nanushka

Yes:

Pretty sure she danced Emeralds opening night 2018 as well.

Until this latest move it seemed there was plausible deniability that that’s what was up. No more, it seems.

Very interesting. I’m surprised she would comment publicly like that on casting that hasn’t been announced.

Ugh. Do not need to have this come back for a third year.

Seriously. I’m so jealous!

Week two casting is finally up.

Very glad to see that Forster and Shevchenko — who got very positive reviews on this forum for their performances last year — are again cast together.

That's still week 1, isn't it? Week 2 does not seem to be up yet.

YESSSSSSSSS!!!! This is the BEST news! I really hope he gets to do this at the Met next year. Hooray!

In a second AP story, the allegations continue to pile up: The efforts of many employees to shield women from his advances point to a real sickness not only in Domingo himself but also in his professional world: ETA: Dallas Opera has cancelled a March gala concert with Domingo. The Met so far holds firm in moving forward with his upcoming Macbeth performances.

I'm seeing the first cast as well, and have some of the same feelings. I'm looking forward to seeing Ball and Phelan in Emeralds, though, and Kikta and Hyltin in Rubies (especially since I've never seen the latter in that) — and I expect Kowroski's Diamonds PDD especially will be gorgeous. In my eyes, there's no one standout all-around best cast, so I'm reasonably satisfied. That's what Balanchine programs are so often like for me at NYCB, especially when I'm only seeing one iteration. I always feel I'm getting to see so much and yet missing so much at the same time! Not complaining, though — it's a sign of a strong company and good programming.

I do recall reports of Veyette looking pretty decent last year (don't think I saw him in much), though prior to that he was looking in much worse shape. I believe it was at one of the Jewels anniversary performances that I saw him looking really bad — the jogging sequence in particular felt cringeworthy, as he attempted to lead much younger dancers around the stage during a performance in which he was not at all up to the physical requirements.

To be fair, he was replacing Whiteside (who got the flu) very last-minute, I believe — though I too would rather see Brandt than Boylston as Giselle, given the choice.

What a great idea!

I guess I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that Gillian should retire roles merely because of those numbers (that she's 40, that she's been a principal for 17 years, etc.) in and of themselves. (Similar for her coming back from maternity leave.) If the quality of her dancing has deteriorated, I think that should be the determining factor. But just because she's hit certain numbers or had a baby — obviously, those details may relate to a loss of technique, but they don't in and of themselves indicate it. That's why I'm more comfortable with the argument that Gillian has perhaps never been a natural Giselle in the first place.

This has come up a few times here, and it makes me wonder — Is this a question now because Murphy was never a great fit for Giselle to begin with? or because of her age? If the latter, had her dancing really shown such clear signs of age-related deterioration pre-maternity that it would seem time for the AD to be encouraging her to retire such roles? (Obviously, having had a baby presents its own further complications, but we really don't know now in what shape Murphy will return from that; it's my understanding that some dancers do better with this than others, and Murphy seems pretty strong and hard-working.)

No, I really don't think they are. Why on earth should we not do what we can to make life better for all children — to minimize the psychological pain and damage (which, no, is not an overstatement) that a child can experience when he or she is held to unnecessary external norms of identity and being? That’s probably universal, in fact. Pointing to the fact that others in the world suffer in more obvious and extreme ways seems to me a very unfortunate shirking of that responsibility. At the very least, I would hope that others' work not be brushed aside. And, frankly, why shouldn’t even things that are only “first-world problems” still be addressed? Heaven knows we all experience a lot of suffering that we could work to minimize — and we should do what we can to recognize and minimize the suffering of others, even if they are only our fellow "first-world" dwellers.

I particularly wish that the segment (which I believe I saw in full, though it's possible the platform on which I viewed it didn't include the whole thing) had focused not only on dance but also on what is to me the broader and even more important issue: the fact that every child should be able to pursue his or her passions, whatever they may be, and should not be pressured to conform to expectations set by parents, community, school, peers, culture, gender norms, etc. I think the piece could have more fully addressed what it means for all of those other voices to tell a child that his or her pursuits are not the right or best or worthiest. To me, this is not just or even primarily about dance. I thought Gillian Murphy addressed this beautifully in her recent IG post: No parent, in my opinion, should raise a child in the hopes that he or she becomes any particular thing. Children need to be nurtured to become themselves. Gia Kourlas, by the way, in her first Times piece (I see she has a second one up now, post-apology, but I haven't had a chance to read it yet), denigrated the use of the word passions in what I thought was a rather bizarre way: Sure, passions may be an overused word, but in what idiom is it synonymous with flights of fancy? I think there were more than enough other things to substantively criticize Spencer for than her use of that word.

Ah, thanks for the clarification! Not a regular GMA watcher here. I agree with almost everything you write...but as for "the downfall of contemporary society" — well really, many of these issues are as old as modern culture, if not older. If contemporary society is falling down, I don't think it's because of incidents like this one.

Even there, though, while Wall is quoted as calling her out, the author himself, in the piece's lede, inserts a completely unnecessary phrase that gives Spencer the benefit of the doubt (or even exonerates her): "Seemingly innocent"? From what perspective?

Many dancers (from their official public accounts) are continuing to post comments on her preceding (unrelated) post anyway, so that gambit didn’t really work.

No, indeed. As for this: I think we can count on it.

I did note that she actually wrote, "my sincere apologies" and directly acknowledged that the remark was "insensitive." Better than what's all too common, the "I sincerely apologize if anyone was offended..." etc. There was a bit of an explanation implied in the 2nd and 3rd sentences. I am indeed perhaps being overly generous, I admit. I read it with very low expectations. And yes, the self-dig at "pop news" was 🙄.

It's a decent comment (or, at least, better than I expected), and I can imagine an argument for keeping it short, but I really wish — for the sake of her many followers, not just those she's apologizing to — that she had said more about what she may have learned about why the original remarks were "insensitive" and how, specifically, they caused harm. Many of her followers may just write this off as a necessary gesture to the pc police, without really understanding what was at stake.