Go back to Flash Reviews
Go
Home
Flash View, 2-28: Gielgud
Talks Back
Departing Incoming Boston Director Denies Role in Dancer Releases
By Paul Ben-Itzak
Copyright 2001 The Dance Insider
(Editor's Note: On Monday,
Boston Ballet and artistic-director designate Maina Gielgud announced
a mutual decision to part ways. The following commentary represents
the opinion of the author, and not necessarily anyone else on the
staff of The Dance Insider.)
In light of the smear
campaign being conducted against now former artistic director-designate
Maina Gielgud in the pages of the Boston Globe, I asked Gielgud
to comment on inferences that her severance from Boston Ballet was
related to last week's release (after the current season) of several
Boston Ballet dancers.
Last week, the Globe
reported, incorrectly, "The layoffs come at the behest of incoming
artistic director Maina Gielgud." In yesterday's edition, it compounded
the initial error by starting its story, "Just a week after she
began cleaning house at the Boston Ballet, Maina Gielgud, the incoming
artistic director, announced suddenly yesterday that she wouldn't
be joining the company after all."
Boston Ballet's general
director Jeffrey Babcock very cleverly let the inferred connection
stand; while he said the two events were not related, he did not
dispute in print the Globe's attribution of the lay-offs to Gielgud.
Gielgud, in a statement
issued to The Dance Insider, told a different story. Indeed, her
description of recent events painted a picture not of someone insensitive
to, but on the contrary sensitive to the needs of dancers:
"My original brief from
the Board when they appointed me as artistic director designate
in September 2000, to take up the artistic directorship from July
1, 2001, was to promote the company's artistic and technical excellence,
and take it to another and higher level. I was encouraged in this,
to contact new artists and staff and engage new repertory works.
To set the record straight, I have never 'demanded' $3 million or
any other particular sum of money. In fact, despite my repeated
and increasingly urgent requests over the past three months, I did
not receive budget parameters for the artistic components of the
season 2001-2002, or the detailed financial information necessary
with which to prioritize.
"I would have been prepared
to work with even a much restricted budget for artistic purposes,
had the limits been clearly defined and guaranteed. Without such
assurances, needed to safely secure the artistic future of the company
under my artistic direction, it was clearly impossible for me to
take up this appointment.
"Over the last three
weeks, it became increasingly apparent that it was unlikely that
I would be taking up the position of Artistic Director, as appointed
from July 1 2001. I then made it abundantly clear on several occasions,
to the Chairman, other trustees of the board of Boston Ballet, to
the CEO, and in front of senior staff, that for ethical reasons,
I could not and would not put my name to, or have anything to do
with the release of ANY dancers under these circumstances.
"I would like to make
it quite clear that the decision to release dancers at that point
in time, took place without my consent, and that my signature was
not on the release documents. I did not require or sanction any
dismissal of dancers during this unhappy time."
Translation: Her future
with the ballet in doubt, Gielgud -- who would certainly have been
prepared to release dancers if they seemed unsuitable to her repertory
plans -- felt it was unethical to release them ahead of a season
in which she would not be in charge. (Side note: The Union contract
required that dancers to be released be informed February 15, to
give them time to scout for a new job. Their contracts would not
expire until the end of the season.)
Finally, the Boston Globe
sinks into the journalistic gutter with the following paragraph
of innuendo and sloppy third-hand reporting:
"The former director
of the Australian Ballet, Gielgud began her brief association with
the Boston troupe trailed by scuttlebutt and whispers. Her time
with the Australian Ballet was marked with dancer defections and
complaints that she preferred younger to older dancers. She also
left the Royal Danish Ballet two years into a three-season contract;
there, some accused her of undermining the contemporary repertory
and ignoring the company's centuries-old tradition of performing
works by Danish choreographer August Bournonville."
Lets look at the facts:
Gielgud served with distinction for 12 years in Australia; she certainly
had her detractors towards the end, but she had an equal number
of loyalists. In Denmark, she was hamstrung by a theater bureaucracy
in which the ballet director's wishes are not paramount, and by
a strong Union that resisted changes in training and program scheduling
that Gielgud thought essential to bring that company back up to
snuff. Regarding Bournonville, recognizing that this was not her
strongest suit, she brought in a respected Bournonville expert to
maintain that repertory.
What this shoddy reporting
reveals is not just a surrender of its news pages to the cause of
tarnishing a woman who has given selflessly to dance for most of
her life. It also reveals what happens when a newspaper does not
value dance as an area of coverage, and accepts journalism of a
low standard it would not accept in any other area -- say, coverage
of politics.
Go
back to Flash Reviews
Go Home
|