Moonlily

I agree with his point, however I think a comparison between actual performances would have been more appropriate than using a clip that was likely done "for fun". Though maybe his intention was merely having a visual example of any kind and not passing judgment.

Quite lovely post by Gillian Murphy

https://twitter.com/gillianemurphy/status/616306134828347392

CinderStella

There is a difference between saying, "I do not believe X was lying, because there's no evidence that X spoke with intention to deceive," and saying, "I believe X was not lying, because there's no evidence that X spoke with intention to deceive." I wonder if this difference is at the root of some of the debate between Helene and kfw in this discussion thread. Helene, which of those would you say best articulates your mindset in relation to Copeland and to Hallberg?

I do not intend to discuss the discussion for long, but I wanted to add that part of the issue is also that users in this discussion have to handle different sorts of replies and claims all at once. Just now I noticed how I first explained why some might take more issue with Misty's "lying" rather than David Hallberg's "lying" because that was the topic at that moment - even though I do not believe in them lying either, in the heat of the moment I just forgot to mention that in my post. After that it got all focused on the "lying" and I failed to take a step back and clarify that it's all just in case someone assumes both are lying which isn't necessarily true. It's a very entangled matter.

I don't read Moonlily's statement as an assertion that's it's okay for Hallberg to lie. I read it as a proposed explanation for why some people are more willing to make excuses for Hallberg than for Copeland.

Yes, thank you, this is what I meant.

I agree with your second statement as well; and I wasn't even expressing my own views on this matter exactly, but wanted to offer an explanation as you said. Some might also be more inclined to make excuses for the fame part as long as it is not connected to ranks and promotions. In Misty's case, many issues are intertwined while for other dancers who share some points of criticism, it's more clear-cut it seems.

It is not okay. But one accusation less. Misty: Lying AND possibly earning her rank by it (again, just a fear that some express; it might play a role, not be the sole reason). David Hallberg: Lying.

Why do you assume I think it is okay to lie as long as you "earn your rank"? Also very interesting.

Hallberg did not earn his rank as principal dancer because of his claim while it is feared that Misty's claim might play a role when she gets promoted - not being the sole reason however. Criticism is aimed at Misty on various levels, not just one and mostly parallels to other dancers can only be found on one of several levels. Some regarding Hallberg, some regarding Hee Seo and Isabella Boylston etc.

On the DVD of the Royal Ballet featuring Federico Bonelli and Lauren Cuthbertson in the title roles, you can also see the lifts being done without the arm support, at around 5:50 of this clip.

Not sure now if it's the same lift we're talking about, but at the 6:15 mark of the clip posted by nysusan, not both arms are lifted skywards but maybe Amour didn't mean really upright towards the sky anyway.

Gillian Murphy posted an interesting message on her Instagram account:

Class act, but she must be wondering when she'll get her Giselle at ABT!

Daniil Simkin yesterday posted this photo of Gillian Murphy as a crying Myrtha after Julie Kent's last Giselle on his Instagram.

https://instagram.com/p/3Mq6IeBa1I/?taken-by=daniil

Now THAT is some good news.

More opinions stated as fact. I, unlike some people in this thread, have also seen Copeland live. Not a YouTube clip or music video. But LIVE. And thought she had a nice body and good port de bras and was graceful. Technically not strong though. Not my favorite dancer but she's hardly any worse than principal dancers like Boylston or Seo. The former who is completely ungraceful and has terrible port de bras with scraggly fingers, and the latter who more often than not is technically deficient and seems to have stamina issues at times. They have their failings, yet don't get criticized as much as Misty.

They get criticized for their dancing and their promotion is also met with criticism of McKenzie. Misty gets criticized for a combination of her dancing and something else. So it's pretty clear to me why Misty gets some criticism that the others don't get.

I think it's worth noting that most of Misty's claims are related to the beginning of her career with ABT. Here, she talks about being overlooked as a young dancer in the corps:

"Certain people, they’d come in and cast ballets and wouldn’t even give me the time of day or the chance to see if I was talented enough to portray certain roles. They think the corps de ballet should be [racially] uniform and that’s the thing."

Full link - http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/03/misty-copeland-on-ballet-race-and-her-new-book.html

She seems very content with her current position in the company.

I did not say she is claiming she is.

even if her claims were speaking of a different place and time

However I think it can be unrightfully perceived as if she's insinuating she did not have technical struggles as an obstacle by shifting the focus to racism. And on the other hand, perceiving it as if her status as soloist, not principal, could very well be due to racism as well.

It's not what Misty is doing explicitly, but what people do with it. And I am unsure about whether Misty is aware of it. I think it is very much possible.

Sorry for any misunderstandings as English is not my first language.

In Misty's case, I think there's also the issue of two different matters being perceived as somewhat related, even though they might not be and this is not even intended. Though I believe that at least Misty should be aware of the possibility of it happening.

1) A lot of people seem to think she doesn't meet the demands for dancing prinicpal roles in classical pieces, technically speaking. According to what they themselves have witnessed regarding her dancing.

2) Misty claims she has been denied opportunities due to racism.

-> Rightfully so or not rightfully so, to some it may seem like she's ignoring "real" reasons for not being cast in certain roles and instead assuming there's racism, even if her claims were speaking of a different place and time. I think it would at least partly be perceived differently if people had a different view of her dancing. Doesn't mean that her claims are untrue, just that it's an unfortunate combination.

I was just wondering because in my personal experience, I don't encounter this idea of role models who have the same skin colour, and therefore it was striking me as strange that it is such a big topic elsewhere, and in internet debates as well. That's how I found out about that issue in the first place, even though I myself am part of a darker skinned community as well as part of the "ballet community". Or is it such a subconscious issue that one isn't really aware of it when it happens?

It is true that dance is a visual medium and colour is a visual aspect as well, so I see the connection. Yet the paramount importance of it over everything else is still striking to me. Just because someone has the same skin colour as me, it doesn't mean there is much similarity otherwise. For example, I rather stick to a role model who is an amazing artist on stage despite being rather shy and an introvert because I am like that myself, or anything like that. These are matters where I personally feel a deeper connection than through skin colour. It would be wonderful if there were so many dark skinned ballerinas that you'd naturally also find a person who has more similarities to you than your skin colour of course, but in my eyes, it simply isn't such a strong aspect and there can be other things that are more important when it comes to choosing a role model.

I can imagine it can be very encouraging in a situation in which I encounter racism or discouragement because of my skin colour. Like a teacher telling me I am not suitable for a certain role or to become a ballet dancer even, just because I am dark. In such a case I can look up to a role model. Seeing how she proved everyone wrong, how she made it, how the statements of my teacher simply aren't true. But is this really very common? I don't know, and I hope it isn't. But if it is, then yes, I can understand the importance of role models. But not so much when it simply comes to the "normal" circumstances of ballet.

As I am also from a minority, but can't identify with the idea of having a "role model" that has the same physique and/or skin colour as myself, I wonder: Is colour really always the main aspect that draws young girls to a certain person as a role model? Is it necessary that I see someone looking like myself on a stage? It surely is something that stands out and something you can identify immediately, sure, I get that. But usually there is more information circulating and which is available to people if you have a slight interest in ballet and ballet dancers.

For example: Being from a rural area with fewer training facilities, I can look up to a role model who's from the same region and made it despite the relative hardships, as opposed to someone who's from a big city and has lots of excellent schools to choose from right from the beginning. Or economically weak families in general. Or orphans. Or whatever else. There are so many different aspects in a person that can truly inspire me. But it seems like the only thing that it all comes down to in internet discussions is colour. And everything else seems to disappear.

Is it really because colour is immediately visible right at first sight? Is it because colour is just so much more important to many people when it comes to choosing a role model than it is to me?

I get that maybe I can assume there are racist structures behind something if there aren't any dancers of colour and therefore I feel discouraged to try it in that certain field. But that in my eyes is something different from just having role models available.

The official trailer has been posted to the distributor's channel on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9AEZkXnjwY

(I'm always a bit insecure about posting links on here, whether it's appropriate in the thread or not, so please remove if not allowed.)

There are some snippets from the work on stage which look really exciting in my opinion. I have no idea however how it would all come together on screen, with those "other scenes".

Some of the problems with casting when it comes to Herman Cornejo could be solved if shorter soloists like Sarah Lane were prepared to dance the respective role as well. Or not limit the role to taller ballerinas, add more variety to the cast.

Mid-week matinees are tricky to sell in general, since so many people work and NYC isn't the scary place of the '70's and '80's when especially eldetly women were afraid to travel at night. I would think it's the slot that generally appeals or isn't possible, and that while casting may entice a few to take a precious vacation day, I think on the whole, the slot would be cast-agnostic.

But didn't the matinee sell better than the evening performance still? Maybe it was a convenient day on that particular date or the casting sounded so good that people were particularly eager to see that one.

Audiences were a little surprising. It seemed almost sold out at the opening Tuesday night. The Wednesday matinee was pretty healthy, perhaps 80-85%. But Wednesday night was the least attended, maybe 70-75%. No crush to get in. Short lines at the ladies' rooms. The missing ingredient Wednesday night was Osipova, of course. (Reyes was Medora.) So if management was looking for confirmation that she's the one who sells tickets (not Vasiliev, Simkin, or Cornejo), they got it.

I'm not sure if the multiple casting of Cornejo, Vasiliev and Simkin would clearly prove that. Surely she does sell tickets, but maybe the fact that there was the opportunity to see these three on various dates (inlcuding the Wed matinee which had no Osipova according to the ABT performance calendar and still was well attended) also played a role in this. There was no urge to buy tickets for one special performance to see either of these dancers and it would seem natural that in such a case, people choose to buy tickets for performances with dancers they find exciting in the rest of the cast. Of course I don't really know how many people go to multiple performances or rather choose one performance per ballet, so it's all just guesses.

Thank you for the link. I had just started going through some of his works some days ago.

May he rest in peace.

It isn't a role I would imagine him in (having Gomes imprinted in my mind), but neither is Siegfried to be honest. However, I thought von Rothbart could be a possibility after seeing that Stearns would be cast as Siegfried both these evenings. Unless there will be changes of course which is still possible too.

With this information that Vasiliev is scheduled for dates when other dancers are listed as the leads, is it possible that he simply won't dance the lead, but another role, like von Rothbart? Or does the Ardani site only list lead appearances? In any case, I am still excited to see who will get that Swan Lake matinee.

And abatt, true, it indeed seems like Herman was talking about Misty when he mentioned the injured partner. At least I haven't heard of anyone else being injured and thus unable to dance during the City Center season. And Misty had been given a prominent role in Ratmansky's works before.

I see the whole issue as being problematic too, for the reasons that miliosr has so aptly put together. The second point of his list makes the first one more severe in my opinion. At least I can imagine someone like Herman Cornejo in roles that he hasn't had the opportunity to dance yet at ABT (but will in the near future, see his Siegfried next MET season) while at the same time, I have difficulty to do so in the case of Daniil Simkin, even though he has done the roles in reality.

Thank you for the notice. I especially appreciate the establishing of a selection of videos there.

Moonlily:

I don't believe that this is what people here are trying to say.

What it seems like is that the ideals of masculinity and partnering being presented here are being so truncated that dancers like Nureyev, Baryshnikov, and Ib Andersen would no longer make the grade. Again, you dance with your whole self and you don't have to work harder. If you're authentic, no one cares about your delivery. Look at the huge appeal of Nureyev in a less enlightened time than ours. (Or was it?)

Good actors throw themselves so completely into their work, doing all sorts bits of fine tuning as they go along, that this self-consciousness of am I straight acting enough isn't even a tiny consideration. The act of performing onstage is itself the erotic thing.

Anyway, it seems implied here that for a gay male dancer to dance with female partner is no fun and rather like having to brace up and each one's spinach.

Most of what you say is what I was trying to put across as well. For someone like Marcelo Gomes, it is not hard work to do all of that, but it seems to be for a lot of other dancers, straight or gay. And the way I understood, that was the underlying point of many other posters here as well. Often we see otherwise okay or good actors/dancers be not so convincing in roles that portray a character with a different sexual orientation from their own. For those who are great however, these things don't matter and they can act the part with a partner of any gender effortlessly.

And when it comes to comparisons with Nureyev, it is also a matter of personal taste, perception etc.

Quiggin, I don't believe that this is what people here are trying to say. Presumably, and from imagining oneself in a similar position and seeing different dancers or actors, it appears that acting like you are attracted to a person of a gender you are generally not attracted to (whether it is a straight person acting the part of a homosexual lover or a homosexual person acting the part of a straight lover) is more difficult. And that Marcelo Gomes succeeds to be convincing is evidence for him being a great actor for whom such things as gender of the partner don't matter in the moment of acting. It doesn't mean that just because he is gay, he will have to work harder as a general idea. The situation in ballet however is that most relationships in the repertoire he's dancing are between straight couples and if it was hard work to be convincing in a relationship with a partner of the opposite gender you're personally attracted to, that would be a result of that. But then the issue would be with the repertoire of classical ballet and not with people who give their opinion within the given circumstances (i.e. most ballets require this kind of acting). And the way I see Marcelo Gomes, it isn't really 'hard work' for him to be convincing, i.e. he appears so effortless, which makes him that great actually.

It is also not meant as a "how to" in my opinion, but rather stating 'facts' - as if there was a study that found out that in a society with unequal opportunities, African Americans unfortunately at present have to work harder than others to get ahead. And with the acting, the situation is not of that kind in my opinion, unless one wants to challenge the predominance of straight relationships in the repertoire, which would be an entirely different subject.