Drew

Sometimes both the tone and content of the criticisms of Copeland seem to me a little...I won't say insane, but over the top. I'll add another name. Borchenko, a leading ballerina at the Mikhailovsky and a much admired Odette-Odile fell off point during the sequence of turning hops for the "ballerina" character in Flames of Paris--I saw this when the Mikhailovsky toured to NY. It's not that it's a good thing to have these problems--Copeland was kicking herself for a reason--but it's also not like falling off pointe during hops etc. has proven a guaranteed career ender. (Heck, if video evidence is anything to go by, even Skoryk seems to be winning out over her fall-off-pointe demons.) Kaskait responded as I was typing and included a video link to Ferri successfully negotiating the hops in Giselle. But the point is not that this or that ballerina could never do them at any time, but that the step has been known to cause ballerinas problems, including acknowledged quality ballerinas like Ferri or Part. So: I saw Borchenko fall off pointe doing hops in Flames of Paris, but I'm sure at other performances she has negotated them just fine. The other point Kaskait made--that Copeland is not in the same category as Ferri or Part...well, at this point I agree. I don't think Copeland is comparable to Alessandra Ferri or Veronika Part etc.--certainly not at this point in her career--but I don't think she should yet be written off as Princess Florine in the new Sleeping Beauty either. And that seems to me more the real issue. I'm hoping to see her dance the role in the theater (I have tickets for several performances) and then I'll have a better idea.

People who saw those performances didn't report her looking injured or giving a weak performance. In fact, her performance in Firebird is the one for which she has most consistently received raves including from people who don't seem to like her in anything else. In this particular case of her performing injured I don't think there was unfairness to the audience though indeed Copeland may have been being unfair to herself. (Dancers dance injured all the time not to disappoint audiences--sometimes some of the audience can tell the difference; sometimes not...God knows people are disappointed when a dancer they especially want to see has to cancel. For all dancers with ardent fan bases it presumably can be something of a challenge to know when to cancel and when to dance anyway (like an opera singer with a sore throat). Copeland, at any rate, has shown she is not indifferent to her audience. I admire several ballerinas of greater fame and accomplishment than Copeland--but I'm not convinced that they lose much (or any) sleep over disappointed fans when they cancel. So I appreciated her attitude.) Hyper-extension permeates the ballet world today. Copeland hardly seems the most egregious example.

Completely agree--actually the reporter commented that Copeland looked upset with herself when coming off stage and she certainly can't control what CBS decides to show on 60 minutes. The idea that she is being "brazen" and "rubbing it in people's faces" when she has trouble in hops on pointe in a major part defies credibility. Of course one can just choose to project every negative characteristic imaginable onto her, but that's not serious criticism and has nothing to do with her dancing. It's also not fair. I was most struck with the story of how she pushed herself to go on in Firebird even injured (confirmed injury, since in the end it knocked her off the stage for a long time)...and in part because she felt the pressure of all the people in the audience who were coming specifically to see her. I couldn't make much of the dance snippets on CBS though I thought the Tharp looked like it might be terrific. Seeing the Bluebird costume, I did wonder if the "after Bakst" costume idea was really going to work in the theater; that's nothing to do with Copeland. But while individual costumes from the production have looked gorgeous in photos--others, not so much.

Thanks for writing about this performance and for details about Welch's production. (Makarova's is the only one I know well, though I saw Nureyev's once.)

Stupidity (including worship of a coconut when it won't yield to brute force), sexual conquest, oriental luxuriance...taken altogether with other aspects of the ballet's imagery mentioned above--form a not at all unfamiliar stereotype...and the threat of this stereotype being victor over the poetic aspirations of Petrushka is not exactly presented by the ballet as a consumation devoutly to be wished. The characters are puppets, but like commedia del arte figures you mention as one of the ballet's sources, they and their actions allude to human realities. (It should be said the real villain is the puppet-master...who enslaves all the puppets.) You can say 'all' the characters are stereotypes (I'm not sure I agree) -- but when the ballet is performed today, it's performed in a context where some stereotypes have more of a continuing, destructive life in our culture than others. (The "sad clown" or Pierrot etc., though a common figure, is not and to my knowledge never has been a stereotype of "caucasian Europeans" in general.) Again, to be crystal clear: I think Petrushka is a masterpiece. I don't think it should be banned or censored or rechoreographed or redesigned. I don't think what I called the "racist lineage" of some of its imagery, means that its purpose or goals as a work of art are necessarily "racist" or that it's somehow about race--I don't. Nor need that be the main focus of any discussion of the ballet. But I do think it's unconvincing to assert that ethnic and racial stereotypes aren't at play in the work and I believe it would not be a bad idea to address some of the historical issues and imagery in program notes when the ballet is performed--along with all the other things program notes might address about the ballet and its history.

Your post sent me to youtube where there is a 10 minute excerpt of that performance. It looks very good, but by no means more supple in the upper body than Osipova which surprised me, as that's what I expected; at times even a little less so. That's a quality I look for in Ashton specialists. Anyway, comparing that 10 minute portion--and allowing that I have seen neither dancer dance the role live--I decidedly prefered Osipova...who performed with great charm--though less "softly" than Marquez, not at all harshly--and whose speed and buoyancy and vivacity are not only remarkable but not alien to Ashton's Lise at all. That said, I don't doubt Osipova is getting all these DVD releases because she is marketable; I just think in this case, a DVD of her performance is certainly deserved outside questions of marketability. (Though she may become even better in the role after she has danced it still more.) Of course, I would be delighted to have the chance to see both ballerinas as Lise in the theater (theater theater, not movie theater). In a perfect world it would be possible to have DVDs of all the top ballerinas performing their best roles!

I read this with interest--am looking forward to next year's film broadcast....

There are a number of different recordings of Fille available already including one with Collier and, in that context, I am happy to add Osipova to the mix. She is not an Ashton specialist, but she is very suited to Lise and dances and performs the role quite wonderfully. At this stage of her career I would not buy a DVD of an Osipova Swan Lake, but I would definitely be happy to own a DVD of the HD broadcast I saw of the Osipova-McRae Fille.

Yes...

Got back from the theater a few minutes ago--though it was (overall) terrific. Wish the Royal were bringing this on tour as their full-length work rather than Don Quixote. Anyway, a very enjoyable evening.

I don't think "sweet ingenue" really capture Kirkland's stage persona, certainly not in the ABT years...maybe if the only role she had ever danced had been Clara. Kirkland's stage persona combined elements of vulnerability with a kind of transcendence that often made her seem otherworldly. Her dancing had an extremely pure, fluid quality that conveyed depths well, well beyond sweet, even as Clara. But it is very hard to put into words. I think Kirkland's book was shocking because of its frankness about matters that people in the ballet world were and, in my opinion, sometimes still are, reluctant to discuss with any kind of candor at all. Of course she saw things her own way, and has even apologized (in a dance magazine interview) to Martins and Baryshnikov for going on the record with so much. It was quite unusual, too, for a former Balanchine ballerina to write about him in the way she did.

Just love the second Lavine photo in particular...

Just read it...I learned some things about her I didn't know, but it was still a disappointing--that is, I think, an inadequate--obituary. No mention of any of her major roles -- the ones she danced at the height of her career. (Okay Carmen got mentioned, but only because it fit the 'political' theme of the article); no attempt to try to describe her (unique) qualities as a dancer or her influence on the art form. (I don't know when this was written, but it might also have been updated to note that she played an acknowledged part in the career of today's leading (or "one of today's leading...") ballet choreographers, Alexei Ratmansky. Still, I allow that's not a major part of her career--Kitri on the other hand...)

Years ago I was studying old prints at the Paris Opera library and remember a print of a black "native" discovering a mirror for the first time and being awestruck--his pose was very similar to one of the positions Fokine uses for the Blackamoor (second position, deep plie, arms to side with elbows bent and hands held high) and I immediately thought, too, when I saw it of Fokine's Moor worshipping the coconut. Scholars of dance history and 19th-century iconography (which I'm not) could probably fill in the narrative of how these images emerged, were disseminated etc. I'm not opposed to productions of Petrushka, but I think the racist lineage is there in the choreography, not just the make-up, and should, at least, be addressed in program notes or some such.

It's useful to remember that the norms for ballet bodies HAVE changed over the years--with corresponding changes in technical strengths and weaknesses as well, because of course different bodies do different things well and change the look of the line. For better and for worse...and sometimes just for "different." I remember the first time I saw a photo of Pierina Legnani. I was very young, but knew she was said to be the first ballerina to have performed 32 fouettes, so I studied the photo with interest. I believe I then went over to my mother saying, in some puzzlement, something along the lines of "she's fat..." Arlene Croce hailed the (quite hyperextended) legs of Nadezhda Pavlova as the balletic ideal corresponding to what the old manuals demanded etc.--but arguably N. Pavlova was much rather the beginning of what has become, as several have noted, something of a new norm. She did not look like the other Bolshoi ballerinas on tour with her. Now we have Russian ballerinas who make Pavlova's hyperextension and the way she used it look quite conservative. For myself, I do appreciate the exquisite body type represented by Seo, but by all accounts (and what I've seen in the theater) her perfect body has, as already noted, proved (so far) no guarantee of perfect technique. I agree that it is likely one reason for her quick rise to the top.

Oh dear indeed...an epic career and an epic life.

The former--well, I don't really know how the techology works, but I clicked onto bits of Tombeau de Couperin right on my FB page, wasn't sent elsewhere...

They have! I have heard her talk about this issue not in terms of her woes, but in terms of diversifying ballet's aesthetics. But I also don't find her body wildly outside balletic norms. The super built up calf muscles are not the prettiest to my eyes, at least when I look at still photos, but for the rest I agree with Natalia that she is in most ways more obviously a ballet body than Mearns (whom I adore!!). I will say that I think many dancers today have overly sinewy and/or overly muscular arms for my taste when it comes to classical port de bras...I am trying to adapt my eye since it is a reality of today's bodies, but I certainly have not found Copeland the most trying in that regard...

I have no opinion about the letter, but If NYCB and SAB are irrelevant, then ballet might as well be irrelevant, not because they are the whole picture or, for that matter, bastions of ethical perfection (not likely), but because they are such an essential, influential, and creative part of the picture.If ABT comes to play the leadership role in expanding and diversifying ballet's current talent pool--then more power to ABT of course...And, to return to topic, Copeland is playing her part for sure...

Copeland has not yet made principal. Casting makes it look likely she could. But in some ways this debate would have more substance if she had danced her debuts AND gotten the promotion etc. Everything is being prejudged in a way that may be moot when the season is over. (Heck-I was one of the people dubious about Peter Martins giving Swan Lake to brand new corps de ballet member Sara Mearns...Oops!) I could not get quote function to quote the sentence by Dirac kfw included and to which kfw was responding--I wanted to say also that I understood Dirac's point to be that that there are differences of opinion about this belief (stated in the quoted sentences) that any Copeland promotion would be "suspect"--not that she was arguing the point itself one way or another. That is, people say that if Copeland is promoted then it will be viewed as the result of her self-promotion/fame not her dancing; the response is simply that not everyone will necessarily view it that way and it's very hard to prove one way or another. That's how I understood the reference to "matter of opinion." Interestingly, my understanding is that there are fans who assume that Lauren Cuthbertson has been favored out of proportion to her abilities at the Royal because she is British--and in fact there were fans who thought much the same of Darcey Bussell (one of my all time favorites ballerinas). The fact that people believe such things doesn't make them so--though of course, it doesn't mean that they aren't true either. That's what I take "opinion" to mean. One can debate one's opinions of course and people here have expressed themselves pretty forcefully on what they find problematic about Copeland's dancing and/or career. But In Copeland's case, there are other issues. I personally am convinced that if she had never tweeted a tweet or given an interview or appeared in commercials, or danced in a Prince video, then there would still be some people--maybe no-one here, but some portion of the ballet audience--thinking that whatever opportunities she received in prominent roles (or even coryphee or soloist roles) were given to her because of her race or political correctness more than ability. I think she is in a no-win situation in that regard. That, too, may be a matter of opinion, but I thought I would go on record with mine. As mentioned above, I have no firm opinion about whether Copeland (or Abrera or Lane) "deserve" principal status or more prominent casting--of all ABT's seemingly underused talent, the one I was most curious to see in prominent roles was Simone Messmer and she is no longer with the company. I do feel strongly that Copeland does not deserve the huge amount of flack she is taking for the various aspects of her career that people have been discussing.

I don't know what's "true" but find it all too believable that Copeland genuinely thought she was the first ABT black female soloist--and that it didn't occur to her or her team to research. Why would it given the overall history of ABT? Anyway, she/her team have corrected the record now. And I'm not about to lambast her over and over again on that point. And if she is the first in decades--well, that too is an interesting bit of informaton that reflects something about the realities of the ballet world (in its most prestigious companies) and what that must feel like for any black ballerina whatever the reasons. I first saw Copeland live in a coryphee role in Bayadere -- one of the Djampe dancers I think? -- I noticed her, probably at first because black dancers are so rare at ABT; otherwise thought she did a fine job. Since then I have notes about admiring her in the peasant pas de deux (about as much as I did Seo who IS a principal), but don't actually remember the performance now. I have seen her in just one principal role: Gamzatti. The interactions with Vasiliev's Solor were a bust (this was a week after she made a comment about guest artists at ABT published in the Times and, shall we say, not very diplomatic) and he wiped the floor with her when they jumped side by side. But she recovered my interest in her variation which I found respectable (again: points of comparison with Seo do not come out to the latter's advantage) and in Act III I found Copeland's dancing genuinely excellent, particularly her handling of little shifts of weight and off kilter positions that I assume owe more to Makarova than Petipa. In fact, and I wrote it at the time, I thought she handled that one bit of the choreography better than Osipova (whom I otherwise found incomparable). For another point of comparison: years ago, I saw Abrera's debut as Gamzatti and I don't remember being wowed--she may have gotten stronger in the role since then--though I have been impressed by her in other roles. (I had tickets for Copeland's Firebird, but due to injury, she didn't dance.) Principal material? For me, based on the above live performances, the jury is definitely out. But is Copland a talented, charismatic dancer to whom I would like to give a chance? Yes, decidedly. Am I also pleased that means giving a chance to the ... uh...first-black-female-soloist-at-ABT-in-decades? That too.

Hmm...my memory is that until the recent renovation period, the box office was always straight ahead as one entered. I rather expected it to be returned to that location when renovations were done and it sounds as if they have been. Had there been another set up in the theater's earlier history?

Looking forward to reading about it....

I'm a huge fan, too, of several of the essays in The Correspondent Breeze. He made a great contribution to learning--the kind of university he inhabited (and that gave him the time to write The Mirror and the Lamp) is slowly and not-so-slowly disappearing.

I share many of the concerns voiced above, but just want to balance the discussion a bit. For many years, Martins at NYCB regularly programmed a slew of new works by a huge variety of choreographers -- though many in the NYCB mold, NOT all by any means -- the Diamond project. People complained bitterly about the mediocrity that all too often dominated the stage. I used to defend the effort (and still would) but the fact remains that many ballet lovers proved very eloquent on the meager results of this attempt at increasing choreographic opportunities. I also think it's a little optimistic to assume that even Wheeldon or Balanchine (let alone Petipa and Bournonville) don't need subsidizing. Maybe Wheeldon's more commercial efforts don't, but the fact is that ballet is insanely expensive to produce, even mediocre ballet--and, at its most commercial, rarely has the commercial appeal of, well, a Broadway hit. My local company's repertory--I mean Atlanta Ballet--is based as much in contemporary (eclectic if you will) ballet/modern and outright modern dance (Naharin) as ballet. Honestly, I would be delighted with a little more trendiness if it meant more genuinely neo-classical ballet. I will say that Atlanta Ballet supports women choreographers (Helen Pickett and Gina Patterson as well as Tharp and their own leading dancer Tara Lee) and their choice of outright modern dance choreographer to focus on in the last few seasons (Naharin) has definitely proved interesting and fun. They have also reached out to ballet choreographers seen a little less often in the repertories of American companies than those mentioned (Bintley and Kudelka as well as Maillot and Mcgregor; I missed it, but also Elo who IS seen all over the place). But still, I think the company's foray into Ratmansky remains a high point--if that's the "same old, same old" then more please. One other thought--related to points Helene has made elsewhere as well--I am very fortunate in that I can afford to travel to see ballet -- not as much as I would like, but some. If I couldn't then I would be completely dependent on my local company for exposure to what is happening in ballet and to quality ballet choreography. (Video is not the same thing.) For example: I would NEVER see Balanchine if I could not afford trips to other cities (in my case usually NY). I think that has to be part of the picture as well. Again, I'm all for more diversity in rep and, most especially, older companies maintaining their own historical traditions, but there are other issues worth considering that the companies and their audiences also have to consider.