fondoffouettes

Well, ABT's old press release for the Avery Fisher Hall season was no help in determining who danced Other Dances back then (it says TBA for all performances of the piece). But this old thread confirms that both Hallberg/Murphy and Gomes/Part danced it: So, I guess ABT didn't feel like they needed to cast short for this one. I remember enjoying Hallberg/Murphy in Other Dances, though It was my first time viewing the piece so I had no point of reference for how it should be danced. The reactions in the thread above are rather tepid/negative. Seems like Part/Gomes were more enthusiastically received.

Well, Rubies was like an IV drip of Red Bull after the soporific Emeralds. The company was on fire and going for broke. De Luz and Fairchild were giving it their all and complemented each other so well. Fairchild may be a bit diminutive and girlish, but her attack was impressive. And Reichlin, well, nothing more can be said about how she owns the role. She didn't look quite as comfortable as usual in the deep arabesques penchees that she does while going offstage; she didn't really go down deep into the last one and hold it like I've seen before. But that's a minor quibble. The whole ensemble was embracing the athletic, jazzy, casual, bravura aspects of the piece. The audience was going nuts.

Intermission at tonight's performance. POB's Emeralds felt like an all-too-prim affair. Certainly it should be the most subdued of the three acts, but it needs a rapturous quality that was almost completely missing. Gilbert's serpentine ports de bras in her variation was a particular disappointment; it looked like she was inspecting a recent manicure! She also fell off point twice when she and the male lead first dance together, during the supported turns. Yes, her supple back was gorgeous, and added a lot. I found it odd how she milked some balances, eliciting a smattering of applause. This doesn't really seem like the proper ballet for that. It made me miss Tiler Peck so much! Baulac was fine and did the segmented arabesques and arm motions. But again there was a prim and somewhat brittle quality to her dancing.

I just noticed, on the bottom of the new homepage, that they credit a company called Infor with the design. Assuming this is the same organization, they don't seem to specialize in website design: http://www.infor.com/ They have a lot of high-profile clients, but I don't see any from the arts world. I think it can actually be advantageous to use a firm that doesn't usually work in the arts (they can bring a fresh perspective), but one has to wonder how ABT arrived at the decision to use them. And what tech firm in good faith could allow ABT to function with their weird hybrid website? My first thought was "Who on ABT's board has a connection to Infor?" This may be unfair; it's just the first thing that crossed my mind. There are far smaller performing arts organizations that have decent-looking, mobile-responsive website. ABT's website isn't even very deep, content-wise, so a redesign would seem minimal compared to many organizations. Maybe I'm missing something, though... And with regard to the menu titles, they certainly reflect a dated approach. They don't focus at all on the customer experience. Edited to add: The highlight of this morning's experience of viewing ABT's website was when the banner image about the fall season (on the 1998 home page) began fading in and out on a loop. This was on mobile...

That's what immediately struck me too -- his arms seem to have a beautiful fluidity.

I agree, canbelto. When she had glitches, they were usually in turns, though she became much more reliable in the past several years. She also learned how to roll with the punches and not let imperfections interfere with her performances. For instance, in her recent Swan Lake, she had to switch legs during the end of the adagio in the Act II pas de deux (the part where Odette flutters her free foot). This must have been necessitated by her ankle injury. In her early years with ABT, Part often became visibly disturbed by issues like these, but she got to a place where the bobbles were far less frequent, and when they did happen, she didn't let them interrupt the overall flow of the performance. There has been some loss of flexibility in the past couple seasons (perhaps also related to a back injury), but she still looked beautiful. She also managed to stay in remarkably good physical shape, despite being given reduced performance opportunities. I expected her to have at least one more season, if not two or three. I still think she has some beautiful Odette/Odiles and Nikiyas left in her. It's too bad she didn't get to dance Aurora after the Kirkland production was scrapped, but I understand she's not everyone's idea of an ideal Aurora. And I can't decide whether or not the reconstruction would have been a good fit for her. Edited to add: I hope this isn't too dramatic, but I still feel like I'm in a state of mourning about not being able to see those future Odette/Odiles and Nikiyas on the Met stage, or possibly anywhere. It hasn't fully sunk in for me.

It's been noted by others on here that Marshall Whiteley has been standing out as potential tall-ish, strong partner among the corps men. He looks quite good in the clip below (he's dancing the Black Swan pas de deux with Paulina Waski at SUNY Purchase). He previously danced the same pdd with Scout Forsythe, I believe also at SUNY Purchase. There are some additional clips on Forsythe's, Whiteley's and Waski's Instagram accounts, too. It's hard to judge from such short clips, but Whiteley really seems to have great potential (not to mention Waski and Forsythe!). It's interesting to read in his ABT bio that he started out as a hockey player. He certainly doesn't move like one anymore!

The only upside I saw to the Veronika debacle was that she left the company still giving beautiful performances in her signature roles.

What was his reason for phasing her out of those roles, or was none given? I didn't follow her career too closely, so I'm wondering if it was just physical/technical deterioration? Or do you think she was still fine in the non-tutu roles? It would seem less cruel to part earlier with a dancer (at around age 42, 43?) rather than keep her on till 46 but deny her the roles she's most closely associated with. But like I said, I didn't follow her career that closely, so I'm curious to hear your take on things. I remember seeing her in Diamonds a few years ago and left feeling as if I'd rather avoid her in classical tutu roles. I still find the stage makeup at NYCB to be rather extreme at times, with very pronounced contouring. It doesn't really bother me, since distance and lighting, of course, soften everything, but they really do lay it on thick.

The comments on Ratmanksy's Facebook page have now been deleted, either by Part or Ratmansky.

I hope Part finds another outlet -- either speaking with a journalist or penning something herself. I wonder if she would face any legal repercussions by speaking out about ABT, though. (I presume they sign non-disclosure agreements?) Her comment on Ratmansky's page and her other negative comment about Whipped Cream seem to indicate some resentment toward the choreographer. I wonder if she feels he could have done more to advocate for her as an asset to the company. He certainly utilized her quite a bit, though. Maybe James Wolcott can get martinis (vodka ones, naturally) with Veronika and Irina and publish the subsequent conversation on his blog. Now THAT I'd like to read

Or there's Semionova. It looks like she's dancing in one of Roberto Bolle's galas at the moment, so she has returned from maternity leave but has not been reengaged by ABT (unless they have plans to do so next season). My bet is on Kotchetkova, though. Lane and Brandt are both filling the short girl role. And perhaps even Shevchenko could be partnered by Simkin, Cornejo or Cirio. She was partnered by Shayer in the Shostakovich Trilogy, and he seems rather short. Edited to add: Oops. I now remember Shayer partnered Brandt, not Shevchenko.

Just out of curiosity -- can you tell which role in Serenade? The Dark Angel?

After her first few years with ABT, she definitely underwent a noticeable weight loss/toning up that she maintained throughout the rest of her career with ABT. If you look at the photos of her last Swan Lake, for instance, she looks considerably less curvy than in her early ABT days. In terms of consistent technique, she seemed to reach her peak only after being promoted to principal, perhaps due to a boost of confidence. After her promotion, she still had the occasional glitch here or there, but she didn't let them it interfere with her overall performances. If nothing else, she's definitely had a unique trajectory, reaching her peak in her early 30s. She triumphed over whatever demons were interfering with her early performances. (Those early ones were still exquisite, by the way, but her inconsistent technique had us all gritting our teeth.) Thank you for the perspective on her early days, Natalia.

I got the sense from tracking ticket sales on the Met's website that the Ferri factor had much less of an impact this year (or maybe they managed to sell a bunch of tickets closer to the show dates). It could have been a variety of factors: the novelty of her return had worn off; Onegin had never been one of her signature roles; her technical/physical state became too much of a hurdle for some fans; balletomanes spent their money on Vishneva's farewell instead. If anyone attended and saw something different in terms of seats sold, please chime in. In Part's defense, she was responding to remarks about ballet being only for the young, and she cited Ferri and Kent as two dancers who clearly have defied that. I think she must be well aware she is held in a different regard by ABT.

I thought we concluded that the naming is simply an honor but that the funds go into a pool that pays for all salaries and possibly just operating expenses in general? The quote from Moore said as much. Also, the pricing chart for sponsorship that someone found (sorry, being lazy with locating it) showed that you could sponsor a principal for far less than their full salary. That's not to say that some well-heeled donors pay much more than that, though. Of course, Part's comment about trying sponsorship implies that a donor offered funds specifically to keep her on the roster. I can see why that would be problematic for ABT, as it would give even more artistic control to that donor.

There have been some additional comments from Part herself on the protester's website (all translated from Russian). In response to a comment to the effect of "ballet is for the young," as well as to some sentiments about theater life being inherently unfair, Part has responded: I don't argue about the age of ballet... and that sooner or later everyone has to change the profession. But the scurvy of certain people in the position of force I accept and understand cannot and refuse. As to me and to the aforementioned dancers! The slogan "life is unfair" doesn't work for me. What about all the beloved and deeply respected Julia Kent? She was 47. And Alexandra Ferry (54) Or in this case, you will say that the level of talent of the artists overrides the age barrier... What's not to say? And don't you dare argue with me because I've lived every minute of my life in this profession sense and trying to understand and explain to myself somoy why is it still "life is unfair"(29 years of my life in a profession) I honestly can't blame her for being pissed.

I'm still trying to fully absorb and come to terms with what happened to Part. I really don't know how she held it together those final two weeks. As noted above, her relatively happy demeanor at Vishneva's farewell seems to suggest she wasn't aware at that point that her time with ABT was over. The idea of her unknowingly giving her final Swan Lake performance, only to be told a week later she was fired (following a love-fest farewell for a fellow Mariinksy dancer) seems too much for anyone to bear. Her patched-together farewell, complete with a NYT article stating she was fired, must have been humiliating for her. ABT could have hardly treated her departure more poorly than they did. Oh, not to mention that she was forced to give her farewell during a matinee, in a mixed program, rather than in one of the full-lengths she's most closely associated with. And then a few people gave her bouquets while others stood in the background wearing shorts and other street clothes. She was disrespected in so many ways. Not to mention that she now has no income for the next season. I guess ABT found a way to fire a dancer with two weeks notice and suffer no repercussions.

Whiteside was onstage but just standing toward the back. I guess they were just trying to keep the bouquet presentations as minimal as possible. If they had had more than one principal dancer hand her flowers, then it would have been awkward for the rest standing on stage to not follow suit.

So, assuming Trenary and Brandt continue dancing at such a high level, can they only be promoted next spring if ABT decides to sack Abrera and/or Murphy? Or maybe ABT's finances will magically improve...? Or will they be forced to wait for promotions until they are 28, 29, 30...? Any ballerina in that company approaching her late 30s has cause for concern. Part, Herrera and Dvorovenko all "retired" at age 39. I think many would agree that Part's treatment has been the most abominable. Although I lost interest in Herrera in her later years, she probably deserved more after her many years of service at ABT. At least she and Dvorovenko both got proper farewells, even if they were forced. The detail about Part fashioning a bouquet to give Dvorovenko at her retirement was particularly poignant. Edited to add: Next spring season, I believe Abrera will be 39/40 and Murphy will be 39. Based on her still very high level of technique, I would expect Murphy to dance for several more years, assuming she's able to cope with injuries. Plus, she seems to have a very good relationship with the company. Abera's future remains a question mark for me (and I do love her). She was promoted so late that it would be a shame for her not to get three or four more seasons at least. Who knows??

Ah, sorry -- no, I didn't think you were at all. I was just trying to say that I don't really seem to recall any feeling of injustice among balletomanes at the time. I think it may have been that we didn't realize he was leaving at the time, or he did so quietly. I can't remember the exact circumstances. What I regret is not being able to see more of him. I caught him at the tail end of his ABT tenure, and he was amazing! Feeling ever more saddened by the Part situation...

If I remember correctly, he may have withdrawn from a bunch of performances in his last season at ABT. And then he became artistic director of the Berlin State Ballet. I didn't realize he had truly left until way after the fact. It felt more like he left quietly and was chose to refocus his energies on Berlin. I don't remember a "he got shafted by ABT and didn't get a proper farewell" vibe among us here on Ballet Alert, but perhaps others with sharper memories may recall.

It's even more awful when one thinks she could have said farewell to some of her major roles next year -- Nikiya, Odette/Odile, Lilac Fairy, Myrtha. This is assuming that ABT follows their normal two-years-on, one-year-off pattern for the warhorses. I take what Part says in the article at face value. Everything seems to point to her expecting to dance next season, up until sometime around her Swan Lake performance this year.

Right, and I should clarify that I don't know whether that's the case with Vishneva and Bolle, but I've always assumed as much. I'm guessing guest contracts may be subject to different requirements than full-time employee contracts (full-time meaning 36 weeks of the year or whatever it is).

Maybe she was informed well in advance that her normal principal contract wouldn't be renewed but that they'd have her sign a guest contract for next season (but retain the title of principal dancer on public-facing materials, like Vishneva and Bolle). The idea of being "partially engaged" next season suggests an altered status with the company. And certainly they wouldn't have her sign a principal contract for just one Swan Lake. Perhaps this would allow ABT to avoid any union issues, if she was notified a while ago that she wouldn't be a full-time company member? And maybe the guest contract for next year was just a verbal promise. This all seems to confirm that she was, in fact, treated quite poorly by ABT. It appears as if they purposely left the door open for firing her on short notice without having to deal with union pushback.