB dancers would risk speaking out against the Ballet Master in Chief.

[Ari]

I wasn't thinking so much of dancers airing personal grievances (I'm not dancing enough, my husband is being slighted, Dancer X gets too many performances, etc.) but rather of them offering opinions on artistic policies -- for instance, Lopatkina criticizing the historical reconstructions.

[canbelto]

Farrell left NYCB in 1969, after her husband, Paul Mejia, was shut out of his former roles and she, though still dancing, was ostracized by Balanchine. She had a glorious second coming in 1974 until her retirement in 1989. Afterwards, she continued her association with NYCB and SAB until she was fired in 1993 by Peter Martins. 

I don't think many NYCB dancers would risk speaking out against the Ballet Master in Chief.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know, but in both cases she left very publicly with definite grievances (the first time being her and her husbands' ostracization, the second time she was fired after the Acocella article).

[Farrell Fan]

In my self-appointed role of keeping things absolutely correct, Farrell-wise, cara canbelto, allow me to prissily point out that the New Yorker article which upset Mr. Martins so much in 1993 was written by the late David Daniel.

[canbelto]

Sorry FF It's hard to keep NY dance critics straight ...

But maybe I'm being devil's advocate here, but sometimes I think dancers criticizing management can even have a long-term positive effect. Take Suzanne Farrell. I'm sure both Balanchine and Farrell were very upset when she left in 1970, but she's said since that leaving was necessary. The five years allowed Balanchine too cool off, and when she returned they had a relationship that was perhaps heathier. He also created ballets for her that maybe he couldnt have created had she become Mrs. Balanchine #6, or had stayed with the company and unhappily danced while being ostracized.

In other words, the horror against airing dirty laundry and stuff is sort of inbred, but sometimes changes need to be made, and someone needs to speak out. I also think many times it humanizes ballet dancers. For one thing, when my mom (a definite balletomane) saw Elusive Muse, Suzanne Farrell became her heroine and she loves looking at videotapes of her even though she as a rule doesnt like ballet I doubt she would have been that taken had she not listened to Farrell's story and when Farrell burst into tears my mom sniffled too ...

Besides sometimes the grievances can start an avalanche and bring things that are whispered about into the open.

As for the new/old Sleeping Beauty, many Mariinsky dancers have gone on record saying they dont like it.

[tempusfugit]

Canbelto is quite right; virtually every famous ballet company has had considerable criticism of its management, both from its dancers and from outside. Even the Royal, usually more circumspect on such things, began to be more overt after the Iron Lady (de Valois) relaxed her grip. it was not just favoritism towards Somes but even more towards Fonteyn that Ashton was criticized for...

There is also the consideration of whether or not the company's management is a one-man shop run by its creator (Balanchine, for example). The famous and all too true Balanchine line on this was "Apres moi, le Board".....

Re Lopatkina and Ari's question about her comments, I'd opine that neither "ballet scholars" nor, god knows, "executives", have ever been noted for "infallible artistic judgment"-- to say the least. Why shouldn't Lopatkina toss her hat into the ring? It's sometimes said that Farrell should be running NYCB, and many observers including myself think she knows far more about Balanchine than Martins. Ashley once said, for example, "if someone new is going to dance Theme and Variations at NYCB this season, then Kyra or I should teach the role." This seems so glaringly obvious it goes without saying, but it obviously did NOT go without saying, and most ballet masters/company heads could use quite a bit more comments along these lines. lol

[Dale]

Sorry FF  It's hard to keep NY dance critics straight ...

But maybe I'm being devil's advocate here, but sometimes I think dancers criticizing management can even have a long-term positive effect. Take Suzanne Farrell. I'm sure both Balanchine and Farrell were very upset when she left in 1970,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Farrell left in 1969.

I think Ari is asking about dancers questioning the artistic direction of a company directly, not the course of their own careers, which might effect the company's artistic direction. Earlier, Lopatkina did the later. It has been on the record that Lopatkina chose not to perform in the new/old Sleeping Beauty out of loyalty to her teacher Natalia Dudinskaya, whose husband Konstantin Sergeyev staged their current production. That to me is fine. It was Lopatkina's choice and the show went on, brilliantly in my opinion, without her involved in that production. But I think it's a different thing if she's the driving force behind it being shelved completely.

[canbelto]

Well I know the POB dancers were very upset when Nureyev wanted to stage his version of Swan Lake, and finally some dancers only agreed to Nureyev's version of the old version was also kept in the repertory. I dont know if they solely perform Nureyev's version now.

But despite Kirstein saying that a ballet company is the "least democratic" of institutions, I think it's fair that dancers who give everything to a company have a say in the artistic direction of the company. Not that they should have the final say, but they should have a say. And if so many Kirov dancers openly dislike the new/old Bayadere or Sleeping Beauty, maybe the management ought not to dismiss the complaints as reactionary or lazy. You don't have to toss the baby out with the bathwater. Changes can be made, you can incorporate the new/old into the traditional version, and vice versa. Having, um, sat through a few uninspired performances of certain ballets at a certain well-known company in NY, I'd say there's nothing as punishing for the audiences (and one presumes, the dancers), than ballerinas who dance unhappily. Ballet at its best is when the dancers' sheer joy of performing spreads like waves to the audience.

[Alymer]

[Well I know the POB dancers were very upset when Nureyev wanted to stage his version of Swan Lake, and finally some dancers only agreed to Nureyev's version of the old version was also kept in the repertory. I dont know if they solely perform Nureyev's version now.

QUOTE]

I think they do only perform the Nureyev version at the moment - although I understand M.Mortier has let it be known that he thinks the Nureyev classics need to be renewed and is talking to artists such as Mathew Bourneand Mats Ek!

I was told at the time Nureyev was mounting his Swan Lake that the dancers complained about the loss of the Bourmeister version so he agreed that the two should remain in the repertory. However, when the Bourmeister production was re-staged after the premiere of the Nureyev version the dancers complained that there was far less dancing for them, so, on reflection, they preferred the Nureyev production.

Certainly Nureyev choreographed a lot of brilliant dancing for the ensemble and the company looks really spectacular in it, although to my mind it's the least successful of his classic productions.

Interestingly, Etoiles at the POB have or had the right to turn down a certain number of roles each season (I'm not sure but I think it was three), and this was a clause in the contract. There were a number of other rules such as no one else on stage moving while an Etoile was dancing, etc. passing in front of an Etoile on stage was forbidden, etc. etc. I think most of these have now gone by the board, but it certainly gave the dancer considerable power.

[carbro]

Having, um, sat through a few uninspired performances of certain ballets at a certain well-known company in NY, I'd say there's nothing as punishing for the audiences (and one presumes, the dancers), than ballerinas who dance unhappily. Ballet at its best is when the dancers' sheer joy of performing spreads like waves to the audience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hating to be picky here, canbelto, but worse for the audience than an unhappy ballerina is an unhappy corps de ballet. For quite a few years, I suffered through ballets I loved when they were given fairly respectable performances by the principals, but dragged down by a corps that was grudgingly executing the steps, without a scintilla of joy. They didn't want to be there; why should I?

[Welsh Canary]

Discipline and control are central to the art of ballet. That being said, so are creativity and freedom. In a perfect world these things exist in a balanced state. It has always amazed me that people will criticize a whistle blower, rather than ask why an individual felt so driven to go public. In my experience, if that question is asked, one usually learns that there was something that justifiably triggered the criticism or complaint. Often, the individual felt the need to go public because all other avenues for addressing the problem had been shut off or denied to them. unfortunately, in many companies, there is a fine line between discipline and iron fisted dictatorship and control and denigrating and debilitating enslavement. And yet, what today a dancer criticizes may in the future be put into practice by that very same individual. For example, I would be interested in learning if any of Vinogradov's former dancers who once criticized him have turned into the very thing they once so detested. My guess is that they have.

Having, um, sat through a few uninspired performances of certain ballets at a certain well-known company in NY, I'd say there's nothing as punishing for the audiences (and one presumes, the dancers), than ballerinas who dance unhappily. Ballet at its best is when the dancers' sheer joy of performing spreads like waves to the audience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hating to be picky here, canbelto, but worse for the audience than an unhappy ballerina is an unhappy corps de ballet. For quite a few years, I suffered through ballets I loved when they were given fairly respectable performances by the principals, but dragged down by a corps that was grudgingly executing the steps, without a scintilla of joy. They didn't want to be there; why should I?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[redbookish]

What an interesting question! It's a tricky one, because professional ethics and collegiality are involved - in most professions, it's usually very uncollegial to criticise publicly your management etc. However, there's a different background to this in the classical ballet world, because dancers (until relatively recently) were expected to have bodies but not brains throughout their training. I mean brains in terms of things other than dance! Yet in all the other arts, we don't expect or encourage, say actors or painters, to be uninformed about the arts, the world, politics and so on - quite the reverse. But dancers are expected not to speak (and all that that implies in terms of voicing opinions).

So I wonder whether given these circumstances it is OK for dancers to be rather less deferential than they used to be! In thinking about this question, I'm remembering the dancers' strike at the Australian Ballet, and the way that dancers had to find strong and political voices, very quickly, and the changes that occurred because of that (I saw the results of this at relatively close quarters). Whereas before the strike the atmosphere at the AB tended to be one of dance and don't ask questions (at times a regime based on something akin to fear), afterwards, some of the dancers found public voices and personae beyond the stage, and, I think, became better artists for it. I'm thinking of Kelvin Coe, for example - one of my all time favourite dancers, who seemed to grow a deeper maturity after the dancers' strike. Of course, this is my interpretation - I couldn't say how Mr Coe himself felt about the strike & he did return to the AB after a time.