nanushka

That's very odd. There are currently no Giselle TBAs, and none of the dancers has multiple performances.

Most people don't have to put their hands all over their coworkers, get their coworkers' sweat all over them, and entrust their coworkers with their physical well-being — the very thing a dancer depends upon for her career.

How has Gorak done as Romeo in the past, has anyone seen him? Who did he dance it with?

I think it’s good to keep in mind that we don’t know what these dancers’ personal lives and relationships are all about. They are as removed from most of us as any strangers or distant acquaintances. It’s natural that we feel intimately connected to them through their dancing, but ultimately their private experiences are just that, and thus unknown.

I'm pretty excited as well. First, I just like the lineup of ballets. Last year we had to wait so long to get to the classics (week 5?), whereas now they're nicely spread out. And it'll be fun to end the season with Swan Lake. I wish they were doing a full run of La Bayadère, and less of Romeo and Juliet, and although I actually enjoyed Jane Eyre I don't feel the strong desire to see it again yet. I'm cautiously optimistic about the new Ratmansky (though I will not make the mistake of buying tickets to multiple performances in advance, as I did for some of his past premieres). Second, when I look at the season as a series of performances to potentially enjoy — as opposed to thinking more about what it means for individual dancers whose careers I really care about — there are just a bunch that I want to see. In fact, of the 46 performances currently cast, there are at least 25 individual performances that I'd pay money to attend. I'll have to make some tough decisions, for a variety of reasons: too little time; too little money; zero interest in seeing more than 1-2 total R&Js (even though there are 5 different casts I'd be interested to see); some imperfect casting combinations; etc. I'd love to see Trenary, Shevchenko and Hurlin as Gamzatti, but probably won't — or definitely not more than one of those, since the Thursday cast is a must for me, and I can't see going to more than two. Same with Abrera, Trenary and Lane as Juliet. (I'm really torn when it comes to R&J: would love to see Lane, but Gorak will likely be a disaster; would love to see Forster, but can't imagine tolerating Boylston. The Abrera/Whiteside and Trenary/Cornejo casts are most wholly appealing, but I can't imagine seeing that ballet one evening and again the following afternoon.) I can predict right now that I'm probably going to do something crazy and see two Giselle double-headers. I just don't know if I can miss Shevchenko (in both roles), Hurlin, Forster, Lane, Murphy's Myrta (which I haven't seen in far too long), and Abrera's farewell. I'm really excited about Hurlin's and Brandt's debuts as Aurora. I'll probably skip Trenary, since I've already seen (and loved) her twice in the role. I love Lane, but a third Sleeping Beauty might depend on who her partner is. For me, the Shevchenko/Forster Swan Lake may be the most exciting overall cast of the season. I think Trenary and Bell will get promoted. I hope Forster gets promoted. And, in the future, I would love to see Brandt, Lane and Hoven get more roles.

I hate that there's no longer a way to view casting "at a glance" on the ABT calendar, except by scrolling on phone or hovering on computer, so since the chart that was previously posted here no longer seems available, I made this one. (Sorry for the length but thought some others might find it useful.) La Bayadère Tu 5/19 Boylston, Cornejo, Trenary W 5/20m Teuscher, Stearns, Shevchenko W 5/20e Seo, Bell, Hurlin Th 5/21 Smirnova, Kim, Murphy Romeo and Juliet F 5/22 Abrera, Whiteside Sa 5/23m Trenary, Cornejo Sa 5/23e Copeland, Royal M 5/25 Osipova, Hallberg Tu 5/26 Seo, Stearns W 5/27m Teuscher, Bell W 5/27e Copeland, Royal Th 5/28 Lane, Gorak F 5/29 Murphy, Whiteside Sa 5/30m Boylston, Forster Sa 5/30e Teuscher, Bell Giselle M 6/8 Seo, Stearns, Teuscher Tu 6/9 Copeland, Cornejo, Williams W 6/10m Shevchenko, Royal, Hurlin W 6/10e Murphy, Forster, Williams Th 6/11 Osipova, Hallberg, Teuscher F 6/12 Boylston, Bell, Hurlin Sa 6/13m Lane, Simkin, Shevchenko Sa 6/13e Abrera, Whiteside, Murphy Sleeping Beauty M 6/15 Boylston, Whiteside Tu 6/16 Trenary, Gorak W 6/17m Hurlin, TBA W 6/17e Lane, TBA Th 6/18 Boylston, Whiteside F 6/19 Seo, Bell Sa 6/20m Brandt, TBA Sa 6/20e Trenary, Gorak Jane Eyre M 6/22 Teuscher, Whiteside Tu 6/23 Copeland, Stearns W 6/24m Teuscher, Whiteside W 6/24e Boylston, Forster Th 6/25 Copeland, Stearns Swan Lake F 6/26 Seo, Bell Sa 6/27m Shevchenko, Forster Sa 6/27e Murphy, Whiteside M 6/29 Boylston, Ahn Tu 6/30 Copeland, Cornejo W 7/1m Murphy, Whiteside W 7/1e Seo, Bell Th 7/2 Shevchenko, Forster F 7/3 Teuscher, Stearns Sa 7/4m Copeland, Cornejo And the numbers: Teuscher 8 Boylston 7 Copeland 7 Murphy 6 Seo 6 Shevchenko 5 Hurlin 4 Trenary 4 Lane 3 Abrera 2 Osipova 2 Williams 2 Brandt 1 Smirnova 1 Whiteside 9 Bell 7 Stearns 6 Cornejo 5 Forster 5 Gorak 3 Royal 3 Hallberg 2 Ahn 1 Kim 1 Simkin 1

Yes that’s correct — but from all appearances KMcK does not seem to think as highly of her as you and I and many others do. It’s not as if he wouldn’t have gotten away with not promoting her even after that performance. So I’m curious why he did, only to use her so little. We’ll likely never know, though.

Got it, yes, I see your meaning. Thanks for clarifying. And yes, the sidelining is sadly reminiscent. One wonders why Lane was promoted if her talents were going to be made so little use of.

I'm not sure if you mean to imply that Part quit, but I don't believe that was the case. She said publicly that her contract was not renewed.

I can only assume it has something to do with the numbers. Plays, art exhibits, music, etc. quite conceivably all draw more website clicks (the newspaper itself being fairly vestigial at this point), and they'd certainly be tracking such things.

Along those lines, with Raymonda Variations Balanchine apparently wanted to give Patricia Wilde an opportunity to show her adagio side, since she was primarily known and praised as an allegro dancer.

I really hope she ends up on the artistic/coaching staff at ABT, at least as part of her future work. She's so clearly and widely beloved among the dancers, and they could really use her.

Yes, indeed:

Common views on relationships in our culture have changed a lot since the 1950s. While open marriages and the like have doubtless always existed in certain forms and cases, they are now more commonly recognized as legitimate alternatives to the exclusive dyad. In my opinion, a long-term relationship with one referred to as one's "partner," and with whom one has had a child, is not a "liaison," whether the tabloids cover it or not.

Quite right. As a journalist, Kourlas would have checked her terminology with both Hamrick and Jagger.

Her "liaison"? According to the recent New York Times article:

It's interesting, I found Boylston considerably more bothersome in The Season on Saturday night than I did back in the spring. She seemed to have tamed some of her more problematic qualities then, but on Saturday they were back. I'm so sorry to have missed the Abrera/Forster pairing both times this ballet has been done.

Did Skylar dance two straight triple bills on Saturday? I know she danced all three works that evening, and she had a story up that suggested she may have done the same that afternoon. If so, that’s nuts! But she’s amazing.

I think the context matters — she was basically asked why she never got promoted, and she cited multiple possible reasons (including her own flaws): "So I feel it’s all of those combinations."

He has such a boyish face too, which adds to the effect. Ah well, an excellent dancer nonetheless! Especially for his age.

My favorite example of this comes in the PDD: at the moment when Balanchine would definitely have choreographed a développé à la seconde (there's a certain point in almost every adagio where he puts one, and you can always hear it in the music), Ratmansky seems about to do that, but then the développé turns into a promenade in passé (maybe in demi-plié?), so you think, "Oh, he tricked us" — but then it turns back into a completed développé, and to top it off he has the man do one as well, standing behind the ballerina! So brilliant. I think sometimes that what Balanchine was to Petipa, Ratmansky is to Balanchine. (Sometimes.) I completely agree on Whiteside — he looked fantastic Saturday night. As for Bell, I've warmed to him, but I still don't find his physique particularly appealing; he's so broad-shouldered, and he seems to carry himself in a way that somewhat exaggerates it. (Maybe a bit too slouched? not sure that makes sense, though...)

The Times arcticle includes a nice reminiscence of her first Giselle:

There were plenty of problems with the performance, but I personally did not see Lane's nerves as being among them. She looked fine in that regard.

I do remember reading not too long ago that the heel dancing (which certainly is iconic, even if it's not 1928) was not a constant in the work's history, but I can't remember where, and I haven't found it in a quick check of some of the obvious candidates. Will keep thinking, though. Certainly, Apollo is a work that Balanchine continued to tinker with throughout his life even more than most.

It feels very pièce d'occassion (even if it wasn't intended or commissioned as such), so we may not need to worry.