Ivo van Hove & Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker Take On West Side Story for Broadway

[BalanchineFan]

30 minutes ago, nanushka said:

No grounds. As I said, I understood that they were only required to employ him for the remaining period of the contract they inappropriately (according to the judgment of the arbitrator) terminated. Again, I may be wrong, so if anyone has details about what specifically the union arrangement requires I’d be interested to know. They are not simply required to automatically renew every dancer’s contract from year to year, are they? At least I assumed they were not.

The idea that, after arbitration, NYCB is "only required to employ him for the remaining period of his [yearly] contract" was an idea that I only ever heard on this message board. I don't think they can fire him twice for the same event and whatever I think, by keeping Amar Ramasar on the online roster and listed in NYCB programs while he's performing on Broadway, NYCB isn't acting like that's their goal. They may not be required to renew contracts in general, but for a reinstated principal dancer who is dancing well, how would NYCB explain the decision to AGMA and the arbitrator? 'We reinstated him like you said, but now we just don't like his dancing.'?

What follows doesn't answer your questions but it states that AGMA reviews each case of non-reengagement.

From a 1999 NYCB AGMA contract:

REENGAGEMENT EMPLOYER will notify Dancer(s) whom the EMPLOYER does not plan to re-engage for the following season in writing no later than February 28, however EMPLOYER will use best efforts to notify such Dancer(s) by February 1. The EMPLOYER will furnish AGMA with a list of these Dancers at which time AGMA will review each case of non-reengagement and will make recommendations to the EMPLOYER. ARTISTS will make every reasonable effort to give notice of resignation no later than May 31st which is the middle of the Spring season in New York for the ballet.

[Fraildove]

From my understanding of most AGMA contracts, regardless of rank, a company never has the obligation of renewing a contract. Case in point, Veronika Part. Or Dvorovenko and Herrera. If there is a male soloist that they want to promote to Principal and they need an open contract, they have the right to not renew. And I hope that no one will take this the wrong way but Ramasar is the same age that I am, 38. That is nearing the retirement age for most dancers anyway. So if there is a young, up and coming soloist that they want to promote I think that they could arguably say so with the mention of the WSS contract as another consideration. I’ve never been on the other side of it where AGMA recommends a company to renew, but if it was recommended, would the company be beholden to the recommendation? 
 

companies don’t usually update their rosters unless it’s a promotion or at the end/beginning of the season. If Ramasar’s contract isn’t renewed, but he is still under his current contract then he would still be listed as principal dancer. I have no idea if his contract has been or will be renewed. Just offering a different perspective. 😊

[Helene]

As long as the company gives the amount of notice in the contract -- some contracts require a full year if the dancer has enough tenure -- the company does not to have cause not to renew.  I don't remember seeing the actual arbitrator's decision, only quotes reported in the media, and I don't know if that had any additional conditions.

[nanushka]

9 hours ago, BalanchineFan said:

I don't think they can fire him twice for the same event...

Again, I'm not suggesting they would "fire him twice for the same event." In order to fire Ramasar during the term of his contract, they would need cause; that's what they tried to do before, and the arbitrator found that they did not have sufficient cause. I'm suggesting that, when his contract comes up for renewal, they might simply choose not to renew. I don't believe they are obligated to do so. Yes, AGMA would certainly "review" the non-renewal, but I'm not sure there's anything they could do. Likely they review all non-renewals in part to ensure that those decisions aren't being made for improper reasons (e.g. discrimination against a protected class).

9 hours ago, BalanchineFan said:

...by keeping Amar Ramasar on the online roster and listed in NYCB programs while he's performing on Broadway, NYCB isn't acting like that's their goal.

He's still on the roster because he's still under contract. That's true whether they plan to renew the contract or not, so he'd be listed now either way. Even if they weren't planning to renew his contract, they would keep him on the roster during the term of the current contract.

9 hours ago, BalanchineFan said:

They may not be required to renew contracts in general, but for a reinstated principal dancer who is dancing well, how would NYCB explain the decision to AGMA and the arbitrator?

I don't think they would need to explain it. Again, they wouldn't be firing him, they would simply be choosing not to renew his contract. They would need good cause to do the former (as they discovered previously); there's no such requirement, I believe, for doing the latter (so long as they're not doing so in a discriminatory manner against a protected class).

And, of course, NYCB may have made their peace with Ramasar's presence in the company and decide to keep him on until he retires.

Again, I could be wrong about all this, as I don't know the specific details of the AGMA contract with NYCB. I'm just basing this on my more general (and very much non-professional, and thus potentially fallible) understanding of how employment law works.

Quote

The idea that, after arbitration, NYCB is "only required to employ him for the remaining period of his [yearly] contract" was an idea that I only ever heard on this message board.

One thing I so appreciate about this particular online community is the considerable knowledge its members have in many different realms, so I'm able to rely on others here who have greater understanding of these matters to correct me if I'm mistaken. I've found it to be a tremendous resource!

Edited February 25, 2020 by nanushka

[BalanchineFan]

15 hours ago, nanushka said:

I don't think they would need to explain it. Again, they wouldn't be firing him, they would simply be choosing not to renew his contract. They would need good cause to do the former (as they discovered previously); there's no such requirement, I believe, for doing the latter (so long as they're not doing so in a discriminatory manner against a protected class).

IF they do I suppose he goes back to AGMA for arbitration. To me, non-renewal would be like NYCB not accepting AGMA's decision, or not negotiating in good faith. I guess we'll have to see how it plays out.

I just read another take on the production. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/opinion/west-side-story-broadway.html

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by BalanchineFan
to add a link to an article

[nanushka]

23 minutes ago, BalanchineFan said:

IF they do I suppose he goes back to AGMA for arbitration. To me, non-renewal would be like NYCB not accepting AGMA's decision, or not negotiating in good faith. I guess we'll have to see how it plays out.

If it’s in the contract that NYCB can choose not to renew, though — which is what I’m suggesting is quite likely the case — then the arbitrator would have known that when making the decision, and there’s no bad faith.

Very few of us are guaranteed employment in perpetuity by a given employer until we choose to retire.

Edited February 26, 2020 by nanushka

[Quiggin]

BalanchineFan:

Quote

I just read another take on the production. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/opinion/west-side-story-broadway.html

Yes, it written by Carina del Valle Schorske from San Juan. It's in the Opinion rather than Dance section. She says "these continuous revivals [only] reinforce America’s colonizing power to determine who Puerto Ricans get to be." Also what I tried to summarize before:

Quote

The show’s creators didn’t know, or didn’t seem to care to know, much about their own material. The lyricist Stephen Sondheim at first expressed doubts about his fitness for the project: “I’ve never been that poor and I’ve never even met a Puerto Rican.” The initial concept, an adaptation of “Romeo and Juliet” recast with teenage street gangs, didn’t involve Puerto Ricans at all. The artists toyed with a number of ethnic possibilities — Jewish people? Mexicans? — before settling on the version we know now.

On another note Gia Koulas cites Marc Crousillat, who danced with Trisha Brown, as a particularly effective dancer in the musical. Nice video of him in Locus Solo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=727379wYnB0

 

[sandik]

2 hours ago, Quiggin said:

On another note Gia Koulas cites Marc Crousillat, who danced with Trisha Brown, as a particularly effective dancer in the musical. Nice video of him in Locus Solo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=727379wYnB0

 

Nice indeed -- thanks for the link!

[Kathleen O'Connell]

10 hours ago, Quiggin said:

On another note Gia Koulas cites Marc Crousillat, who danced with Trisha Brown, as a particularly effective dancer in the musical. Nice video of him in Locus Solo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=727379wYnB0

Thank you for this link! My gosh, what a glorious mover! 

[Kathleen O'Connell]

10 hours ago, Quiggin said:

Yes, it written by Carina del Valle Schorske from San Juan. It's in the Opinion rather than Dance section. She says "these continuous revivals [only] reinforce America’s colonizing power to determine who Puerto Ricans get to be."

Roxane Gay makes a similar observation in an article entitled "White Fever Dreams: The distortions of black and brown lives in the white imagination." 

"The new staging seems quite forward-looking and inclusive but most of the creative and production team is comprised of white people. Ivo van Hove, Belgian, directs and Anne Teresa DeKeersmaeker, Dutch, choreographs this new staging. They are accomplished and talented, certainly, and they do bring a sharp and interesting energy to this revival. But how committed can a show be to genuine inclusion when people of color have little or no hand in the show’s artistic voice and direction? How authentic can the portrayals of people of color be when it is predominantly white people shaping those portrayals?

The show’s attempts at inclusion are, at times, clumsily executed. The black Jets would have more solidarity with the Puerto Rican Sharks than the white Jets. That they don’t in this show is the misstep of people who did not bother to learn much about the cultures they tried to represent. During “Gee Officer Krupke,” there are, among others, images of the border wall between the United States and Mexico. It’s clear what they are trying to say but it is also cognitively dissonant because Puerto Rico is part of the United States, and it is an island and the show is set in present day. To flatten the experience immigration without nuance makes it seem like the show’s architects think all brown people and their experiences are interchangeable."

[BalanchineFan]

5 hours ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Roxane Gay makes a similar observation in an article entitled "White Fever Dreams: The distortions of black and brown lives in the white imagination." 

"The new staging seems quite forward-looking and inclusive but most of the creative and production team is comprised of white people. Ivo van Hove, Belgian, directs and Anne Teresa DeKeersmaeker, Dutch, choreographs this new staging. They are accomplished and talented, certainly, and they do bring a sharp and interesting energy to this revival. But how committed can a show be to genuine inclusion when people of color have little or no hand in the show’s artistic voice and direction? How authentic can the portrayals of people of color be when it is predominantly white people shaping those portrayals?

The show’s attempts at inclusion are, at times, clumsily executed. The black Jets would have more solidarity with the Puerto Rican Sharks than the white Jets. That they don’t in this show is the misstep of people who did not bother to learn much about the cultures they tried to represent. During “Gee Officer Krupke,” there are, among others, images of the border wall between the United States and Mexico. It’s clear what they are trying to say but it is also cognitively dissonant because Puerto Rico is part of the United States, and it is an island and the show is set in present day. To flatten the experience immigration without nuance makes it seem like the show’s architects think all brown people and their experiences are interchangeable."

I found it interesting that Carina del Valle Schorske seemed to take issue with WSS throughout its history, not just the current production (which is a hot mess in how it depicts race). While I think it would be ideal for all art and representations of people to be influenced and even created by the people they represent, I don't have an issue when they are not. Mostly, I want the art itself to be good and to move me.

I love Jerome Robbins' WSS. And I can experience it (the film casting of Natalie Wood aside) as coming from the time it was created, with all the limitations that entails. I wasn't aware there was such a general objection to the musical, but I respect the objections. Is might be a generational thing. I find milennials can be much less forgiving on pc issues than my personal, post-menopausal cohort (Roxane Gay excepted).

[On Pointe]

On 2/26/2020 at 2:39 PM, BalanchineFan said:

I found it interesting that Carina del Valle Schorske seemed to take issue with WSS throughout its history, not just the current production (which is a hot mess in how it depicts race). While I think it would be ideal for all art and representations of people to be influenced and even created by the people they represent, I don't have an issue when they are not. Mostly, I want the art itself to be good and to move me.

I love Jerome Robbins' WSS. And I can experience it (the film casting of Natalie Wood aside) as coming from the time it was created, with all the limitations that entails. I wasn't aware there was such a general objection to the musical, but I respect the objections. Is might be a generational thing. I find milennials can be much less forgiving on pc issues than my personal, post-menopausal cohort (Roxane Gay excepted).

Puerto Ricans often are conflicted over WSS.  On one hand,  the depiction of Puerto Ricans solely as gang members is stereotypical and demeaning.  On the other hand,  some of their issues are dealt with seriously - America deals with the pros and cons of leaving the island,  it's not just a cute dance number.    For black Americans,  there are no such redeeming qualities in Porgy and Bess.  Catfish Row is a mess of stereotypes,  starting with the name.  But then there are those wonderful songs,  and the undeniable fact that for a number of black classical singers,  Porgy is their most reliable source of income,  especially abroad.  

Early on,  when I first heard of this production of WSS,  I felt that it was inevitable that Van Hove would get it wrong.  Not just because he's Belgian and so unfamiliar with American racial dynamics that he cast black performers as the Jets.  But because he's arrogant,  and by his comments in various interviews,  he seems not to respect American cullture at all,  and therefore feels no need to try to understand it.  He just wants to exploit it.  He could have produced the Belgian equivalent of the Romeo and Juliet story,  but that would take far more time and effort than rehashing and trashing an American classic.

[BalanchineFan]

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

Early on,  when I first heard of this production of WSS,  I felt that it was inevitable that Van Hove would get it wrong.  Not just because he's Belgian and so unfamiliar with American racial dynamics that he cast black performers as the Jets.  But because he's arrogant,  and by his comments in various interviews,  he seems not to respect American cullture at all,  and therefore feels no need to try to understand it.  He just wants to exploit it.  He could have produced the Belgian equivalent of the Romeo and Juliet story,  but that would take far more time and effort than rehashing and trashing an American classic.

I came late to the van Hove parade. Network was the first of his productions that I saw. I thought it was an assault on the senses, between the many video screens, the reflective surfaces, the audience and bar onstage, and video of things present and not. A viewer might spend half of any scene watching large format video and be surprised when the two actors involved stand up and exit, 'Gee I could have watched it live in front of me instead!' I've heard his View from a Bridge, and even Crucible were somehow better and less confusing.

Arrogance is never a good look for an artist, but I don't begrudge van Hove's efforts to reimagine classic plays and musicals. That's what directors are supposed to do, whether they make big changes or not. With any luck, next time the results will be better.

[Anthony_NYC]

Daniel Pollack-Pelzner has an interesting article on the show in The Atlantic. 

Quote

West Side Story has always been about what it means to become American. But it’s never really been about what it means to be Puerto Rican. As a Latinx musical, West Side Story is incoherent and insulting. As the mid-century fantasy of queer Jewish artists, however, it’s surprisingly compelling.

I think this is absolutely correct—it’s no  accident that four gay, Jewish artists wrote a show about the tragedy of suppressed love and racial prejudice—and wish the author had expanded on this in more detail. I also Liked this comment from Sondheim:

Quotes “were much less concerned with the sociological aspects of the story than with the theatrical ones. The ethnic warfare was merely a vehicle to tell the Romeo and Juliet story ... It might just as well have been the Hatfields and the McCoys.”

 

[nanushka]

49 minutes ago, Anthony_NYC said:

Daniel Pollack-Pelzner has an interesting article on the show in The Atlantic. 

Thanks for the heads-up. The article is here for those interested.

[On Pointe]

2 hours ago, Anthony_NYC said:

Daniel Pollack-Pelzner has an interesting article on the show in The Atlantic. 

I think this is absolutely correct—it’s no  accident that four gay, Jewish artists wrote a show about the tragedy of suppressed love and racial prejudice—and wish the author had expanded on this in more detail. 

 

So according to this article,  it's laudable and compelling that (at least) two gay Belgian artists expand upon the misrepresentation of Latinos originally created by four gay American artists?  Mr. Pollack-Pelzner is entitled to his no doubt well-considered opinion,  but he gets a few facts wrong.   For example Sondheim's original lyric in I Feel Pretty was,  "I feel pretty and witty and bright".  It was changed to "gay" for the film when the position of the scene in the story was changed.  At any rate,  gay did not automatically mean homosexual sixty years ago.  Rita Moreno wearing dark makeup was not a misrepresentation of Puerto Rican identity.  Many Puerto Ricans have dark brown and black skin,  just not Moreno.  But Latino society has a big problem with colorism - dark Latinos are severely under-represented in popular culture and often have to pass as black Americans to have a career,  like Christina Milian and Zoë Saldana.  And yet again,  a writer in a major publication has gotten the facts wrong regarding Ramasar.  At any rate,  surely it's questionable whether it belongs in a discussion of the artistic origins of the production.

 

[nanushka]

15 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Rita Moreno wearing dark makeup was not a misrepresentation of Puerto Rican identity.  Many Puerto Ricans have dark brown and black skin,  just not Moreno.

I understood the "caricatured, cosmetic distortion of Puerto Rican identity" that Pollack-Pelzner was referring to as the implied notion that all Puerto Ricans have darker skin, and therefore that Moreno wouldn't look right if she didn't as well.

15 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

...but he gets a few facts wrong.   For example Sondheim's original lyric in I Feel Pretty was,  "I feel pretty and witty and bright".  It was changed to "gay" for the film when the position of the scene in the story was changed.  At any rate,  gay did not automatically mean homosexual sixty years ago.

I don't think he specified whether it was the original lyric or not. It seems from the article that Sondheim wrote about the revised lyric in his book; is that not correct? And of course "gay" didn't automatically mean homosexual then; it does not now either. The clear point, I think, was that Sondheim was self-conscious about the fact that it did have that (at the time) secondary meaning, and that felt revealing.

Edited March 2, 2020 by nanushka

[abatt]

I thoight they changed a line in America in the Broadway show. The original lyric is everything free in America.  I believe it is now everyone free in America.  The original lyric indicates that foreigners come here for free things, not for freedom itself.

[On Pointe]

3 hours ago, Anthony_NYC said:

 

As a young dance student,  I was enamored with Eliot Feld's dancing in the film of West Side Story.  He played the youngest Jet,  Baby John.  But in the original production,  he was a Shark.  I was shocked to learn later that he was dark haired.  They bleached his hair blond and gave him blue contacts for the film.  One rap on the Van Hove production is that by including light and dark  black performers as Jets,  it's very hard to tell who's fighting who.  Darkening Moreno's skin,  as they did with George Chakiris who isn't Latin at all,  helped the audience to distinguish between the two gangs.  It's not like they were wearing blackface.  Natalie Wood,  who was Russian,  wasn't darkened.  In an earlier stage revival of WSS in the eighties,  some Latinos complained that Maria,  who was played by an actual Puerto Rican,  was too light.  I knew people in that cast,  and it became a running joke,  especially since there were no complaints about Debbie Allen playing Anita.  (She grew up in Mexico and speaks fluent Spanish,  but she's African American.)

 

[Helene]

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

Many Puerto Ricans have dark brown and black skin,  just not Moreno.  But Latino society has a big problem with colorism - dark Latinos are severely under-represented in popular culture and often have to pass as black Americans to have a career,  like Christina Milian and Zoë Saldana. 

 

1 hour ago, nanushka said:

I understood the "caricatured, cosmetic distortion of Puerto Rican identity" that Pollack-Pelzner was referring to as the implied notion that all Puerto Ricans have darker skin, and therefore that Moreno wouldn't look right if she didn't as well.

In fact, Moreno was light-skinned, and when she objected to brown-face, the make-up artist accused her of being racist:

https://www.npr.org/sections/altlatino/2019/02/15/695065385/alt-latino-the-many-shades-of-latinx-culture

(in her own words, at ~37:38.  Before that, she spoke about the Spielberg film, on which she is an executive producer, as of a little over a year ago.)

 

1 hour ago, abatt said:

The original lyric indicates that foreigners come here for free things, not for freedom itself.

 

Yes, those foreign US-born citizens.

[abatt]

I'm well aware that Puerto Ricans are US  citizens.  The point is that in Puerto Rico, they are not entitled to free ' things' that are available on the mainland,. Further this incarnation of the musical is referencing immigrants in a broad way.

Edited March 2, 2020 by abatt

[nanushka]

59 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

One rap on the Van Hove production is that by including light and dark  black performers as Jets,  it's very hard to tell who's fighting who.  Darkening Moreno's skin,  as they did with George Chakiris who isn't Latin at all,  helped the audience to distinguish between the two gangs.  It's not like they were wearing blackface.

I wonder if it was a problem during the centuries when Capulets and Montagues were typically cast as all white, even in productions with fight scenes.

Many people (including, it seems, Moreno herself) find blackface/brownface/etc. to be objectionable even when it's done in service of verisimilitude or to ease audience perceptions.

Edited March 2, 2020 by nanushka

[Helene]

2 hours ago, nanushka said:

Many people (including, it seems, Moreno herself) find blackface/brownface/etc. to be objectionable even when it's done in service of verisimilitude or to ease audience perceptions

I would think verisimilitude in Moreno's case would be her actual skin tone that reflected the range of skin tones in Puerto Rico.

[nanushka]

51 minutes ago, Helene said:

I would think verisimilitude in Moreno's case would be her actual skin tone that reflected the range of skin tones in Puerto Rico.

Personally, I would too. But just because one does something “in service of verisimilitude” doesn’t mean one achieves true realism (or even that one is really trying to do so). Think of tenors in blackface for Otello, even in the present day (though no longer at the Met).

In the arts, verisimilitude (and even “realism”) is often quite removed from reality.

Edited March 2, 2020 by nanushka

[Quiggin]

I liked this from the Pollack-Pelzner Atlantic article -

Quote

In the film, when Moreno’s Anita asks the Jets to “let me pass,” and they reply, “You’re too dark to pass,” a long, deeply lived history of anxiety about Jewish assimilation, closeted sexuality, and the McCarthy blacklist gets displaced, cosmetically, onto a stereotyped construction of Puerto Rican femininity.

The fifties were a period of passing; college students were the 'silent generation" in a kind of neutered response. "I am Easily Assimilated"  – and "Glitter and be Gay" – from Bernstein's "Candide," written a few years earlier, might be the comic antidotes to "West Side Story."

"Gay" seemed go mainstream in the late sixties. Dick Cavett later compained that "they" had ruined a perfectly good word (some curious subtext there). Gay was middle class acceptable in a way queer never was – my straight friends began to use it directly. (Late in the game Elizabeth Hardwick writes to Robert Lowell, "we were driven to the reading by a pansy (wrongly) named Mr Bland," offering up Mr Bland as a sort of sacrificial object.)

Pollack-Pelzner continues -

Quote

Even more concerning, however, may be the tradition of West Side Story treating the sexual exploitation of women’s bodies as the condition for artistic achievement. 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Quiggin