canbelto

Yes there's definitely sort of an inside edge death spiral at 4:06 here:

Oops sorry. Megan Fairchild is leaving OTT on August 9th.

Sara Mearns announced on Instagram today that OTT is closing on August 9th.

I'd say that Sarah's problem is that she's not really a Met 8-week season kind of ballerina. The Met is a huge stage, huge auditorium, and favors dancers that "dance big." Sarah's kind of dancing (fast, precise, skilled at petit allegro) is probably much better seen in smaller stages and auditoriums. She also doesn't have the kind of stage face that can project to the auditorium either -- she's very pretty, but her features aren't very distinctive in the harsh lights and the extremely tall proscenium of the Met auditorium. I noticed this when I was watching her Sleeping Beauty. She and Herman are both small dancers, but Herman has a stage face. Strong features that projected well even when saddled with that George Washington hat and curly wig. Sarah's face looked inscrutable. Also, comparing her Aurora to Diana Vishneva -- I've seen Vishneva up close many times and she definitely doesn't look 16. But her big eyes, big smile, from far away she gives the look of a 16 year old girl (still). The Met season also heavily favors dancers who can carry the "classics" like Juliet or O/O. I bet if the ABT started performing more pas de deuxs and repertory programs Sarah would be cast more. This is the sort of thing where Sarah shines:

"That other one"? She has a name, you know.

"In shape" is different from, aay, thinking that only the Sylvie Guillems and Svetlana Zakharovas can make it in ballet, and considering how many white girls are in ballet, I'd say they won't think much of this statement at all.

Kfw that is rich. You say that in these hundreds of posts about Misty Copeland there's not a single example of anything "vindictive" about Copeland? Denial is more than a river in Egypt.

I actually think the male stepsisters sidestep what has traditionally been a thorny part of choreographing Cinderella: most stepsisters in Cinderella productions are "bad dancers." I hate this trope because you find ballerinas trying to pull off a "bad dancing" schtick that is neither believable nor funny. But having the sisters be excellent dancers (albeit in the English music hall tradition) is a clever solution. I also like how Ashton differentiates the sisters: one shier, more insecure, the other brash and outgoing.

Ok "There's no racism in America" kfw, here's one statement I found in the Misty Copeland thread: California wrote: http://balletalert.invisionzone.com/index.php?/topic/39465-misty-copeland/page-5?hl=+misty%20+copeland%20+vail You don't see something dark in that sentiment? That her audiences are "underpriviledged"? That the "white, rich" communities of Vail will find her a "curiosity"? The equally ugly assumption that her "underpriviledged" audience won't have a car/means of transport to her performances?

I didn't say anyone was evil. I said that everyone has underlying prejudices and biases that might color their perception of things, consciously or unconsciously. And I said that the prejudices and biases are the only logical explanation I can think of for such vehement objections to everything Misty does or says. And I also said that I wasn't free of having those biases and prejudices, but I am aware that I have them, they exist, and that it might color my perception. To use another example, when was the last time you saw a woman of color play, say, the Contessa in Nozze di Figaro? Whereas how many minority sopranos have played Susanna? Susanna and the Contessa are not that different in tessitura or vocal fach. You don't think there's some inherent bias on the part of directors and opera impresarios that they see Lyric Soprano X and she's minority, so they think "Susanna," and they see Lyric Soprano Y, and she's tall and blond, and they think "Contessa"? Is there anything evil in it? No, but it's a great example of covert attitudes affecting choices.

I don't actually see it a lot. Which is why when I do see it (as in various threads about Misty) I don't remain silent about it.

So your response was that Misty's audience prefers to see "non-white" bodies onstage and then you follow up that they'd never go to the ballet if a non-African American dancer was dancing? So: Misty's audience at Swan Lake = black and thus ignorant about ballet To put into context just how ugly of an assumption this is, every year at the Nutcracker I see very young girls and their mothers. It's obviously their first time at the ballet. Do you just assume that they're a "segment" of the population that has no interest in ballet and is only there for superficial reasons? Or do you say "Aww, that's nice" and see that going to the ballet can be a family event, a discovery event, and just because they're not that educated about ballet AT THE MOMENT doesn't mean that they'll always be uneducated? Right now people are saying that Misty's audience is not interested in ballet, only interested in her. Can you accept shades of gray, and say that maybe they're not that educated about ballet but WILL BE once they go to a few performances? OR maybe they are dance enthusiasts (long-time) that maybe was more into the downtown ballet scene? Or maybe they're just excited to see a big dance event? It's that leapfrogging of an assumption of ignorance and lack of culture of Misty's audience that I find offensive. It reminds me way too much of people who always assumed that I didn't speak good English when I was growing up, just because I was the only non-white person in my school.

kfw, here's the post dirac was referring to. And I don't presume to speak for dirac but I think "made my day" was said with heavy doses of sarcasm. Actually, but to be honest, it made my day too because it's always good to see a mask of false gentility come off.

So you've posted this many times in various threads about a dancer you've never seen? Okay. But really there's no point in talking to people who refuse to see an elephant in the room. "I don't see the elephant? Maybe just a ... big stuffed elephant."

Actually if you read the content of The National Review it's not a stretch to infer that someone whose idol and mentor was William Buckley might not have the most enlightened views about the role of gay people in NYC's artistic community. By the way I have parts of Arlene Croce reviews memorized by heart. I think she was maybe the greatest dance critic NY has ever had, doesn't make me also see that a lot of the knee jerk reactions she had against gays, "multicultural" artists, "feminist" choreography, and so on and so forth stemmed from a deeply ingrained prejudice she had against anything that smelled of the liberal agenda.

Ok I take it back. "Bad faith" AND racism. Better? And you've been one of the harshest critics in these various threads, how many Misty performances have you seen this season? (I've seen her in La Bayadere and Sleeping Beauty). And this is from someone who immediately thought Damian Woetzel was "comped" bc he said he was "honored" to be at a Misty performance. If that's not bad faith I don't know what is.

She was cast this year in Florine with Gabe Stone Shayer as Bluebird.

It looks like Zhong Jing Fang.

I don't know, it might actually lead to self-awareness that many people hold prejudices and biases that would never come out in "normal" life because: 1. In real life social factors and the awareness that NYC is a very diverse city makes you more careful about expressing these ugly thoughts, whereas the anonymity of online communication allows people to simply type and type 2. It's not every day that an African American dancer is promoted to principal (and thus possibly "passes over" another preferred dancer) And by the way I'm not giving myself a pass that I'm entirely free of those prejudices/biases/assumptions. I once happened to teach a Jamaican 8th grade girl and expressed surprise when she told me that she was studying the score of The Magic Flute because that was her favorite opera. Then I had to ask myself why I was surprised that she loved The Magic Flute. But to pretend these biases don't exist in Misty's discussions is being ingenuous. AND this discussion reminds me a lot of the Arlene Croce "Discussing the Undiscussable" article. I think the outrage at that article was the perception that Arlene Croce was letting her well-known political views affect her thinking and that the non-review was really a thinly disguised rant at the gay community which happened at that time to be going through an AIDS epidemic AND prejudice that would be inconceivable to today's NY'ers. Croce had made multiple reviews (negative) against "multicultural" dances and programming but it wasn't until that article that people really called her out on it. And I'm saying this as someone who views the Croce volumes as one of my most prized dance books.

Here's the original message: Ok "prefer to see non-white bodies onstage in a lead role" and "might never have attended any ABT ballet performance but for the fact that an African American is cast in the lead" is automatically followed up by an assumption that Misty will be over-cast so these same people will come to the ballet over and over again. Again, an automatic assumption of bad faith/ignorance on the part of the audience. They might be ballet enthusiasts from minority backgrounds who are excited to see a big dance event. They might be dance enthusiasts period. Assuming that Misty's audiences don't know anything about ballet, just there for Misty, is offensive. It's not pointing out Misty's audiences that is, IMO, racist. It's the assumptions about those audiences and what they know/don't know/behave/what they're interested in. Also the conclusion that this will be a bad thing for ABT. But whatever, I don't feel like this conversation is between culturally/politically unaware people. I think most everyone in this convo knows about racial code words and stereotypes so all this innocence is very coy.

Here is Misty's video from Julie Kent's instagram: https://instagram.com/p/4j3dvco30s/?taken-by=juliekentofficial

Ok here's another: This one really spells it out. And other comments I can't find right now because they were removed for violating board policy.

Here is what one poster "laurel" said about Macauley's review. Again, an assumption of bad faith on the part of the poster for Macauley: Here's what "abatt" said about Raven Wilkinson's presence: Here is what mmisyb said about Misty's audience: Read them and tell me honestly that there isn't a really ugly undertone of bad faith present in all those posts.

I'm saying that there are so many assumptions of bad faith tied to everything about Misty, from her audiences to her motivations to her behavior to her social media account, and those assumptions of bad faith are so vituperative and excorciating, that I can find no logical reason behind it besides race. And that the responses in this thread and others have hit many code words that are used traditionally to dance around race.

Julie Kent posted a nice video of when this announcement was apparently made in class today: Stella: https://instagram.com/p/4j1bgGI3_B/?taken-by=juliekentofficial Misty: https://instagram.com/p/4j3dvco30s/?taken-by=juliekentofficial