My VERY long review of the book:
I know ballet can be cruel. I have known its rejection as a dancer and as an administrator. Yet, I love it. Ballet has filled my soul, inspired me, and brought me ceaseless joy. As a former ballet leader, I am keenly aware of ballet’s problems with diversity, harsh work conditions at small companies, distracted funders, and diminishing audiences. I was very much looking forward to reading Chloe Angyal’s, “Turning Pointe: How a New Generation of Dancers is Saving Ballet from Itself.”
I could not wait to read Angyal’s forthcoming book. In college, inspired by Susan Gordon’s 1983 book “Off Balance,” which documented how dancers were changing the paradigm of paternalistic leadership, I studied American Ballet Theatre’s 1980 lock out its dancers. Curious about how the lock out changed ballet’s labor practices, in the early 90s, I interviewed regional company union representatives. They regaled me with stories about how the lockout’s legacy improved their current contracts and detailed the change in their students who would speak up in ways unimaginable in the 80s. So I was curious what had happened in the subsequent years?
I hoped to learn about the next generation of leaders, “breakthrough” artists who went beyond the traditional ballet “look,” and innovations that welcomed new and diverse artists and audiences. I knew of up-and-coming BIPOC dance leaders such as Aesha Ash, Tommie-Waheed Evans, David Mack, Abdo Sayegh-Rodriguez, DanceUSA’s new president Kellee Edusei, and Kyle Abraham. I expected to read about other new leaders and their work to expand ballet’s audience. I expected to hear more about The Washington Ballet’s principal dancer Nardia Boodoo’s strategies for creating a more welcoming environment. I wanted to learn about which companies had the best incubators for new, audience-engaging work from a diverse group of choreographers. I was hoping to learn of work that would grow the field.
However, that is not what Angyal’s book is about. Instead, her book is a diatribe against ballet’s sins. She builds her argument through limited interviews with just a scattering of artistic directors, few dancers, and even fewer pre-professional dance school principals. She details the tragically familiar stories of ballet’s decades of prejudice against BIPOC artists and lack of opportunities for women in artistic leadership and choreography.
Most of us who care about ballet know there is so much for which we need to apologize. Those of us in the field know we need change. For decades, too many artistic directors limited who they put on stage. While Angyal accurately depicts how many companies push BIPOC artists away from ballet with archaic rules about dress and hair that rose above microaggressions to blatant and embarrassing incidents, she disappointingly does not present – the subtitle of her book – the leaders who have changed those practices. For example, when Misty Copeland was rising through American Ballet Theatre’s ranks, ABT wisely knew she needed a mentor. They reached beyond the company to help her forge that relationship. Angyal does not include that significant story, or any others that could save ballet.
Other strategies exist to make artists feel seen, supported, and welcome. As the wave of protests over the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor roiled streets, one theater artistic director shared in an article he called his artists and said if they needed to “call in black” from work, they were encouraged to do so. He wanted his artists/collaborators to feel safe physically and emotionally. That is the type of support ballet needs to give its BIPOC students and artists. I know ballet leaders who would take such care but they were not interviewed. Instead, Angyal spends chapters talking about things such as the ignorant injustice of smaller companies and schools only providing pink pancake makeup for pointe shoes so BIPOC dancers have to scramble to find their own supplies. She doesn’t research if that is a widespread practice. Such an alienating practice would not be tolerated in any company I know. Documenting and educating about such injustice is vitally important but it one small anecdote of a much larger problem: Ballet needs to evolve with the times if it wants to survive, expands it audience and recruit more diverse artists.
I discussed my disappointment with the book with a few ballet dancers from small companies, and their reaction differed from mine. Unfortunately for some not much had changed from the paternalistic, white world described in Gordon’s 1983 book. Artistic directors still “ghost light” injured dancers, and some teachers still inculcate dancers to silence their voice and only speak with their bodies. For these alienated dancers, the book was a resounding support. They saw it as a significant opportunity to been seen and more importantly, heard. For them, the book was a call to change and hope of saving ballet from itself.
Yet, I think my criticism of Angyal’s book remains valid. Angyal’s journalism lacks evidence. Based on an interview with one doctor, she writes that girls should not study pointe work until age 15. One doctor’s opinion is hardly a peer reviewed fact. Most newsroom editors would demand, at least, a second source. Angyal only records anecdotes and does not document what is common practice or exception.
Angyal also fails to discuss that many of the pitfalls she chronicles exist due to small companies lack of financial resources. While aptly calling on companies to support dancers with greater benefits, mental health counseling, and physical therapy, she fails to mention that the small companies that don’t provide these benefits (most of large ones do) struggle to just make payroll. She never really discusses ballet’s bigger problem, which is its relationship, or lack thereof, with the audience and the resulting lack of sufficient financial resources.
Ballet needs to be saved because it is not populist. It lacks resources because not enough people feel it is vital to their lives. Smaller ballet companies would have more resources to invest in their artists if more people believed ballet was a necessity. However, funding does not appear to interest Angyal. She did not interview any funders who either dropped their sponsorship of the arts or to the ones who remained Both groups of whom would have critical information on how ballet could save itself.
I was once at a Rotary Club meeting where a speaker teared up when talking about the need to raise funds to eradicate polio. A fellow Rotarian turned to me and said, He just made your job [raising funds at a ballet company] more difficult.” I disagreed. There are enough donors to fund the eradication of polio and fund ballet. Ballet simply needs to show it is as relevant to community life as health care. For me, and all lovers of ballet, inspiration and joy are as necessary as health care. Ballet is part of our health care and drives our sense of community.
Unfortunately, those issues and proposed solutions do not exist in Angyal’s book. If we are to save ballet from itself where are the stories of where that work succeeds? Ballet has seen radical changes and created more opportunities for a diverse generation of leaders. Angyal fails to ask Boodoo and the new generation of dancers, the subject of the book, how they see themselves as instruments of change. When they stop dancing, will they be teachers, artistic directors, choreographers? Do they feel those avenues are open to them and are they interested? And if not, why?
Those of us in the field know what needs to change and that there need to be some breaks with the past. Angyal just hints in her book about how ballet’s birth in European Royal Courts has crafted a negative legacy of white monied elitism that needs to change so we can expand the field. We want millions more to revel in ballet’s joy, flight, and inspiration that celebrates human emotion like no other art form.
We need to share solutions and stories of success. We need to work to know how stop microaggressions in our ballet schools, and the world at large, or our stage will never reflect the wonderful, rich diversity of United States society.
In the last chapter, Angyal makes a few suggestions of how ballet should change to catch up with a generation of artists moved by a changing landscape and the articulate plea from “We See You,” written by BIPOC theatre artists. Ballet has moved slower than theatre to change. Angyal’s call for an end to gender-conforming roles is intriguing but that is just a small part of a greater conversation about accessibility, diversity, funding, and most important expanding ballet’s audience.
In defense of Angyal, her book came out too soon. Ballet underwent a radical shift in the past few years with the number of women working as artistic directors almost doubling. Women also now making up 50% of the top administrative jobs. Angyal does not explore how that radical shift has impacted the field. Nor did she did have time to respond to the recent Instagram posts chronicling industry racism by George Sanders, Nicholas Rose, and Felipe Domingos. The posts may have occurred while her book was in final edits. Yet the stories were still there, Angyal also could have talked to current leaders such as Virginia Johnson or Lauren Anderson about their hopes for the future or the ballet artists they mentor.
Instead of Angyal’s book, I turn to the news to see how ballet will save itself through positive change. Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre’s new artistic director Susan Jaffee recently announced a wonderful 21-22 season including titles by seven women! I look at Jaffee and see she could be one of the new leaders who will save ballet.