canbelto

Homans is definitely the go-to talking head about ballet nowadays. I attended a Q&A with Suzanne Farrell at the NYPL and she was there giving a speech in the beginning. Like it or not balletomanes are going to be stuck with her for a long time.

ABT is only so "big ballet oriented" in the sense that many of their productions of the classics (or old productions -- I'm waiting to see how Ratmansky's SB plays out) have been watered down to the point where there actually isn't much to see but the soloists. I mean, take their old production of SB. Almost all the act three divertissements were gone. Or their production of Don Quixote, where a lot of the wonderful character dancing that one sees in the Bolshoi/Mikhailovsky/Mariinsky companies is gone, so it really is only Kitri and Basilio. Again, it's a chicken and egg thing. Are ABT productions watered down because it's so star driven, or is it so star driven because their productions are so watered down?

Don't make assumptions. I distinctly remember traveling by Chinatown bus to D.C. and the bus being delayed and getting to Kennedy Center late and finding out that Osipova and Vasiliev had cancelled and I was left with a rather mediocre Shipulina. But my point was I didn't feel completely dejected, as I loved the production, the corps, and some of the soloists. I'd feel the same way about the Mariinsky or the NYCB if there was a big cast change. I'd be disappointed that Dancer X wasn't dancing, but I'd still be able to enjoy the performances. At the NYCB I trust that there will be enough worthwhile stuff onstage that even if, say, Ashley Bouder cancelled Stars and Stripes ('Im just thinking of one dancer and one ballet where I distinctly buy a ticket just to see that dancer in that ballet) whoever is Liberty Girl will also be good. But with ABT, it's like if Dancer X or Y isn't dancing (or is dancing), it's like the worst thing in the world and people are just absolutely distraught and can't go on. That part is what separates ABT from other companies. I mean I like Stella Abrera as much as anyone else but say Stella for some reason couldn't dance the Giselle she's scheduled for. In a real company, that shouldn't cause a massive meltdown. You should trust that there's enough depth in the company that her replacement will be worthwhile as well.

All this handwringing over cast changes kind of shows that ABT kind of isn't a real company anymore. I feel like with real companies, you can buy a ticket and even if there are cast changes, you'd still want to see the company. I buy all my NYCB tickets well before the season starts, and I do the same with the Bolshoi or Mariinsky even when i know how, uh, flexible their casting is. I think ABT's repertory is so stale or it's become such a star-driven company where people only follow favorite pet dancers that any sense of them as a company worth watching just to watch them as a company has dissipated. As for Hee Seo and her now insanely busy schedule, it's weird that Kevin McKenzie hasn't learned from David Hallberg. I remember when Hallberg was dancing nearly every night. But the injuries piled up to the point where right now it's uncertain when he'll come back.

When I mean Tiler was "average" I mean by her standards. Of course she was very, very good by any standards, but in between Ashley Bouder's technical wunderkind and Sterling's very detailed embodiment of the romantic ideal, Tiler was sort of in between those two ladies. She also was by far the most serious Sylph. It's an interpretation that I think might work better in another company. But the NYCB's La Sylphide tends to be somewhat broad and many moments are played for comedy, and so the lighter/flirtatious interpretations fit the company better, IMO.

California, I was kind of clarifying upthread what Homans meant by "ballet is dead." She didn't mean it's actually dead or not popular anymore, she simply believes that current choreography and dancers don't uphold the morals and values of the French royal court, the Russian Imperial Royal Court, and Balanchine's royal court (her three time periods when she considered that ballet did uphold those lofty noble values).

If you're familiar with Homans' writings you will know that she has what I'd call an idée fixe that ballet is not just about aesthetics and poetry in motion and all that, but about upholding a certain sense of morality and values that she believes were present in Louis XIV's court. (I suppose the seedier side of Louis XIV's court life like the constant stream of mistresses and the fact that Louis XIV didn't think it was necessary to install toilets as he assumed everyone would just clean up after him is ignored). For Homans, ballet really is about morality. In her book she talks as much about Balanchine's religious beliefs as she does his ballets.

I've now seen three casts of Bournonville/La Sylphide. It is odd how many of the corps de ballet/soloist members seem to be taking to the style like ducks to a pond, whereas the principals are struggling. For instance, Joseph Gordon and Harrison Ball were both terrific as Gurn, whereas Daniel Ulbricht barely looked like he knew what to do. Actually both Gordon and Ball were excellent in Bournonville Divertissements as well. Lauren King and Indiana Woodward look like they could dance Bournonville all day but Sara Mearns and Teresa Reichlen were totally lost in the style. As for the three Sylphide casts, I thought Bouder was the strongest technically (her jumps gravity defying), Sterling Hyltin had the best characterization (very soft, feminine, flirtatious), and Tiler Peck was ... well, she was average. I never thought I'd say a Peck performance was average but I don't think this is her thing. de Luz was the best technically, but to me he was way too extroverted and didn't convey any restlessness. Both Veyette and Garcia were better at conveying the moody Romantic hero. It's been an interesting experiment.

I'm starting to think that for some reason a lot of archival footage was for whatever reason was unable to be aired, which would explain the endless slo-mo shots of current ABT dancers. I'm having a hard time believing that a documentary was that bad by design.

I'm not saying everyone "works the system." I'm saying that big top tiered companies are by nature competitive and there are various means by which a certain dancer gets promoted/given roles, and it's not always by merit. I don't get why Misty's prominence/publicity is so egregiously wrong that it deserves speculation about her moral character, whether she puts glass in others' shoes, whether she deliberately sabotages choreography to get more attention, in other words, how what any of what she's done has made her a bad person. Let me put it another way. Suppose there is a dancer in your favorite company that you don't care for, but who seems to be the AD's pet. Suppose this dancer is highly visible in the media, let's say because of a compelling backstory. Now let's say this dancer is white. If you're not seriously asking yourself whether your reaction would be so vehement if this dancer was white ...

Also, less slo-mo, more real-speed dancing, please.

For every Ruth Bader Ginsberg, there's justices like David Souter who seemed content to live a completely private life. I remember the first time I listened to the Bush vs. Gore oral argument and was surprised that Justice Souter was quite an intimidating justice and extremely opinionated. He just didn't ever express those opinions with the media. But my point is one approach is not superior to another. You can't say RBG is "stirring the pot" because she chooses a higher media profile. You can't say Eddie Murphy is morally superior to Leonardo diCaprio because Eddie Murphy has a reputation for being reclusive with the media and Leonardo diCaprio is in the media promoting not just his movies but his pet causes, like environmental awareness and endangered species. In dance there are dancers who also choose to keep their professional lives completely ushered away, and rarely if ever grant interviews. And there are dancers who choose to promote themselves in the media. Again, one is not morally superior to another. Dance companies are complex and political and the dancer who never grants a media interview might throw her weight behind the scenes in ways that the public never sees. And those methods might not be considered "nice." Not liking Misty's dancing is one thing. There are dancers that I don't care for, don't ever bother buying a ticket for, and avoid if they're on the casting sheets. But this passing judgment on Misty's moral center, speculation on Misty's relationships with colleagues, and trashing Misty's character is something else. As for Misty's merits or demerits as a dancer there might be practical reasons for promoting her. For one, she's short and Cornejo needs a partner now that Reyes is retiring. They can't fly in Maria Kotchetova or Alina Cojocaru for every performance. Sarah Lane is also short but Lane/Gorak seems to be the new path for partnering.

Doing publicity isn't "stirring the pot." It's doing publicity. Is Leonardo di Caprio "stirring the pot" every time he appears out of his environmental-friendly-whale-saving life mission to sit down on late night to promote his latest movie? Is Gwyneth Paltrow "stirring the pot" when she also burrows out of her gluten-free-vegan-macrobiotic life mission to discuss her latest movie projects? Misty's season is now, and of course the media is calling, and she's doing publicity. And while we're on it, is Elizabeth Smart stirring the pot whenever she appears on TV when a child is abducted to talk about her experiences and how families can cope? Is Ruth Bader Ginsberg stirring the pot when she talks frankly about how she disagrees with the Roberts' court majority decisions? This amount of vitriol directed at a dancer for ... uh, well, dancing, is reminding me of The Lottery.

I think another thing to keep in mind is perspective, and whether Misty is being held to standards that you're not holding for other people. For instance: Misty hasn't been broken been arrested (unlike many athletes that we adore). She isn't coming off a suspension for doping (like Alex Rodriguez) or about to serve a suspension for deflating balls (Tom Brady). She has not taken to social media to badmouth any of her colleagues. In fact, her colleagues, from the corps de ballet levels to the principals were nothing but supportive over her Washington Ballet debut. She hasn't even appeared in the tabloids (unlike Melanie Hamrick). Her private life appears stable and happy (from the NYTimes profile). If you're holding against her the memoir, then you'd have to take to task Hillary Clinton, Obama, Shawn Johnson, Carlos Acosta, Rudolf Nureyev, and a host of other celebrities who have used a memoir as a springboard for new things. So in other words, if you're this angry about a dancer for ... dancing, then ...

I'd hope that the book focuses more on his early life, especially the infamous MGM studio system and not on the later years, which were bogged down by endless series of divorces, alcohol/drug problems, and financial woes.

dirac, are we sure we want a full-blown biography of Rooney, the uncensored edition? With some Hollywood greats I think it's better to just leave the skeletons in the closet, because we already know the story: plenty of booze, lots of marriages, broken relationships, financial problems, and general misery. I don't think his body of work is interesting enough to merit such scrutiny. (Unlike, say, Bette Davis/Vivien Leigh/Judy Garland/Richard Burton, etc. I kind of feel the same way about Natalie Wood. I'd really just rather remember her as the cute little girl with the deadpan humor in Miracle on 34th St. Her body of work also isn't really deep enough for me to wade through pages and pages of stories about how everything in her life, from her name to her family to her marriages, were fake/arranged and her general miserable existence.

Peter Martins always tells the story about how the first time he danced Apollo for Mr. B he got ripped a new one by Mr. B for being "wrong wrong wrong." Jacque d'Amboise has a similar story ... he says Mr. B didn't even talk to him after the performance.

I saw yesterday afternoon's performance and I think Maria K. needs to drop the Symphony in C second movement. Her constant shakiness (including when she almost wobbled backwards) is a major distraction. Symphony in C actually IMO is a ballet that perhaps needs more vigorous coaching from NYCB. There was a lot of unexpected sloppiness from everyone. Walpurgisnacht was great, as was Sonatine. I really also liked Sterling Hyltin in La Valse.

It seems like a lot of objections to Misty's dancing are based on aesthetics. That's fine -- you like what you like to see, but as far as technical weaknesses, I don;t think Misty is weaker than, say, Hee Seo (who I've never seen make it through a ballet without a stumble, huge or small), or, if you walk over the plaza, to Maria Kowroski, whose attempts to dance tutu ballets (like the Symphony in C second movement I saw today or the Diamonds I saw last spring) have ended with her either: shaking violently, falling off pointe, falling period. For the record I like both Seo and Kowroski as dancers. I just think that Misty isn't technically as weak as many other principals/soloists.

I agree that Bournonville Divertissements was rough but I thought La Sylphide was mostly wonderful. I was much more fond of Sterling Hyltin's performance than most -- I think she was beautiful, light, airy, playful, but aloof and it was a wonderful performance from her. I thought de Luz was perhaps too happy and extroverted for James but that he too acquited himself well. Only Pazcoguin as Madge IMO was a misfire. Full review can be found by clicking on the blog on my signature.

I'm not saying Balanchine intended to be a distant father figure, just that all of these types of memoirs have that kind of figure somewhere in the book. For example, Mike Tyson's addiction/recovery memoir has Don King as the distant, grasping father figure. Balanchine was like a lot of old-school Russian ballet teachers in that he was reticent with praise. For him, the highest praise was casting a dancer in a new ballet/important role. I don't think Balanchine exactly held anyone's hand. He showed his belief by casting and giving you opportunities, which he certainly gave galore to Kirkland. Also, a feature of the addiction/recovery memoir is that all memories during the addiction period are colored by a dark shadow. Kirkland's book fits that to a tee. Kirkland's book was just shocking because the figures in her book were so admired/famous in the ballet world, and because it was so at odds with Kirkland's stage persona, which was that of a sweet ingenue.

Looking back Gelsey Kirkland's memoirs really fit the outlines of the addiction/recovery memoir format. I've read so many of them and they generally check off the boxes: 1. Prodigious talent as a child 2. Family issues, including a cold, rejecting father 3. Distant father figure (in her case, Balanchine) 4. Unhappy love affairs (Baryshnikov, Martins) 5. A downward spiral of drugs and alcohol 6. Career falters due to drugs and alcohol 7. Recovery, new beginnings It just so happened that the familiar figures of any addiction/recovery memoir were some of the most famous (and admired) men in the dance world. And that Kirkland's addictions, while privately gossiped about in the ballet world, were not widely known to the general public who still thought of her as the most adorable of Giselles and the most delicate of Sylphs.

So many years later, I don't think a ballerina has been able to replicate Maya's astonishing ballon in those Kitri jumps. RIP.

Then what have you been upbraiding her for? You are making a moral judgment on her. As for "working" Kevin McKenzie for a promotion, every dancer does it. Whether it's successful or not is another matter. But every dancer must "work" the AD some way. Even Balanchine, who was generally considered a very moral man, was notorious in that his classes reeked of perfume from dancers trying to attract his attention. And to take the politician analogy further, I've volunteered my time (in one case, up to 60+ hours a week) and also donated money to politicians whose causes I believe in. I don't think there should be a value judgment made on those who also believe in Misty's cause any more than a value judgment made on those who bought Hillary stickers.

Well actually I think a dancer's life is and a politician isn't that far off of a comparison. Many politicians go into politics wanting to change the world before realizing that rubbing elbows with the right people, getting the necessary funds, making deals, etc. are part of the game. And most of them (unless you come from a dynasty like the Bushes) don't have things handed to them on a silver platter. They have to hustle for what they have. Many dancers I'm sure go into dancing thinking the talent will speak for itself. Then they realize that they're "advised" to find rich sponsors, lovers, endorsements, etc. In Russia there's pretty much an open secret that many of the ballerinas are "sponsored" by rich oligarchs. What these arrangements entail is nobody's business. And many dancers find themselves reaching 30 and their careers going nowhere. I see Misty as someone who saw that path and decided to do something about it. Just as other ballerinas have decided to take action on their careers, by modeling, finding a sponsor, marrying "up." I don;t find Misty's tactics any more or less morally unacceptable than a ballerina who decides that she'll be the "companion" of a guy who will donate a gazillion dollars to the ballet company for her to be cast. It's important to remember that in the 1950's, many well-regarded and extremely successful entertainers decided to sell out their friends and colleagues to the HUAC. Including Jerome Robbins. And that many beloved Soviet ballerinas became extremely active members of the communist party in order to further their careers. And in the case of Valery Panov, many Soviet dancers decided to participate in an ugly, anti-Semitic campaign against a fellow dancer. Misty's actions to me are perfectly acceptable.