nanushka

When guesses run contrary to readily available information, when they are based on a misapplication (or overly narrow application) of terminology, and when they involve pathologizing others, I personally think they are best avoided.

This is what the originally linked article said: There was no indication in the article, I believe, nor in any other source, that Johnsey did indeed intend to transition. In any case, "transitioning" can involve a lot of different things — including or not including surgery, hormones, etc. Trans people "transition" all the time without surgery. (And again, so far as all public accounts I've read suggest, Johnsey does not even consider himself to be "trans.") From Wikipedia: There is simply no basis whatsoever, as far as I am aware, for the assumption that Johnsey has "gender dysphoria" or that he intends to undergo surgical genital alteration.

At the performance I attended it did, actually. They got it all onto the rug in time. I was just nervous because I knew how treacherous it could be for the dancers if they didn’t.

Where and when did Johnsey say he plans to "transition," much less to undergo that sort of surgery? And why is assuming that the former includes the latter being "liberal"? As @sandik points out above, "people who identify as transgender" — of whom Johnsey is not one, I would emphasize — "may do all kinds of things as they discover more about themselves, or they may do nothing." I believe you are simply incorrect, both about Johnsey's stated intention to transition and about his "talking about having surgery" of the sort you describe. (What he privately plans to do, or what his private "crises" may be or may have been, we of course do not know.) If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it. (The title of this discussion thread is "Chase Johnsey leaves Trocks for wanting to transition," but I don't believe that was ever a wholly accurate description of what the initially quoted articles actually said.)

Yes! I thought/felt that very same thing!

Actually, I saw just one other comment about the weight loss here before yours, and it was another expression of concern. I didn't see anyone applauding the weight loss. Personally, I don't feel the need to either frown or applaud, as I don't know Johnsey's body, his nutritional needs, his methods for achieving weight loss, etc. I do know that weight loss can be achieved in a healthy manner or in an unhealthy manner, and that weight loss and bulimia/anorexia are not the same things. I also don't think it's the case that someone who is gender fluid is necessarily experiencing any sort of "crisis." The main crisis Johnsey seems to have experienced in recent times was that brought on by the treatment of his former employer. Not knowing him, I would not personally presume to label any of his other experiences in that way.

Just curious, what role did Bell dance in Harlequinade?

There are really only two women in the ENB performance photos whose faces are clearly visible — Red Riding Hood and the White Cat, who look to be women in their 20s. (Both are in the second photo; in the first photo, there's one face only visible from the eyebrows up, at left, and another face, at center rear, that's quite blurry.) Johnsey is 32, and, especially in the second photo, if I thought he was a female dancer and were asked to guess her age, I'd probably say right around there. (There's something odd about the lighting on his face in the first photo, in conjunction with his makeup, that seems unflattering.) If ENB is like other companies I've known, they likely have a number of seasoned corps women who dance well into their 30s.

I saw it the second night and I thought she was wearing in Act 2 the dress in the pic above, but I could be wrong.

Yes, that's too bad about Klein; I was looking forward to seeing him in this. He really stood out in the betrothal scene waltz in Bayadère the other week.

Here's one possible way of thinking about it: Gender identity is composed of many different elements, and many people are familiar primarily (or even only) with those who are gender binary — which means that, once you know the answer to the first basic question (i.e. "Is this person male or female?"), you know or might assume the answers to many other questions (e.g. "Does this person go by male or female pronouns?" "Does this person have biologically male or biologically female genitalia?" "Does this person dress in traditionally male or traditionally female ways?" etc. etc.). For people who are gender fluid, or gender non-binary, it's often the case that each of those subsequent questions needs to be answered separately rather than just assumed from the initial male/female distinction. (And in many cases, those subsequent questions won't have a single, simple answer — it might be both/and or sometimes or partly, rather than either/or.) I think it's quite natural, then, to be confused when one is first becoming familiar with the concept of gender fluidity, since it requires a very different way of thinking about gender from what many are used to. On the specific question of whether Johnsey is on hormones, I haven't seen any information either way. My inclination would be not to assume that he is, unless I were to learn otherwise.

Indeed, and those can also be printed, and empty jewel cases purchased. There are ways of getting to a physical end product from non-physical computer files (for those to whom the tactile is important), when and if those are the only options. But it sounds like for this particular album — at least for those with connections in Hungary! — that's not the case.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's not — that's the tradeoff for having so much music (including older, once-rare recordings) readily available now. It's easy enough to put it onto a CD oneself, though, if one requires a physical copy. (It's all digital anyway, whether one buys it as an object or as a file — though sound quality can vary.) No, it's available for purchase/download as well, at the link I posted.

There is another instrumental track on an album of assorted violin/piano transcriptions, available here on Amazon. (It's also on Sirius.)

Also, it's an eight-week season, which just raises inherent logistical difficulties. They can't really fully prepare all eight (or so — depends on the year) programs in advance, given that, at the start of the season, some are still nearly two months off. And then once the season is underway, it must be crazy trying to manage rehearsals for what's currently on, what's about to be on, and what's a few weeks down the road but particularly challenging for any of a variety of reasons — all while maintaining the quality and energy of nightly performances. Once the season starts, there are no breaks, for either rest or catch-up. I don't mean to excuse ABT from any problems with quality — they claim to be "America's National Ballet Company," after all. But with the Met season they've got a monster on their hands.

So true. Seeing Concerto Barocco this weekend I was reminded of this yet again. Much drama, no story — and, in a certain way, that makes the drama all the more impactful.

Indeed, it is. I would pay to see it a few more times this week, if only I could slip in and out of the auditorium for just those parts I wish to see (with maybe drinks at one of the Bouluds in between?).

I found it odd that the ABT website does not even include a synopsis of the ballet on its "Repertory Archive" page for Harlequinade, though that page was linked as "Explore Harlequinade" from its season page for the piece. (There isn't really much to "explore," once one clicks on the link.) I understand it's a new work for the company, but presumably such a synopsis could have been written and posted a good deal in advance, given that it's a reconstruction. There was of course a synopsis in the program, and I didn't personally have any trouble following the mime or the plot more generally (sitting in side orchestra), but still it seemed odd. (Not atypical for ABT — just odd.)

Neither has been a particular favorite of mine, but I can really imagine loving them in this (especially having seen ABT's promo video). Unfortunately, I got tickets for two other casts and not theirs...because neither has been a particular favorite of mine! Hallberg's Pierrot was one of the highlights of the evening for me. I liked the humorous subtextual interplay (even if unintentional) of performer and role—the character's amplification of qualities in Hallberg that sometimes fall just shy of turning me off. This is commedia dell'arte, after all. But I think I know what you mean. Yes, please! I agree about the score—I liked it quite a lot, though at least on first hearing I wouldn't say it struck me as being quite up there in the topmost tier. I would love to listen more, though, and am surprised it hasn't been recorded (even in substantial excerpts?), given that the ballet has been performed in a variety of (albeit altered and often incomplete) forms over the past century. As for the original context of the work's creation, unfortunately the fact that the work was such a hit with the courtiers of 1900 doesn't make it any more appealing to me as a work of dance theatre. À chacun son goût, right? I don't know why it should be assumed that those whose tastes differ aren't seeing or thinking for themselves. Perhaps they are just seeing and thinking differently? I'm a bit baffled by this statement. Are you suggesting that if the use of children's ensembles seems excessive in a dance work it can't be the fault of the choreographer but must necessarily be the fault of the dancers (and their preparers)? That's what your "only" seems to me to imply. Our expectations are certainly one factor that can determine what satisfies us, but I personally wouldn't assume that those who were dissatisfied simply went in with the wrong expectations. It's quite possible for one to be open to being satisfied by something unexpected and yet to then find that the particular unexpected thing one is given is, in fact, unsatisfying. Personally, I found many of the mime passages and the few technical set pieces (especially the magnificent lark pas) to be the two most satisfying aspects of the evening. (For instance, I loved the juxtaposition of the two suitors' serenades to Columbine. Léandre's in particular had me laughing.) It was all the other stuff (specifically the, for the most part, quite uninspired ensemble choreography, for both adults and children) that didn't appeal to me — and that was a pretty big chunk of the evening.

Of course. Which is basically to say, if you’re going to “reconstruct the ballet,” you have to reconstruct the structure of the ballet. I’m not suggesting it wasn’t Petipa. I just question whether this particular ballet was worth reconstructing in full. I’d love to have a Ratmansky-esque thoughtful reconstruction of excerpts in a theatrically effective one-act form.

Yes, I think four separate pieces of music with different sets of characters, plus another ensemble piece to close it off. Too much. Again, this seems very different to me. Each of those is distinct in character and steps from anything we've seen before. Some are a bit tiresome, it's true. But not all are tiresome in the same way. I just don't think one can compare Harlequinade with Nutcracker and Sleeping Beauty as top-notch Petipa works. I think I get what you're trying to say, but as a theatrical experience — no, I disagree.

I completely agree. I was delighted by the children's corps in his Coppélia when I saw it for the first time this season. And I never think that about children in ballet!

The Prince's mime takes all of 60 seconds.

Important because the "story" is so compelling the first time that we need to see it all again? Count me among the dissenters. I have been a defender of Ratmansky in the past. I loved The Tempest. I didn't mind Firebird. I see real value in the Sleeping Beauty reconstruction. But I couldn't agree more with Brian Siebert's review of the ballet in the Times (and I don't think I've ever said that about a Siebert review before). Turn this into a one-act, please!

I wasn't sure exactly what the standard number was for these, but in the Scala video of the Makarova version Isabelle Brusson does 6 and 10, respectively.