nanushka

The relevant portion, for those who don't have access:

Indeed, rather less sinister sounding! Calling someone a "change agent" is usually a positive thing, in my experience (though I haven't read the sentence in context).

Yikes, and apparently on all tickets for all performances? Not good.

This is Ballet Alert as it was meant to be!

A new article in the Washington Post outlines some of Jaffe's plans for ABT. First, audience education: Also, a repertory overhaul:

That’s great! I’m glad to see that too. He’s shown real promise in recent years.

I completely agree about Scordato. He was always good to see.

Seriously, Sonnambula as a closer is a major head scratcher! I forgot about that. Like, great to have it back after awhile, but…???

Oh dear, I just looked at the NYCB rep page. 41m of choreography to Ives songs? (And I’m guessing not top drawer Robbins.) I’d definitely need to sit that out pretty often too.

Good point about the lack of a good closer in that program — I've also found that the new team doesn't seem to have as good a sense (or perhaps just has a very different sense) of the three-act structure and how to use it most effectively. The program you mention from 4/23 was a highlight for me too. Allegro Brillante was originally Tombeau de Couperin, which would have been not quite as exciting. I do hope that some of the problems are pandemic related and will pass — but next year's programming caused those hopes to sink a bit. Ridiculous seems like an overstatement. It hasn't generally been an every-year thing, at least not that I can recall from recent (but prepandemic) years. Probably at least every other, and maybe sometimes consecutive years, but not every year. (Disclaimer: I've never liked the ballet. I love most Balanchine and many story ballets; but that one is just not one I've ever loved, except for certain parts.)

The main problem I've had with programming under the new administration isn't well captured by the list of works, because it's more about the combinations. Quite frequently, I've found that numerous programs have one or (occasionally) two works I'm really excited to see but are much less appealing as full programs. This is the case with much of next year's calendar too. And in the past year (somewhat understandably, due to COVID), it's been exacerbated by the return, in consecutive seasons, of ballets I'm unenthusiastic about (or ones I don't feel a strong desire to see more than occasionally). I don't necessarily blame the administration for what may be just a bad fit with the idiosyncrasies of my tastes — e.g. I love Balanchine, generally, but there are certain of his pieces that just do not do it for me — but it's been annoying and disappointing, as I find myself getting excited for far fewer programs overall.

Whelan was management when Stafford went on leave, which is when she made the comment to Whelan (assuming that's the confidence you meant).

Agreed. And I didn't see her perform a lot, but certainly "diva" was never how she came across to me onstage either.

Somehow I doubt this very understanding perspective is that of most ADs at top-tier companies when addressing the principal dancers on their rosters. She apparently said she "no longer loved dancing." That's certainly understandable — but it's going to have an impact on a dancer's career when that's the case. It's very difficult to have a successful career if you view dancing as "wage labor." I think it's less about the original feeling and more about the decision to tell a reporter, nearly a decade later, that she was "offended" by this, offering it as a basis for (part of) why she feels she's been mistreated by her brother — who was not even the one with oversight of her casting and employment. Ok — well, why? If he didn't have oversight, what's the case that's being made? (It can't just be feelings.) When a new administration comes in, casting priorities often change. That can be terrible for those dancers who fall out of favor — but do NYCB principal contracts promise a baseline number of performances or roles? I'm sure all this caused her "intense emotional distress" — just not $200,000 worth, from the company's pockets.

I don't necessarily doubt that Stafford genuinely interpreted it that way. But if she didn't have the strength to make the lifts work optimally, the lifters would be struggling to make the lifts look effortless. So "the men are struggling" is still completely compatible with the overall message she had been given about strength.

Yeah, that's not at all clear to me either. According to the article: Whelan first reported to Stafford Ratmansky's decision, "telling her that Mr. Ratmansky did not think she was 'strong enough' or ready for the first night." Stafford reached out to Whelan and Ratmansky, and Ratmansky was apologetic: "I am very sorry it hurt you. I feel bad about it. I am also sorry I didn't manage to talk to you. But please understand. There is a lot of partnering in the piece and it should look effortless. The men are struggling." Stafford, despite having been told that strength was the problem, interpreted that message as being "about how my body looked and not about how strong I was." Ratmansky's text says nothing at all about "how [Stafford's] body looked" (if it’s about weight at all, it’s about the impact of weight on the mechanics of partnering) and is 100% interpretable as being about strength and technique. The strength of the female dancer is a crucial component in making partnering look successfully effortless — probably more so than the relatively small amounts that dancers' weights tend to fluctuate, even when they're relatively out of shape (which is not to suggest that Stafford was). There's just nothing in the article that suggests to me this was "body shaming." (I don't read it as having clearly been a comment about weight at all — but is every comment about weight by definition body shaming?) Stafford accuses NYCB of "changing the narrative" because she's "now saying it's body shaming." But the narrative did not change. She was told from the start that strength was the problem, and that's what they continue to assert. One of the article's authors is Zachary Small, who seems to be an accomplished writer and whose metier is "the dynamics of power and privilege in the art world." I assume that, if there were stronger evidence that Ratmansky had body shamed Stafford, Small would have presented it in the article. For me, the biggest takeaway is that Stafford is claiming that all this caused such intense emotional distress that her former employer should pay her $200,000, and she's using an article in the Times to push that claim.

According to a tweet by one of the authors, this is "the family struggle prickling the NYC dance world."

At the end of the article is the following note: My guess would be that Small got wind of the story and followed up with Stafford, who was eager to talk. Based on the content of the article (e.g. anecdotes about her resentments at age 6 and at her 31st birthday), I would bet that they talked at quite some length. Out of that emerged the potential for a story with "dancer" in the title and "body-shamed" in the subtitle. I wouldn't call it "click bait" exactly — I imagine Small may be quite earnest in their desire to explore those dynamics of power and privilege — but the upshot is that the story serves very much that function.

Yup, and I'm fairly certain that if reviews got comparable clicks, they'd do more reviews. It's unfortunate — I'd love to see more, too — but that's just the business model they have now. I'm not sure what currently viable alternative might replace that. (Hiring better critics/writers might do a little, but probably not much.)

I agree with many of your points, @JuliaJ. I too was especially struck by the "really disturbing or upsetting" claim, and by the additional $200,000 ask. Even as a non-dancer, I'm well aware that a female dancer's strength and technique are crucial to making partnering happen successfully. It's not all about a man lifting a woman's inert body, however light or heavy that body may be. Knowing that, I don't see why Ratmansky's message ("There is a lot of partnering in the piece and it should look effortless. The men were struggling.") should be read as "body shaming." It was a (presumably) factual statement about the challenges other dancers were having in partnering her.

There's a very interesting article in the Times about Abi Stafford Lillo's departure from NYCB. I'm perhaps biased from seeing her mostly in the final years of her career, in a string of performances that were quite underwhelming, but I don't think she comes off too well in the article overall.

I had planned to skip the mixed program but I would seriously consider getting tickets just to see T&V with them.

Not long now.

Interesting, I hadn't known that. According to the Times review, it was a significant performance for a number of reasons:

Looking over the next year's programming as a whole, my initial reaction is the same as for this year: lots of individual works I want to see, but rather few programs that I'm very excited about. This makes me concerned about the new leadership — maybe they just don't program in a way that suits my tastes.