nanushka

14 minutes ago, nanushka said:

I think 37 or 38. (Wikipedia cites birth year of 1983 or 84, but I think 84 or 85 actually.)

 

 

Actually nope, looks like 36 was correct. Article from September 2020 giving age as 34 is the one linked on his Wiki page. (Always check the sourcing!)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/arts/dance/american-ballet-theater-promotions-pandemic.html

I think 37 or 38. (Wikipedia cites birth year of 1983 or 84, but I think 84 or 85 actually.)

Forster also has only one — though the day before one of Stearns'. But Forster, Royal and Camargo should certainly be able to cover Stearns' two, unless they want to prepare Ahn for other reasons.

Interestingly, Gia Kourlas seems wholly unbothered by the sexual politics of the work ("a meditation on love, loss and forgiveness") in her very positive Times review:

Quote

But in Ratmansky's adventure, rage isn't what triumphs. Forgiveness and redemption do. And love.

11 minutes ago, canbelto said:

But my point is Duo Concertant isn't a "new" ballet to NYC audiences. As of this year, it's 50 years old and is performed (maybe overperformed?) at NYCB. ABT audiences were acting like this was totally new and avante-garde.

Even Ashton's Cinderella and Fille mal gardee don't sell well. 

Yup, got that. My own point was that the venue probably didn't help, and that some of the characteristic elements of Duo — e.g. the dancers standing around listening to the music, and the odd (IMO overly precious) ending of the piece — probably made it seem especially unusual to those in the audience who come to ABT for the narrative classics. Assuming there wasn't any widespread polling happening, I think that probably explains what you heard or overheard. Those who love ABT for the classics aren't going to NYCB to see mixed programs (so they don't know anything about how often Duo is programmed there), and they likely aren't checking dates in the program either. They're just reacting to what they see onstage.

There's no single "ABT audience." To fill a house of 4,000 (or even come acceptably close) requires drawing in a number of different audience constituencies. There are plenty of people who attend ABT who are excited to see Theme and Variations or Cinderella; probably significantly fewer who are excited to see Duo; and, so it seems, even fewer who want to see this new thing called Of Love and Rage.

Duo Concertant also just doesn't work well at all on the Met stage. (And it's kind of a weird piece.) I imagine Theme and Variations is quite acceptable to many in the ABT audience, as far as non-story ballets goes. If only it were on a program that really made sense.

I’m quite torn between Shevy/Bell and Brandt/Cornejo T&Vs. Can’t really get justify both, given that I’d only plan to see that one piece.

I haven't seen either of the mixed bills mentioned (ABT's or NYCB's), so I have no idea whether there's a connection. But like many arts institutions, the Kennedy Center announced in the summer of 2020 a number of "social impact initiatives," currently featured here on its website. It's reasonable to assume that these have resulted in some changes to programming. Some people will find those changes to be welcome, while others won't.

An article in the Times gives at least a partial explanation:

Quote

A Ballet Theater spokeswoman said Abrera was hired for a one-year acting position because of the changeover in Ballet Theater’s artistic directors — from Kevin McKenzie, who offered Abrera the position, to Susan Jaffe, who will take over at the end of this year. (The company has also recently appointed a new chief executive, Janet Rollé.)

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

Quote

A judge dismissed Ms. Waterbury’s claims against City Ballet in 2020, but in April, an appellate court restored the company as a defendant. Mr. Finlay, who has countersued Ms. Waterbury, remains a defendant in the case. A spokesman for City Ballet, Rob Daniels, said in a statement that the company is requesting an appeal of the decision.

“As the Company has stated from the beginning, while we found the men’s behavior reprehensible and took disciplinary action, N.Y.C.B. bears no legal responsibility for the dancers’ personal actions,” he said.

22 minutes ago, FayBallet said:

Taking the word "change" from the sentence makes it take on a completely different meaning.

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:

Quote

“Ballet is a very intellectual art form and people don’t know it,” she said. “And when you don’t know much about it, it’s hard to understand, and I think that’s why it’s not as easily embraced as, for example, music. It takes a while for the eye to understand it because there’s so much going on. But if you have a little insight, you can do that much more quickly.”

 

What’s interesting here is that Jaffe is looking at the larger systemic issue. It’s not enough to drum up excitement for a specific show. The bigger challenge is to groom potential audiences long term, and teach the public to appreciate and even crave the art form.

 

Is this a woman’s way of addressing a problem? It’s tempting to say so. Maybe it’s also smart thinking. Jaffe didn’t speak of ticket sales, programming or commissions. She talked about getting back to basics. Laying the groundwork for growth by building a knowledge base.

 

“I would like to do digital programs, maybe 15 to 20 minutes on the website. Like Cliffs Notes,” Jaffe continued. “To present the history, the lineage, the larger themes, and here’s what to look for in the ballet. I’d do this with the contemporary works, too. You could do so much: The lineage of teachers and choreographers. How one dancer passes it on to the next.

“Then you start to understand the lineage, and then you can see it in the movements and it starts to make more sense.”

Also, a repertory overhaul:

Quote

As for ABT’s backbone — its long-held treasury of classic, full-length story ballets, many that date to the 19th century — Jaffe said she aims to shelve, temporarily, those that contain offensive stereotyping or run counter to contemporary sensibilities.

“I will definitely do this with a team, not on my own,” she said. The ballets she has in mind include “Le Corsaire,” which centers on a Greek woman sold into slavery and a pirate hero who is himself an enslaver, and “La Bayadère,” which is set in a fictionalized India among temple dancers and a morally questionable high priest. Some of the characters and religious depictions have drawn criticism from the Hindu community and others who see it as insensitive. Jaffe plans to make changes, possibly adjusting storylines and details, after undertaking research, discussions and surveys, “so that we’re really hearing from audience members.”

“The last thing we want to do is just ignore the issues and say we don’t care. We do care. And we want to be mindful about what we do.”

3 minutes ago, DPell said:

Patrick Frenette is debuting Benno this season. I'm glad he's getting roles like this following his Hilarion in the fall. https://www.instagram.com/tv/CdEj984pfno/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link 

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…???

22 minutes ago, Helene said:

This discussion reminds me of the number of times I sat on one of the level benches reading while waiting out "Ives Songs."  I love a lot of Ives' Songs, but I found that ballet beyond dreary.

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.

48 minutes ago, jerryb said:

I couldn't agree with you more.  The  programming can be really bad.  For starters on 9/25/21 I attended a program consisting of: Opus 19/The Dreamer, AMaria and Russian Seasons.  I'm not commenting on the quality of the works but it was a very dreary program and a real downer.  I longed for a rousing Balanchine closer after months of the pandemic.

...

Then to give credit where it is due:

The next was 4/23/22 Divertimento No. 15, Afternoon of a Faun, Allegro Brillante and The Four Temperaments.  All beautifully danced.

...

No Midsummer in 2023 is ridiculous.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

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.)

8 hours ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

ETA: Here's a list of the ballets programmed this spring. I have a few quibbles*, but overall, it looks pretty strong to me.

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.

7 minutes ago, Helene said:

But was Whelan even management when she confided in Whelan, if it was driven by Martins' decision to retire?

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

Quote

Ms. McKenna wrote that Ms. Lillo had also declined some opportunities and then had gone on leave.

“In connection with that decision, she confided in Ms. Whelan that she no longer loved dancing but rather loved ‘the law,’” Ms. McKenna wrote.

49 minutes ago, dirac said:

I just don't think she's a "diva" for feeling that her bro and his intended could have picked another day back in the day.

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

2 hours ago, dirac said:

Also most reasonable bosses understand that their employees do not necessarily seek self-actualization through wage labor and ask only that they focus on their work during those hours they are being paid to do so.

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."

2 hours ago, dirac said:

There's a lot we don't know about this situation, but the sibling tensions seem to have been of long standing and fairly intense and announcing an engagement on a sibling's birthday would be a  decision to discuss even in more harmonious circumstances. It's not as if there weren't 364 other days out of the calendar to choose from. ("Gee, this might annoy Abi. Okay, we think she's being unreasonable, but let's not go out of our way to stir the pot......") 

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.

Quote

Mr. Stafford took over, first as interim leader and then as artistic director, with Wendy Whelan as associate artistic director. In an effort to avoid conflicts, Ms. Whelan was given oversight of the casting and employment of Ms. Lillo and Ms. Pollack. But Ms. Lillo came to blame her brother for what she saw as fewer opportunities.

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.

15 minutes ago, volcanohunter said:

Ratmansky didn't write "you were struggling," he wrote "the men were struggling." I also would have interpreted that as a reference to weight.

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.

2 hours ago, Balletwannabe said:

Still unclear to me why that comment would taken as body shaming.  I assumed it was about technique in partnering. 

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).

On 5/3/2022 at 1:57 PM, Helene said:

Dancers do a lot with their core and their plie into a jump to help their partners.  A very light weightwise partner might help not at all, turning into dead weight, and expecting the partner to do all of the work. The timing and co-ordination is also critical.

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.