Rock

True, Helene, but it's so far in the past and before there were any copyright laws - I think people don't feel guilty doing their own versions. It doesn't seem to be an issue. A ballet like Bugaku is different. At least right now. Things will change when Balanchine's ballets move into the public domain. 

2 hours ago, nanushka said:

I’m not sure why altering Bugaku is a moral issue in a way that altering, say, Swan Lake might not be. (Certainly it’s more of a legal issue, but that’s quite different.)

Swan Lake, of course, predates any reliable record. There's no video, no Benesh notation, et.al. 

Bugaku has many films from many companies. The NYCB films their performances and the tapes are given to the Lincoln Center Library. Many companies maintain an archive. Actually, the films made in Montreal and Nashville by the NYCB are the least reliable because Balanchine loved to play with camera angles and move things around. He changed entrances, patterns, spacing especially. They're not useful for restaging purposes.

Use of video is very common in the staging of ballet all over the world. There's no reason that method can't be applied to Bugaku a couple of decades from now. Passing down by hand is the most dicey method of staging a ballet. People forget, and their minds twist things and they remember what they "think" they did. In fact they remember less than they think they do.

There's a moral issue hovering over this discussion. "Fixing" Bugaku is akin to putting a fig leaf on the David, or painting over a nude. This is a work of art and should be left alone. Do it or don't do it but it's wrong to alter it and then present an altered version. It reminds me of Queen Victoria's daughter burning the letters and diary pages in an effort, she thought, of saving her mother's reputation. All she succeeded in doing was obliterating history. 

Thought further - about the last section where the girls are wearing long ceremonial capes that the guys billow and fluff. No actually steps really - it's all about working the capes. So without the capes what have you got? 

I don't think it's a viable idea to try to do Bugaku as a black-and-white leotard ballet. It doesn't make any sense. The oriental references are too strong, and what do you do about about the undressing/dressing sections? In the production the dancers enter on a ramp and then down steps into a stage arena. Without the set what do you have? Just dancers walking out. I don't think it's any big deal to simply not present the ballet at this time. We're going thru social upheavals, things might get sorted out, change will happen - and maybe at some point in the future people will look at Bugaku with very different eyes. It's not "endangered" - there are plenty of films, interviews with Villella and Kent, et.al. Don't mess with it, don't "fix" it, don't try to make it something it isn't. Just give it a breather and see what happens. 

It's pretty amazing that two high-profile projects with West Side Story are currently being prepared - this new B'way version (with an amazing line-up of producers), and Steven Spielberg's new film version. Neither project will use the choreography of Jerome Robbins.  Sounds scary, but you never know...                                                                      

I'm not sure the word affair has anything to do with marriage. Also, relationship usually implies something more serious, and more trusting, than what we're talking about here.

Jack - I saw a performance but i don't think it was the same one you attended. I never heard that Verdy's variation was ever any place other than right after the opening section. But I believe the 2nd variation, which was originally Mimi Paul, was rechoreographed in 1976, the same time Mr. Balanchine added a second PdD for Verdy and the new ending. I think the 2nd variation we now see was done on Karin von Aroldingen. I thought the Ballet Arizona Emeralds was very well staged and beautifully coached.  

I believe it was during the City Center days when a very popular program of Swan Lake/Firebird/Faun/Western was deemed too long by Morton Baum. What's called a "Run on" principal couple and 4 corps girls are added to the finale so the patterns remain the same. 

Justin Peck has choreographed a number of pieces for the Miami City Ballet. He most probably knows Jovani Furlan from there.

You would not be alone.

Helene - you have to remember for that most of Martins' tenure (is that the word?) the ballet master staff was made up only of people who worked with Balanchine.They had all been in those ballets and worked directly with Balanchine. No generation was "skipped". Whatever possible was passed down. It's a common error to assume (because it wasn't made public) that no one came in - Verdy worked there on-and-off for years, teaching and coaching; McBride had been there several times before - it's just that this last time so many dancers were involved with social media and posted pictures and comments. But it's a mistake to think Martins didn't do that at all. He most certainly did. Tallchief, LeClercq, Una Kai - they were all in there at different times under Martins. As his ballet master staff got older some retired, some died, but they were replaced with a new crop who maybe hadn't worked with Balanchine himself, but were certainly taught by those who did. Rosemary Dunleavy remains at her post - she was Balanchine's ballet mistress from the 60's and she's still in there day after day.  

21 minutes ago, nubka said:

I

21 minutes ago, nubka said:

I would like to have seen someone appointed who had actually worked with Balanchine.  I fear for his legacy.

No fear needed. Those ballets and stories and nuances have been passed on by all the people who worked there. There are no "secrets" kept from the dancers. They've been told and then they told the next generation, etc. The Balanchine ballets are also protected by the Balanchine Trust, there are many films of performances, films of the originators of roles discussing what Balanchine said, he we wanted it, on and on. There is little need to fear for his legacy.

What consequence? What were they going to do? This probably lasted about 5 minutes, and they were totally unprepared for it.

Emma I don't understand why you think Martins not following Stafford's request to delay coming backstage until the dancers who wanted to could go upstairs - why you think Martins disregarding that request could be construed as the Board not fully empowering Stafford. It was unexpected, no one knew what Martins was going to do. I would say, instead, that the promotion of dancers and the hiring of new apprentices indicates Stafford has plenty of authority.

This was clearly not well handled, which leads more credence to Bouder's version. I just feel Jon Stafford was caught in the middle and is blameless here. But whatever was done it was done before the casting was posted - which was 2 weeks in advance. We wouldn't know anything about it were it not for Bouder speaking out. I think she made a misstep. 

And maybe it's true. But it's also possible Martins thought after all these years it should be somebody else's turn to go first. Or even that somebody else was better suited. 

No. None that I know of.

I'm afraid I agree with EJohnson. I also think Stafford might have been deliberately and publicly distancing himself from Martins.

No. I wasn't "last minute" by any means. But Bouder had been first cast of Aurora for a number of years and had been told she would be again this year. That's why it was such a shock.

I don't get how this is poor judgment or an institutional problem. They're not supposed to say anything?

That is correct nanushka. Also, does anyone actually think Jon Stafford would make those statements to the NYT without support? I think he knew it was okay to say those things about the casting, and then he was very blunt about having been blindsided about Martins' trip backstage. 

And I think you're wrong. I think Stafford can win. And should.