nanushka

It's just too bad that ABT seems to be turning into a feeder company rather than a destination company.

Alistair Macaulay's June 23 "Dance This Week" column in the NYT links to a very interesting article by Theresa Ruth Howard that relates to many of the topics raised on this thread:

"The Misty-rious Case of the Vanishing Ballerina of Color: Where Have All the Others Gone?"

Definitely worth a read.

The name most currently in play is Maria Kotchekova. On her social media platforms, she is already billing herself as an ABT principal. I'm not sure what that means. Is she just inflating her status as a guest artist, or is she well and truly planning to become a full-time fixture during the Met season?

I don't know the SFB performance schedule. Assuming MK were to become an ABT principal, would she be free to perform at other times in addition to the spring season?

Good point! I like Simkin's dancing. It's a shame there is the height issues, because I find him thrilling to watch.

I agree, though the partnering is also an issue. It's really too bad that he's kind of become a principal "in name only."

FYI: Outside of Copeland, the second best selling Swan Lake is Boylston's Saturday matinee.

And, we should say, Simkin's. I have a friend who got tickets to this specifically after seeing his Bluebird the other week.

Bakst design for the Queen, 1921.

Wow! Okay, so the Ratmansky production's wig for the Queen is actually toned down in comparison! What a beautiful image! Thanks for posting.

I went back and reread some of last year's spring season Swan Lake thread today, and it made me realize just how much BA "airtime" has been taken up this season by discussions of the state of the company, of casting, of behind-the-scenes matters, etc. Certainly there have always been topics on the forum such as this one, and certainly the discussion of such matters has always played a role even in the production-specific threads. But I really got the (completely unverified, unscientific) sense that the proportion of time spent discussing actual performances and what was seen onstage at the Met this year is much lower. Seems like a clear sign (as if we needed one) that this company is not in very good shape.

It was also interesting to be reminded of what happened during last year's SL run: after stepping into Acts III-IV for an injured Gillian on Monday night, Hee Seo picked up Cojocaru's SL on Friday at very short notice (5 pm or so the previous day), leaving many subscribers unable to make exchanges. After dancing that night's SL, she and Bolle again danced the very next night. Quite reminiscent especially of this season's R&J drama!

We are! The audience.

Or we would be, if they cared a bit more for what we think and how we feel about them as an organization. That's another thing I'd add to the list of necessities for ABT to renew itself: cultivating a stronger relationship with audiences through, among (many) other things, subscription/exchange/etc. policies that make sense and that, while they may not benefit the company financially in the day-by-day short-term record books, could certainly benefit them longer term.

If anything, I would make a little whisper in the dancers' ears..."psst..go and perform those fish dives instead...audience actually LIKES them"

Fair enough (though I'm among those who appreciated the opportunity to see the original choreo and thought it was quite striking). But that's quite a different message from "That's a No-No in my balletomane book."

So maybe is Lane...

You've said yourself, above, that the Russian tradition is no fish dives, and Ratmansky (a Russian) is explicitly returning to the original Russian tradition of this ballet's earliest years, as it was performed in 1890 and notated in the decades that followed. Given that, and the fact that nothing we've seen has indicated that either Herman or Sarah are unable to perform fish dives any longer, and given that an announcement was made well in advance that these two would perform what was identified as having been the original choreography -- well, I think Occam's Razor gives us our likely answer. Granted, that's no proof. But my inclination is to give these dancers the benefit of the doubt.

My point was that “lots of other people have done it” is no defense. One doesn’t need to have seen someone dance to know a PR offensive that includes accusations of racism and a false claim to singularity is an appeal to something besides merit, or to know that accusations of racism and racial groundbreaking are highly effective today.Copeland may have earned a promotion solely on merit (i.e. in McKenzie’s opinion may deserve it), but now we’ll never know. I think that’s unfortunate.

Very well put.

I'm not sure I understand your system of "ratings," miliosr. What do "+1" and "-1" mean? And why, for instance, is Veronika Part "-1 in medium term" while Gillian Murphy is "+1 in long term" when they are separated by only a year in age? I certainly did not see in Veronika's recent Nikiya a dancer who is moving toward retirement at a noticeably faster pace than Gillian.

The costumes and sets were based on the London production.

Yes, and as Ratmansky made very clear in many interviews, the choreography was from the earlier notations.

There were similarly two different versions of the entire Lilac Fairy solo that were done, both of which came from the notations.

Some of these distinctions (and even some of the other features, like chaines on demi-pointe) may well fall out of this production over the years, but I think it makes sense, on a first offering, that he'd want to offer as complete a picture of what he found in the notations as possible.

One complaint I have is about the Panorama scene. The original score calls for I think three repetitions of the main theme, and here Ratmansky definitely shortens the sequence. I think the backfrops for the Panorama could had been more imaginative, so here I believe this version looses in relation with Kirkland's.

...

Finally, she and Cornejo even omitted the iconic fish dives of the grand PDD. I know they are not original to the XIX century, but they were created for the superb Spessivtzeva for the very London production. I have the feeling that they were not up to the challenge of the sequence. That's a No-No in my balletomane book.

I agree with much of your overall assessment, cubanmiamiboy. Just a note each on these two points.

I believe Ratmansky was facing the task of keeping the evening within (roughly) a three-hour limit, both for union/overtime reasons and for the general comfort and enjoyment of the non-balletomane audience. He left out the march that opens Act III (one of my favorite bits of music -- I love the music that opens all three acts, each exciting in its own way), and he likely left out the repeats of the panorama music (as well as the solo that follows) for the same reason. I suspect this was a trade-off for reintroducing the Act III variations. He likely wanted to keep in as much of the dancing and mime as possible, and saw the orchestral parts as more expendable.

Second, it was announced well in advance that Lane-Cornejo would do the original choreo for the Wedding PDD. Like Helene, I doubt that this was because they were unable to do the fish dives. I'm not even sure that it was they who opted out, as Helene suggests. It may well be that Ratmansky wanted at least one cast to do the original, so it could be seen. I thought the original version was quite lovely, and I preferred it to the less-than-stellar fish dives I saw from Boylston/Gorak and (to a lesser extent) Murphy/Whiteside.

Shocking that the prospect of "dancing" more Bathildes and SB Queens was perhaps not enough (if indeed she is leaving) to convince Leanne Underwood to stay at ABT!

I think this story is on the same order as all the stories that have been written recently about which hot conductor will be hired by which major orchestra, and who people are rooting for. Or to give another example, going further afield, stories about how the Supreme Court is likely to rule on a couple of hot button cases this month. As Catton writes, the ballet world really is abuzz about the probability of Copeland's promotion. Add to that the history-making factor that she's African-American, and the probability of her promotion is a real news story.

The story would have been far more newsworthy and had far more of an impact in the days following Misty's likely promotion. The WSJ could very well have waited a few weeks and published it then. At that point, actual events would have occurred that would constitute news. This is a classic PR move, and it forces McKenzie's hand (as if it needed much forcing at this point). If he passes over Misty for promotion now, he looks even worse than he otherwise would have, and in the eyes of an even wider audience.

I have no idea why this is a bad thing.

If I'm right, and if the woman who handles Misty's PR (who has shown herself to be quite excellent at her job in the past) played a role in getting this piece published at this time, this is "a bad thing" (though nothing very new) for journalism and for the integrity (or what remains of it) of ABT's decisions about promotion, but it's a brilliant move for Misty. And that's true even if you think (as I do) that her promotion is inevitable at this point -- because this means it will make an even bigger splash when it comes, which only boosts her PR even more.

...poor Hee Seo, whose worst "fault", IMO, is that she's chosen constantly to replace others.

Well, there's also her dancing.

Yes, it's often good and sometimes even very good. But I don't think we can say it's without "fault." Certainly it's part of what she's often criticized for. The criticisms aren't always so shallow or baseless.

So would I. Dream on!

I know. I'm surprised the masses who hated The Tempest (and the slightly smaller masses who hated R's Firebird) haven't chimed in yet.

Looking at the overall casting for this week, I have to say I don't think I've ever been less excited about a Swan Lake week at ABT. (And I usually consider it one of the highlights of the season, despite its ubiquity.) I'm depressed about the prospects for this company.

Honestly, to the vast majority of the WSJ readership, the news is that ballet companies have ranks, that women are not all "prima ballerinas," that there have been other people of color who have danced in other ballet companies, and that it is indeed possible someone of color might be named to the top rank of one of the ballet companies in NYC.

We spend so much of our life parsing small details in the dance world -- most people wouldn't recognize a boulder as it ran them over.

It's true that's all unknown to a lot of people outside the dance world. That doesn't make it "news," or worthy of an article. Let her get promoted; then write the article. Then the actual "news" will have happened. No reason why this article couldn't have appeared a month from now -- except if you're working in p.r.

this is news (that is, something that isn't yet known) to most of the Journal's readers. It is indeed a big deal.

What is the "news," exactly? That some people think something should happen, which hasn't happened yet? That's called a whisper campaign -- it's not news. And it becomes much more than a whisper campaign when you get someone in the WSJ to write an article about it. It becomes pressure publicly exerted.

(I would program Firebird as the closer.)

Definitely the way to go.

and 21st century marketing

This part is essential! I would say that ABT marketing is a disaster, but it doesn't even exist in a sufficient form to be given that term. They seriously need help in this area. When it comes to ABT renewing itself, this is essential!

I would love to see a double bill of Ratmansky's Firebird and Tempest -- though I realize I am in the minority on that!

For ballet academies, yes, that seems to be common. But for the companies I list by name (and others I forgot to include), they have plenty of their own dancers to handle Nutcracker duties and do it well.

I'm thinking, for example, of a video I've seen on YouTube of Veronika Part dancing in Baltimore Ballet's Nutcracker back in 2007. Not one you mentioned, but (I'm guessing) not a ballet academy either, and what I imagine one would call a "regional company."