nanushka

I don't read Moonlily's statement as an assertion that's it's okay for Hallberg to lie. I read it as a proposed explanation for why some people are more willing to make excuses for Hallberg than for Copeland. I think one thing that happens in a discussion such as this, where people on both sides are emotionally invested in their arguments, is that statements get interpreted as meaning more than they actually say. In other words, one has a tendency to assume that the person one is conversing with has a more extreme set of views (in opposition to one's own) than they may actually have. Sometimes that's true, and there are people involved in these discussions who have firmly made up their minds on one side of the issue or the other. But there are a lot of people involved in these discussions who are genuinely interested in working through ideas, and their statements can easily be misinterpreted as being more rooted in an ideology than they in fact are. (I think this has happened at times in the context of this particular discussion thread.) I think it's important to try to see what others' words actually say and mean on their own, to the extent that that's possible. (I readily acknowledge that misinterpretations can easily occur and that I have been guilty of them.) Online communication is tricky, because we don't have each others' body language and tones of voice to guide us in interpreting their words.

What excuses have been made for Hallberg's false claims?

I actually just recently read one of those "long winded negative essays" about Misty that made reference to her false claim in direct comparison with David Hallberg's false claim. Sometimes the "They criticize X for Y when they never criticized Z for Y" claims make a very good point -- but sometimes, when one looks, one finds that they did in fact criticize Z for Y as well.

In anticipation of this week's Cinderella performances, I've been reading through this long-defunct set of discussions of the 1969 RB video and of Ashton's ballet more generally: http://balletalert.invisionzone.com/index.php?/forum/144-cinderella-video-royal-ballet-1969/ I've learned a lot and encourage others who may be interested to take a look.

I'm not sure that's accurate. Very first review posted: Second review posted: Third review posted: I haven't read the rest yet. But that's just an alternative sampling.

A comparison was made about the technical deficiencies of a dancer on the eve of her (likely) promotion to principal and those of a dancer two full years before her promotion. It's true that the reviews quoted by sidwich and some of those on this thread describing Misty's technical problems are similar in tone. But given the difference in timeframe, I'm not sure how apt a comparison this is or how much it tells us.

Veronika was promoted in the summer of 2009, actually, so two years after the SB debut. It was reported that she would be leaving ABT at the end of the 2008 Met season, but she ended up staying, and a year later she became a principal.

Yes, she continued to dance Aurora every time it came back and never had anywhere near the degree of difficulty she reportedly had at the premiere. (I did not see that performance, but I've heard from one who did -- and who otherwise loves her dancing -- that it was definitely a low point for her.) Many saw this (along with Nikiya and O/O) as one of her signature roles.

It was actually a totally different variation, so it doesn't really boil down to alterations in steps. The variation Veronika ended up performing in NYC contained a fair amount of mime elements (gestures toward the crib, etc.). I saw three different Lilacs: Teuscher, Part, then Abrera. Teuscher did the more challenging variation, including a particularly tricky step in the latter portion -- perhaps someone with more technical knowledge can describe it. I just remember it included something like a pirouette leading into a shift to the other foot for something else. (Sorry to be so unhelpful in that description!) Teuscher didn't look wholly comfortable with it, but she managed it. When I saw Abrera dance it the final weekend, she altered this step -- there was no longer the tricky shift from foot to foot. But overall she did the more challenging variation that Teuscher had, while Part's was quite different.

Yes, I agree, canbelto. "Mannered" is a good way of putting it. In the year or two leading up to his move to the Bolshoi I really felt this was happening. His dancing began to seem self-regarding, and self-consciously "Art" (with capital and quotes). As a performer, he began to feel very remote. (There was no longer a sense of the "intimacy" I've described elsewhere on this thread. Let's say I began to think of him only as "Hallberg," never as "David.") And this has been enhanced by his more literal remoteness in recent years (he seems to never actually end up dancing with ABT anymore).

Given what Sills' personality seems to have been, I can actually imagine her loving that! (And, in a rather different way, I can imagine Callas loving being called "La Divina" to her face!)

Oh, to be sure. And it works both ways. There are times when I'm willing to put up with less artistry, dramatic imagination, etc. for the sake of enjoying a performance that is technically magnificent. Nearly every performance is a trade-off, isn't it? There have been very few performers in the history of the art, I imagine, who have truly "had it all," leaving nothing to be desired.

I completely agree on all points, regarding both Abrera's more challenging variation and the critical tendencies you describe.

Yes, that's correct. And Abrera altered the trickiest of the steps in the performance in NYC (the last Sat matinee) that I saw too (though she didn't change the whole variation.)

Again, I'd just point out that this is not what the use of nicknames by devotees for performing artists has typically signified or implied and that it's a tradition that goes back centuries. Some choose to talk in this manner and some don't. No problem. But I don't think we should misconstrue or mischaracterize what others are doing with their language.

One of the reasons I assume it took some time for Part to get promoted to principal was the technical weaknesses that marred her performances. These really subsided around the time she finally became principal -- after waiting so long, you may remember, that she came very close to leaving the company the year before. I can't guarantee that they subsided (for the most part) before her promotion (I don't have a firm enough recollection of the timeline), though that was possibly part of what allowed it to finally come. In any case, while she is still not a particularly strong dancer technically, I would not say that, in general, she "could not do the steps or choreography." (Some might point to the recent substitution of an alternate Lilac Fairy variation for her, and I grant the point -- though this was also justified given that there were two different variations in the notations, and she did the easier of the two -- which was also the more dramatically expressive, in keeping with her strengths.) In any case, for the past 5-6 years she has been much stronger technically than she was 7+ years ago. And I don't think it's at all true that "you won't hear [Part's weaknesses] mentioned." (Note: I'm not making any comparisons to Misty or others here. I'm merely responding to your above question.)

And I should emphasize that said devotees would generally not even think of addressing those performers by such names IRL! Perhaps that makes it seem more okay, or perhaps that makes it seem worse. Again, I don't think any disrespect is either intended or produced by these traditions. I think it's quite natural and harmless and even endearing.

Same here -- I'd love to hear more. I've long had mixed feelings about Boylston (really admiring some of her performances, or at least some parts of some of her performances, while being turned off by others); and I've always enjoyed Simkin as a solo dancer. I saw their SL a few years ago and felt they weren't quite ready for prime time but that there were definitely some good elements.

There are centuries-old traditions among the devotees of many performing arts of referring to certain artists (especially, but not exclusively, when they are beloved by those devotees) with names that would normally indicate a greater degree of intimacy than in fact exists between those devotees and artists. I don't think this is a sign of disrespect, infantilization, or any other particularly bad thing. I think (if I may be permitted to psychologize) that it's rather a quite natural result of the intense sense of intimacy that those artists evoke in us through their performances. It's part of the indefinable, strange magic of the performing arts. We feel connected to them, even to those whose performances we don't particularly love.

No argument here. My point was not that they're doing a good job of it. My point was merely that, like every other arts organization in the country right now, ABT is undoubtedly thinking about the problem of attracting new, younger audiences and donors. They may not be succeeding, and they may not be coming up with good strategies, and they may not be savvy enough to communicate those strategies even if they are coming up with them (I think we can all agree that ABT is not very good at marketing and outreach) -- but again, the absence of proof is not proof of an absence. Again, no argument here. My point is not that failing to promote Copeland would be "fatal" to ABT. My point is that it's reasonable to think that ABT is concerned about the consequences of not promoting her. I'm not so sure about this. The way media work today, things can flame up in unexpected and uncontrollable ways. But again, my point is not that that will happen; my point is that it's reasonable to think that it might, and that it's reasonable to think that ABT fears that it might. (Again, I'm answering the question, "Why would ABT care about certain members of the public concluding it was a racist employer?") I'm honestly not sure of the extent to which it is, in fact, a risk -- but I agree that if there's a risk, this is it. [Edited: "if there's a risk, this is the possible outcome that poses the biggest risk."] So what does this all add up to? For me, it goes back to kfw's earlier statement, much-disputed, which I think led us into this: Is it reasonable to think that ABT is concerned about the impact of a failure to promote Misty at this time (particularly, as you've said, if another female soloist is promoted)? I think it is. If Misty is promoted, will I assume that it is primarily due to those fears? No. Will the true, full reason for that promotion, should it come, ever be known or even knowable? No. Will there continue to be a belief, in many minds (note: I don't say mine), that Misty's promotion is due to ABT's fear of racist accusations? I think there will be. Is it unfortunate that those beliefs will remain and will be basically impossible to dispel? I think it is. Has Misty's PR campaign made it more likely that those doubts will linger? I think it quite possibly has.

I don't know it could ever be proved, or could shown to be a deciding factor, unless he told us. The absence of proof is not proof of an absence.

p.s. I agree that their bringing in Nedak is a good sign that some care is being given to ensuring that Veronika has a suitable partner. I found their performance together to be quite satisfying and hope that he returns. And I also think (as I've written elsewhere) that Cory has now become a much more suitable partner for her as well.

I don't think angelica was implying that that was the reason she thinks he has "lack of vision." Certainly it's fair to point to what one thinks of as one of many things that contribute to one's opinion that he has "lack of vision." I think it's fairly clear from the facts of casting, scheduling, etc. that Veronika is not viewed by the ABT leadership as being among their foremost Odette/Odiles.

I know you didn't intend to imply this, but I'd just add that he has never, even now, viewed her in this way!

Helene, I think this latest phase of this discussion was initiated when you wrote: I've tried to offer one answer to that question. Yes, it's true that ABT has not made much of an apparent effort to attract younger audiences, and they're certainly far behind other many other arts organizations in attempting to do so. That doesn't mean it's not on their radar. Certainly they stand to lose Copeland's new audiences, but I think they also stand to lose additional potential audiences in the future -- those who may not be actively drawn to ABT by Copeland's story but may yet be turned away from ABT by a taint of presumed racism. And again, just because we haven't seen obvious signs of a strategy doesn't mean that there is no strategy or that attracting new audiences in the short-to-medium-term isn't something they're thinking about. You can't calculate potential audience, but that doesn't mean you don't think about it as something you want to attract or that you don't think about factors that may inhibit that attraction. Just because something is incalculable doesn't mean it's not a consideration in an institution's overall strategies. There were no protests (so far as I'm aware) about the racial composition of ballet companies before Copeland's story became prominent -- nor have there been any of note since then (again, so far as I'm aware). (And I'm certainly not just talking about 20-somethings. I'm talking about any potential audience under the age of, say, 50. ABT, like every other arts organization, needs to do serious work in drawing in that demographic.) But I think it's at least possible that this could become a problem for ABT if Copeland is not promoted and if there's a sense out there that she has been denied the historic opportunity that many now believe she deserves. You seem to agree, when you say this: But I'm not sure if that's what you meant. As you say: And I didn't mean to imply that the WSJ was the only one -- not by a long shot. My point was precisely the fact that there's now a sense that a finite date is approaching -- even though, as you've pointed out, that sense is false. But there is a sense that, if Misty is not promoted as part of the season-end round of promotions, she will have been passed over and denied the promotion. My criticism of the WSJ article was not meant to suggest that they had created this sense -- just that they'd added to it and made it even more prominent than it already was. Finally, you write: Not in as long as I can recall. But again, that doesn't mean they're not trying or that they have no strategy to control the message. It just means they're not successful. (And how often is any such entity wholly successful in that? That doesn't mean there's no attempt.) So, to return to your question: Those are some of my reasons why I think they would.