kfw

I have a probably-dumb question for anyone who knows Pictures at an Exhibition. Did Ratmansky choreograph a couple of loud falls? I ask because, while I didn't see it, it sounded like someone dropped his partner during one of the idiosyncratic partnering poses early in the ballet Saturday night. (I wish I could describe it better than that, but I was sitting upstairs and didn't see it clearly, and I liked the work so little I was already beginning to lose focus). At first I assumed someone goofed, but then we heard another thud not long thereafter.

While I didn't care for it one whit, Pictures received the loudest applause of any of 7 ballets this Saturday.

If the new African-American fans Copeland attracts find they actually enjoy ballet, they will likely be eager to see a largely African-American company like Dance Theatre of Harlem. For DTH's sake, we can hope so.

I teared up a bit thinking that is the last time I'll see Reyes dance.

That's the reason I was there, to see Reyes one last time. I hope she was as happy with her performance as I was.

I'm sure there will be a part of the audience who are there because Copeland is African American. For some, it's a cultural milestone; for some it's a curiosity; for some it's a landmark in the art form.

Nicely put.

Don't mis-understand me. I agree Misty is a "star". But I believe anyone given the role of Swan Queen should be able to do the work, regardless the color of their skin. Misty is more than capable. A wonderful dancer! I only meant that there may be people out there buying these tickets (and perhaps willing to pay inflated prices) only because she is African American. Not because she is a gifted dancer. There is still a certain portion of any audience willing to pay high prices for the sake of saying "I was there".

It can be hard to disentangle "I was there" from "this is meaningful to me." Copeland's debut will be understandably meaningful to a lot of people who aren't even big ballet fans. I'm reminded of Obama's inauguration, which I considered going to, but didn't because the press predicted long traffic jams just getting into the city that morning. I see those jams as the equivalent of $300 tickets.

Are the people who can afford to pay those prices now doing so because she(Misty) is some sort of curiosity? African American woman dances "White Swan" Shame on us if that's the case.

Isn't that the whole reason she's a star, that she's an African-American ballerina - a point of pride for some and satisfaction for others, just as Obama was in 2008? I don't see any cause for shame.

Twyla Tharp created the leading roles on "Waiting at the Station" on two of the least experienced members of PNB. They didn't dance them, but helped teach the parts to the leads, and they were rewarded for their effort with ensemble parts. Did Copeland work with Ratmansky in the studio on its creation? I don't know how Ratmansky works.

Copeland said "having this role created on me." ABT's page says Osipova "created the role." It's possible the company's wording is just a formality,a nicety for the ranking star. The subject of the interview was Copeland's career, not the details of Firebird's creation, granted, but listeners who don't know any better would have thought Ratmansky made a ballet for her.

dirac, I agree, we should call as we see it. We need the word "racism."

Nice interview....still going on with Qs from listeners. Everything fine except that the interviewer, Ms. Rehm, referred to her subject, just before a break, as "priiiiimaaaa balleriiiiinaaaaa!!!!" Not that many of us wouldn't like that but she is currently a soloist. . [in final moments of interview, Rehm correctly said "soloist."]

Bit of news that I had not heard before: Copeland's Siegfried in her two upcoming Wash Ballet SWAN LAKES will be "a black man"....not named, but this must be the fantastic Brooklyn Mack...or Andile N?

She said it was Brooklyn Mack. She also left the impression, plain and simple, that Ratmansky created Firebird on her.

Misty Copeland will be on the Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio on Monday, 3/23. Later in the day. the conversation will be online here.

As a culture, we've done most of the easy things, and they weren't that easy to do. The task that sits in front of us now is harder -- instead of changing laws and policies, we need to change attitudes, a much more slippery goal.

Right now, I am less worried about choices that people make deliberately and knowingly than I am about the unconscious assumptions that surround us on all levels of the culture. Instead of dialing back on affirmative action-like policies, assuming that those battles have been won, I think we need to redouble our efforts.

I think there is a strong case to be made against affirmative action, and some day, we can hope, it will be the stronger argument. But I don’t think it is now. I think that at the present, justice – not to mention empathy - mandates affirmative action. I agree in regards to attitudes as well, except I think that the attitude we usually need to change first, and then keep resetting when it jumps back to default position, is usually our own towards our ideological opponents. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind, is wise in this regard, pricking presumptions – his own, and our own. Taking the right political positions is the easy part. It's no substitute.

But back to Ms. Copeland. She'll be on the Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio tomorrow (Monday, 3/23) morning. Go here.

So now only balletomanes are qualified to have an opinion? They may have an informed opinion. But it's still an opinion. And hardly objective. They have their prejudices like everyone else.

Informed opinions are no better than uninformed ones, is that it? Knowledge of the subject should be no prerequisite to forming an opinion on it? And you yourself are not a balletomane, i.e. a ballet enthusiast?;

What you quoted of mine is a definition, not a determination. In Ms. Lavine's opinion, it applied to her situation.

OK. I don't want to effectively misquote you. But I don't think, in any case, that that bears on my point.

I have seen enough ballet to agree with Tapfan: Dance Theatre of Harlem and National Ballet of Cuba.

You have obviously and most definitely seen more than enough to be qualified to make a judgment, Helene, and I've seen enough to share your opinion. Tapfan, from what she's said, and from what she's declined to say when asked, is not. To put it another way, her opinion is not "colorblind." There is some irony here.

Huh?

I believe my point was quite clear.

As American gets browner, it's cultural institutions should reflect that. And it can reflect that without sacrificing quality.

And because you've seen a lot of ballet over the years you are qualified to make that judgment.

Call me pushy and obnoxious

Your words, not mine.

The meaning of "colorblind" casting is that the person casting does not take race into the equation . . . .

As determined by fans who do.

You just may be thinking of this.

"In college I was one of only two black students in ballet class. We hardly ever got corrections. It seemed like we were being bypassed. My feeling was she thought “They don’t have what it takes.” —Monique Haley, jazz dancer with River North Chicago Dance Company

I know there's one in the Balanchine doc that ran on PBS.

Oh yeah, thanks. That's what I was thinking of.

OK, here's a video of Violette Verdy, who originated the female role in Tschai pas, dancing the variation.

Fantastic. Thanks for all these. And doesn't "Dancing for Mr. B" have a Tchai Pas montage too? Haven't watched it in years.

If it all boils down to what individuals like, then “great art” is a meaningless phrase because there are no grounds on which to claim one thing is great and another is bad. Also, Cojocaru may have “seen” the choreography that way, or as someone not trained in the Balanchine style, she may have only been able to dance it that way. There may be a variety of legitimate ways to perform something, and some may contradict the creator’s intentions, but serious artists care about what the creator thought, and understand what that was, even when they disregard it. They only break the rules after they learn, or try, to follow them.

By that logic, only people who have direct knowledge of every artistic choice

Yes you made that distinction, Kathleen, but first of all I was responding to Helene's words, which I see I should have quoted for clarity myself, and secondly, I don't think that's actually the implication, because it wouldn't make much sense. I can see a dancer, or anyone else, refusing to do something with their own bodies that offends them. If it doesn't offend them, they can't worry about the audience's response. It seems to me that's the choreographer's job.

That was my quote and I did not mean to imply Sarah had somehow raised an objection to the choreography. I meant (and should have) to say simply that Sarah's partner did not touch her breast. I was simply trying to be descriptive and my poor choice of words made it sound much more than that.

Reading the quote again, I see there is nothing in there about the dancers not doing the move because someone else objects to it. That's not what's been under discussion.

Well I'm impressed by your research skills, or dedicated digging, or something. With multiple posters posting, it would be helpful if people would specify who they're responding to, especially if the comment they're addressing was made awhile back and has been followed by a lot more discussion.

Considering that this post triggered much if the discussion on this thread and that it was not an isolated opinion, another option is to trust that people have been following it rather than assuming a bad-faith strawman argument.