Simon G

I don’t believe in skewing casting in favor of any one dancer. In fact a new battalion of Mariinsky graces are now waiting in the wings and it won’t be long before the same passionate debates (at least I hope) would be raging around them. No dancer, no matter how great, should dominate the repertoire.

Don't go to see Somova if you do not understand her style. Attend performances with dancers that you happen to like. Ars longa, vita brevis.

PS. “snide” as you put it is OK, even if it smacks of self-righteousness. In fact it is the shining example of that strong emotion that sizzles inside you. I can only hope that someone who reads your… evaluation of Somova and happens to adore her, might not be tempted to do the same, i.e. evaluate a dancer that you like and/or admire in a similar fashion.

But that's just it, it's not a question of "skewing" casting if anything the casting has been skewed in favour of the 40-something veteran Lopatkina. Somova is the youngest principal at the Mariinksy, and let's not forget incredible dancers like Obratsova are still only first soloists and yet she's been given precendence in all castint not only in London but at home too over Somova.

The Mariinsky have done as much as they can to bury Somova within the rep. She's only performing four times and only twice in full lengths, and one of those is buried in the matinee. A great dancer will dominate a repertoire no matter where they're placed because of their greatness, Osipova was launched on the world stage as a star in London while she was still a soloist from a single matinee performance of Don Q. Somova is no Osipova.

I have been far kinder to Somova than many here, she has improved, she has cut out a great deal of the bad habits and she does at least strain for some level of cantilena but she's not a classical ballerina and yet she's a principal in the greatest classical ballet company in the world and the increasing dissatisfaction with her from within the company is being reflected by what she's performing, how often and where.

I know you were referring to Terekshina as a classicist but that's the problem with Somova she isn't a classicist and she struggles with the classical style. There's a really sad video of her in Sleeping Beauty the entrance and rose adagio - the rose adagio is just an unwholly mess, but the real tragic part is the petit allegro entrance which takes absolute precision, fluidity of movement, an ability to handle terre a terre work be musical, fast, fluid and precise. In those two short minutes every single weakness in Somova was cruelly ruthlessly exposed. Petipa absolutely kicked her butt.

Didn't Joaquin De Luz rise up through the ranks of ABT before switching to NYCB?

He rose to soloist at ABT where he spent five years at that level, then switched to NYCB as a soloist spending two years abouts as a soloist before finally being promoted to principal. He's probably have been promoted to principal far quicker had he not been only three feet tall, or thereabouts.

One can never predict which side of her artistic self she is going to reveal in a particular performance.

I think that uncertainty comes more from being unable to predict whether she'll make it through to the end of a performance without completely screwing up, mildly screwing up and how many nails she's going to hammer into Petipa's coffin this time around. Though in one area of artistry Somova excels above all others, Le Ballet de Funky Chicken.

I wouldn’t go so far as to call Victoria an ultimate Petipa ballerina, but she comes darn close to being one.

What's a Petipa ballerina? If you're talking about a classical ballerina, good turnout, good use of feet, restrained extension in the classical form - then on all those levels Somova is a non starter.

There are dancers of a step and dancers of a line. Alina is a dancer of a line and air.

Somova has no line, that's part of her problem although she's as flexible as they come she simply can't nor won't make a harmonious classical line, the legs go up to Newcastle and back like no one's business, but because she distorts her trunk and refuses to use what turnout she has all you get are legs at strange angles. Also she has a very weak jump so how she's supposed to be a dancer of "air" is a point for debate.

After all, is it not Art’s purpose to penetrate the deep recesses of our heart, touch our inmost feelings and invoke strong emotions?

Somova certainly evokes strong emotions, revulsion, dismay, calumny and despair being cheif among them.

I'm sorry if this seems snide, you like Somova, that's cool and great for you, but to make any kind of case for Somova as a great ballerina or classicist is a non starter. Also it's interesting to note just how much the artisitc directorship of the Mariinksy is responding to the criticism of her and cooling their relationship in casting. In the Mariinsky season at the ROH this & next month, in a four week season of 25 performances Somova is only dancing four times. Third cast Swan Lake, matinee third cast Bayadere and once in two triple bills both second/third casts. She's dancing Ballet Imperial which might be amusing to watch just to see how she gets Balanchine so wrong, I predict a windmill of legs, falling off point and her trademark spastic limbs. But truthfully, if she really was the Mariinsky's great hope and supreme exponent, don't you think they'd have given her more of a prominent role in a major tour?

I don't think anyone has called for sackings or the pressing of criminal charges. The goal of an investigation, I should think, would be to address any problems in the working life of the company, not necessarily to produce someone’s head on a platter. It's true that such things do happen, not always justly. But by the same token a thorough inquiry could resolve any questions in a positive way to the benefit of all, or most, concerned. The company above all.

I know. But if it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the Artistic Head of an arts organisation, a public servant of an organisation with strong links to the Danish Royal family and funded mainly by taxpayer's money has been sharing/forcing cocaine upon his employees, who in some cases may be teenagers, does anyone here think that he'll keep his job?

If the parties all come forward and it be proven, it will be news, it will be investigated by the police who may very well decide to press charges given how high profile the case is.

I mean we can debate the whole gossip vs legitimate news and internal report as opposed to public inquiry thing - but the stakes are pretty high for all concerned.

The real problem is that there's a vast gulf between cocaine use and true addiction, by demonising and making something essentially in house so stigmatised, public and scandalous it will stop dancers who may have real problems coming forward to get the help they may desperately want and need.

As has been pointed out, those dancers are dependent on Hubbe for their jobs. Answering questions in an internal investigation isn't gossiping, and reporting the results of investigations is reporting news.

Well, I reckon those jobs are in jeopardy anyway, if it did indeed take place the anonymous cat is out of the bag. Since the report makes anonymous third party allegations it is gossip, not news.

If those dancers have legitimate grievances then it's highly unlikely Hubbe would keep his job - those are serious allegations, so those dancers have to decide whether or not they want to exercise that kind of power, or even if they want to complain. After all this is third party gossip, they may have had a high old time, if it happened. And what were the motives for the third parties who decided to gossip? The original parties apparently wanted to keep it to themselves.

And yes, there may be an element of fear for their jobs, but unless they do come forward and complain directly nothing can come of this. You can't sack someone or bring criminal proceedings against someone on heresay and third party gossip. So until they do it doesn't matter what anyone here may think or want to see happen.

Not to send the thread off topic, but in the beginning it didn’t seem as if this affair would do much more than cost some people their jobs and possibly affect James Murdoch’s place in the line of succession. Even people who’ve been following Murdoch for a long time seem to have been taken aback by the way this thing has snowballed, not least Rupert himself. Amazing story.

Dirac

The real reason for this is because Murdoch was part of the central Illuminati Cabal establishing a New World Order, but he broke away from his brethren wanting total world domination of the media and looked close to achieving this. So the other Leaders of the Illuminati, sensing one of their own was about to destroy the balance of power by becoming greater than any of them, engineered his downfall along with the Masons, the Bilderberg Group, the Lucis Society, UN, Rothschilds, the Vatican and coven of Baphomet.

Anonymous sources are part of academic studies. All clinical trials are anonymous, in fact, any study that features the medical statuses of subjects must be anonymous because of the issues of medical privacy. In this study it seems as if there was an investigation that would concern the medical status of several of the dancers, so therefore, the dancers in question would have to remain anonymous. That shouldn't be a reason to dismiss the claims of the dancers.

I'm not dismissing the claims. I said they may very well be true. And yes anonymous sources are used in reports, tabloid journalism, studies and areas of medical privacy. But what we're talking about here is people wanting a full proceedural report and investigation which could lead to criminal charges, sackings and the destruction of people's reputation.

So if you do want a legally legitimate investigation the "anonymous" and indeed "anonymous reporting on alleged actions by anonymous" won't do. It certainly wouldn't stand up in a court of law, unless Hubbe was to say it was all true and give names.

So, if those dancers felt like they were forced to do drugs and that it was a power trip on the part of a semi-psychotic AD, then they will have to come forward and make it official. Anything else is just gossip and very bad tabloid level journalism.

Why is this anyone's business? Because my tax kroner (we pay a 60% income tax rate, plus 25% sales tax on everything we buy - the world's highest tax rate!) finance the Royal Danish Ballet. This is not a story about Hubbe doing lines while on vacation in the Bahamas. This is a story about him taking drugs as a public employee, with other public employees, on public property. On my time, basically. And - which I think is worse - allegedly creating a hostile work environment for other employees, so hostile that 20 out of 92 are considering leaving a top-tier company to look for other jobs in a very difficult business.

The real villain here seems to be the Royal Ballet's board, which should have looked into these charges as soon as they surfaced, and should have taken Hein's report seriously when it was presented to them. I'm quite sure they are doing so now. The Danish Royal Family, which as a previous poster suggested are quite involved with the ballet, does not appreciate any link with narcotics - one of the Crown Prince's friends convicted of cocaine dealing has been very publicly exiled from all contact with the royals. The intelligent, activist Queen will be leaning on the board quite heavily to sort this out.

Hubbe and the dancers pay tax too, which also funds the Ballet. How they spend their money is none of your business. And do you truly believe that the way all public service officials, civil servants, armed forces, doctors etc use their wages for wholly wholesome things? Our taxes also bailed out massive merchant banks when they screwed up with our money and those dudes are some of the biggest drug abusers out there.

And do you truly think that drugs didn't exist within the RDB before Hubbe?

Doing lines of coke on their own time is one thing. That I agree is a dancer's business and while I don't think it's the healthiest choice, whatever. The thing that's being alleged is another kettle of fish entirely. It's the Big Boss creating a hostile work environment. It's on the level with sexual harassment -- it's one thing, for instance, to have a dancer make the personal choice to have intimate relations with the ballet master, it's another for the ballet master to threaten the dancer with "put out or get out", to phrase it crudely. I can't believe you don't see the difference here -- what's being alleged is that Hubbe is pressuring dancers to snort coke as an obvious power trip.

Actually, no. What's being alleged is a third party anonymously saying that anonymous dancers did lines of coke with the AD. For you this is an obvious power trip, for me, personally, I don't believe that's the way it went down if it did indeed go down. I think it also muddies the waters to bring in sexual harassment, this is a completely different kettle of fish altogether.

Nikolaj Hubbe is a big boy, and very capable, I'm sure, of handling allegations, whether they're true or not. If they're not, then he should have nothing to hide. If they are, then it needs to be brought to light, because it would not be a healthy work environment for anyone, Hubbe included. Respect/veneration for any institution shouldn't make people blind to the potential dark side of anyone.

Leonid and SimonG seem to think that there shouldn't even be an investigation about this matter. That's a point of view I don't really get. If dancers in any company, anonymous or not, are complaining about work conditions, don't you think that whether it's the Queen of England or a teacher in a public school, that these complaints should be investigated to see whether there's validity or not? There are no sacred cows in life. Just to point out a parallel in real life, a couple years ago a student accused me of stalking her through social media. It was completely false, I didn't even know the student in question, but turns out the student had created a ghost account under my name. If it weren't for an investigation, people would have continued to believe her. As a result of the investigation that was made into the matter, this deeply troubled young lady was able to get the help she needed and my name was cleared.

Actually that's not what I think at all. I don't think there should be an investigation because I don't think that doing drugs is that big of a deal and I have absolutely no problem with dancers or anyone else doing drugs - unlike the cabal here who think a full lynch mob/roasting/witch hunt is in order. Especially not in dance companies where believe me it's rife. I actually object to the moral umbrage expressed here which equates coke with a Gelsey Kirkland style horror fest.

My point is that those poor little darlings who snorted coke (allegedly) with Hubbe did so of their own free will. No one made them do it and it's a bit rich to cry shenanigans after the fact, anonymously and claim any kind of credibility. Dancers aren't idiots, spineless, nor utterly weak willed puppets - it takes a bit of effort to snort a line or two, there is personal responsibility AND choice.

Let's be clear about a number of things, I described the RDB as moribund, okay, maybe a bit harsh, but definitely tatty round the edges, with a strict hierarchy, few opportunities for corps & apprentices, several dancers way past their best and a repertory which while eclectic they couldn't actually dance very well. Their one calling card, Bournonville, they resented while having to acknowledge that were it not for Bournonville they wouldn't be classed as one of the world's great companies. Moreover the stranglehold Margarethe II had on the company, or rather the interest, did little to dispel the notion that ballet is a plaything of the aristocracy - it was an institution with a great many cobwebs.

Hubbe, who I have no doubt is a difficult, obstinate, obnoxious S.O.B came in saw what was wrong and decided to lead from the front, in class and tackle the problem of the dance quality head on. He promoted people, fast tracked people, gave apprentices principal roles because he felt they were ready and could do it and why should they wait. He understood that talent shouldn't be tempered and maybe he did some things a tad abruptly - but he got results.

\maybe Hubbe does need to temper his aggression and who knows maybe those anonymous dancers are right, he does like a line every now and then and maybe he likes a line with a dancer from time to time - these things happen. But they're adults, they make their choices and if an investigation is to happen then it should be behind closed doors, dealt with inside away from a rather regressive minority who who equate drugs with the end of civilisation as we know it.

Um ... remember when no one could believe Watergate? If this study was an academic study, all findings would have to be from anonymous sources, as all subjects are anonymous in such studies. So the four dancers you're so angry at might not have had a choice but to speak on the condition of anonymity. Besides, if privacy is valued, why do they have to endanger their jobs and reputations? Making anonymous whistleblowing complaints is fine, there's nothing inherently immoral about that.

And I'll go out on a limb and say that if a boss has alienated a lot of his employees, this kind of thing is natural, and inevitable, and that's the boss's fault. Managers aren't supposed to be divisive or alienating to the point where people are taking their complaints to the press, and if they are, then it's a failure of management. Failure of management style, and failure of controlling morale within a company. Effective leaders know how to keep internal problems internal. I would say that's true whether the person is Hubbe or the Queen of Denmark or any CEO of any large corporation.

This is really starting to do my head in. Firstly Watergate, the bugging of a political opponent I can absolutely believe. Indeed at the moment in the UK the News International/Murdoch scandal, I can believe, Elvis living in Nevada and working in a roadside diner - I can believe. The Loch Ness monster going into business with Hugh Heffner to make an interspecies pay to view adult cable channel - I could believe. This infantile allegation, now that I can't believe.

A man with an international reputation, calling subordinates into his office, chopping up lines of cocaine and sitting there watching while they snorted - I call major BS and total shenannigans. Answer me this, what possible motive or gain could there be from such an action? What reason, purpose or goal would there be to this? And it wasn't as if the snorting was for a sexual motive, he wasn't using coke's aphrodisiac qualities to instigate a hot office orgy. No, we are supposed to believe that this act was solely for the purpose of giving four dancers a line, and they were powerless to refuse.

The report didn't even reveal a culture of cocaine within the company, that I could believe, as I know that drugs are pretty rife in certain companies, or have been. It's the crass, peurile nature of this allegation that just grates.

Anonymity is fine, but you absolutely cannot expect an allegation to have any kind of sticking power or veracity if what you are doing is essentially making a libellous statement that is defammatory and if proved right could have legal consequences and absolutely destroy a man's reputation and life. If they are indeed the victims as they claim to be they have no fear of losing their jobs, the guns are out for Hubbe, proof of such gross misconduct is all that's needed to get rid of for good.

And this is the thing, we're not talking about a scene from Black Swan here, Hubbe is a man who could lose everything including the respect of the international dance community were there to be even a shred of truth in this bizarre four-way office gak fest.

Yes, there was a report by a rather self important self-styled business philosophy guru who was drafted in to apply a very inflexible model based on her pet theory of prima donnas to a man who is pretty verbose, arrogant and who instigated widespread catholic changes within a moribund institution - and got results. This isn't defammation rather just proves that it took a prima donna to do a man's job. Make a lazy, sloppy company a contender - all it proved was Hubbe did the job he was hired to do. The drug allegation takes it to a level of nasty, but of course the drugs had to be linked directly to him, what dancers do on their downtime is their own business - so Hubbe is now a pusher, pimper luring innocents into his office for his nefarious self gratification. All that was needed was the lure of puppies and the picture would be complete.

Again, answer me, what possible point, reason or purpose would there be for Hubbe to do this?

It's responsible to commission a report but sweep its findings under the table? Those anonymous people may well come forward, but if they do so, it will be at the risk of their roles if not their jobs outright. They deserve no opprobrium for speaking anonymously, especially when they asked to so so in the first place. They don't deserve the suspicion that has been cast their way.

You say they deserve to remain anonymous, fine, perhaps, but by the same token what they say cannot absolutely cannot be taken as anything approaching truth, the stakes are too high. If what they claim to have happened did indeed take place as they say, then they're as good as sacked anyway.

Do you seriously seriously believe that Hubbe would take four employees into his office, juniors, cut up lines of cocaine and coerce them into snorting in front of him while he watched? Hubbe may be many things but a total moron isn't one of them. The situation described is one so idiotic, far-fetched and guaranteed to cause outrage amongst those without common sense it's ludicrous.

The report has been deemed to be ludicrous, the author of the report has had her relationship with the RDB terminated, the conspiracy claque may call cover up, or alternatively the truth may very well turn out to be that the findings were discovered as self serving defammation and treated accordingly.

The fact that Hubbe is "clean" at the time of report equally hardly proves that the allegations are true. Moreover Hubbe said he'd submit to any standardised drug test, which in a legal or corporate setting would include a hair strand test which can ascertain whether someone has been drug free for up to a year.

And if Hubbe did choose to do some drugs on his downtime, that's really no one's business but his

I think also perhaps the queen's, and by extension the nation's and even that of Bournonville lovers? He's not working for a private firm.

Let's stop being pompous. It's not the queen's business, it's his own and if the queen wants to make an issue of it, I'm sure she'll take it up with Hubbe directly. He's said he doesn't do drugs, will submit to any test and is willing to do so at any time. Case closed. Why the hell should he have to justify or vindicate anything, he was charged with making a rather second rate company a player again, which he has done, that's all. And the fact that the deadwood isn't happy is impacting in this really shoddy cocaine story. It's boring and generic.

Likewise if the dancers wish to do drugs on their own time, it's their business, no one else's as long as they don't bring it to work or let it affect their performance.

This is the most egregious legacy of Dancing on My Grave. Someone in the ballet world cries "cocaine" and instantly a Kirland sized storm of scandal erupts. It's cheap, it's scurrilous and in this case it's clearly a lie.

I have nothing but contempt for those four twerps and if I was Hubbe I would make it my business to find out who they were and make this public because they have done huge damage not only to him but to the RDB.

I think if you read both the article and the interview, there was an investigation conducted.

Yes, and it turned up anonymous reports of cocaine use, which Jacobsen squelched and now refuses to investigate further. It’s possible he’s trying to protect his dancers because he believes they’re innocent, but everyone knows that the way to do that is to authorize a full investigation. (And Hubbe’s being clean at the time the news broke hardly proves the allegations are untrue). He’s acting like he thinks they’re guilty. Commissioning a study and then dismissing its findings as “unfounded” speaks for itself.

But keep in mind this is a workplace, and certain rules apply.

If rules do prevent Jacobsen from taking action, his statement, which sounds illogical on its face, didn’t specify them, and Moller and other apparently haven’t heard of them.

I strongly disagree, he's acting responsibly. He commissioned a report and several people made hugely libellous allegations hiding behind anonymity which potentially could destroy careers and the company itself. Unless those anonymous people are prepared to come forward and offer concrete evidence, times, dates and a full history, as well as supply real information on how cocaine is endemic within the RDB, the only thing to do is ignore it.

The fact that Hubbe is "clean" at the time of report equally hardly proves that the allegations are true. Moreover Hubbe said he'd submit to any standardised drug test, which in a legal or corporate setting would include a hair strand test which can ascertain whether someone has been drug free for up to a year.

And if Hubbe did choose to do some drugs on his downtime, that's really no one's business but his.

Also coke is expensive, it's effects ephemeral. You get a 15 minute buzz and then you need to top up again. Coke addiction isn't something an addict can actually hide, especially not in the frame of a working day, nor a rehearsal situation. The physical symptoms of gurning, clenching, jitters, etc which comes with chronic use are unmistakeable - it'd be obvious highly obvious if the majority of the company were tweaking or using. There would be no need for a report the results of addiction are painfully plainly obvious.

But if the use is recreational, on the dancers' own downtime, out of the theatre, then it really is no one's business.

I think people need to get out of their Gelsey Kirkland/Dancing On My Grave mindset. The kind of Amy Winehouse-esque addiction is rare, very rare and has nothing to do with the profession of dance and everything about personal choice. A Kirkland or Bissell would probably have found their way to addiction whether they were a dancer, doctor, PR guru or landscape gardener.

I also think it's highly convenient that this "report" was commissioned and the totally anecdotal vague findings published to coincide with Hubbe's tenure and the growing claque against him, as if drug use in the RDB didn't exist before he arrived to coax poor innocent dancers into his office while he chopped up lines and sat there while they snorted, against their will - so what did he do, kidnap their families and threaten to have them killed if they didn't partake?

Those four dancers are not only cowards but dangerous, this kind of false anonymous accusation sticks and destroys reputations, though thankfully due to their cowardice it would be utterly ineffectual in sacking Hubbe. Someone said that this isn't in the realm of tabloid reportage, but anonymous sources accusing individuals of criminal acts is what tabloid journalism is made of.

This notion that the RDB is a coked up orgy reminiscent of backstage with Guns & Roses when they're not onstage dancing Napoli is so idiotic to give it credence is not only an insult to the dancers, Hubbe but an insult to one's own intelligence too.

I have no doubt certain dancers take a line of Columbian Marching powder every so often, every company does, every organisation throughout the world whatever the industry has people within it who do drugs from time to time. It's part of life, it happens.

It is rather strange though that drugs like sex are so popular as no one will admit to doing it.

Yes, severe addiction will destroy a dance career, indeed severe addiction will destroy any career, no matter the industry, but until someone in the RDB comes forward and admit that they are a drug addict all this is harmful, specious conjecture and muck spreading. And were a dancer to come forward as an addict they'd find they receive pretty short shrift in rehab were they to blame Hubbe or anyone else for their addiction, taking full responsibility for one's actions, behaviour and addiction is the cornerstone to recovery.

I agree with Leonid, this has all the hallmarks of a muck-spreading exercise to discredit and "Shame" and oust a maverick artistic director whose methods offend the old guard. Nevermind the fact Hubbe has revitalised RDB, they wanted it to be revitalised in a way that they "approved" of.

To take Hubbe's statement about cocaine use in NY out of context is specious and meaningless, cocaine is massive business, he could just have easily said that anyone within certain industries anywhere in the world has done cocaine. It's estimated that over 80% of bank notes in circulation in London have trace residues of cocaine on them.

The nameless "four" who were taken to Hubbe's office and plied with drugs, while he sat there and did what? Watched them? On that I really call shennanigans. Why would an AD take four corps members into his office and give them drugs? They obviously aren't afraid for their jobs because if this truly did happen Hubbe would know who they were and could sack them. What would be the sense of taking four people you don't know you can trust into your personal professional space and inveigling them to engage in criminal activity that could get you fired? Hubbe has categorically stated he doesn't do drugs, will submit to any test. It's just a dreary salacious piece of tabloid level lies and fingerpointing by four members of the corps who obviously feel their talents aren't promoted as they believe they should be.

As to cocaine use being rife within the RDB? So what, do they think it's unique to the RDB? Dancers work horrendously long hours, they can't eat while exercising, they also have to stay thin, they're totally exhausted and need energy, their tense, worried constantly. Cocaine suppresses appetite, gives boundless energy, confidence - is it any wonder it's a dancer's favourite drug of choice?

The anti-Hubbe cabal is obviously pulling a Gelsey, except they're accusing Hubbe of pimping out the entire company, Kirkland just pimped her own ride and it's crass and tasteless and muddies the waters so much that dancers with legitimate personal issues will only be afraid to seek help.

I also object to this image of dancers being so totally immature and lacking in any kind of backbone or intellect that they'd be so facile as to allow themselves to pushed into drug abuse against their will. That in no way was it their decision to take coke for the real benefits it can provide an exhausted, stressed dancer.

And why single out ballet? On any given day in industries ranging from the media, to banking, medicine and the armed forces cocaine use is rife for very real and much the same reasons, not to mention its recreational popularity.

The specious notion of a war on drugs is a complete misnomer, it's a war on human behaviour and that one no Government, drug enforcement agency or hypocritical right will ever win. Blaming drugs is like blaming a sneeze for being the cause of the cold.

As my final post to this thread it has come full circle. I have just spent three days in hospital, due to it pouring of rain, I was forced to stand in a bus shelter, when two women came and stood by me, they both lit up a cigerette

and the fumes spread into the small amount of air which surrounded me. I could not move away(which I would have normally done) my bus was almost due, so I had to stay there. I am allergic to cigerette smoke, and ended up having to call an ambulance later that day. I did not want to cause problems and ask them to stop., as they were perfectly entitled to smoke. It was my bad luck I had the allergy. Foruinatly it does not happen very often.

How terrible. But you seem to have recovered quite nicely and up to your old form. So that's something to be thankful for?

I think the giveaway is that it's the Style Section. Which is about product placement, designers book space in publications for adverts on the proviso that their brand is mentioned/shown x number of times. Dvorovenko was just helping them fill their quota.

I just watched some videos of Vadm Muntagirov on YouTube. He seems to be very talented. It's not surprising he's developing a strong fanbase with ENB's audience. ABT would be very lucky to have him. But it does bring a thought in my head. I don't mind ABT inviting guest artist to perform a full season. But what would be the attitude of ballet companies across the world towards ABT if ABT start this massive shopping at scooping up other dancers from other companies? How would ABT be perceived by their company of peers? As a company who steals, or worst, a company that can't develop it's own natural talent in their own backyard? Either way it certainly wouldn't look all that favorable to ABT. In a way - without meaning too of course but with a cynical way at looking at things - they could be broadcasting to the ballet world their stable of dancers are rather weak. Something I don't think any ballet company wish to have as a reputation.

GBF,

A good question and one which Monica Mason is most qualified to answer, as you've just summed up the Royal Ballet's artistic policy pretty succinctly.

If i'm not mistaken Vadim graduated from the Royal Ballet School. It was a big surprise that Royal Ballet did not hire him.

Exactly, he did the majority of his training at Perm, then won a Prix de Lausanne Scholarship to finish his training at the RBS. Like you said why they didn't snap him up for the company is anyone's guess. He was the same year as Sergei Polunin, so possibly Mason felt two Russian trained dancers was too much, but how can you have too much of a good thing? Muntagirov is actually far more versatile than Polunin, he's taller too so can pretty much partner any ballerina within the company and also there's just something unnusual about him he has a slightly bizarre presence, if that makes sense? But like I said I wouldn't be surprised if Mason and the RB are avidly trying to poach him.

Throwing some names out there to prompt discussion. Most (if not all) may not be available for a whole host of reasons:

Stephane Bullion at the Paris Opera

Chase Finlay at City Ballet

Iain Mackay at the Birmingham Royal

Vadim Muntagirov at the English National (If not him, then someone else -- Wayne Eagling has a lot of male talent at ENB.)

Leonid Sarafanov at the Mikhailovsky

Just thinking out loud . . .

Vadim Muntagirov? He is tall and had received very good reviews from the British critics and bloggers.

Vadim Muntagirov is potentially brilliant. He's six foot one, with the turning capability of a short virtuoso dancer, incredible line and jump. He's forged a hugely successful partnership at ENB with Daria Klimentova a 40 year old ballerina and with her has become an exceedingly good actor. He's a very rare combination of danseur noble physique, with huge technical ability.

It's synonymous of Monica Mason's bizarre hiring policy that she didn't snap him up for the Royal Ballet, though I wouldn't be surprised if they're avidly trying to poach him. He's just turned 21 and is a first soloist, that principal status is inevitable isn't in question, ENB are no doubt terrified of losing him, he's really their star attraction. The fact that he will leave given ENB's bad financial state and reduced rep seems inevitable. ABT would be really really lucky to get him.

That's exactly what dancers said about Balanchine!

And what dancers Cunningham formed out of those classes and those steps

Indeed, but it does make me wonder what would happen to the Cunningham rep if they were to follow the NYCB model of keeping the company doors open long past the death of the founder.

That's an easy one to answer, look to the remnants of the Martha Graham Company. That's where they'd be in five years tops.

Also conspicuously avoided so far is the post-coital light-up, surely I can’t be the only non-smoker to have endured that?

Surely it's better than "mid"?

But seriously, folks, I agree the smell can be pretty repellent. Even when I did smoke I found smoking rooms unbearable, the stench from a day old ash tray was vile and I'm more aware now of the stink from clothes. But there are times when I catch a whiff of smoke and am instantly taken back to nostalgie de la boue.

Can I also just clarify, yes I agree that Nanarina had every right to express her concern and distaste for Gillot and Dupont, where it and the conversation became a bit odd and why I took umbrage was the notion of role models, the intense criticism that was being levied at the two.

Anti smoking animosity has really reached new heights or lows in the past several years as the blanket wide smoking bans have been set in the big cities of the West and I think that perhaps the dissenting voices can get a tad hysterical.

I'm not making a case for smoking as a benefit for health, I never would, but you know what it is rather enjoyable sometimes.

I completely agree with you that the laws are passed for reasons of health, and so that everyone can enjoy public spaces (the latter is the same thinking behind some noise ordinances) and not in order to curtail liberties. But there is legal liberty and practical liberty, and as the saying goes, your freedom/liberty ends at the point of my nose.

That all sounds very neat. Except that legal liberty is enforceable by law and a part of statute, practical liberty doesn't actually exist and is personal to the individual's moral code and sensibilities and hold no water in terms of the real world, unless of course they become an illegal act.

I’m not sure I understand all of what you’re saying, but it's intriguing. What do you mean when you say that what I've described as practical liberty doesn't exist? I’m talking about whether smokers are free to smoke in certain public places or non-smokers are free to enjoy them as they wish to, without breathing smoke. Both freedoms, both liberties, can’t exist at the same time. The law decides between conflicts like this all the time. There are noise ordinances, upkeep of property ordinances, and ordinances that restrict panhandling and picketing to certain areas. There are eminent domain seizures. There are laws against various types of behavior on the grounds that they cause harm, and as has been pointed out, smoking bans are based on what is believed, rightly or wrongly, to be harm. Do you oppose all these philosophically, is that what you’re saying?

Kfw,

I don't know what more to say, as I think this argument reached an impasse or rather several, several pages ago and if my posts have become silly or specious at times it's due to frustration if nothing else.

For the record, I support bans on smoking in enclosed spaces, work spaces and places where smokers & non smokers mix whilst inside. I do think the abolution of smoking rooms for smokers in workplaces or enclosed places where smokers can specifically go unneccessary, but that's the way it rolls both here and Stateside. In which case open air areas for smokers are only fair, and yes, it's only fair that people who choose to smoke can have a designated area where they can do so - and non smokers have to either accept the momentary unpleasentness of passing by or through, or avoid those areas. And if you feel it's a curtailment of your civil liberties, sorry, tough. Smokers have to accept that their civil liberties to go where they choose are curtailed whilst engaged in the act of smoking. That's my view it's differenet to yours, we'll have to let that be.

I do think that banning smoking in parks is somewhat overkill and rather precious, it's not so in the UK, but I have to say I find many laws in the US rather extreme or indeed unneccessary and in some cases, such as Don't Ask Don't Tell, plain wrong and borderline malicious. Gays & lesbians have been completely legal within the the UK armed forces for over a decade now and it's rather strange that the US would rather someone who's mentally ill or a convicted criminal seeking to escape jail time be allowed to fight over a sound, fit healthy man or woman who just happens to be gay and wants that knowledge to be public.

The arguments that several people have put here that whilst out walking it upsets them greatly to have even a stray whiff of smoke pass their way - well, okay you have every right to not like it. BUT it won't kill you, it's not harmful that diluted, especially with all the other junk in city air, it's a transient moment and it will be over very very quickly.

I'm not getting into another argument over perceived civil liberties, I've made my feelings quite clear on that we'll have to agree to disagree.

The "yoof" question, well, I don't have such a poor view of the very young to think them so facile that they'll smoke because a pop star does (and when was the last time anyone did anything because a ballet dancer did.) Young people smoke as rite of passage often, most don't stick with it. I'd be far more interested to look at societal causes of why people smoke than blame it on Adele, Amy Winehouse or Jay Z. Lack of money, opportunities, education, career options, boredom, frustration - I feel are far more condusive to enticing young people to smoke. Smoking wastes time, it relieves frustration, there's a peer element to it. Smoking is also more prevalent amongst the poor than the middle to upper classes.

Someone also spoke here about dancers smoking, specifically one dancer who smoked as she became anorexic. Well in weight control cases, especially extreme ones for which the ballet world is famous, I think blaming cigarettes is like blaming the symptom for the disease. Smoking suppresses appetite, it also gives you something to do orally when you should be eating - the culture of thinness is what's the issue here, smoking is just a means to achieve this.

And the issue of role models I've spoken at at length, I have a more lenient approach to how people choose to represent both themselves and their actions and the demands that society should place on them. I do think that Nanarina's original post should have been treated far more censoriously, with a quick swift "none of your business".

I completely agree with you that the laws are passed for reasons of health, and so that everyone can enjoy public spaces (the latter is the same thinking behind some noise ordinances) and not in order to curtail liberties. But there is legal liberty and practical liberty, and as the saying goes, your freedom/liberty ends at the point of my nose.

That all sounds very neat. Except that legal liberty is enforceable by law and a part of statute, practical liberty doesn't actually exist and is personal to the individual's moral code and sensibilities and hold no water in terms of the real world, unless of course they become an illegal act.

And just as a smokers freedom ends at the point of your nose, so does yours at the point of the smokers as he exhales.

I explained my distinction between smoking and noise ordinances earlier. I'm sorry that the end of your nose is annoyed by smokers -- so is mine, on occasion, but I don't see that as a reason for depriving smokers to light up in public spaces as long as they are minding their own business.

But what if they're a role model?