On Pointe

Based on their recent ad campaigns, NYCBallet appears to be trying to attract people who don't know much about ballet and what little they do know they don't much like. In my opinion, that's a mistake. There's an old showbiz axiom that has implications in politics and other fields: Always play to your strongest audience. Hardcore ballet fans, who will stick with the company for years, want to see dancers dancing. The Peck commercial - that's what it is - looks like a scene from a boring arthouse film. The Sleeping Beauty spot might appeal to the visual arts crowd, but where are the dancers? Nobody goes to the ballet to see projections of flowers on the stage. It's all very abstract and arty, but it's not ballet, it's not dancing, it's not music. The company needs to have more confidence in what it has to sell. (And if they opened the fourth ring and sold those tickets for $20.00 each, they would have sold out houses for every performance.)

Because of the political fallout over the war in Ukraine, there appear to be a number of highly-accomplished dancers available who would happily sign on at ABT, as guests or regular principals. There might even be a coach or two looking to get out of Russia for a few years.

I agree with you almost completely. I am not sure whether there were multiple female dancers from NYCB who had nude photos shared. There was only one identified by name, and she was adamant that, while she didn't condone the action, she did not feel victimized.

Now that would make a fascinating legal argument - lawyers, juries and judges deciding what ballet dancers should be allowed to weigh! Since dancers are on one year contracts, those who gain weight can simply not have their contracts renewed. That would be ridiculous, because a valued artist, whom the company has invested years in developing, should not be dismissed for a temporary condition. But it's preferable to the notion that not being in shape for the job you have makes you part of a protected class. May I add, Kathryn Morgan has said that she felt more "comfortable" dancing with a gay partner than a straight one. Should ballerinas be able to demand that their partners not be heterosexual, because being handled intimately by a straight male they are not in a relationship with makes for a hostile work environment? At some point there has to be recognition that as employees and union members, dancers have rights. But they don't run the company.

According to numerous studies, and casual observation, straight men almost universally have a "prurient" interest in looking at nude photos of women, whether they are life partners or not. (And I've known a fair number of gay men who like looking at female nudes, too.). It seems to be hard-wired in male sexuality. The public's reaction to the case varied. While many felt the men were in the wrong, some expressed amused surprise that male ballet dancers were sexually interested in women at all. And others, like me, felt that their private behavior, that never would have come to light except for Waterbury's possibly illegal snooping, should not end the dancers' careers, and were none of NYCBallet's business in the first place.

There was a lovely piece on Philadelphia Ballet's. Daddy and Me program to encourage fathers to take their children to the ballet: On a side note, while I like to see Black dancers wear skin toned tights and shoes in contemporary pieces, I think they're a distraction here. The white dancers are wearing very pale tights, not tights that match their skin. The Black dancers, in my opinion, should also wear light tights as they are part of the look of the costume.

There have been a number of occasions at NYCB when ex-spouses and ex-lovers have been required to perform pas de deux with each other, sometimes when the signatures on the divorce papers are barely dry. That was probably more "uncomfortable" than the knowledge that your partner may have shared a nude photo of someone, who isn't you and doesn't work with you with another person.

If NYCBallet is not responsible as a corporation, then why are they reacting to the private, non-criminal activities of its employees? You are right about morality clauses in contracts, but they aren't universal. Does NYCBallet actually have one? What they should have is a non-disparagement clause, so that dancers with a nebulous beef, like "body shaming", would think twice about running to media with their complaints.

One could argue that the true faces of the scandal are Finlay's and Waterbury's. Yet in the many articles about it in the non-dance internet coverage, Ramasar's face was often the only one shown. In my opinion, the whole kerfuffle was an over-reaction on management's part. Everyone involved was an adult. NYCBallet had no business interfering in their private lives. Of course they had to defend themselves when Waterbury sued the company, which is still playing out. But there is precedent that corporations are not responsible for the non-work related activities of their employees.

Thank you for naming the soloist, because, as per usual, The View didn't. NYCB should make identifying its dancers by name a requirement for their appearance on television to shill for Pandora. They didn't even give that basic respect to Megan Fairchild when she appeared a few weeks ago. The good news is that the dancers looked beautiful and danced well on the studio floor, which was probably concrete.

From what I've seen of Alu, he would be a sensation over here, bald head and all.

I don't know how I feel about a critic being so open about having favorites. Of course they all have their preferences, but it tends to cast doubt on her ability to assess performances fairly. What is the lesson of the "Solange effect"? You can attract new audiences if you provide an incentive for them to show up. It's not just Ms. Knowles' music, or her proximity to Beyoncé, although that counts. Young people, especially young Black people in NYC, tend to be heavily invested in fashion and art. They like dressing up for an occasion. It costs thousands of dollars to attend affairs like the Met gala. The most expensive ticket to NYCB, at Lincoln Center no less, is a bargain. (Not to get too heavy, but at one time, Black people were punished for being too well-dressed in public. When Bert Williams was the undisputed star of the Ziegfeld Follies, he was booed off the stage for wearing a tux.)

Quinn Starner - this young woman is a star. And if she decided to pursue an acting career, she'd be a star at that too. Star quality is undeniable. It can be a blessing or a curse. We'll see. Right now, just from the bits I see online, she's one of the most exciting dancers I've seen in years.

Stephanie Dabney of DTH has passed away: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/arts/dance/stephanie-dabney-dead.html The last years of her life were very hard, as she struggled with multiple severe conditions. May she rest in peace. I hope she knew that she was not forgotten.

Easy for him to say - when Balanchine started he didn't have any stars. So he made himself the biggest name at NYCB, which was very smart. But American ballet has moved way past those days.

Seems to me that NYCB has to decide what their strongest audience is and then play to that. It's not the general public. It's not even the general ballet public. If I click on their videos, it's because I want to see NYCB dancers dancing, and I want to know who they are. Not even identifying them with a chyron is just plain stupid and indicates that the dancers are not the company's top priority. And it's partially the dancers' fault for putting up with it. They need to grow up already and demand that very minimal respect.

That's because those numbers are paltry. They should aim for millions of followers. Most celebrities hire professionals to run their social media accounts. It's a legitimate business expense, and it frees them from the effort. Ballet tickets are expensive, but so are Nascar tickets, and yet they manage to sell out huge stadiums, and nobody whines about the prices.

If nobody cares, why bother designating soloists and principals at all? Just put on a few advanced students from SAB. Misty Copeland is arguably the most famous ballerina in the US, because the general public actually knows who she is. And she puts butts in seats, to use a crass showbiz term. I don't keep up with the Maryinsky Ballet, but I know who Maria Khoreva is, because she promotes herself effectively - she's always popping up in my YouTube feed. And I don't believe she's even a principal yet. I hate Instagram and I wouldn't blame any dancer for not wanting to participate in social media. But I choose performances to attend based on who's dancing. "Tubes of paint" don't engage my interest. If Tik Tok can create "stars" with millions of followers, big ballet can publicize and promote its dancers to the general public. In the performing arts, stars matter.

This video illustrates why NYCB might be having trouble building audiences: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6LcRpK_eSI4 It's about the fall fashion gala and does a nice job highlighting the choreographers and the designers. But NYCB is a dance company - who are the dancers? Their names don't appear anywhere, not even in the end credits. Are viewers just supposed to know who they are, or are we not supposed to care? It's incredibly dismissive. Maybe the company thinks that its name alone is sufficient. I can't imagine the Metropolitan Opera releasing a promotional piece without mentioning the singers' names, and its brand is arguably stronger than NYCB's. Last year Megan Fairchild and two children danced an excerpt from Nutcracker on The View, touting a jewelry company, and she was not identified at all. The company should not have allowed that, particularly because Fairchild's story, a principal ballerina with an MBA and three children, including twins, is tailor-made for The View. She should have been given a seat at their table, literally, like other notable guests. NYCB needs to promote its dancers to the public. That's who people go to the theater to see. An occasional piece in the NY Times is not enough. (Especially since their dance critic seems to revel in negative stories about the company.). I remember an interview years ago with one of Merce Cunningham's dancers who said that as far as MC was concerned, his dancers were "tubes of paint". Tubes of paint don't fill seats, stars do, personalities with fascinating backstories do. But the audience can't be engaged if they don't even know who these talented people are.

I don't see much in common between Get Out and The Stepford Wives. To me Get Out is closer in concept to Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the first one, not the Nicole Kidman remake. Fun fact - the actor Kevin McCarthy, who plays the lead in the black and white original, was the brother of the writer Mary McCarthy, whose feud with Lillian Hellman was legendary. He was also a cousin of Senator Eugene McCarthy. Olivia Wilde has said that she was inspired by her loathing of the ideas of Canadian social critic and provocateur Jordan Peterson. He is a hero to many misogynistic incels, and predictably they are piling on iwith what I feel is unfair and improper commentary about Wilde. Whatever, Wilde's use of dance was a bold and original choice.

I went to see Don't Worry Darling yesterday, a film that has become notorious because of shenanigans on and off set between the director and the actors. Basically it's an idea in search of a plot, and the idea is Ira Levin's - it's a rehash of The Stepford Wives, but this time produced, written and directed almost entirely by women. I'm a big fan of its star, Florence Pugh, a brilliant film talent, who incidentally bears a striking resemblance to Sara Mearns. She plays Alice, a not so happy housewife. And there's Harry Styles - I'm not a fan of his music but he was okay. (The part was originally cast with Shia Labeouf, who can be problematic off-camera, but can really deliver when it counts.). Olivia Wilde cast herself in a small but pivotal role in the film she directed. By the time Don't Worry Darling made it to film festivals, most of the lead actors and the director were barely on speaking terms, and Florence Pugh flat out refused to make any appearances with the others. And yet, the film itself is pretty good, beautiful to look at, and much better than reviews would lead one to believe. The most intriguing aspect of the film to me is how dance is used to advance the narrative. Every day in the desert town of Victory, bright yellow trolleys transport the obedient wives to a ballet class, conducted by the wife of the founder of the town. The women are terrified of her, as she tells them that ballet represents discipline and control. The not so subtle implication is that she's referring to the control that the company has over their lives. While the class members appear to have some training, except for one or two, they're obviously not professional dancers. Later they are cleverly swapped for actual dancers, who perform a choreographic illustration of Alice's emotions at key moments. In her delirium, they turn into a Busby Berkeley chorus, shot from above as they form the iris of an eye. When Alice's husband Jack is promoted at a company dinner, instead of a speech, he's made to dance a demeaning soft shoe routine, looking more like a marionette than a human. With all this dance onscreen, I expected the choreographer to be prominently credited, but I had to search for her name - Denna Thomsen. Ms. Thomsen needs to have a serious chat with her agent. The hairdressers, accountants and grips get better billing than she does.

Speaking of photos, the new poster for NYCB's fall and winter season keeps popping up in my browser, and I seriously don't get it. It's a swirl of yellow and blue with a few body parts visible, but no clear representation of a ballet dancer. The most discernible human image appears to be a balding man in a strapless sheath dress. Everything is heavily blurred. What's up with that? Ballet fans do like to see photos of dancers. Or has NYCB decided that's not hip enough? I wonder who they think finds this campaign appealing.

Does anyone know - is Amar Ramasar's retirement voluntary, or did NYCB decline to renew his contract after losing the AGMA arbitration? Seems to me that the company needs him.

In my current line of work, i deal with a number of people who make a lot of money but aren't crazy about what they do to earn it. (Spoiler alert - a lot of them are lawyers.) They are comfortable letting me know that, but they aren't stupid enough to share that info with their bosses, or their clients. Steadily employed, well paid artists are privileged individuals, not "wage laborers". If you don't love dancing more than anything else, don't put in " face time" at company meetings, which is what class is in a ballet context, and turn down roles that are offered to you, why should anyone care about your dancing? You don't. That lack of dedication shows up in performance, no matter how talented you may be. Blaming everyone and everything else is illogical. Expecting a giant payday because you stopped doing what you didn' t care about doing in the first place is ridiculous. (And really, what's so special about a 31st birthday? Twenty-one, forty or even thirty years are significant milestones for a lot of people, but thirty-one? Not so much.)

Many of us here have danced professionally. I did for over twenty years. But the most important aspect of being a professional is professionalism. When I was first starting out, I had a friend whose father was a journeyman actor, the kind you see in second tier roles on Law and Order. Even in late middle age, he had to scramble to afford to live in an unfashionable neighborhood in NYC and manage to pay for her years of ballet lessons. But it paid off because she had been hired by a major company and was getting solo roles right away. Over dinner she began complaining about aspects of company life, including decisions made by the artistic director. But her father stopped her and said, " Never knock a gig while you're doing it.". (He didn't need to add, and don't run to the New York Times whenever you don't get your way. I'm sure there are dancers in other companies who have a beef or two, but it's curious that NYCB's dancers seem to feature in more negative stories than any other company.) It's very hard when you come to the realization that you can't dance at the necessary high level any more. But Abi Stafford had years of security as a well paid principal dancer. She's married, with a child and a law degree, made possible by arrangements the company made years ago to enable the dancers to attain degrees from Fordham while working. She even told the associate artistic director that she loved the law more than dancing. Nobody's boss wants to hear that an employee is more invested in something other than what they are getting paid to do. Jonathan Stafford did not become artistic director of NYCB to spite his sister. If his prominence causes her that much pain she needs to talk that out with a therapist, not a reporter. He has a career too. If there are truly terrible aspects to her treatment at NYCB that are not known, Ms. Stafford is free to present them here. I believe that we actually want to understand why someone who has attained so much in life is so angry and discontented.