nanushka

Such programming would also relieve some of the predictability of repertoire during each Met season.

To be fair, this season's rep is a bit less predictable than it is in most Met seasons. A typical year consists of Swan Lake, one (or maybe two) weeks of mixed rep, and usually 5-6 of the "two years on, one year off" standard ballets (i.e. Don Q, Giselle, Corsaire, Sleeping Beauty, R&J etc.). This year, we have really only 3 of the latter. Sylvia is rarer, Fille even more so.

"Boyish" doesn't seem like such a problem for me in Aminta. He's not a conventional heroic figure, after all. The positive outcome of the story really has nothing to do with his actions. Even in chasing after the abducted Sylvia, he just ends up hanging around Diana's temple rather than following her to Orion's hideaway. Sylvia, Diana and Eros are the ones who really overcome the story's obstacles. I wonder if Bolle and Gomes have perhaps narrowed our expectations of what an ideal Aminta should be?

Thanks for the reports from the triple-sub Sylvia. Sounds like a whole lotta fun.

I'm probably not the best person to answer nanushka's question (I can't seem to quote it, for some reason?) in terms of understudies and ABT, but in addition to the obvious example of Stella Abrerra's Giselle last season (not your average understudy, I agree) the first thing that comes to mind is a Met season several years ago (2009?) when Cory Stearns, then still in the corps I think, was thrown into several principal roles for an injured Maxim Beloserkovsky. I remember, in particular, a Corsaire where my mother and I were on the edge of our seats during several partnering passages, afraid he might drop Dvorenko. Although you could see his great potential, he wasn't quite ready for primetime, and it showed. I think the AD had to go to an understudy because the men of ABT were stretched quite thin at the time. I appreciate that this isn't done too often, as I like to see a professional, polished performance, and understudies just don't have the level of coaching (or rest, as others have mentioned) to produce this.

Not to mention that the female lead in Sylvia is one of the most (if not the most) technically demanding roles in ABT's rep.

I recall that Corsaire as well, DeCoster. However, this interview with Gia Kourlas seems to suggest that Cory was already slated to perform Conrad during that 2008 run. (I'm fairly certain that the performance in which he danced with Irina was not the Saturday matinee that's referred to there. And I only happen to know that 2008 was the year of the Cory/Irina Corsaire substitution, because that was my first year regularly attending ABT performances.)

And yes, Stella's Giselle is another near-fit, but you're right that it's not quite what I had in mind, since she had prepared the role for scheduled performances in one or more previous seasons.

It could well be that, for numerous structural reasons, ballet and opera just differ in this regard. I'm curious whether understudies are more widely used in other companies, though.

I'm surprised that Hee Seo was not given tonight's performance. When I saw the triple-substitution they'd come up with, I assumed it was because all three of tonight's ballerinas either performed yesterday or were slated to perform tomorrow night. But now I notice on the schedule that Seo's other performances this week are Tuesday and Saturday, so tonight would not have required her to dance two days in a row (as it would for the other two).

Now, I know that subbing in Seo alone tonight would have provoked howls of derision, given the events of past years, but I'm just surprised that wasn't done.

I'll reword my question, in case it was misconstrued...

To clarify, I was not asking about "insider knowledge" but rather about publicly available information on previous performances. For ABT performances in which a principal cannot dance, has the practice ever been to have an understudy (i.e. someone not performing the same role in the same season) jump in, or has coverage generally come from others already slated to perform the role?

I'd be curious to know the same about other companies as well. Is ABT typical in this regard, or at other companies have there been more of the types of understudy jump-ins that have been common, for instance, in the history of opera?

You forgot to post the remarks to which I initially responded. The initial remark was that some of ABT's audience only wants to see white bodies on stage. Putting things in their proper context is always quite helpful and elucidating, isn't it?

The original post was number 139 in this thread. I then picked up on the reference to "white bodies" in my responsive post.

Yes, this...

Oh, I don't know, Plisskin. The bit about a "segment of the audience" that "prefers to see non-white bodies in a lead role" pretty much made my day, especially "non-white bodies."

...really takes the cake for the least responsible quoting out of context and least displayed interest in actually engaging with the ideas of others that I've seen on this entire thread.

I went last night. Seo was lovely, although I thought she had a tendency to soften the choreography. Stearns was in fine form and looked positively dashing. No problem for him carrying Hee down the stairs in the last act. His difficult solo was a little strained, but overall well done. Part was a gorgeous Godmother. The four fairies were Copeland, Shevshenko, Brandt and Hamrick. Brandt in particular made a stunning impression with her speed. Salstein and Zhurbin were great fun as the stepsisters. Balcony and family circle were very full.

Thanks, abatt! Just out of curiosity: which fairy did each of the four dance?

Did anyone go last night? Even amidst all the other excitement, I'd love to read any reviews!

She was cast this year in Florine with Gabe Stone Shayer as Bluebird.

Ah, right. That one hadn't occurred to me as being particularly R's doing, since she was already a prominent Florine for the company. But it certainly may have been. Don't think I saw her in Bright Stream.

Copeland could also be cast prominently because Ratmansky casts her in his ballet(s)

Has Ratmansky shown a particular interest in Copeland other than for Firebird? (Note: this question has no subtext! I am simply curious about the possible plural, because I can't think of any other examples! just trying to fill in a gap in my memory! not racist!)

I wonder if the Forster promotion and the Cirio importation were meant, at least in part, as a wake-up call to Hammoudi that he needs to step it up.

Interesting theory!

I don't know, it might actually lead to self-awareness that many people hold prejudices and biases that would never come out in "normal" life because:

1. In real life social factors and the awareness that NYC is a very diverse city makes you more careful about expressing these ugly thoughts, whereas the anonymity of online communication allows people to simply type and type

...

But to pretend these biases don't exist in Misty's discussions is being ingenuous.

If this is why you're here, that's certainly your prerogative. I don't engage in these discussions because I need to uncover the prejudices/biases/assumptions that I readily agree I have (as do we all). I engage in these discussions because I want to understand the world of ballet better, not because I want to achieve self-awareness. To that end, I want to understand what other people think and what support they have for those opinions. And careful attention to the words they use is essential to that. I find it's best not to assume I know why someone says what they say and not to assume they really mean something more or other than what their words say. It's true they might mean more, or have problematic motivations. But I think it's better to discover that by engaging, levelheadedly, with their actual words.

As for "pretend[ing] these biases don't exist in Misty's discussions" -- I have said repeatedly that I agree with you on this, and I haven't heard anyone here say they don't exist.

I agree that Trenary is a surprise. This seems to have been her "breakout" season, with more featured roles, and I feel like that has typically come the year before promotion to soloist in recent years (e.g. in the case of Shevchenko), rather than in the same year as promotion.

Consider, for example, the difference between what Gorak did before being promoted to soloist and what Trenary has done.

abatt's words were "might not have attended," which means an audience segment that prefers to see non-white dancers that has come to fruition, not a potential audience, and wrote that McKenzie might cast Copeland more frequently to attract them.

But abatt did not suggest that "Misty's audience" is wholly or even primarily made up of such people. canbelto has interpreted abatt's words to mean that.

And this has been the underlying issue in these Misty threads. No one wants to say it and call it for what it really is. Typical of the U.S. especially when you look at recent events. A plethora of excuses for Hallberg, Seo, and a million and one explanations for why the online venom aimed at Misty is "different" and excusable.

I don't think anyone here has disputed the fact that this has been an issue in the Misty discussions. (At least I haven't. See above.)

The problem comes when this becomes an excuse to dismiss any statement one disagrees with as being motivated by racism, particularly when doing so depends on one's mischaracterizing those statements.

The problem comes when one assumes that those one disagrees with on particular, discrete issues are necessarily the same as those one disagrees with on deeper, more fundamental issues.

And the problem comes when one assumes that others have more extreme negative views than their words actually express -- causing one to misinterpret those words.

As I said above: if you're going to do that, what's the point of having a discussion? Reasoned debate of the many interesting issues surrounding this public figure becomes impossible.

Ok "prefer to see non-white bodies onstage in a lead role" and "might never have attended any ABT ballet performance but for the fact that an African American is cast in the lead" is automatically followed up by an assumption that Misty will be over-cast so these same people will come to the ballet over and over again. Again, an automatic assumption of bad faith/ignorance on the part of the audience. They might be ballet enthusiasts from minority backgrounds who are excited to see a big dance event. They might be dance enthusiasts period. Assuming that Misty's audiences don't know anything about ballet, just there for Misty, is offensive.

It's not pointing out Misty's audiences that is, IMO, racist. It's the assumptions about those audiences and what they know/don't know/behave/what they're interested in. Also the conclusion that this will be a bad thing for ABT. But whatever, I don't feel like this conversation is between culturally/politically unaware people. I think most everyone in this convo knows about racial code words and stereotypes so all this innocence is very coy.

You persist in either misreading or willfully mischaracterizing what abatt wrote. The point was not about Misty's audience -- which is diverse, both racially and in their motivations for attending. The point was about KM's attempt (true or not) to draw in people who wouldn't otherwise come to ballet. Those people, then, would make up a "segment" of Misty's audience.

Did abatt suggest that "Misty's audience" (your term, not abatt's) is wholly or even primarily made up of such people? No. Is KM interested in drawing such people? That's what's debatable.

Read them and tell me honestly that there isn't a really ugly undertone of bad faith present in all those posts.

I'm not disputing the fact that there have been statements made on this board that have such undertones (though, to be honest, I don't think you've chosen particularly strong examples here). But I think that fact has caused you to misread statements that don't have those undertones and to mischaracterize what they literally say rather than engaging with what they do say.

I'm saying that there are so many assumptions of bad faith tied to everything about Misty, from her audiences to her motivations to her behavior to her social media account, and those assumptions of bad faith are so vituperative and excorciating, that I can find no logical reason behind it besides race.

I don't think you're wrong about this. I think you're right that that has been an undercurrent in some of the comments made about Misty.

But I think the problem arises when this causes one to misread what a specific person has said in a specific instance, because one assumes that everyone who says something negative about Misty -- or even something not obviously positive about Misty -- is motivated by racial animus. I think this prevents our ability to see and engage with what people who disagree with us (who have a whole diversity of opinions and reasons for those opinions) are actually saying.

And if we're going to do that, then why bother having a discussion?

You're assuming this "segment" has no interest in seeing "white" bodies in leading roles, that this "segment" has no interest in ballet beyond Misty, that this "segment" is there only bc Misty is dancing. Well this "segment" that you're referring to I assume is mostly African-American, since you'd never assume that a white person who was attending a Misty O/O was there "only for Misty." Would you assume that, say, an Asian person who is at a Hee Seo performance is only there because Hee Seo is of Asian ancestry?

There's a difference, in very basic logical terms, between assuming, on the one hand, that those who want to see black dancers are themselves black and assuming, on the other hand, that those who are black want to see non-black dancers. I'm not saying that abatt was making either assumption, but you seem to conflate the two, which is a logical fallacy.

You're assuming this "segment" has no interest in seeing "white" bodies in leading roles, that this "segment" has no interest in ballet beyond Misty, that this "segment" is there only bc Misty is dancing. Well this "segment" that you're referring to I assume is mostly African-American, since you'd never assume that a white person who was attending a Misty O/O was there "only for Misty." Would you assume that, say, an Asian person who is at a Hee Seo performance is only there because Hee Seo is of Asian ancestry? That's what I'm talking about, the assumptions of bad faith that are present about Misty's audiences and the assumptions of bad faith that come up with everything Misty does/says. If she invites Raven Wilkinson onstage after her Swan Lake, it must be because her publicist arranged it. If she walked the red carpet it's because she's a famewhore. If Damian Woetzel was "honored" to be there he must have been comped/paid shill. Those overwhelming assumptions of bad faith that are attached to everything Misty does is what is making me flat out say that this is racist.

abatt said nothing about Misty's audience. abatt's point was about the people that KM is (in abatt's view) trying to attract. abatt did not say that Misty's audience is entirely made up of those people. abatt simply said that KM is trying to attract people who want to see non-white dancers. abatt did not say that those are the only people who have an interest in seeing Misty dance.

Again, one can certainly disagree with the claim that KM is trying to attract those people.

There is a long history in the U.S. of using code messages and words to deflect from talking about race outright. In the South, it's not that politicians wanted to uphold segregation, they want to "preserve the Southern way of life" and "protect Southern womenfolk."

And by the way, I'm not disputing the point you make here, or the history behind it. I just think that it's important not to assume that what sounds like it may be a coded message actually is one and thus to jump right to an accusation. I think it's better to engage with what someone is saying and to try to understand what they really mean and think, when that's not immediately clear. When one does so, one often finds that others' views are less clear-cut than one assumes.

She doesn't have to. Certain things don't have to be said -- they are implied, overtly or covertly. There is a long history in the U.S. of using code messages and words to deflect from talking about race outright. In the South, it's not that politicians wanted to uphold segregation, they want to "preserve the Southern way of life" and "protect Southern womenfolk." It's time to just call a spade a spade and recognize this for what it is: old-fashioned racism.

And for the record, I don't even consider myself a fan of Misty's dancing. I think she has a very weak to non-existent jump and dances with a sort of brittle efficiency that characterizes so many ABT soloists. But I'd never attack her personal life, her morals, her appearance, her ethics, her character, even her audience that doesn't know how to "behave," and even make assumptions about her relationship with her colleagues, just because I don't know her (or anyone else in ABT) from a hole in the wall.

Okay, well if you choose to read what other people say as coded messages and attach non-articulated meanings to those messages, then it becomes very difficult, perhaps impossible, to have a reasonable conversation. A lot of us discussing this issue have much subtler and more complex and more conflicted views than the two obvious poles of the discussion would suggest. And I think it's essential to recognize that. We've seen elsewhere (e.g. in the discussion of what kfw meant in complaining about the word "honor" -- which had nothing to do with Misty in particular and was purely a language quibble, not a point about race) how assumptions about others' hidden extremist views can cause us to misunderstand the basic meanings of what they say.

And in your second paragraph above you're lumping together a lot of different claims that have been made about Misty. You seem to assume that anyone who says anything negative about her shares all of those beliefs. I think that's problematic.

And there are Russians who turn out in droves only when a Russian dancer is dancing. I'd say the Eifman Ballet tours probably appeal to a 80-90% Russian audience. But I don't see complaints about that.

abatt did not complain about people preferring to see non-white dancers.

This assumption. That Misty's audience "prefers" to see non-white bodies onstage, and it's a "segment" (what an ugly word) of the population that would never go to the ballet otherwise. I don't see why such ugly assumptions about the cultural awareness, of, you know, an ENTIRE RACE is being made. For the record NYC ballet audiences are fairly culturally diverse and they were before Misty ever danced Swan Lake.

I think if you read abatt's comment carefully you'll see that you are mischaracterizing what it says. This is exactly the type of mischaracterization I was describing above, based on an assumption that others' views are more in extreme opposition to one's own than they may in fact be.

abatt does not say that the entire black race prefers to see non-white dancers.

abatt does not say that the entire black race would not go to the ballet otherwise.

abatt does not say that Misty's' entire audience prefers to see non-white dancers.

abatt does not say anything at all about any entire race or about Misty's audience in general.

abatt says that KM is attempting to draw those who do prefer to see non-white dancers. And abatt says that those who do prefer to see non-white dancers may not come to the ballet otherwise.

I'm not saying I agree, but it's important to make sure one is disagreeing with what another is actually saying.

How do you know? Have you ever talked to them? Or do you just assume because they're African American?

Which assumption of abatt's are you questioning here? That there are people who prefer to see non-white dancers in lead roles? That McKenzie is attempting to tap into that audience? That people with that preference might never have attended an ABT performance if there weren't an opportunity to see a non-white dancer in the lead?