Kathleen O'Connell

Per this NYT article by Gia Kourlas, Peck did tweak the choreograph a bit to accommodate two same-sex dancers: For his pas de deux, Mr. Peck has made small tweaks so that each dancer takes a turn leading the other; learning how to be the supported one has been an adjustment for both. “There’s a constant exchange of who’s leading and who’s in charge,” Mr. Applebaum said. “So you have to switch on a dime.” I don't recall a lot in the way of lifts or supported promenades in the M/F version of the pas, to be honest, which doesn't mean they're not there of course.

When Issacs and Britney Pollack came out for their onstage solo bows at the end of the ballet, Pollack very graciously gestured in Isaacs' direction then raced back to stand in line with the rest of the dancers so Issacs could take that bow alone. Isaacs also got a solo bow in front of the curtain (no bouquet). You could hear the rest of the cast and whoever else was around backstage giving her a rousing cheer after the final bows in front of the curtain, which was lovely.

I'm so sorry to see her go! I still remember her absolutely thrilling fouettés when she danced Hyppolita a few seasons back. They were so on the music and done so securely and fearlessly it looked like magic.

As a musical composition, Suite No. 3 is pretty cohesive. The fact the the fourth movement is longer than the other three combined, coupled with its being in theme-and-variations form, may make it feel out of character with what came before. Note, however, that Suite No. 4—the music Balanchine used for "Mozartiana"—also closes with a big theme-and-variations movement that's longer than the others combined. If we didn't know that all of the movements were based on themes from a grab-bag of Mozart compositions, we might wonder what the heck the Pregheira and the Gigue had to do with that long theme-and-variations movement. (Balanchine rearranged the order of the movements, by the way. Tchaikovsky opens with the Gigue, not the Pregheira.) I think you're on to something with your observation that the scrim, the loose hair, and all that floaty chiffon (or whatever it is) doesn't actually unify the first three movements so much as make them seem like a bland much-of-a-muchness.

Tacita / Tacitus (Latin for "Silent") would be a pretty hilarious name for the yappy beagle that lives down the hall from me.

Ah, Asta! Portrayed by the inimitable wire-haired terrier, Skippy, who also portrayed Mr. Smith in "The Awful Truth" and George in "Bringing Up Baby." Skippy also portrayed Ragsy, Rex, Pom-Pom, Skipper, Habeus, and Mr. Atlas. Mr. Smith is an awesome dog name. And yes, it absolutely should be Miss Havisham.

Tschaikovsky Suite No. 3 needs to be redesigned, top to bottom. As someone observed upthread, the scrim the company insists on for the first three movements is ghastly, as are the costumes for both the men and women. (NYCB's tendancy to put its ballerinas in the stage version of a cocktail dress has driven me around the bend since way back. Don't even talk to me about Walpurgisnacht Ballet; it's like Debs Gone Wild up there on the stage.) Despite the fact that the (ugly!) set is the same for all four movements, the production design does nothing to link T&V conceptually with what has come before.

I want to be generous, but "scheduling conflict" is pretty weak sauce this late in the day for a company that announces its cast lists months and months in advance. If Copeland genuinely wants to be a role model for aspiring dancers (and I take her at her word that she does) the better part of valor might have been honesty. If it's a personal matter, one can say so tactfully in a way that preserves her privacy or the privacy of whoever else might be involved. If she's concerned about sustaining an injury or worsening an already existing one by tackling particularly challenging choreography at this point in time, she could make a teachable moment out of it and observe that sometimes you have to scrub a performance in the interest of your health and well being. If she's struggling with the choreography, she could probably be honest about that too and still be beloved by her many fans. Since she's danced the role before, it's not as if she has to say "OMG these steps are too hard for me!" She could be honest about the way in which they're presenting a challenge right now, and what, if anything, she's doing to overcome that challenge so she can dance the role again in the future, and then tie it up with a bow by reminding her young fans that sometimes you have to take a step back and rebuild your strength so you can do honor to the choreography and your colleagues. I do wonder if she might have had some hesitation about dancing the role this season, but got pressured into it by a management that feels keenly the need to put butts in seats.

Some of those names are pretty good (Ajax! On the short list for the next pupper!), but a lot of them are just not dog names. KATniss? No. Just no. Mystique? Bovary? Now, Mewstique for a glamorous ball of white floof YouTube cat would be awesome ... and I suppose Mewstique's YouTube dog frenemy might be Bowvary. Ok. I'll show myself out. PS - Isn't naming your dog Cujo kind of like naming him Cerberus?

The Brahms-Schoenberg finale is one of Mearns' best roles, along with Walpurgisnacht. I don't want to take anything away from Kowroski (and I hope she's OK), but right now Mearns is just blowing the doors off of the Rondo alla Zingarese. It's the kind of Balanchine role that suits her talents and her temperament as if it had been made to order for them.

Eh. I see no reason to give him that much power. He's on the roster, like it or not. If there's a program I want to see, I plan to see it whether he's on the casting sheet or not.

The Onion has a take. Grumpy Cat may be gone, but this meme lives forever.

I've seen Reichlen's Titania several times and I think she's quite good in the role; she's especially lovely in the scenes with her retinue. But honestly, I've started choosing my Midsummer Night's Dream performances based on who's cast in the Divertissement. NYCB seems to have no trouble coming up with a reliably decent Titania, but doesn't always nail the casting for the Divertissement. Out of Bouder, Fairchild, Hyltin, and Lovette, I'd choose Hyltin. Also, I'd avoid Pereira's Hermia if I could. She is so much smaller than the rest of the cast that she looks like a child dancing among grownups, which I find really problematic in the Lovers' secenes. It goes without saying that Laracey is a lovely Hermia, and I'd be very interested in seeing what Gerrity does with the role.

Here a link to some footage from Bartók Ballet that NYCB posted to its Facebook page. There are parts of the ballet (and, ahem, the score) that aren't this frenetic, but the clip is a decent sample of what the work looked like on stage. Not everyone is going to like this work, and that's OK.

I really do think that someone who's unfamiliar with Tanowitz' choreography might have trouble finding a way into Bartók Ballet on a first viewing (or even repeated viewings). It can seem like she's allergic to the kind of gracefully curved line that's a hallmark of ballet vocabulary, or the resolution of a phrase into a position of balanced repose. The Bartók score itself is an added complication. I love it, but it is definitely tense and dense — there are parts where I can feel my muscles tightening up just listening.

Not particularly. I've seen Ib Anderson, Peter Boal, Benjamin Millepied, and Adrew Veyette dance Oberon. Although Boal and Millepied weren't tall dancers per se, they also weren't short powerhouses like, say, Horiuchi.

Some quick takes on NYCB's 5/12/19 Matinee: Program and Cast Valse Fantaisie (Balanchine) - Pereira, Ball A Suite of Dances (Robbins) - Ulbricht Bartók Ballet (Tanowitz) - Hutsell, Kitka, Miller, Nadon, Smith, Villwock, Woodward, Alberda, Applebaum, Fahoury, Henson Bright (Peck) Adams, Gerrity, Mearns, Bolden, Janzen, Scordato Western Symphony (Balanchine) - Phelan, Stanley, Pollack, Angle, Mearns, Mejia 1. My companion, who is professionally connect to the dance world but who was an NYCB first-timer, observed that the afternoon felt akin to attending a Fall For Dance performance, and I don't think she meant it as a compliment. Frankly, I found it hard to disagree. 2. I found a lot to like in Bartók Ballet and look forward to seeing it again. I know and love the Bartók string quartets, so I didn't find the music to be a barrier to enjoyment: it's not pretty, but I think it is very beautiful. I also know and love Tanowitz' choreography: some of the things I like best in her work turned up in Bartók Ballet. I might not have enjoyed the ballet as much as I did if I had to simultaneously wrap my head around both Tanowitz' and Bartók's pointed departures from, for lack of a better term, "common practice," but I walked into the theater knowing what to expect, and that might have made all the difference. (I listened to String Quartet No. 5 just before I left for the theater, and was interested to see how Tanowitz would deal with certain aspects of the score, e.g., its folk rhythms, the sound effects, the way it ramps up tension and barely releases it, etc etc etc.) I liked seeing how the dancers dug into everything Tanowitz gave them to do. Gretchen Smith, who has worked with Tanowitz before, and Devin Alberda looked absolutely terrific; Bartók Ballet is very much an ensemble work, but Smith and Alberda seemed to be in the point of focus a bit more often than their colleagues. But really, everyone shone. 3. It took me longer to type in the cast of Bright than it did for them to dance it. It was harmless, I guess, and lord knows Gerrity, Adams, and Scordato could use more time in the spotlight than they're getting, but I wish they had gotten more than this trifle. 4. I have no love for Western Symphony's Schlock and Awe. It did not help that half the cast just bored me out of my skull.

Two thumbs way, way up for Jowitt's Time and the Dancing Image! I've read it through twice and refer to it often, and every time I do it triggers a new insight or prompts me to think about something in a new way. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Jowitt doesn't make critical assessments or that she's "neutral," but she makes every effort to describe things objectively and in good faith. The book is out of print, but there are plenty of used copies to be had at practically give away prices, so there's no excuse for not grabbing a copy. Nancy Reynolds' and Malcolm McCormick's No Fixed Points surveys twentieth century dance generally and has useful chapters on ballet was well as modern and postmodern dance.

Very sad, but dying peacefully in his sleep at the end of a long and fruitful life serving both his art and those who would learn from him surely takes away some of the sting.

Congratulations!

Well, there is a Cunningham work in NYCB's repertory (Summerspace) and Balanchine himself invited Martha Graham to collaborate with him on Episodes. I'd consider some of Martins' choices to be further removed from the ballet mothership than Cunningham—or Tanowitz, for that matter, who is in a clear line of descent from Cunningham. On the evidence of The Runaway, I'd say Kyle Abraham was more intrigued by the potential of classical ballet vocabulary as exemplified by the NYCB dancers he worked with, than, say, Angelin Preljocaj. (To be clear, I don't much mind that NYCB has commissioned works by Preljocaj; Spectral Evidence is a cherished guilty pleasure and I delight in an occaisional La Stravaganza hate-watch. But enough with the Bigonzetti already. I can't even hate-watch Oltremare.) I won't see Tanowitz' new work for NYCB until next weekend, but I have seen a lot of Tanowitz and to my eye, she doesn't just know the steps (and she does know the steps), she's also alert to their potential as a vocabulary. Here are some excerpts of previous work she's presented with ballet dancers you know, plus and excerpt from Goldberg Variations, with members from her own company. When I look at works like these, I see a choreographer who is more than open to the possibilities of ballet's vocabulary, and not just its wham-pow effects (like extreme extensions, blinding speed, and pretzel partnering). Here's an excerpt from Day for Night for Vail with Joseph Gordon, Calvin Royall III, and Gretchen Smith: Here's Solo for Patricia with Patricia Delgado: ETA: Solo for Patricia is followed by another Tanowitz work, Entr'acte, which looks a bit more Merce-y, but is very much in line with Tanowitz' work. Here's Blueprint, also with Delgado as well as two dancers from Tanowitz' company: And finally, an excerpt from Goldberg Variations:

I've seen Baily Jones in two featured roles recently—the Fairy of Courage (Sleeping Beauty) and the Waltz of the Golden Hours (Coppelia)—and based on those performances I expect she'll do well.

Just some quick notes on Wed 4/24/19 The program: HALLELUJAH JUNCTION: Hyltin, Stanley, Ulbricht [Solo Pianos: Grant, Moverman] HERMAN SCHMERMAN: Mearns, Pollack, Phelan, LeCrone (replaces T. Peck), Ball, Alberda, Sanz (replaces T. Angle) THE EXCHANGE: Kowroski, Phelan, Dutton-O’Hara, Wellington, *Pereira (replaces T. Peck), Gerrity, Hutsell, Kretzschmar, *Danchig-Waring, Scordato, Applebaum, Huxley, Gordon, *Alberda, Henson, Hoxha [Solo Violins: Delmoni, Kuo; Solo Viola: Kang; Solo Cello: Zlotkin] CONCERTO DSCH: Mearns, T. Angle, Bouder, Garcia, Huxley [Solo Piano: Gosling] I had to skip Hallelujah Junction, and while my life wasn't materially altered for the worse, I'm sorry I didn't get to see Hyltin and Stanley dance since they are two of my NYCB favorites. As far as I'm concerned, Devin Alberda was the star of the evening, or at least the MVP. He looked terrific in his featured roles in Herman Schmerman and The Exchange and was eye-catching in the corps of Concerto DSCH, too. He's been a beautiful dancer since day one, but he was on absolutely fire on Wednesday evening. His take on Forsythe's choreography was particularly fluent and on point. No matter how knotty, extreme, or off-balance the steps were he made them look logical and even beautiful. Bravo. This was my second viewing of The Exchange, and much to my surprise, I liked it a lot more that I did the first time around. I wouldn't rush to the theater just to see it, but I won't mind seeing it again. I wish the company could ditch the costumes for the second phalanx of women (led by a much improved Pereira on Wednesday) though: they look like big red tablecloths draped with no particular skill, and flatter no one. It was really good to see Danchig-Waring back on stage and dancing at what looked to be full strength and also good to see Pereira tear into Peck's role with a purpose. Over the past few seasons it's seemed like Mearns has been hell-bent on dialing everything up to eleven whether the choreography called for it or not, and, to my eyes at least, her dancing was starting to look forced, effortful, and drained of nuance. So it was a delight to see her blaze through Herman Schmerman and then promptly turn down the heat and soften her attack in Concerto DSCH. She looked really good in both. Garcia looked great in Concerto DSCH, too; his role required him to match Bouder and Huxley step-for-step, and he did not suffer by comparison. I was sorry to read above that he might have been injured. If the new regime is giving dancers like Alberda, Pereira, and Garcia new leases on their careers, then please let's have more!

I remain agnostic as to the extent to which Ramasar and Catazaro participated in the most egregious of Finlay's group chats. (The details provided on page 12 of the complaint suggest that Ramasar did actively seek out explicit photos: "52. On May 21, 2018, another NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC. principal, Amar Ramasar texted Mr. Finlay, "I love you! Text me those, photos/videos!!") Since I don't have to work with either man—and they are men, not boys—it's not for me to say whether or not his colleagues can or should "move on." That's for them to decide.

My impression from Waterbury's complaint is that both Ramasar and Catazaro participated in group chats with Finlay in which explicit photographs of their female colleagues and peers were exchanged. Since the texts in the aggregate have not been made public, we have no way of knowing the extent to which either man was a participant in the denigration of their peers and colleagues, and my original post did not in fact accuse them specifically. Rather, my point was that the activity couldn't be dismissed because "it had nothing to do with work." When one suggests that one's colleagues and peers should be tied up and abused like farm animals—whether it's because of their gender, their race, their religion, their sexual orientation—it has everything to do with work no matter when and where it takes place.