nanushka

Have to seriously disagree here, having seen Forster as Espada this summer. Cory could never have performed that role so well. Forster has a lot of stage presence (or at least has the potential for that — he may not have always shown it in certain other roles). Cory disappears into the scenery.

Personally, I prefer to critically engage with a work that has value but also has (in my eyes) problematic elements, rather than to "simply not go." I certainly don't think that the use of blackface in Pharaoh's Daughter makes the work as a whole a racist statement. But I do wonder if it's true that 99.9% of the Bolshoi's audience (which is international and multi-cultural) wouldn't find the use of blackface in the production to be problematic. This isn't a provincial company we're talking about; it's one of the world's greatest and most prominent. (And wasn't the ballet even presented as one of the theater streams? It's definitely on DVD. So the company's audience for this ballet has been vast and varied.) I don't understand the felt need for adherence to visual markers of racial "authenticity," especially in an art form that is so very far removed from visual realism in so many ways, and especially in an era when non-white dancers have the opportunity to dance more roles. What happens to "authenticity," then, when a black dancer, say, takes the lead in Giselle or Sleeping Beauty? If that's now okay, then why for the sake of "authenticity" does a white dancer need to be clownishly made up in blackface in order to dance the role of Ramze? Can the audience suspend their disbelief in one direction but not in the other? To my mind, the "authenticity" argument just doesn't really suffice.

I think I’d be significantly more excited to see Catazaro in some of ABT’s rep than in most Balanchine rep.

Why does it have to be either/or? Who’s to say that those making a point about the use of blackface in one particular production of one particular ballet aren't pursuing other avenues of anti-racism advocacy?

Yeah, I've gotta say I'm not a big fan of his general look, as here for instance — superficial a reaction as that may be.

In most of his works, yes, though a handful do have more traditional narratives — e.g. Prodigal Son and La Sonnambula. Apollo strikes me as falling somewhere in between. At least to the extent that Balanchine is responsible for the content of the book published in his and Francis Mason's name (and indeed the book is written from GB's first-person perspective throughout), this is affirmed in Balanchine's Complete Stories of the Great Ballets (pp. 25-26):

I'm not sure who this question was directed to, but my personal answer would be to comment on it in a critically thoughtful manner, as one often does with works in an art form one is invested in.

Oh dear no. That sounds like it’d be almost (unintentionally) comical.

I don't know about the reaction and I haven't seen the film, but I'm not sure it would shed much light on the consideration of the use of blackface by the creators of stage works in the present day. To portray a character choosing to put on blackface, for whatever reason, is a representation of character within the world of the narrative — i.e. it reveals something about the character. To offer a blackface portrayal of a character for the purpose of highlighting racial otherness is a formal decision by the creator of the narrative — i.e. it reveals something about the artist. The two cases aren't easily comparable because they're operating on two different levels of narrative representation: one involving the thing being represented, the other involving the act of representation itself. (It's like the difference between a portrayal of a misogynist character and a misogynist portrayal of a character.)

The argument for Lacotte's use of blackface in Fille, as I understand it, is this: This was perfectly appropriate and even necessary, in the Petipa/19th C. context, to mark the foreignness and exoticism of Ramze, etc. Lacotte's production is inspired by and in many ways adheres to the traditions of its 19th C. precursor, making the blackface, again, appropriate and even necessary. What doesn't make sense about this to me is that, unless you have a racially homogenous group of dancers performing the work, there are going to be racial differences visible among those who portray the non-foreign, non-exotic (i.e. in this case Egyptian — in the case of other ballets, whatever the dominant racial, ethnic or national group may be) characters. Are those racial differences a problem, then? If a black dancer performs Ramze, presumably no blackface makeup would be used? What if a black dancer (or an East Asian dancer, or any other dancer of visibly different racial heritage from the ensemble around her) were to perform Aspicia? Would that be a problem? Why is there such a need for Ramze's difference to be explicitly, visibly indicated through skin color when the other racial differences that may be visible onstage can so easily be overlooked by an audience perfectly comfortable with "suspending disbelief" in an art form that is so heavily dependent on that? I'm not asking why blackface was used in the original 19th C. context. That's a historical question — one that scholars such as @l'histoire would have richly informative answers to. (I haven't ever heard it argued that the blackface tradition should be "air-brushed from history"; choosing not to perpetuate it in present-day stage performances is quite a different thing.) I'm asking why those who argue against the criticisms of Lacotte's use of blackface think that its use is so important as to outweigh the fact that it is controversial and, to some or many, offensive. What's motivating the insistence on holding onto it? (It's a genuine question, by the way — not some veiled accusation of racist intent.)

Oh no! That's really too bad. He was really good.

Not sure if this is what you had in mind, FPF, but whenever I've read about this, it's seemed backwards to me. Wouldn't it make more sense for her soul — her true self — to be her human form, released at last from the swan body in which she has been trapped? Or am I missing something (not having seen the production either live or onscreen)?

Based on postings here on BA, last year the initial fall casting (incomplete, as I recall) came out on August 16.

I don’t think wit and transcendence are necessarily at odds. “Simply the steps,” to me, evoke transcendence — particularly in the (in my opinion superior) ending of the original version.

I have to say I completely agree with his criticisms of Xander’s hand placement (is he stopping traffic? wholly lacking in poetry) and the muse’s hand on her knee. It sounds like he and Xander have a relationship and that the latter is genuinely grateful (not just being polite and brushing him off). As often before, though, I’m struck by how AM views his role as a critic to be one of a directly intervening advice-giver to dancers — not at all the only (or predominating?) way of viewing the enterprise.

I can't imagine Lane would refuse a role out of religious conviction. She strikes me as very much a professional.

While I admire and greatly value the insights of those who have done such work, there are many sources of knowledge, and all knowledge is partial. In other words, I think even one who has not done such work might (depending on other factors) rightly claim some knowledge of 19th-century ballet, and even one who has done such work would be wrong to claim full knowledge of it. My experience of scholarship in a different field, as well as my professional experience as an educator, has been that dialogue between experts and non-experts can quite often be illuminating for both.

These two examples do seem somewhat different to me, though I'm personally not comfortable with either, and I agree they are unfortunate. As for "conspicuous consumption" — when it comes to the 19th-century Imperial Russian ballet and (culturally, geographically, historically) related traditions of spectacle and display, it seems strongly evident to me that "conspicuous consumption" was at least part of what was at work there, on a number of different levels (e.g. within some of the narratives, in some aspects of the manner of production, among some of the spectators, etc.), with the little black boy pages as one good example of that. I certainly don't think Veblen could have been talking only about post-war U.S.A. or the 21st century, given that he published in 1899. And I haven't encountered any persuasive arguments in the published responses to Veblen that his notion of "conspicuous consumption" was wholly irrelevant to what was going on in his time.

I'm genuinely uncertain what you mean. Is it really possible to make such a categorical statement regarding what the entire culture and class structure of two centuries was "about"? If there was no prominent "leisure class" in the 18th and 19th centuries, when was there one? Was there no "conspicuous consumption" to speak of in those two centuries either, as Veblen uses the term? What era do you understand Veblen to have been writing about? Or do you think he was wrong to use those terms (either "leisure class" or "conspicuous consumption") in describing what he perceived in society? Did Veblen's ideas not apply to any significant segment of his contemporary society? I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this.

It's a term that was most prominently used (if not introduced — I'd have to go back and check) by Thorstein Veblen in his 1899 book The Theory of the Leisure Class, so not (at least originally) a modern cliché. (It may have become a cliché since then, though I don't think I'd describe it in that way. It's more like the jargon of cultural criticism — using "jargon" in its neutral sense.) In any case, Veblen was most certainly using it to refer to what he, at least, perceived in the world around him in the 19th century. (I'd say there could be 18th-century applications as well.)

The annual Bayreuth Festival of Wagner operas has begun, and the opening night of each production is being broadcast live (most at 10am EST, along with some rebroadcasts). A list of online streaming sites is available here. I enjoyed listening to parts of today's Lohengrin, which was an overall excellent performance, though with IMO some uneven casting.

She's been discussed as well on the Ballet Now thread but just wanted to say that, watching that, I found her to be so dynamic and with such great energy. I really just wanted to be in the room with her! I'd love to see one of her performances and will definitely watch out for the opportunity.

That's exactly what she said in the recent NYT article when she was asked about the prospect.

That is good news! Was it announced from the stage?

Yes, following the SAB original, they premiered the work for Ballet Society, with Todd Bolender. Though it's not in the active repertoire at NYCB, there is a rep page for the work on their website here.