nanushka

I took your quotation marks ("reconstructing") to suggest that, in Ratmansky's case, the work of reconstruction was not actually being done — or perhaps could not, since it had been done already. Apologies if I misunderstood. The reason I phrased my initial response as a question was to determine if that's what you meant.

Because a reconstruction is a definitive act that cannot be redone, differently and perhaps better, by another? There are people who don't go around doing lots of things, but that doesn't necessarily mean that others shouldn't do those things. A reconstruction is based on research, which, even if exhaustive, still ultimately involves working with imperfect or incomplete sources. It is therefore an interpretive act and no one reconstruction of a ballet could be considered, in my opinion, final.

Yes, same here, exactly.

I have to say that one seems more excusable to me, at least somewhat. The other one was clearly an ensemble image, whereas here the Firebird herself is much more the focus of the image (in composition, color, etc. — not to mention being the title role). Still, it does certainly fit a broader pattern that seems to me to be problematic. Edited to add: That's not to say I disagree with the point abatt seems to be making — just that my first reaction to the more recent caption would not have been "Whaaa???" as it was to the earlier one.

That's exactly the right word, and I've never heard it used to describe an arabesque, but I love it. Thanks for your review, eduardo.

On the topic of Wilfred:

I wonder why Copeland danced with Whiteside, not Cornejo.

[posted before reading to the end of the thread]

He posted an IG story this morning apparently from an ABT rehearsal studio.

Hmm. The interviewer's comments at the very end suggest the interview was done before Hallberg's RB appearance/injury, so perhaps the car episode was in fact unrelated. But the interviewer also says Hallberg is looking forward to dancing at the Met this week. Unclear when the studio rehearsal footage was taken.

"it" = the caption and "the camel's back" = what? (Frustration at Copeland getting recognition while other dancers don't? Wouldn't that still be a criticism of the NYT, since they're the ones doing it?) Sorry, maybe I'm being obtuse. I'm still just not clear what broader question you're raising or what hypothesis you're suggesting (or even which of the two of those you're doing). I don't know of other examples of Copeland getting sole photo or text credit in images or descriptions of performances that also involve other dancers equal in company status (assuming they're not in contexts where the coverage focus is primarily or exclusively on her — and in this case she's not even mentioned in the article, I believe). And this was in the Arts section of the NYT, I believe, so I wouldn't really say they're unversed in dance coverage.

I think the purpose of using the tag @nytimes was quite likely to link his criticism directly to the paper. At least, that's the message that comes across pretty clearly to me. Again, it's a NYT caption that he says he's "unimpressed with." I'm not clear on how else that could be interpreted.

Whiteside's comment, you mean? It definitely doesn't seem critical of Misty. I'm not sure how "unimpressed with this @nytimes caption" could be read as not critical of the paper (given that someone at the paper presumably wrote the caption and the paper itself published it). I don't know what you mean by "or just the slight."

Yes, same. Dark blue. Collarless. (Gosh darn, you're good!) The second video, traveling south on Columbus Ave, appears to have been taken this evening around 7:30.

Yes, that was my understanding as well. (Though I do seem to recall reading that Acts I-II are even more orthodox than Act III.) I guess I should have clarified that I've only seen the more traditional Coppélia twice — unless you include the one time I saw it with Cleveland Ballet (now no longer in existence) at age approx. 11. So I didn't have a terribly good conception of Franz's part in any of its specific forms.

That's good to hear. I've never seen the Balanchine Coppélia, only seen video clips. I'm seeing Sterling and him as well.

Oh wow. I'm surprised. I would have put him as older, given what I've seen the past few years. (I never saw him live in his prime, have only seen him on video from then.)

In his prime, he danced brilliantly, yes. But in recent years I agree, there have been some quite underwhelming performances. Whether he was dancing his best possible at the time or phoning it in, I personally couldn't say.

Hallberg has two video stories up on IG: one in which he's riding in the back of the car, captioned "morning prayer" (this morning, after miliosr saw him?), and the other looking out a car window driving by the Met, captioned "hello old friend." The signs are promising!

A great job in Boston or a not bad job (with lifetime contract) in Paris? I know which I'd pick. (Of course, I'm not a dancer.)

Yes, still public-facing. Just temporary.

Yes, the enigma of his response ("Hallberg shot him a wry look before the car sped away") just adds to the intrigue!

Wow! Amazing eyewitness reportage, miliosr!

Don't McKenzie's own comments in the NYT article suggest that he may agree with you, at least in theory? If the focus is a "gimmick," it's apparently only one that was devised partly in retrospect, after some plans for the programming had already been developed.

There's another reason it should have said that: because doing so would have meant respectfully using the company's official name, rather than misspelling it for the sake of ridiculously strict adherence to house style. That is of course a separate issue, though. In putting it out as an IG story rather than as a standard IG post, he at least shields himself from some of the potentially negative consequences (e.g. easy reposting, an exploding comments section, etc.) of speaking out. IG stories are ephemeral — at least to the extent that anything posted online can be. (It has of course been rendered more permanent by being reproduced here, and perhaps in other places.)