aurora

There's no link, because it was removed from YouTube. But when it was available, it was discussed and summarized previously on this forum.

Re: "Bella" -- the recent NYT article on her noted that she goes by this nickname, at least among those who know her. I think the calling of dancers by their first names (or other nicknames) is a rather natural outcome of the sometimes intense feelings of connection their performances (both strong and not so strong) create among audiences. It's certainly nothing new and nothing unique to this forum. Obviously that's not a truly personal intimacy, but I don't think any disrespect is intended, in general.

Ah I missed that article about her, so it was new to me. It thus appeared suddenly in 2 reviews here which were pretty scathing, and therefore was somewhat jarring. Thanks for the explanation.

Very mixed bag last night. First, the house looked to be only about half full. The Sylphides looked more like America's Regional Company, not America's National Company. Hee Seo seemed to trip over her own feet in the pdd section where she fell down. Boylston definitely has a very impressive jump, but there is so much more that needs finishing in her dancing. I wasn't sure if Bella's error was a partnering issue or was her mistake. Tom Forster landed all his jumps with a thud. Pillar was fantastic, and Murphy was riveting. No huge complaints about Fancy Free, except for Boylston, who had the pdd. Was this her debut in the role? She has no fluidity. Much too stiff. Having seen Tiler Peck across the plaza dazzle in this role, Bella did not measure up. All in all, not a great start to the season. No wonder these programs are selling badly.

This is the second post I've seen calling her "Bella".

Is this a new thing? I always find it a bit weird when we start calling dancers we don't know by their first names, but are we now giving them nicknames too or is this a common way to refer to her and I've just missed it until now....

Considering the scandalous interview with the ABT rep stating that they make more money with guest stars, I can only deduce that they don't care about the hometown dancers or their dancing skills. If they lack the necessary refinements that other dancers have at other companies, it only gives them the excuse to hire more guest/foreign dancers. There also has to be a Free Trade/H1B visa aspect to this mess as well. The guest dancers probably cost less than the American dancers. Even the supposed "stars". All the more incentive to let company dancers wither on the vine or substitute rotten fruit.

Link please?

Not at the level that Copeland wants to dance at.

Another example of a contemporary soloist at the Royal Ballet. Note - she is a minority, being Asian, Yahui Choe.

https://youtu.be/wj_4DcvIdkM

Again, she is even more advanced. Full range of motion in the leg from front attitude to full arabesque, all while hopping on pointe.

More examples...look on youtube for the variation. There are a plethora of dancers, all at different levels, from child to professional doing the same variation and hopping on pointe with no problems.

I don't know why people are making these insane concessions for Copeland. She clearly doesn't deserve them.

Not this variation, but hops on point are a problem for a lot of dancers with very flexible feet. They have proved unpleasant for Veronika Part and for Alessandra Ferri. Both for that reason. You have to pull your ankle back slightly and not fully go over your foot to do them successfully.

The recent 60 minute interview just confirmed why I don't want to waste money on any performances featuring Copeland. The fact that she pointed out that she can't hop on pointe and allowed 60 minutes to film the sloppy dancing is so brazen I can't even begin to fathom it. It is as if she is rubbing it in the faces of everyone who knows anything about ballet. It is as if she is saying I don't have to be able to do the steps, but I can be a principle dancer anyway.

I'm sure that is what she is doing...rubbing it in people's faces that she isn't very good? (according to you).

By the way, there is a difference between principal (what you meant) and principle (what you wrote). Since you know things about ballet, I'm sure you appreciate knowing the difference.

According to this public health information site, measles is caused by a virus and neither antibiotics nor anti-viral treatments cure it.

http://www.idph.stat...b/hbmeasles.htm

I do remember, as a child in the 1950s, that parents were delighted when we caught the measles, as that was the only way to prevent getting it as an adult, which can be much more serious. A vaccine did not become available until 1957. (We had the same situation with the mumps and chicken pox: better to catch it as a child and develop immunity.) I have no idea when the vaccine became available in the Soviet Union, but wouldn't be surprised if it was much later than in the West.

Actually the first Measles vaccine was introduced in '63. I'm not surprised that people were still dying of it in the later 60s.

This is a good read:

https://roalddahl.com/roald-dahl/timeline/1960s/november-1962

Forster debuted Les Sylphides in 2013 fall season. It'd be wonderful if he's casted again.

I didn't remember that. Hope he's recasted.

You hope he is recast.

Forster debuted Les Sylphides in 2013 fall season. It'd be wonderful if he's casted again.

The word is cast

Brief report: Lopatkina was absolutely divine tonight. I rather liked Ivanchenko, not so much his interpretation, but his lines.

Lopatkina really was wonderful. I had no idea how much I would love her in this.

As for Ivanchenko, his lines were fine--when he landed in arabesque he kept his leg high etc. but he cheated every double tour so horribly it was almost laughable--especially when he was doing them coming forward towards the audience--about half a tour was cheated in the preparation.

As for his "interpretation," I've seen pieces of bread with more personality... I know the prince in SL is kind of a sappy character but he was the milquetoastiest of them all. At least it wasn't hard to believe he'd be stupid enough to confuse Odile for Odette.

Aurora, I agree, the preparations were pathetic, but I think Gergiev was also responsible for this - his tempi are murderous. Not only Ivanchenko, but almost everybody suffered from them. I wonder if the pas-de-trois disaster was also (at least partly) the result of Gergiev constantly rushing the dancers

On the preparations I think you are being kind... ;)

I didn't actually think the tempi were fast. In some places they were, in others they were glacial. What they were was erratic.

I meant to ask--is it normal in cygnets for the first half of it to be fast (as normal--it IS a fast dance) and then suddenly at the midway point for the tempo to slow to about half-time? It was jarring and took away a lot from the piece. The audience seemed to like it but for one thing it seemed to me to turn the dance into one big slog. (It was nicely danced, I'm not meaning any criticism of the dancers here, it was just a really noticeable tempo shift and one that I am not familiar with in any version I've seen.

Brief report: Lopatkina was absolutely divine tonight. I rather liked Ivanchenko, not so much his interpretation, but his lines.

Lopatkina really was wonderful. I had no idea how much I would love her in this.

As for Ivanchenko, his lines were fine--when he landed in arabesque he kept his leg high etc. but he cheated every double tour so horribly it was almost laughable--especially when he was doing them coming forward towards the audience--about half a tour was cheated in the preparation.

As for his "interpretation," I've seen pieces of bread with more personality... I know the prince in SL is kind of a sappy character but he was the milquetoastiest of them all. At least it wasn't hard to believe he'd be stupid enough to confuse Odile for Odette.

KM does not make promotions early in a dancer's career, unlike Martins. Of the recent promotions he's made (Stearns, Seo, Boylston, Whiteside, Simkin) not one seems to be succeeding. Maybe we should put that down to the coaching staff at ABT. But it doesn't give KM a good track record. Nor does it bode well for ABT.

That is your opinion.

I like Whiteside very much, he is an excellent partner, whatever else one can say about him, and he has been a very productive and active principal. I don't particularly like Stearns and think he was promoted too early but he has shown great improvement and puts in a major shift for the company--a great success no, but there is time and it hasn't been a failure. And that promotion was made early(ish) in the dancer's career. I think it is certainly too early to write off Boylston (she was promoted what, a year ago?)

Everyone knew Simkin would be difficult with his physical limitations and boyish look but, he has gotten some quite nice reviews as he has taken on a slightly larger rep.

How much of a loss was Michele Wiles.

Perhaps a better question would be: Why did Michele Wiles fail to develop into a top-flight ballerina? You can pin it all on her but then, when you look at the company history for at least the last half dozen years, you see the history is littered with dancers of both genders who failed to develop under the current regime.

Any company's history is littered with such dancers. NYCB has finally been able to get rid of a lot of the much disliked dead wood that was cluttering its top ranks, but I'm sure when those dancers were promoted (and I don't refer to those who were past their prime, rather to those who never reached it), it is because they were seen as having great promise. Dancers have injuries that hold them back, they plateau, there are a million reasons why a dancer, especially one that was promoted before they were a finished product (as was the case with Wiles, Hallberg, and Stearns to name a few) do or do not reach what is hoped/expected of them. Hallberg certainly has, Stearns perhaps--he is now at least a serviceable principal if not an inspiring one, and he may yet develop further--one hopes he will. Wiles never quite did.

This doesn't address the issue of movement up the ranks more generally--although there have been some recent promotions and I have no doubt we will see some more soon--but the failure of some of those promoted dancers to live up to their promise is something that sadly (for them perhaps most of all) happens everywhere.

Oh no! Can ABT survive another 8 years going in this direction?

Of course it can. And I don't think we need fear that the company is going to fold as was worried about up-thread either. Things are getting a bit hyperbolic around here.

ABT has not made good choices about new ballets for the past 10 years, IMO. They have also not nurtured their inhouse dancers. The last 2 really good promotions McKenzie made were Cornejo and Gomes and those were almost 15 years ago.

David Hallberg doesn't make that list? I'm also a fan of Part though I realize not everyone is. But surely Hallberg is without dispute.

I do know that this is in Boston's AGMA contract: "Right to Refuse – Artists shall not have the right to refuse to appear in any dancing role as assigned by the Artistic Director except when morally unacceptable to the Artist (e.g. nudity)." And, I will say that when Boston performed Kylian's Bella Figura, the dancers were given the right of refusal. There were women who did refuse to appear in the piece. But, there were those, who although they did not feel comfortable with the nudity at first, jumped at the chance to do the piece.

So, I would imagine ABT has some sort of clause in their contract that says dancers cannot refuse roles. Most dancers are used to doing what the choreographer says. Were Misty and James uncomfortable with it? Maybe. Maybe not. Could Misty have taken herself out? Maybe, but at what cost? These dancers do want to keep their jobs. The fact that Lane did it differently may mean they toned it down after the initial evening, or even that she just could not do it in the same manner.

I doubt there is any reason to suspect that they were uncomfortable with it.

Certainly not Whiteside!

Selma is an excellent and topical example of people facing consequences for doing what they think is right and refusing to do what they think is wrong when the consequences utterly dwarfed those of refusing, as up-and-coming (powerful) dancers, to do a certain passage.

Yes, the movement does sound vulgar to me. I make no apologies for that.

Yes, what they think is wrong--but what we are talking about here is not a social injustice but a dancer being asked to do a dance movement.

Are you honestly comparing these things?

The consequences are different, but so are the things being discussed.

We are talking about dancers being asked to do a dance movement that we have NO IDEA if any of the dancers objected to on any level.

And if they did object, as I asked above, I'm not sure how that objection would be a moral objection.

I have no problem with you thinking the movement is vulgar and did not ask you to apologize for it.

We, however don't even know that any of the dancers found it vulgar. Many of the young folk out there (ahem) don't.

If you now want to make an issue about why this "vulgarity" suits Copeland, we can do that as well I'm sure...

Yes, then my other argument could be dismissed on moral grounds, with no need to deal with it on its merits. In fact, we don’t know if Whiteside and Copeland liked the movement or hated it, but your other argument rests on the presumption that human beings lack free choice and have to do what they’re told, even when they have moral qualms. Apparently we need a BA field trip to see “Selma.”

I didn't say they couldn't choose not to do it, I said it was unlikely.

People may have free choice, but if you chose not to do what your boss tells you to, you usually have to face consequences, whether that is losing an assignment, or even your job.

Dancers are used to doing what they are told by teachers and choreographers, as I stated before, and tend to do so nearly unquestioningly. They are artists, but they are also instruments.

This is a form of movement. They are not seeing it in "moral" terms (how is twerking "immoral" by the way?). I really doubt a single dancer in ABT has "moral" objections to twerking. I'd love to see you poll them on this...just to see the reactions. Dancers usually love to experiment with other movement qualities outside classical ballet, even ones you find vulgar.

Lastly, I don't appreciate your condescending tone ("we need a BA field trip to see Selma") especially given our discussion history on here.

Unless we have any evidence to the contrary can we let the dancers off the hook for bad choreographic choices?

I know someone else will again say "yes yes but other dancers didn't do it!" but unless we were in the rehearsal studios constantly we don't know why that discrepancy was allowed and the idea that the decision to do the but shake/boob grab originated with the dancers (or dancer--blame has seemed to fall on one again) seems the least likely option.

The choreographer obviously bears the chief responsibility for the steps, and it's true we don't know what went down in the studio. But we do know, as the different versions of the passage demonstrate, that we all have free choice.

This is the speculation part.

It could be that while we may not have liked how it looked on the first cast, this is what the choreographer envisioned.

On the second cast, try as they might, their different movement styles/physicality made it look just not right--they couldn't get it, so he said "ok let's rethink this, you are going to do X instead"

It wasn't their choice, it was their inability to do it as he requested it.

Is that what happened? I have no idea. But it is just as likely as them going "I'm not doing that on stage! I refuse to shake my ass"

Ballet dancers generally do what they are told. It is what their entire training is about: Following the direction of the teacher/choreographer.

I have no idea what happened. Honestly I don't care. I just don't think that the different versions of this passage demonstrate "free choice." We know choreographers alter choreography somewhat for dancers based on what suits them. If you now want to make an issue about why this "vulgarity" suits Copeland, we can do that as well I'm sure...

I guess I disagree. I found Funerailles to be a little over the top emotionally but it was hardly vulgar. It was an intense dance drama in the same vein as Manon or Mayerling, IMO. Looking over the comments from NYCB's fall season I see that Drew also found that it " looked like an outake from some unknown Macmillan ballet". That sound about right to me.

And you don't find MacMillan vulgar at times? For instance I think Manon has some of the most vulgar choreography I've ever witnessed. Just because it's done in fancy wigs and period dress doesn't mean it's not vulgar.

And anyway, I'm also not sure what Scarlett being British has to do with him choreographing a piece for Misty/Whiteside that might have involved some more, uh, modern ballet vocabulary.

Agreed--I mean simulating a forced blow job/rape on stage is way less offensive than twerking

Unless we have any evidence to the contrary can we let the dancers off the hook for bad choreographic choices?

I know someone else will again say "yes yes but other dancers didn't do it!" but unless we were in the rehearsal studios constantly we don't know why that discrepancy was allowed and the idea that the decision to do the but shake/boob grab originated with the dancers (or dancer--blame has seemed to fall on one again) seems the least likely option.

Copeland’s rank and opportunities seem to contradict what she believes she encountered.

Obama never encountered racism then, because he became President of the United States.

That is your logic.

The success of The Cosby Show was actually the first of its kind - presenting a middle-class black family to widespread white audience acceptance. Cosby's success was not typical, it was the exception and a first. It is true that several African-American male actors have become big stars, but not always without qualifications. And black female actors had, and continue to have, a much harder time of making it to the top and staying there, which may be germane to the topic here.

I don't think Obama was damaged by any of the birth certificate controversy. If anything, it made the Republicans look stupid and petty, and indirectly may have helped Obama. If memory serves, even John McCain confirmed publicly that he was sure of Obama's US Citizenship so that McCain could distance himself from the right wing extremists in his own party.

Only up to a point, abatt. The reason the Administration finally gave in and released the long form birth certificate was because the topic would not go away (the flames fanned by the GOP) and it really was beginning to hurt him. My hunch is they may have been playing rope-a-dope, in addition to a natural reluctance to give in to the crazies, but they did it a little too long. And again, we're not talking only extremists, but mainstream elements within the political opposition.

The Cosby show was a first 30 years ago, which was part of my point. And speaking of huge female African-American stars, Oprah, or so wikipedia tells me, goes back that far as well.

In regards to those mainstream pols, do they actually doubt Obama's citizenship? Are they really nutty on the issue (probable evidence of racism) or are they just playing to the crowd that is?

If the crowd is sizable enough to make it worth playing to I don't think the distinction really matters. If they were outlying nutters then no mainstream pols would be playing to them or they'd be laughed out of town.

So are assignments to roles at ABT now based on a popularity contest - who has the best publicity/media team- or are assignments based on skill, technique and artistry.

That's really at the heart of the discussion.

No it isn't. Because there is no evidence that she has been assigned roles based on those factors.

Since A Raisin in The Sun debuted on Broadway in 1959, the relevance of the line you quoted from the play in 2014 America, where a black president is serving his second term, is certainly debatable, but that's a topic too far afield from ballet.

You are aware that there are protests about racial injustice going on all over the country at the moment...

I don't think that the criticism of Misty is based on race. If Stella Abrera, Sarah Lane or Isabella Boylton posted a topless photo while at the same time portraying themselves as role models for little kids and visiting youth centers people would have the exact same concerns.

There has been plenty of criticism of Copeland not just about this photo issue, but also along more race specific lines. I brought up racism here specifically in response to KFW's cries of woe is me, people are trying to paint me as racist and sexist.

Also it may be picking nits, but let us be accurate. The photo is risque, you can see nipple, but it is not a topless photo:

http://cocoafab.com/new-show-alert-misty-copeland-to-mentor-future-ballerinas-on-new-reality-series/

I think the bottom line here is that a few of us are criticizing a couple of things Copeland has done - things that people of all races and both sexes do - and others are trying every way possible to paint that criticism as racist and sexist. It won't wash.

If you all weren't using racist and sexist ways of expressing yourselves, no one would be trying to paint your criticism of Copeland as racist and sexist, it is as simple as that.

I've showed this board to people who don't know who Copeland is, certainly don't know who you guys are, and they were horrified to read what they saw as blatantly and clearly racist screeds being posted publicly.

That was the reaction educated people had to your own words. This isn't some conspiracy. As you yourself noted, tone is very important and I think you must misjudge yours if you think that your posts have expressed any honest appreciation of Copeland (there has been some of what one might call "damning with faint praise," but nothing beyond that) and do not sound both racist and sexist.