aurora

Speaking of mischaracterizations! Your post is nothing but, Abatt. Your opinion is that Ferri's photo is more tasteful and less obvious, but that is not an objective opinion. It is a legitimate one, but not more so than the inverse. I have no idea what you are basing your assessment of Copeland's photo on, but she is wearing a leotard. She was not originally completely topless. and your phrasing makes no sense: "she was completely topless, but then removed it." What is "it" her toplessness? In any case, it is clear she is wearing a semi-transparent leopard. She was not originally nude. I did not say that it is necessary for a woman to send out topless photos of herself in order to prove that she is not ashamed of her body. You don't think so, nor do I. But I don't think that it is a shameful thing if one sees a glimpse of nipple, which has been the tenor of argument here. The only ones who are denigrating women are the people who are castigating her for choosing to portray herself as she likes. Slut shaming is not empowering women. Saying things like "empowerment comes from merit and strength, not objectification and willingness to display your boobs to the world," as admirable as the first part might be, does not really speak to the feminist cause of female equality. It is priggish and nasty.

That argument would apply here if only very young girls looked up to Copeland, and if those girls could be expected never to grow up. The other thing that should be said about “strumpet” and “wench” is that not only are they inaccurate in content - to use kbarber's words, no one's comparing posing for a photo with "promiscuity" or "prostitution" - but their tone is all wrong. it’s possible to criticize without insulting, and to criticize people for one thing while admiring them for another, as I have done. Caricatures distort, and blur the difference. The difference is that you and YID seem to think those girls should grow up to think their bodies are shameful or distasteful, whereas I don't. I also must have missed where you expressed any genuine admiration for her...And I have been following this thread pretty closely. Any vaguely positive thing you have said has been so embedded in negativity that it had no resonance whatsoever and certainly no sense of sincerity. Lastly, you say, several posts above that: "Copeland’s hardly the first dancer to display herself, but she may be the first to do so while claiming to want to be a role model to young girls, and that has been the context of the actual criticism." I neither know nor care if it is true that she is the first to do so while claiming to want to be a role model to young girls. But you are out of your mind if you don't realize that both Ferri and Guillem were incredible role models to young girls. They were role models who reached a much larger audience than Copeland does at this point in her career, recent coverage notwithstanding. So if showing a nip is really a horrible offense they are equally to blame.

Let it be noted that "strumpet" and "wench" are dirac's sarcastic caricatures of my own thoughts. In other words, they bear no relation to anything anyone here has actually suggested. Also, Copeland’s hardly the first dancer to display herself, but she may be the first to do so while claiming to want to be a role model to young girls, and that has been the context of the actual criticism. Well if they are sarcastic caricatures they bear some relation... I don't think it was specific to only *your* reaction, though I won't speak for Dirac. Moreover, I would note that young girls have seen nipples before and are not generally horrified by them. They do not (yet) see them as sexualized things. They have them, and many have fed from them fairly recently. Tempest in a teapot.

OMG, had i been a mother, i would under NO circumstances allow my children to be near a person wearing such an outfit. Moreover, a ballerina (imho) should be a person of a bit of a better refined taste and manners that a typical person. "Dieu de la danse" very recently circulated this (older) photo of Alessandra Ferri: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=645147752263177&set=a.285736424870980.62327.100003038742854&type=1&theater I'm not trying to talk anyone into this sort of thing, just noting that other ballerinas - and much loved and respected ones - have posed at least as revealingly. I say nothing of Guillem's nude photo shoot...In fact, I've seen/heard of Guillem taking flack for this sort of thing, but not Ferri. (Though on FB some people are now commenting on the photo in less than flattering terms.) And lets not even talk about what the boys of ballet get up to... https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/141/320568721_f8724497be.jpg http://boysinballet.tumblr.com/post/74239600266/thenextfamous-tiit-helimets-san-francisco http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/4c/39/89/4c398900b4fff370cf84c9ae6eac880b.jpg

There is no evidence that David Koch has influenced programing or the hiring of personnel at ABT. If you have any, or even the whiff of such, I think you should provide it. I would imagine that the fact Ratmansky was interested in the position and is considered one of the best ballet choreographers currently working (certainly among the top 5, in most people's top 2) was why ABT hired him. It is certainly a good enough reason. I didn't say that Koch has influenced programming or hiring in general. I said he is a supporter of Ratmansky in particular, and that the Koch money has a lot to do with Ratmansky's position at ABT. At the curtain speech for the premiere of this Nutcracker at BAM, McKenzie and Koch were on stage making a speech. McKenzie mentioned that Koch was willing to fund a new Nutcracker for ABT, but that Koch specified that the person who would have to choreograph it should be Ratmansky. Why do you take offense at acknowledging that Koch supports Ratmansky? Who is funding the new Sleeping Beauty. Is Koch the lead sponsor for that too? Added: Answered my own question. The ABT press release confirms that Koch is the lead sponsor of the new Ratmansky SB. I am not sure what you are trying to insinuate with this... Ratmansky is the resident choreographer. The last Sleeping Beauty was panned. Why would Ratmansky not be the one to choreograph a new version? Having a resident choreographer means they choreograph for the company, it isn't a conspiracy... I'm not offended by Koch supporting Ratmansky (well I'm offended by Koch generally, but). I don't understand why you are making it out that Ratmansky's position exists due to Koch. You imply some sort of conspiratory arrangement. It is unsubstantiated, and statements like: "David Koch is a big supporter of Ratmansky, and I think that must explain a lot about how he ended up at ABT as artist in residence" seem the sort of unsupported claim this board claims to discourage without evidence. When a choreographer is widely understood to be one of the best 2 choreographers currently working in ballet (whether you like him or not), this assertion is at the least, laughable.

There is no evidence that David Koch has influenced programing or the hiring of personnel at ABT. If you have any, or even the whiff of such, I think you should provide it. I would imagine that the fact Ratmansky was interested in the position and is considered one of the best ballet choreographers currently working (certainly among the top 5, in most people's top 2) was why ABT hired him. It is certainly a good enough reason.

I live in Brooklyn too. I've seen The Nutcracker and with my beloved Vero Part to boot. I probably wouldn't go see it again even if it played down the block from my house, so I am afraid we have to dismiss the notion that Ratmansky is not fully successful because he creates location-specific ballets that appeal to dwellers of certain NY boroughs only. Waelsung, to clarify--That part of my response wasn't directed at what you said. Indeed you never made Brooklyn part of your equation. Others did that!

I agree 100% that he should've been working for the NYCB and of course, my heart bleeds for his starving family On a more serious note, am I correct in my understanding that ABT pays Ratmansky top $$$$ because he creates a lot of innovative, popular and financially profitable ballets for other companies? Yes of course you are. Ha ha ha. I actually like the ABT Nutcracker a lot. I am happy to see it every year, whereas at this point I don't need to see NYCBs for a long time. Of course I actually *gasp* live in Brooklyn, so getting to BAM doesn't strike me as the horror it apparently does many on this forum. I liked trilogy as well. It wasn't a terribly unusual opinion. This board gets so snarky of late though, that at times it feels a bit pointless to voice opinions other than the loudest and most oft repeated.

African-American audiences are not, by definition, underprivileged.... Just because she draws a different audience than usually comes to the ballet, and yes, a more diverse one, doesn't mean the people who are coming are impoverished.

The quality of all of it isn't great though the Baryshnikov footage is the least good. It is definitely Bocca in the rest though!

It was me not Amour-- Not the T&V solo. Just that sequence.

I didn't see him. But if it is what I think you mean, Julio Bocca used to do it. The quality of this video is atrocious, but not of the dancing <3 (for what we are discussing see the 4:30 mark but the whole thing is worth watching after the really unwatchable footage at the start)A later video of just that variation is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iBawhzNlKc and an early (?) one here: (at 5:45)

I can't believe someone in all seriousness used the phrase "black privilege" on this board. A little perspective might be needed.

I imagine that she does as well, but at this point in the process, I don't think that's going to happen. I know that she's far from the first African American woman to dance this role in the US (and very far from the first woman of color), but right now she's in a much wider spotlight than the dance community usually gets -- the meta-conversation is going to be about her race as much as it is about her dance skills. Dance careers are short -- I'm glad she's getting this opportunity. Is she actually far from the first African American woman to dance Odette/Odile in the US? How many others have there been? I'm not challenging you, I'm genuinely curious. I know Dance Theater of Harlem has the Black Swan pdd in its rep but as far as I know, not SL as a whole (unlike Giselle). I'd imagine that there actually haven't been many African American dancers who have danced this role in the US, but perhaps I'm wrong... In any case, I agree with you on being glad that she is getting the opportunity!

Agreed on all of this. According to his ABT bio he does Benvolio (which I remember), but no mention of Mercutio. I wonder if that changes this year, however, as one of the recent frequent Mercutios was Jared Matthews.

The other way of looking at it is that Misty is not so vastly superior to Stella and Sarah, so one has to consider what factors tipped the balance in Misty's favor for being cast in SL. This is ridiculous. 1) This is an art form. Opinions are at least somewhat subjective. The AD thought that she was better suited to the role than they, and honestly given the generally positive views she received and my own opinion of at least Sarah's limited emotional range, I don't disagree. So opinions can vary. 2) It is not like she's been getting all the great leading roles and the others have not. She has NOT been cast as the lead in many full lengths. Certainly in no more than the others. She got this one. In a matinee, on tour. It wasn't opening night in NY... Sarah has been cast in SB, Misty certainly hasn't. Both were in Coppelia. In fact although I believe they were made soloists at the same time, Misty waited much longer for a lead role in a full length than Sarah did. So can we please stop acting like she has been receiving some outrageous favoritism, when there is simply no evidence of any such thing. Some of you simply prefer the other dancers and dislike her. That is your prerogative. A lot of what has been said here, however, is really beyond the pale. When Sarah gets cast "over" Misty do we always need "to consider what factors tipped the balance in [sarah's] favor?" I don't think so. So why do we when Misty is cast? The answer is, we don't.

I don't think that someone can simply market their way to the top - McKenzie obviously saw something in her dancing that earned her the promotion. Also, the media attention surrounding Misty is fairly recent (in the last 2-3 years). If I'm not mistaken, she was promoted to soloist back in 2007. The media attention followed her promotion, not the other way around. Misty has always been sponsored by the wealthy Manhattan socialite, Susan Fales Hill. In order to cultivate these sponsors, Kevin always promotes and features the sponsored dancer. I believe that it why Misty was promoted, IMO. This is getting into slander, in my opinion. For all the (outraged) talk on this board about Stella Abrera not being promoted further or getting enough featured roles, she too has a sponsor. If he really gives all the plum roles to dancers with sponsors, and features them. How do you explain this. Furthermore the number of dancers who have sponsors would seem to preclude the kind of illicit, dirty, under-the-table back-scratching you are describing (I was going to say implying but you did more than imply)

Different field, same issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/magazine/viola-davis.html?ref=television I think it is highly relevant to this discussion.

Apparently you didn't listen carefully to this interview, because neither did Misty. she talked about bodies within a range, and molding them. She never said all bodies are appropriate for ballet. She said it can *hurt* to be judged on your body type and I don't think there is a dancer born that hasn't felt that at some point.

That is a paraphrase of what she says, actually. She says it is hard being judged on things you can't change, like your body. But she also argues that there are a range of bodies that are and should be acceptable in ballet (and that you can morph your body). And her main point, which she is trying to put delicately, is that not all black women look alike or have the body stereotypically associated with them. This should be clear to anyone who read and listened. If this statement on body types had been made by Jennifer Ringer defending herself against the infamous "Too many sugar plums" comment I don't think we'd be having this discussion. All we'd be hearing is sympathy...

I think you are misrepresenting what she says

You may not be speaking of me personally, but this was a bit below the belt at anyone whose opinion differs from yours. You have no idea of my race and my experience. [The racial insensitivity of this entire thread is really astounding.] I happen to be white. I also happen to come from a multiracial family of dancers. And I've seen how non-white dancers were--and are--treated first hand. Maybe I accept Misty's story "without evidence that it is true," but it is because I am not blind to how race acts in our country and in the dance world. I have seen it. Lastly, returning to the "playing the race card" terminology. Before you use it again or engage in discussions of race in the US or insinuate those who disagree with you are being naive in accepting someone's story, perhaps you should read up on the issue a bit. I suggest this as a fine starting point for self-education: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/09/1222198/-The-Race-Card-White-Backlash-and-Why-Reverse-Racism-is-an-Oxymoronic-Irony

Not commenting on anything else here, but I don't think you have to assume C. Rather consider the possibility that she was being very gracious, is indeed happy working where she is working, and does not want to alienate or insult anyone there. That doesn't mean that ideally she might not have preferred a position at ABT or NYCB if one had been offered (ok so its perhaps potentially a bit of a fib, but an understandable and justified one--the kind anyone would say to please an employer)

Copeland isn't so young anymore (30, I believe). She and her PR team knew exactly what they were doing in playing the race card, and it appears to have worked. I would argue that the term "playing the race card" is incredibly belittling of the minority experience in America. The fact is that if you are not white, and especially if you are not white in a field as white as ballet is in the united states, race is going to deeply impact your experience. And people are, consciously or not (if you really want to believe that no one is racist), going to see you differently because you are different than almost everyone else and you stick out in every corps, you look different from everyone else. To call attention to that and say that your career has been impacted by it, HURT by it, is not "playing the race card."

Letting her dancing do the talking would eventually have garnered her the widespread acclaim she deserves as a groundbreaking dancer.Or she could have written her book without crying "racism." Instead she tarred a whole ballet company (Who are the supposed racists who supposedly didn't want to see her rise? She is taken at her word that she encountered them, but fans are left to speculate who she's talking about, while the purported racists - everyone there is now under suspicion - can't even defend themselves). I'm sure most minorities have found that simply letting their good work do the talking has eventually led to them getting the widespread acclaim they deserve. That is why racism no longer exists / is totally eradicated in today's society! Racism does exist in the ballet world. It has been a topic on this board certainly (the lack of certain minorities in ballet companies, especially at the upper levels) and for a dancer of color to discuss that in a book about her life does not seem to me to be "crying racism" but stating something that has been institutionalized fact. Racism can be subtle and not even "maliciously intended." The preconception that a black female dancer can't "look like a swan" or stands out too much in a group of willies. That doesn't mean it isn't racism. Honorable? Is that the expectation of dancers and company directors? I think that is a can of worms one might not want to open but I don't see anything dishonorable about it.