Drew

Apologies for supplemental post but just saw Miriam Elder's piece in Guardian which I did not see mentioned in this most recent part of discussion. In it she quotes Filin saying to Russian television on Tuesday that "Every time, every moment, every meeting with Pavel Dmitrichenko was, for me, yet another threat, yet another demonstration of hostility." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/12/bolshoi-acid-attack-members-support-dancer

The idea that Dmitrichenko "only" arranging to have Filin beat up is not a big enough deal to have him fired is just appalling to me and if, indeed what happens is that he is found guilty but kept on at Bolshoi since that is "all" he did, I fear that guarantees that an atmosphere of lawlessness in and around the theater will persist. [Edited to add: when I wrote this I had misunderstood Iksanov's very proper remarks that if Dmitrichenko is acquitted then he can have his job back.] I realize the dancers are claiming they think Dmitrichenko may be innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever: I've yet to hear or read anything that makes it seem as if that's the case. I agree with Jayne that dancers saying "Pavel Dmitrichenko would never do this" is not evidence one way or another: people rarely believe those they work with are capable of vicious crimes. And some of the same dancers have been quoted as more or less accepting of criminal behavior that fell short of an acid attack--slashed tires etc. I'm sure that they don't trust the judicial system and that they have reason not to do so, but that doesn't make Dmitrichenko innocent. Perhaps more will come out... (I'm sure people remember reports of the scene in court. When a reporter yelled out to Dmitrichenko asking if he was "sorry" for what he did, he was certainly under no obligation to answer--but he did. And what did he say--"What for?" It's not the police who relayed this, but journalists.) As far as saying (suggested above) that all Grigorivich had to do was aggravate a dancer like Dmitrichenko and let the rest take its course--for myself I don't see that as necessarily anything more than the kind of thing Tsiskaridze has been said to have done. Even if I believed this is what happened or could have happened -- I would say it's ugly and worthy of criticism, but it's not a crime. I understand that the point that concerns many is that Dmitrichenko may not be a big villain, but may be just a bit player. Fair enough: but if that turns out to be the case--he would still be a bit player in a big crime and, to my mind, with very little apparent excuse. Of course, it's essential for the good of the Bolshoi (and ... uh... the rule of law) that the entire truth be uncovered. Though I'm not sure it will be and not sure that even if it is, it will become public record. Regarding Tsiskaridze: given yet another opportunity to say something halfway human about Filin by David Remnick (as quoted in New Yorker article) he volunteered that he doesn't care what happened to Filin, and repeated his litany of complaints -- justified or otherwise. Are we to admire his lack of hypocrisy? For that matter, he wants to direct a major theater with super-fraught politics and yet can't even come up with something neutral to say like "Such crimes are always terrible."

That Grigorovich continues to be an "issue" for the Bolshoi, sure--it's obvious; that his presence is behind a great deal of the factionalism and general ugliness of Bolshoi politics--yes, that too. That what Iksanov said of Tsiskaridze could probably just as well be said of Grigorivich--well, I could easily believe it. The rest? Not so obvious and not even so easy to believe. Bluntly: Why would Grigorovich be interested in going after Filin in so much more vicious a way than he (or anyone else) has gone after any of Filin's predecessors -- many of whom arguably posed a bigger threat to the Grigorovich legacy than Filin did (e.g. Ratmansky and Burlaka whose work as choreographers and stagers of classics was in more obvious competition with that legacy)? I'm not saying there isn't an answer to that question, just that it is far from being something one can make out "between the lines" and insinuating Grigorovich's involvement in this crime seems to me very problematic without more to go on than the fact a member of his "faction" has confessed. Indeed given Grigorovich's continued hold on the company it hardly seems necessary for him to have taken such extreme actions--if he is so very feared, then he obviously has less over-the-top ways to exercise his influence--unless indeed we are supposed to think that looming mortality has wrecked his judgment. It just seems to me that without something more than general paranoia to go on, it's too big a leap ....

That a large number of Bolshoi employees refuse to believe in Dmitrichenko's involvement suggests that for them such a thing is unthinkable. Yes, that's true. I guess I would be more cheered up by that fact if some of the ones quoted didn't also seem to think it was entirely thinkable that Dmitrichenko would hack Filin's email and have Filin's tires slashed...

It's a very generous reading (and assumes Dmitrichenko is not lying about anything)--but he had already hired Zarutsky for help with "muscle" at the Dacha complex (I too will assume he is telling the truth) and, in that context, he then starts telling Zarutsky about problems at work with Filin...In Dmitrichenko's version, as reported at least, this doesn't exactly seem like a kind of quasi-entrapment. I should have thought that if Dmitrichenko's strings were/are being pulled then they were/are being pulled in more direct psychological fashion. Either way, if Dmitrichenko is a pawn (not, I underline, without responsibility) what's depressing is that the Bolshoi is a theater where this kind of plot could even be thinkable let alone succeed--and I think that speaks to exactly the issues Remnick addresses in his article. It would be less depressing if the "plot" were relatively contained with or without Dimitrichenko at the center or it. What Remnick reports on Filin's eyesight does not sound very positive.

Dmitrichenko may well be a pawn--but what he actually did is not altogether irrelevant, especially when dancers are refusing to believe he was involved at all. His arrest did not occur, as one of them is quoted as saying, with no evidence whatsoever--there was evidence having to do with cell phone purchases, usage etc.: the kind of evidence that police departments all over the world use all the time. It's also not irrelevant in determining to what degree he is being "victimized" and to what degree he should shoulder his own share of responsibility however secondary. (Put a little differently: a pawn in this situation is not quite the same as a victim.) That said, it's obviously crucial for the future of the theater that all the persons involved, especially those most powerful who are "behind" this crime, be exposed and, one hopes, tried for their crimes. I confess, though, that the answer is not obvious to me. I would be curious what you are thinking and why.

Amateur yes, but if the story is true then the stake-out can hardly be a "coincidence" since Dmitrichenko says he telephoned Zarutsky. Lucky chance of a criminal? In this story, he wasn't driving home, he was watching and deciding what to tell Zarutsky. Nor does he at all seem to be claiming this was a coincidence. The fact that he includes the information that Annadurdyev was with him -- presumably not as an alibi but as a companion, if not a co-conspirator -- seems to suggest that the story is at least partly true, since it would have to be checked with someone who has no interest in confirming it but rather the contrary. That is, if Dmitrichenko is lying about the whole story because the confession was the result of coercion and stress, why invent a witness who could then be questioned and say it never happened or who might have his own alibi? One can go off into less and less likely speculations: he just hates Annadurdyev or that he was purposely crafting a story full of impeachable details so it would have to fall apart in court? I have to say I think these are implausible explanations. Whereas he is an amateur in this kind of criminality...That said, a confession obtained in this way is unlikely to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

One thing that puzzled me in the NYTimes article is that it sounded as if Dimitrichenko admits to telephoning Zarutsky the day of the attack -- which makes him sound considerably less out-of-loop than his account of more or less forgetting he had even hired Zarutsky and then having to pay the piper. Both stories can't be true and yet it's not "his lawyer said" versus "the other guy's lawyer said": both stories seem to be coming from him... As far as 'forgetting' you hired someone to beat someone up: if true, then... You know, I tried various ways to end that sentence, most of which involved speculations on mental health, a few on character, and even one on neuroscience--and then I gave up. I trust we will find out a little more about what really happened but for the rest, I await the post-modern Dostoevsky who can do this story justice. Because I don't think any court of law will.

You are assuming that Filin really is simply prejudiced against dancers who work with Tsiskaridze. I don't think that's been established by a long shot. (And of course it may not be something that can in any simple sense be established one way or another. I am baffled by Kevin Mckenzie's casting decisions at ABT, but I'd be hard put even to speculate intelligently on all the factors that might be involved in any particular case. And he may not even know himself. What we all do know is that Bolshoi casting has not been raising eyebrows all over the world in the same way the Mariinsky's has.) I know you are far too great an admirer of Obraztsova to think she needed a teen-age Vorontsova out of the way to catch Filin's eye!!! But perhaps the point is that Filin is not a slave to what seems to be the Mariinsky's increasingly caricatured notion of emploi in which only tall, super-skinny girls are allowed to dance Odette-Odile (since he gave Obraztsova her opportunity)? Which still doesn't mean Vorontsova is ready for it now.

I don't envy any young dancer negotiating the politics of coaches/directors at the Bolshoi (alongside the substantive artistic questions).

Well, he seems to think he's Spartacus...

The problem with trying to parse this out is one ends up inside his logic. Let's play along and not assume he is lying. Hiring someone to beat someone up? I think even dancers at the Bolshoi might agree that's probably technically a crime and considered morally wrong!!! And yes, Elena, one ought to be very sorry indeed for even those hideous consequences of one's actions that one didn't have in mind--maybe it might even give one pause about something as trivial as having someone beaten up. Add to that the fact that hiring someone who managed to kill the last person he "merely" beat up suggests one was never very worried about consequences anyway...Oh well, perhaps Dmitrichenko didn't know the guy's background? Because that, of course, would make it all so much more understandable. Never mind. Clearly, we should give him a break because he doesn't intend to sound like a psychopath...

Anyone remember Osipova's debut in the Bolshoi's Giselle? Not sure how you are linking this to the topic, or what your perspective on that debut was--but yes...Excerpts were almost immediately put up on youtube. The performance and the excerpts were well-received by many though I know there were skeptics...and she was pretty soon after making guest appearances in the role. (I also remember interviews she gave when she was preparing the debut in which she spoke about the work she was doing with her coach etc.)

Perhaps what Taranda meant was that Filin will no doubt recover and return to his job as Bolshoi director, don't forget that poor vision was never a handicap for Alicia Alonso. Tsiskaridze will forever be tainted by the accusatons against him, I agree that that's what Taranda meant, but there is still doubt about Filin's recovery and forgive me, you can't really think that "poor vision" (as in, partial blindness) isn't a terrible thing to suffer from in life or that people who suffer a traumatic physical attack don't suffer from it in more numinous ways for the rest of their lives. And Taranda should know that as well. (There is much testimony on the last point.) It's also premature to say what will happen to Tsiskaridze's reputation because the full story of the crime itself is still not known....though I agree it may not recover. The wounds to his reputation for wisdom or tact at a moment of crisis (I'm thinking of his earliest remarks when the attack took place) are partly self inflicted. Put like that, there isn't any real motive for the attack. Perhaps it's all a frame up. Or, as it seemed to me when I read the different statements, like somebody was being greedy. Given of course that I'm only going by what I read. It may be she was just naive and the people around her crazy. Obviously, if Dmitrichenko did this--as it appears he did--then he is not given to the most rational analysis of events.

Puppytreats: I have not said that there is anything wrong with Tsiskaridze supporting his student. I have not said he should be punished for anything he said. I made a different point--and tried (and evidently failed) to make it with some precision. I won't repeat because there's no evidence I would be successful this time around either. I will only add that saying one "understands" xyz does not entail all the consequences your remarks suggest that you are concerned about.

Helene has mostly addressed this, but since I thought perhaps this was probably an allusion to what I wrote above about Iksanov and Tsiskaridze, let me clarify. I don't "assume" any guilt down to Tsiskaridze at all. Some of his criticisms of the management may be justified. (I doubt all, given the excellent state of the company's dancing in recent years; management is clearly doing something right). I simply was making the point about Iksanov's statements about Tsiskaridze. I find them more understandable now. Why? If the criminal(s) had a some kind relationship with Tsiskaridze or his "faction" at the Bolshoi, then it's quite plausible that his remarks and attitude-however unintentionally--influenced them and if, as I think likely from Filin's comments that he "knew" who was responsible for the attack, Iksanov knew, too, at least who the prime suspect was, then that knowledge might have fueled his remarks about Tsiskaridze having contributed to the context in which the attacks occurred (because of Tsiskaridze's support for Vorontzova etc. etc.). That, puppytreats, is the answer to your question as well. It's nothing to do with assuming "guilt" and certainly not legal guilt. I would add my agreement with the position that questions of guilt in relation to the attack on Filin have nothing to do with whether or not ANYONE'S criticisms of management are justified. Even if all complaints against management were justified, then that would not in any way justify the criminal attack on Filin. Am I correct in reading that you suggest no discussion by anyone except management itself, since you indicate that expression of dissatisfaction by dancers and teachers, even if correct, and even if between a teacher and student behind closed doors, creates an "atmosphere" in which people feel they can or should physically attack someone? No you are not. I said nothing of the kind. First and foremost: I was making a remark about Iksanov and how I better understood why he has spoken the way he has. Secondly I was clarifying that a person's guilt or innocence in a case of grievous bodily injury has nothing to do with whether or not they had legitimate criticisms of the person they attacked. At least in most legal systems with which I am familiar. I realize there are categories such as "crime of passion" and "mitigating circumstances." I hardly think they apply here but I am not a Russian jurist. As for criticizing management in one's workplace, I've been known to do it myself. As for whether or not factions at the Bolshoi in general and Tsiskaridze in particular should do some soul-searching, I leave that to them.

Helene has mostly addressed this, but since I thought perhaps it was an allusion to what I wrote above about Iksanov and Tsiskaridze, let me clarify. I don't "assume" any guilt down to Tsiskaridze at all. Some of his criticisms of the management may be justified. (I doubt all, given the excellent state of the company's dancing in recent years; management is clearly doing something right). I simply was making the point about Iksanov's statements about Tsiskaridze. I find them more understandable now. Why? If the criminal(s) had some kind relationship with Tsiskaridze or his "faction" at the Bolshoi, then it's quite plausible that his remarks and attitude-however unintentionally--influenced them and if, as I think likely from Filin's comments that he "knew" who was responsible for the attack, Iksanov "knew," too, then that knowledge might have fueled his remarks about Tsiskaridze having contributed to the context in which the attacks occurred (because of Tsiskaridze's support for Vorontzova etc. etc.). That, puppytreats, is the answer to your question as well. I put "knew" in scare quotes, because I don't assume the investigation is wrapped up or that the truth is fully known as yet. I would add my agreement with the position that questions of guilt in relation to the physical attack on Filin have nothing to do with whether or not ANYONE'S criticisms of management are justified. Even if all complaints against management were justified, then that would not in any way justify the criminal attack on Filin. I don't think that last is a controversial point but perhaps just as well to state very explicitly.

This is a shame. I've seen Vorontsova dance in the "Swan Lake" pdt, and she is delightful, very talented and has potential. If she's lucky she will keep her job. Unfortunately, that seems to be unrealistic (now) given the circumstances. Furthermore, I think that if she remains she may be demoted. It's also very doubtful that she will attain O/O (at the Bolshoi), let alone other leading roles and promote. I'd be very surprised if that happens. My guess is that this couple will be purged from the Bolshoi Theatre. I can't speculate about what will happen to Vorontzova since she has not even been accused of involvement, but as for guessing that Dmitrichenko will be purged from the theater...Seriously? If he's found guilty, then that's the least that will happen to him--no guessing involved. And the confession, assuming that has been accurately reported, presumably means he will be found guilty. I will say that given Dmitrichenko's and Vorontzova's closeness to Tsiskaridze (reflected in the quote mentioned above in which he defends Dmitrichenko), one better understands Iksanov's claim that Tsiskaridze's attacks on the management helped create the atmosphere in which the attack happened (since presumably Iksanov had some idea that Dmitrichenko was a main suspect)--I say that even though I tend to think that under the circumstances of a criminal investigation Iksanov should have been more restrained.

And how would they do this? Dancers typically put their 'slippers' (pointe shoes?) on in their dressing room. And most dancers make sure everything is just so with their shoes. This has a distinct Black Swan sound. Because nothing outrageous, unexpected, or hard to explain ever happens at the Bolshoi...Oh--wait a minute...

Thank you Drew and dirac, for the information about "The Invisible War". Just watched the trailer on the Oscar site and have it in my Netflix cue. So sorry it didn't work out for The Invisible War last night. I tend to put a curse on my favored nominees, so it's probably my fault. Kind of a late entry comment on my part, but... I was bummed about Invisible War, but it did win the Independent Spirit Award for best documentary. (That's the Oscars for "Independent" films.) It also was screened by the Pentagon when it first came out which I suspect was plenty important to the film-makers as well as the women in the film, so...

Birdsall: Looking forward to reading about the performances you attend.

Just some fleeting impressions: I liked both Borchenko (a rather melting Odette) and Bondareva (more soubrette style in the Act I pas de trois in Swan Lake) when I saw them in London a couple of years ago. Not all-time "great" dancers but both very fine. I believe Perren was a hit in London in one of the full length roles--Giselle I think--but I myself only saw her in Spring Waters and she simply didn't have the daring (perhaps was just too tall) to pull off the flamboyant nonsense aspect of the choreography. Shemiunov did not make much of an impression as Siegfried. Those are the only ones I remember by name. I think on the whole, speaking of the company and its soloists/demi-soloists, I thought they were very good with some interesting repertory but, in the three performances I saw, did not strike me as a world-class "great" company--though the character dancing in Swan Lake and "Le Halte de Cavalerie" was terrific: in the latter ballet "character" dancing in both senses of the word was excellent...at least I thought so. Others on this board have seen more of them than I.

Rooting for best documentary The Invisible War! (Mmm...this is not as high minded as it sounds since I know someone closely involved with the film.)

Absolutely.

Thank you Jayne.