Tapfan

Who defended the harassment of innocent girls?

For heavens sake. If the Bolshoi is that much of a pressure cooker, they have major problems that have nothing to do with what Misty says or does. Also, the powers that be at the Bolshoi haven't missed a single opportunity to express how right they feel they are about their artistically vital blackface-loving tradition, so none of the girls are in trouble with management for Copeland's remarks.

I don't expect Russian students to protest blackface or yellowface. I do expect major ballet companies like the Bolshoi and the Mariinsky to know better and to do better. And as was stated in the linked article, the Bolshoi's excuse that it was tradition, was beyond lame. They responded as they did out of arrogance, like dare I say..... spoiled teens.

Copeland instructed her followers to harass teens? That's a pretty serious accusation.

I was the person who originally posted the link of the article that defended Copeland. I stated that I didn't see why pointing out that blackface is wrong was controversial. Someone immediately stated that the reason the subject was controversial was because it led to bullying of teens. I'd say that's a pretty definitive statement that the controversy wasn't over the wrongness of blackface but the wrongness of supposedly picking on teens. The original issue was shoved aside to point to how horrible it was that some people picked on teens.

So the controversy is only about the girls being bullied? Come on. I'm not buying that. With the ubiquity of American culture seeping into all corners of the world, Russians are pretending that they had no idea that blackface is repulsive. And since when is something offensive based purely on intent? Also, there's proof the Copeland instructed her fans to hound the students? And she should apologize for what her fans do? In what universe?

A dance studies scholar makes a strong argument in support of Copeland's criticism of Russian companies for continuing to use blackface. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-01-12/blackface-bolshoi-copeland-twitter-tweet Why this is controversial is beyond me.

Reverse discrimination at NYCB that victimizes white ballet dancers? Well, the powers that be surely do a bad job of it seeing as how their roster hasn't exactly been flooded with non-white dancers these past 20 years. Nor at any other time for that matter. And that includes dancers of Asian descent who are prevalent in nearly every other company in North America, Europe and the Antipodes, but NOT NYCB. Lack of racial diversity at NYCB is an issue that the organization had handled poorly in the past and one that they were working hard to remedy according to AD Stafford in an article in Dance magazine. Geez, Making a monumentally wealthy and connected institution like City Ballet out to be victims of pc bullying is enough to make Theresa Howard's head explode. And anyone who doesn't know who Theresa Howard is, should learn.

Somewhere, Kevin Heart is thinking, "Is that all the career damage he has to endure?" Boo hoo.

Word. Even if Martins has the right to determine casting, his behavior comes across as meddlesome. What ever happened to the virtues making a clean break? On the other hand, as one of those folks who has always felt that NYCB was like the New York Yankees of ballet - filthy rich, successful, overexposed, condescending, arrogant and really easy to hate, the feeling of schadenfreude at all the recent turmoil, is quite satisfying.

Way to go Precious! Precious Adams has won the Emerging Artist Award at the National Dance Awards in London. She was also nominated for "Best Classical Performance/Female" for her role dancing the Calliope Rag in Kenneth McMillan's Elite Syncopations. I'm so happy for her because she is such a beautiful and versatile dancer whose degree of talent is beyond dispute.

Because possessing a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of American ballet history, is unfortunately, not a priority for far too many of American ballet's AD's, administrators, fundraisers, educators and tastemakers. In interviews, too many of them show a shocking level of artistic and historical myopia.

Bless you for the heads up about this documentary. Seeing all those pioneering black ballerinas is inspiring. Too bad that many of the gatekeepers of the art form in America will never see it.

I thought that merely mentioning the fact that some ballet dancers might have eating disorders, was offensive to many classical dance fans. But how can you work to resolve an issue if you're afraid to confront it?

I'm an outlier myself because I like ballet but didn't like Center Stage. It's so beloved that I figure there must be a special place in hell for dance fans who don't like it. I found it to be impossibly corny, unrealistic and predictable. Also, Aesha Ashe didn't get the credit she deserved for being Zoe Saldana's dance double. On the other hand, I like Black Swan because it's an unconventional horror movie with a ballet setting that winks at it's own preposterous conceits. As to eating disorders in ballet, they may not be as common as they were in the 1980's but they still exist and probably always will considering how important one's lines are in classical dance.

I didn't see Black Swan as reinforcing stereotypes because the Natalie Portman and Winona Ryder characters were clearly outliers. I never got the feeling that the story was implying that all ballerinas are neurotic and sexually repressed. Just these particular ones.

Most people in most professions are focused professionals. But where's the drama in that? I think people are hypersensitive about how ballet dancers are portrayed because there are so few movies made about ballet. Ballet dancers are like underrepresented racial, ethnic, religious or sexual minorities when it comes to film. People get angry because the films that do get made have the impossible task of being all things to all people in the underrepresented community.

He's getting paid and is getting seen by audiences that probably didn't know he exists, but I'm not a fan of the Lil' Buck/ ballet collaborations. Ballet has an infamous habit of exploiting dancers in other dance forms in an attempt to appear more artistically or culturally "woke" than they actually are, or are expected to be. It's an attempt to wear pop culture like a cloak of hipness. And this form of slumming with their so-called artistic lessors gives them an excuse to not bother with actually expanding and advancing their own art form. You know ballet is stuck in a self-reverential time warp when the big news is that Freed of London is now making brown and bronze-colored pointe shoes.

Isn't there a great deal of defensiveness within the ballet community about eating disorders? Whenever it's discussed outside the worlds of major companies and major ballet academies - particularly in pop culture - dance professionals seem to get angry. I think about how pissed off so many people were with the dramedy horror movie Black Swan. It was as if they were terrified that implying that some dancers might have eating disorders was an accusation against all female dancers. The reaction by so many within the classical dance community struck me as over-the-top and it led me to suspect that too many classical dance people are too insular and devoid of a sense of humor.

Excellent points.

Ansel for Tony? Can't see it. Hope I'm wrong but he seems as miscast as the guy who played Tony in the original. Neither guy screams gang member. As for Maria, I hope they find an actual Puerto Rican singer/actress and don't hire yet another tiny English actress which is what Hollywood defaults to when casting everything nowadays.

What you're describing is true of almost all dancers who train in North America and end up at a major company where their feeder school serves as a finishing school. If that training background means NYCB dancers can automatically dance anything, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that someone who has come up through the schools at say Houston or San Francisco can just as easily dance Balanchine and get it right? They're all well-trained dancers. Yet merely hearing the name Houston Ballet would have some people saying, "They're going to butcher Balanchine." Once again, I'm not saying NYCB dancers don't have the ability to dance classically or to do cutting edge contemporary, I'm saying that as professionals, they don't have the opportunity because it's not why the company exists. Why is it hard to believe that being in a company that frequently dances Forsythe or Pina Bausch would make you better at it than a company that dances them on rare occasions? They may be well-trained but if I want to see Bausch, the first company I think of isn't City Ballet. And if I want to see some Robert Garland, I don't look to the Bolshoi. Can anyone picture the Mariinsky even thinking about trying the piece Michelle Dorrance is setting on ABT ? Of course not because it's too far out of their cultural and national frame of reference. Yes, that's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point that all companies no matter how well-trained have strengths and weaknesses. I simply disagree with the assertion by so many of it's fans that "NYCB can dance anything, but we choose not to because everything other than Balanchine and Robbins is beneath us and we can spend only so much time slumming. It's this kind of fan attitude that makes me think of City Ballet as the New York Yankees of Ballet, real easy for non-NYCB fans to hate. And George Balanchine is to Ballet what Bear Bryant is to college football, a long-dead great that lots of unscrupulous people live on.

Sorry NinaFan. I shouldn't have specified your words. I mean to answer the frequently expressed opinion that only City Ballet can dance Balanchine "properly" but conversely, City Ballet can dance anything and everything when they don't want to dance everything nor have they EVER been tasked with doing so. All companies have baked-in and shifting strengths and weaknesses.

I'm not talking about switching from Balanchine to Robbins. SAB trains their dancers to dance both. I'm talking about switching from the NYCB style to Petipa or the more adventuresome contemporary dance makers. It's not that NYCB dancers don't have the ability to dance classical ballet, or to perform really weird stuff. It's that doing so isn't part of their mission, so why would they be good at something they almost never do? And no, Justin Peck isn't really weird stuff. And neither is Ratmansky The average City Ballet patron may hate the way POB dances Jewels - I personally prefer their version to New York's - but I'd bet that POB is better at dancing Jewels than City Ballet is at dancing Don Q or In the Middle Somewhat Elevated, or Manon or Chroma. And my point isn't to make an argument as to the merits of anyone dancing Don Q. It's about being able to see a good production if that's what you want to see. I also disagree that only NYCB can properly perform Balanchine. His works are masterpieces like Shakespeare that can be interpreted in any number of ways that are "correct." For instance, some ballet fans with informed opinions felt that DTH used to perform Concerto Barocco better than NYCB.

I know they've danced works by other choreographers. My point is that it appears that a substantial portion of NYCB patrons would rather see lesser known Balanchine and Robbins than new pieces by others. Every time a new work by another dance maker is premiered, you hear the deafening howls of lots of City Ballet fans and some dance critics, exclaiming that it's a waste of money, time and the dancer's talent to put these new monstrosities on the stage when the company has treasure trove of works by the house masters that could be presented. The artistic merit or lack thereof of the creations by those whippersnapper outsiders isn't the point. It's that for many ballet fans and critics, these new creations aren't their cup of tea, so they need to go. These folks have time and time again made it clear that if they wanted to see dances made by other choreographers, they'd see other ballet companies. As to the dancers, all of them know whose works they will be dancing most of time and they're more than happy with this fact. Isn't that why dancers have a legacy company as a dream company? I know that there has been a decades-long debate about the best ways to prevent ballet institutions from becoming museums. But truthfully, the fact that that some companies are museums is why some patons love and support them. Does anyone expect or even want the Mariinsky Ballet to change its mission when it has worked all these years? Balanchine is a god, Robbins is his son, City ballet is the church of Balanchine. Shouldn't its followers have no other gods before them? Besides, other companies are far more adept at switching to other styles than NYCB. Heck, even a stately old battleship like the Royal is better at dancing in different styles.