kfw

Please see Washington Post obituary - I read it today and I think it's a better obituary than the NYT. .

That obituary is here.

I don't think she said anything resembling that.

Well, you're probably right, that was too cynical a way of putting it on my part. In any case, her wording was much more polite.

Besides being a beautifully trained and gorgeous dancer, [silas Farley] is a Balanchine historian - it's astonishing how much he knows and that was obvious from when he arrived at SAB in his early teens. Being exceptional in every way (and oh incidentally being African-American) is why Silas has already been identified as a future faculty member.

Wow, a dancer that young with that much knowledge and interest already - that's exciting to read!

I disagree, Helene. Balanchine and his school distilled and refined ballet technique for his own purposes, and although NYCB may not be the best exponent of the Balanchine style (which changed over the years, yes), SAB, with the possible exception of Farrell's classes, has always been recognized as the best place to learn what he wanted taught. I don’t presume to have any idea who they can use and who they can’t, and and if I’m not mistaken they do expose their students to outside influences. But one could hardly blame them if when considering new hires, they look for SAB training. Maybe Jimenez, with her own SAB experience, could still teach there. But if she has any real interest in that, ‘hire me or else you’re a phony’ hasn’t helped her chances. Anybody knows that. Of the two of them, who’s “playing” who?

It's not like I can't understand a certain degree of cynicism, but she was offered an opportunity to help remedy a bad situation, and she turned it down.

Jimenez and a couple of generations of DTH dancers would have gotten it from Arthur Mitchell and Tanaquil Leclercq, not to mention Karel Shook, who was lauded as a master teacher, like Stanley Williams. SAB faculty was more diverse during Balanchine's years.

I'm aware that many if not most SAB and NYCB teachers and ballet masters didn't dance or train under Balanchine himself. If those DTH teachers are willing to teach at SAB, great. But all the people on that list for whom there are bios posted have either years of SAB training or direct involvement with Balanchine.

If committees can do good, then theoretically Jimenez could have done some good on the committee, maybe even gotten herself or another person of color hired. She could always have resigned later if she found the committee was indeed just an excuse for non-action. But instead of extending good faith and finding out, she publicly rebuked the man and the institution that had reached out to her. Maybe "I am great" is considered healthy self-assertion nowadays, but it still turns off many of the rest of us.

Also, if there are so few dancers of color, where did all those other Balanchine-trained teachers of color come from?

You haven't but a lot of her detractors in here and elsewhere have. Look back a few pages.

Yes, they have, but she was addressing me so I made my position clear.

Based on numerous statements made over the past few years in both old and new media by several classical dancers of color, it's clear that fair or not, many see the folks the SAB and NYCB organizations as being at best, indifferent and at worst, hostile to new people and/or ideas. And that this is all done under the guise of protecting a cherished legacy when it's really about protecting their cushy positions.

Their supposed unhealthy insularity is seen this way: Balanchine was a genius. I worked with him directly. So therefore, I'm important and I'm above criticism.

I don't dismiss what you say here, but it's all too vague to be convincing yet either. People who worked with Balanchine directly should be considered authorities on his work, obviously - where exactly do you charge that they have used that authority to work against the training and hiring of black woman dancers? Here we have Peter Martins indicating he wants to encourage and develop black dancers, and a black dancer says, in effect, "Hire me or I don't believe you"?

Martins, and anyone else, should get the benefit of the doubt unless they demonstrate they don't deserve it. I've never accused Copeland of trying to "steal" roles.

Another interesting corroboration of Kirkland's autobiography. She always stood by the fact that she thought Balanchine deliberately tried to take Baryshnikov down a few notches. It seemed an outrageous allegation so many years ago.

But in this recent interview of Patricia Neary (2011), Neary states that Balanchine got very angry at good press Baryshnikov received while dancing with NYCB.

Kirkland was probably right in her assessment.

Thanks for the link. There are photos there I've never seen. Balanchine's jealousy is a sad thing to reckon with, although in this case, about the critics, he had a point.

It's easy for me understand why she'd take a public stand in refusing to be part of another committee, when years of committee, panel discussion, and symposia conclusions on the subject have been ignored. It's possible to interpret the enterprise itself as a cynical attempt to look like action is being taken, but actually to avoid doing anything, like creating yet another special panel or commission ostensibly to investigate, but ultimately to put off action.

It's possible to give individuals the benefit of the doubt in lieu of evidence to the contrary. What evidence is there that Martins is using the panel as an excuse and isn't serious?

I don't see any similarity between Jimenez asking Peter Martins to put his money where his mouth was and go straight to action and Parish's statement, which, like many blanket statements that purports to assign a specific motive or behavior to a wide range of people, doesn't mean very much.

I haven't read Parish's statement, but what strike's me about Jimenez's is its cynicism about Martins, and it's rudeness or righteous boldness, depending on your perspective, in airing that cynicism publicly.

It seems to me she wanted something that NYCB or Balanchine didn't had to offer. I don't think it had to do with emotional support. What ballet company in the world was going to provide that?

I'm reminded of Susan Pilarre, I think it was, in the recent PBS broadcast of the 2014 SAB workshop, saying "I'd love to mother them," but that they had to find their own way.

It does take some getting used to. I tell myself it's actually progress in a sense, because until fairly recently women were not only not supposed to have obvious muscles but too much physical exercise was considered unfeminine. Jane Fonda once said that she began taking ballet classes because it was the only place to go for women who wanted to work up a sweat (gyms catered mainly to men). So for women to be able to flaunt their athleticism is a Good Thing. But there may be limits to how appropriate it is for ballet.

A good thing, yes. I remember an Esquire cover - I thought late 1970's, but I find one from 1980 on ebay - with a muscular woman, and I think there were more such photos inside. At the time, it was certainly provocative. ETA: I don't mean sexually provocative, of course. I mean that it proposed a new form of female beauty.

Thanks for reviving the thread, kaskait. Rereading d'Amboise, he seems to think Balanchine sabotaged Firebird (what an utter tragedy) in part because he didn't want it to make Kirkland a star in her own right. Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face!

They've weathered six years of being accused of racism, and the idea that they'd suddenly be pressured now isn't credible to me.

Six years? She may have been talking about this for that long, but her book just came out a year ago. The big push began a year ago. But you're right of course, the now expected promotion has been awhile in coming.

If she is promoted to Principal, that does not erase her experiences of racism up to that point or thereafter any more than being elected POTUS erased any experiences of racism that Barack Obama faces nor continues to face from those who don't think the reasons for or the people behind his election are legitimate.

If indeed she experienced racism in the company, no. I don't doubt that all African-Americans experience racism. Whether Copeland did at ABT, or whether what she did experience was not outweighed by positive attention to and interest in her because of her race, is another question.

It's interesting that you assume that Copeland's race had a positive influence on her being a soloist, which was before her media campaign. I would think if that were true, that ABT would have tried to leverage at least a tie-in to her story as a "how far she had come and now she's fulfilling her dream" narrative, connecting the dots to media coverage of her as a child. The "rags-to-riches" story has always been compelling to the media and soothing to the public, supporting the national myth. ABT would have controlled the narrative, as patting itself on the back for having promoted a black ballerina to soloist could have easily backfired, because a logical follow-up question would be,"Why did it take them so long?"

I have no opinion as to whether Copeland’s race helped her get promoted. I’ve never thought about it. I assumed she fully earned it through her dancing. My only point is that race is unlikely to have held her back, that having proved herself worthy of promotion, her race would likely then (and only then) have been considered another good reason (not one sufficient in itself) to promote her (having been a good reason all along to cultivate her talent). I take your point about the leverage campaign. If ABT was as media-savvy, instead of media-incompetent, as a lot of other companies are, they could have made something of her story, but they aren’t, and so maybe race wasn’t considered at all. But the fact that they didn’t promote her story doesn’t of course show that race held her back either.

However, few companies would have expected a dancer to form her own narrative that is at all critical of anyone but herself -- usually career suicide -- or if she did that it would get mainstream media attention -- unprecedented since Gelsey Kirkland published her first book -- or that it would have an upside, especially after DTH dancers were vocal about not getting hired after DTH disbanded, one of the great lost opportunities in American ballet, and that worked for no one. Even if they were dead wrong, ABT reaps the rewards of media coverage of Copeland, and times have changed from an almost exclusively carefully constructed media image to warts-and-all day-by-day coverage of minutia through social media. I think the company has played the tension quite well.

I disagree. Charges of racism might not have worked for DTH dancers, but when was the last time they actually backfired in the mainstream press? They presume – most of us presume – such charges are correct. And as you said, rags-to-riches tales are compelling. Copeland’s story was a pretty sure-fire success – certainly it had little chance of hurting her. But we’ve talked about this before. What is ABT going to do, come out with a we’re-not-racist statement? Give the racism narrative more plausibility by denying her opportunities she was on track for?

ETA: Plisskin wrote:

More opinions stated as fact. I, unlike some people in this thread, have also seen Copeland live. Not a YouTube clip or music video. But LIVE. And thought she had a nice body and good port de bras and was graceful. Technically not strong though. Not my favorite dancer but she's hardly any worse than principal dancers like Boylston or Seo. The former who is completely ungraceful and has terrible port de bras with scraggly fingers, and the latter who more often than not is technically deficient and seems to have stamina issues at times. They have their failings, yet don't get criticized as much as Misty.

Natalia wrote:

Misty doesn't have to publicize.

But she did.

It's interesting that you think she has a great shape for ballet. I wonder if she'll succeed in changing a lot of people's perceptions - whether she'll broaden or offer an alternative to the ballet ideal.

I think that Copeland's accomplishment was more difficult: besides how rare it was to become a black ballerina soloist at ABT, there was no institutional push for it -- an executive for the institution described the contrary: an artistic policy that side-lined its homegrown ballerinas of every color, height, shape -- like there was at the Bolshoi. By the chronology she accomplished this by her dancing, since her media prominence was not until after her promotion, and in spite of her institution.

I've never heard of ABT sidelining its own dancers for foreign stars in soloist roles, so it would still need to cultivate soloists, and also they'd have to be really dumb not to see the value of promoting a black dancer. In any case, I've never heard anyone say Copeland's dancing is near the level of Hallberg's, so while Copeland couldn't have a better supporter, I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Hallberg rose to the top of his profession, and took advantage of what attention came his way (but hasn't even bothered to write a book so far). Copeland decided she deserved attention, and sought it.

Wearing perfume to class hardly seems like " working the AD".

Except maybe if the AD is woman-crazy Balanchine, and they're maybe even wearing what he bought them .

Helene, when I say "deserves attention" from the wider public, I mean for the quality of their dancing. As one of the great male dancers of his generation, Hallberg was and remains, everyone who's seen them both seems to think, on a whole 'nother level than Copeland.

Copeland might not be a Principal Dancer, but if her media campaign started five years ago, after she became a Soloist, she got to that rank on account of her dancing, and a black ballerina getting to that rank had only happened once more than an American dancer joining the Bolshoi. There was no stated goal, like Filin's stated goal, to shake things up, or any stated push to promote black dancers. In fact, an executive from her company described in a now pulled YouTube video in a college address how they actively squashed their own ballerinas' development based on their calculations of box office appeal.

Copeland the principal dancer would have attracted lots of attention, very deservedly so, and very much to the good. Copeland the soloist deserves attention too, sure. But Copeland the soloist minus a triumph-over-victimization book would probably still be a relative unknown. Can you remember more of what that executive said?

He needed a publicist for the same reason that Copeland did: to vet and manage the media opportunities presented and to find new, lucrative ones so that dancers could still do their day jobs.

Hallberg's dancing garnered him media opportunities, and all the dancing opportunities he could probably handle. Copeland's didn't, and that's the difference.

Wow, thanks Jack. It's wonderful to picture Magnicaballi in La Sonnambula and SVC.

"Moral judgment" is a black and white term, no pun intended, which suggests looking down on someone. Copeland is influenced by her times, as we all are.

So you agree that Copeland was trying to work ABT?

A value judgment on those who believe in Copeland's cause? I don't know what you mean there.

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.

Well I know I only pay to see one of the two. Anyhow, if your analogy is correct, then Copeland was indeed working McKenzie for a promotion.

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.

Your comparison not mine, but one thing being on another's level doesn't make it moral, and "moral" is in any case too high falutin' in my opinion. If it was some sort of a crime to praise oneself in public, it would be a crime against oneself.