kfw

It's by Joeb Lobenthal, a longtime dance writer who collaborated with Elena Tchernichova on her memoir, and who is dance associate editor of Ballet Review. He blogs as well. The Kindle sample is available now. Thanks, Margareta!

Did anyone see Lauren King's debut in the first movement of Western Symphony last night?

Thanks, dirac. I love the Makarova line, and I hadn’t heard it. You make a great point about giving in to vs. meeting demands. As I read it, she is referring to sex not just with “giving in” but also with “sorostitutes” (what a slur, here or anywhere!) and “quick on our backs” and “muscle memory.” That’s why I’m not sure if the Eucharist reference is sarcastic or empathetic – a bit of both, I’m guessing. These dancers seem to put up with both ballet’s “unnatural” demands and the balletmaker’s as well. I know Balanchine enjoyed being adored, and more, but I’ve never heard anyone who was around him describe him as manipulating women that way, or cite any instance of a dancer sleeping with him for parts.

I’m curious as to what people think of this poem by Kathleen Heil in the latest New Yorker. Here is just the first stanza. To my mind, while it’s not without some basis in fact, it’s also pretty unpleasant in its cynicism and lack of sympathy for Balanchine, who for all his failings in regard to women, was apparently well loved even by most of his ex’s. So am I missing something? What’s the poem’s view of the women here? I can’t decide about the last three lines. Is she mocking them or empathizing with them? The coke reference would seem to place the time at which the kegger takes place as the late 70s or early 80s, but that’s perhaps too literal a translation. What the poet seems to be concerned with is an attitude, not a specific time, and the place and scenario are obviously imaginary. Does anyone know this poet's work? To be fair, she’s a former dancer.

Having danced for so many years, Corella surely understands that dancers get tired, and surely he can read their body language. I feel for the dancers who are being let go, and for the audience who loves them, and I hate to think of Balanchine being de-emphasized. But do we know that the manner of the firing was harsh? As the Times put it, he's made no secret of his goal to revamp the company. It's not like this should come as a total shock.

I’m sure she is, but I think it’s sad she has to, or thinks she has to. Floridians are water lovers and a forest is too far a stretch for their interests – really?? It would be one thing if the area already knew a more or less original production and declining attendance suggested people were tired of it. Then this new setting might be inspired. But to have to take a work as accessible as Midsummer already is and sell it in such an obvious manner . . . if that isn’t dumbed down marketing, I don’t know what is. I mean no insult to Floridians, because it’s hard to believe they needed this.

No apology necessary of course. You may be right about the Center. Imspear, I think there is no doubt that Farrell's goal is to serve Balanchine's work. Whether or not she'd be willing to lead a full-time company as a way of doing it appears, sadly in my opinion, to be a moot point.

Not to disagree - because I don't - but it's interesting that in his introduction to A Midsummer Night's Dream Night's Dream: The Story of the New York City Ballet's Production, Kirstein writes that "Balanchine made it clear from the start that this ballet was based far more on Mendelssohn's music than on Shakespeare's play." It seems that even when Balanchine was telling a story he was "see[ing] the music."

It's important to me , but I take your point. But I assume the reason they only have one season a year (it's actually two programs) is because they lack money for more. So I'd think SFB would still be the Center's first priority, both because it's established there and because for all Kent's fame and D.C.-area roots, Farrell is still the bigger star. But I guess a big donor or two could make all the difference.

I don't see any official designation on the website, but Suzanne Farrell Ballet is more or less the Kennedy Center's ballet company.

Oh yeah. Especially when it comes a choreographer's home company. I'm the kind of purist who wonders why in the world Martins couldn't just have had the costume shop copy Karinska's original designs for Symphony in C, instead of paying for the blingy ones Marc Happel replaced them with. I'm the kind of purist who wonders what would would have been wrong with recreating Peter Harvey's original sets for Jewels. If they were good enough for Balanchine . . . Yes, I know - marketing wants something new to sell. Ugh.

That's the order listed for the Kennedy Center performances. La Syphide, then Bournonville Divertissements.

Wow, congratulations to Mr. Moose. Here he is in Afternoon of a Faun at Washington's National Gallery in 2013.

Another female athlete one Jerry Ward would be unwise to compare unfavorably to the Eagles: The Wall Dancer.

Drew, not to minimize your concerns, but they're in "discussing the discussion" territory. I have sent you a private response.

sandik, the humor in blackface, such as it was, derived from the belief that blacks were inferior, and was a way of expressing that belief. Now that we know the poster likes ballet, there is no parallel. You're right that not sharing someone's humor doesn't make you humorless. That's a good point. But insisting on misinterpretation, or just insisting on political correctness, is humorless. Helene, no, following PA Ballet on Facebook doesn’t prove the guy’s intentions weren't malign – you can’t prove a negative anyhow. dirac, what “current inequalities” is he responsible for? You folks “figured out” the guy’s assumptions before you knew any thing about him, and now that the one thing we know is evidence against what you claimed to know, are you really doubling down on your speculative claims? An irrationally negative opinion about someone based on the group he belongs to (male football fans, or just males) is a prejudice, obviously. In this case it’s also reverse McCarthyism - witch-hunting.

You don't think he was really in love with American culture - musicals, Westerns, relative lack of pomposity?

Really, I don't feel the need to answer that.

Helene, have you considered that you've insulted the Facebook poster? Kathleen, the differences aren't risible.

Someone who only found humor in those things would have a stunted sense of humor, sure. Someone who’s never laughed at a difference between men and women (surely not you?) would be humorless for sure. Don’t men kid women and women kid men that way, as a way of laughing at themselves too? How many football fans, in a moment of frustration, think of women in tutus anyhow? Philly.com says the poster follows Pennsylvania Ballet on Facebook, so there goes the theory that he’s a ballet hater, and if he likes ballet, how likely is it that he doesn’t respect women in tutus, or thinks what they do is easy, or is homophobic? Sure, it’s possible. Lots of things are possible. Those things are highly unlikely.

What’s clear is that it was an insult to the Eagles. That there was a sub- or not so sub-text is what you’re trying to prove. Just stating it exists, just stating that because a person is a football fan he or she (we don’t even know which) must have meant the worst instead of the best thing, doesn’t make it so. That’s applying a negative stereotype, and doing so not to criticize one’s own group, as the poster did, but to demonize, and to do in complete ignorance. In other words, as well-meaning as it is, it’s a textbook act of prejudice, which can’t be excused because the groups supposedly insulted (which weren’t even mentioned, you have to infer the insult) have historically been wronged – as if two wrongs make a right. And standing up for historically subordinated and marginalized members of society is also no cause for humorlessness. Stereotypes are an age-old source of humor, and that humor isn’t necessarily malign, it’s a source of good fun when neither side takes itself too seriously. Invoking victim status and taking people to task for every just-plausibly, in-the-worst-case-scenario-prejudicial offhand remark they make is not the way to create “the Good Society.” At least PB, as has been pointed out, avoided scolding, and probably educated some people about dancers. I continue to doubt the poster’s comment reflected a poor opinion of dancers, but they went about changing minds the right (smart) way.

Helene, I've never heard that insult you say is prevalent. Drew, no apology necessary, and thanks for the laugh. That would have been such a great retort. Maybe the Facebook poster should have known how some people would interpret his words – I’ll give you that. But I think that unless we want our own words policed, we have to give the widest latitude to others. Intent, in other words, should count. You say your reading of his language is within norms, but whose norms? I don’t hang around with guys who put down women or gays, even obliquely. In my circle, people who did that would be shunned. How do you know it’s not the same in his? Not because he's a football fan. That would be an unfair stereotype right there. Some guys are sexist and homophobic, yes. If he’s not, why should that be his problem? It’s not like he used a racial or sexual slur that’s always had one and only one meaning. Men and women derive humor from the differences between the sexes, and sometimes that humor is sharp. Most of us recognize that masculinity and femininity are equally good, but in some situations, like when someone’s wearing a tutu or a football helmet, one is called for rather than the other, and it’s no insult to the other to say so. So to insult a man for being stereotypically feminine where stereotypical masculinity is called for is not by definition to insult either women or un-stereotypically masculine men who don't play football. It’s just to say, be “a man” in the way masculinity is called for in that situation. That’s my opinion. Obviously you don’t agree, but I've enjoyed the discussion.

Drew, yes the tone of the Pennsylvania Ballet Facebook post was great. They didn’t question the motives of the Eagles fan – that's been done here. As I’ve said, I see no evidence, as opposed to suspicion, that the remark was either sexist or homophobic. Some of the links you posted no longer work, but do you really think it’s fair to judge someone you’ve never met and know nothing about by a few other people’s behavior?? Would you want to be judged by that standard? As for “finger wagging,” my tone has ranged from incredulous in my first post to just plain conversational later. I explicitly said I’m not accusing people here. Other people are doing to accusing, and people making accusations should expect to be challenged.

sandik, if you’ll note, I didn’t say the poster meant it ironically. I said he referenced a stereotype which the Trocks also reference. They use it ironically, yes. He meant it as an insult, yes – to the football team. That much is clear. Apparently you also think that to say men are acting like women when the context is a sport where men are called for is an insult to gays. But you offer no evidence for that, and there is a simple and therefore more likely reason, which I have offered. I’m sure that in the history of homophobic insult-throwing someone somewhere has used the word “tutu,” but it’s not exactly a common stereotype, nor do we have any idea of the poster’s background, knowledge of or interest in ballet, or feelings about gays. Without all that, I think it's a mistake to presume the worst. I don’t see what that accomplishes, except to make straights walk on tenterhooks around gays. You don’t seem like the kind of person who would want that, and I believe the Facebook poster deserves the same benefit of the doubt.

Uh huh. Not bad, but my question stands unanswered. As does the question of how a feminine manner is an asset on the football field. That Facebook poster sure doesn’t know.