kfw

It's true, Macaulay definitely has advantages the others don't get.

Unfortunately, as was reported her earlier, Kourlas has left Time Out New York, and their "standalone dance section" has been cut from their print edition. I loved the in-depth interviews she used to do. Maybe it's my imagination, but it seems Macaulay generally gets more space for reviews than other NY Times writers. Whatever his opinions of particular performances, which I usually haven't seen, I find him the most stimulating and thought-provoking of all the Times ballet critics.

Yes, but he's a good writer and could have made that clear with only a few more words.

I'm probably reading too much into this, but I'm struck by Macaulay saying that "some" of Abreras dancing was "luminous," an adjective that would properly apply to the lead dancer in the second act of a great performance of Giselle, but not in the first. Village girls, whatever their charms, aren't luminous, whereas spirits in a white act are. In other words, if only some of Abrera's dancing was luminous, that's just as it should have been. So the phrasing seems a little odd there, as if his praise is a little grudging. And it's Boylston whom he says is moving into the front rank of the American front rank despite those opaque eyes. Odd.

I think it's pretty clear that America is still a "white world" to the degree that whites still have a disproportionate degree of power, and that racism towards other races still exists and still does great harm.

I don't know who said it was, but much of the discussion here on BA has been about dancers of color in what has been and still is an overwhelmingly white ballet world. I imagine one thing everyone here can agree on is a hope that Misty and her mother and siblings will fully reconcile if they haven't already.

Thanks, Daniel! Have you read it yet? Most of the article is subscriber-only, but a few paragraphs can be found here, including a marvelous rehearsal photo.

Well, upheld them as values, yes. I don't see any indication she thinks they always did in practice. But ideals are always things to shoot for, rarely to achieve. ETA that any art form reflects moral values.

Good point, but I don’t think the ideal is any less present because the reality never lives up to it and often falls far short. Like Homans, I love that ideal of the human spirit and human community as well as the human body that much ballet conveys – an ideal best conveyed in real time, not slo-mo (ugh).

I'm not surprised, but I'm very happy, to see from a Kennedy Center mailer that NYCB will dance it in D.C. next year.

The program was well over two hours long and consisted of an introduction to the dance by Macaulay, a lecture demonstration led by Patricia Lent, a full run through of the dance, more demonstration, more lecture by Lent as she showed slides of Cunningham's notes for the dance, and finally a panel discussion with five dancers who'd been in it. I was fascinated to hear the dancer Alan Good talk about feeling "terror" onstage when he first joined the company as he tried to get from one position to another. Later, he said, he realized that terror wasn't such a bad way to feel when dancing Cunningham. He got used to it, but Cunningham's work was always hard. I think he may have said it never felt natural. Anyhow, I assume Tisch Dance will put this online eventually as they have the rest of their Cunningham Trust livestreams.

The New Yorker has put online a 1927 profile of Isadora Duncan by Janet Flanner. It's very short by current New Yorker profile standards (and if memory serves those often used to be longer), and is mostly just a capsule history of her career, but of course it's typically reflective, and the prose is a pleasure.

I probably would have enjoyed Homans if it hadn't been for the slo-mo and the emotional music (good in and of itself, of course) that made her sound so grandiloquent.

First, who speculates about her moral character? I have twice said I don't. Second, as I said, the fact that some dancers advance by reasons other than merit doesn't give Copeland a pass if that's what's she's doing. Third, as to the second speculative thing you cite, speculation of that sort rightly gets removed on BA, and I have not engaged in it. Fourth, I will say it in very plain English because anything less apparently doesn't suffice: I don't think Copeland is a bad person. Fifth, my own particular reaction is not vehement or anything approaching it. Again, I've said good and bad things about her. Sixth, your question presumes racism. What basis do you have for that presumption?

Well the publicly quiet dancer might or might not throw her weight around. What you suggest but don’t quite say is that everyone works the system, and that’s not true. Neither is it true that two wrongs make a right, so even if it was true it would have no bearing. That said, if a dancer wants to promote herself, that’s her business. But when there is a question of whether she is trying and succeeding in getting roles (which by definition means taking roles or at least performances away from others) by this extraneous, non-artistic means, that becomes the business of people who love the art form. Now of course you can argue that she’s not. But by the same token someone else can argue that she is. That’s not trashing someone’s character, as if for sport. That’s “ballet talk.” I don’t know who and what specifically you’re talking about, so I’ll repeat that I personally don’t presume to judge Copeland’s overall character from anything we’ve discussed here. That said, we’re all moral actors, and we judge each other’s and own actions in the course of daily life. To judge is to be human. Here, for example, we all agree that it was morally wrong for dancers to have been excluded because of race, and some people here seem to think it’s a moral imperative that schools and companies get more minority dancers to make up for that neglect. For what possible reason then should Copeland’s choices (like the statement again in tonight's Ric Burns documentary - when was her part taped?? - that ABT had never had a black dancer make it past the corps) be exempted from this same sort of evaluation to which everyone else is subjected? You’re asking the impossible. What’s not impossible is that we refuse to judge a person’s overall character by the little we know of them that we might not approve of.

This is a late notice, but I just now noticed it on the Trust's Twitter page: Friday, May 15th, 92Y Fridays at Noon (EST): Alastair Macaulay with Merce Cunningham Trust- Doubles

I would think it should be a priority to train and hire an individual minority dancer when he or she is as good as a competing white one. Hire the minority dancer over the white dancer in that case, as a way of making up a history of discrimination. But what would be the artistic rationale behind making it a priority period? Perhaps there is an economic rationale, increasing the size of the audience by drawing more minority members.

Great point, but I wonder how much longer her media moment will last. If McKenzie wants to promote another dancer or two but not Copeland, say at the end of the spring season, can he do that without a flood of negative criticism from the mainstream media, criticism that he might justifiably not want to risk the financial repercussions of? I'm thinking of donors. On 60 Minutes, after Copeland brought up the question of whether or not she has a ballet body, Bill Whitaker editorialized, saying that “Misty Copeland is powerful, elegant, determined.” No one questions the first and the last, but whether or not she’s elegant by ballet standards is really beyond his ken unless he’s a balletomane, in which case you’d think he would have said so, and he should have. But if she doesn't get promoted, everyone will be a ballet critic.

Sure, disagree, that makes life interesting. Bring on the debate. Strongly suggesting that people are racist is another matter, and more than one person has done that. Angelica, I think that since Copeland herself has made ad hominem claims without citing evidence, her behavior is open to criticism, and/or her perceptions may be questioned. Likewise if she’s made untrue claims. If criticizing specific behavior is ad hominem, then making that criticism is ad hominem too, and any and all criticism is off limits. I think the term should be reserved for generalizing from specific behavior to a person’s overall character. I’ve seen that done elsewhere. I’ve not seen it done here. I. for one, have said positive things about her as well. There is much to admire about her.

I really doubt she made a decision like that. I think she believes in her talent and is just doing what the culture encourages talented people to do, which is to sell herself like crazy. And to her credit, she does have an interesting and important story to tell. I just doubt she faced more resistance than she did extra encouragement. But there again, the culture encourages people to see themselves are triumphing over victimization. Plisskin, it’s good of you to defend Copeland, but her and her team’s misstatements are on the record, or were in the case of wikipedia. If you think they deserve the benefit of the doubt, the reasons why are yours to state. I find it hard, but not impossible, to believe that after years in ABT, she didn’t know a part of its history that was so important to her. Drew, no, “over the top” certainly is not demonizing.

Agreed, and we’ve seen some of that here. And no doubt, as Copeland pretty much told 60 Minutes, she really believes she deserves promotion. She’s caught up in her story, and she’s been affirmed in that story by public opinion. She can’t be expected to have perspective. But technically speaking there can be a kind of moral failure (that’s an unecessarily harsh and unempathetic way of putting it, but I’m drawing a rough correspondence) in demonizing criticism that a dancer’s limitations are being ignored and denied for the sake of affirmative action. “La Danse, Madame, c'est une question morale.”

Catazaro may have made a dumb mistake and then all but hung his head through the rest of the ballet, but it was his first shot at the ballet, and judging by people's interest beforehand, he'd earned his chance at it. It's too soon to be fundamentally disappointed in his growth.

She’s become my favorite NYCB dancer, although not living in New York I only see the company a few times a year and certainly don’t see each alternate cast. However she betrayed little or no “interiority,” or relationship with her partner, in Agon at the Kennedy Center a few weeks ago. Kowroski’s Symphony in C, on the other hand, was beautiful and secure. Many thanks to everyone for all the reports.;

Once Copeland agreed to let 60 Minutes film her solo, she probably had no say in what part of it they chose to show, and she probably didn't expect it would be the part she told them was weak..

Ballet is based on aesthetics. I haven't seen Hee Seo, but a lot of people complain about her lack of strength, so she's not a good comparison. As for Kowroski, I've seen performances where she could have used more strength. But this is late in her career.