OMG - Look how obese this woman is.

At Columbia City Ballet, officials monitor dancers' weight and post the figures publicly on a weekly basis. At Cleveland San Jose Ballet, performers hit the scales at the beginning of the season, but results are confidential. At both companies, those who fall above or below the weight mandated in their contracts can be fined, placed on weight probation, removed from parts, or fired. Still other troupes, including those represented by the dancers' union, the American Guild of Musical Artists, have no contractual provisions about body size. Teachers contacted for an October Dance Magazine report on schools consider health and nutrition an important part of a dancer's education, and often their schools offer professional counseling. Artistic directors, however, can have different priorities. An informal Dance Magazine survey revealed no magic formula, but rather a surprising range of approaches.

CCB's weight guidelines are spelled out in its contract, which states that the dancer is "prohibited from dramatically altering the physical appearance he/she presented at the audition. This includes . . . alterations in hair style, hair color, or substantial weight gain or loss." The contract defines substantial weight gain or loss as "a fluctuation of more than five pounds from the Member's performance weight determined by the artistic director and the ballet mistress or master. The Member will weigh in each Saturday . . . and record his/her weight . . . on the weight chart posted at the Columbia Conservatory of Dance." Dancers who fail to weigh in are fined $20.

"Physical appearance is very important," said artistic director William Starrett. "I have a lot of rules, and a lot of people have had trouble with it. . . . With the chart they can see a variance. It works well. It makes them more aware and forces them to eat properly." Starrett said dancers are encouraged to read about nutrition, but that he's most concerned with the artistic impact and overall look of the company. If dancers are unable to meet his weight standards, he maintained, "They're no good to me. I can't paint with fat paintbrushes. I'm trying to get people to really love ballet. The audience won't pay if it's not special, not magical. It is not worth $25."

But there is a really wide variety of body types on display up until the very highest levels, and that really seems to be a non-issue.

When I took ballet only a small percentage would make it as professional ballerinas, too, but everyone was THIN

You haven't seen the ballet recently? You'll recognize the music...

"As a dancer I do put myself out there to be criticized, and my body is part of my art form," she said on NBC's "Today" show. "At the same time, I'm not overweight. I do have, I guess, a more womanly body type than the stereotypical ballerina."
Ringer said different body types should be celebrated in ballet, not criticized.

Is only one body type still considered the only possible one for the Sugar Plum Fairy today, because of traditional interpretations? You never know, a bit more flexibility might actually prove to be a positive thing for ballet, the performers & their audience.

A lot of the demand for ballet dancers to be thin I think revolves around the "artistic vision", much the same as when fashion designers generally put their work on thin tiny tit models.

this is a long running debate with-in ballet, the majority decision is that once the old standards go ballet is no longer ballet, it is modern dance.

Although Portman did use a double for some of the more complicated choreography, she still had to look the part of a ballerina.

Portman says that not eating — or, rather, eating very little — is an essential part of a dancer’s lifestyle. “I’m a very short person, and you’re supposed to look very long,” she explains. “And you don’t have the bulk on you — which is, like, sick. The whole thing, I’m aware that it’s sick.”

…For the record, not all of Portman got smaller while training. “Dancers, even when they’re really frailly skinny, have a very strong butt. So Mary Helen [former New York City Ballet company member Mary Helen Bowers] did a lot of work on my butt,” she giggles. The result? “Definitely a huge, huge, um…change.”

Jenifer Ringer, as the Sugar Plum Fairy, looked as if she’d eaten one sugar plum too many

... Jared Angle, as the Cavalier, seems to have been sampling half the Sweet realm.

Weighing in on the Ringer thing....
at 3:02 AM By Eric Taub
Jenifer Ringer recently appeared on The Today Show and made some unsurprisingly diplomatic comments about Alastair Macaulay's now-infamous review of her opening-night Nutcracker (with Jared Angle). It was mentioned in The NY Times' arts blog section, and has generated the usual run of reader comments. Perhaps because I couldn't sleep, I tossed in my own two cents' worth. In case it doesn't make the cut, I'm pasting it here for posterity, after cleaning up some ugly sentences:

Regarding that opening-night Nutcracker, both Ringer and Angle appeared slightly above their best weight. It did affect their line, but not, in my own opinion, enough to merit mention in a review. They've both been heavier and lighter, and I had no doubts that after a few performances they'd fine. It was, after all, the first night of the season, and the day after Thanksgiving -- more than enough reason to cut any dancer some slack. At the end of City Ballet's fall season, Ringer looked about as fit as I'd ever seen her, and, not coincidentally, dancing at her strongest, and reminding us she's got fine technique and a more-than-respectable jump. I'd have liked to see Ringer start Nutcracker season as she'd finished fall, but she has a long record of getting better and better as a season progresses, and I had no doubts that after a very few performances she'd be exactly where she wanted to be. Also, for me, the charm and charisma of Ringer's Sugar Plum were of far greater interest.

She wasn't, however, pushing herself hard technically, and she slightly changed the choreography of her Sugar Plum solo, replacing the two trickiest pirouettes with much easier turns. She's not the only CIty Ballet ballerina to finesse that part of the solo, and back in the day Balanchine himself would often tweak his steps to favor individual dancers' strengths and weaknesses, so I didn't consider Ringer's modifications to be of great detriment to her role, but they were there, and they're the sort of thing one notices. I've seen Ringer nail those turns in the past, and I'm sure she will again in the future. Both technically and physically she wasn't in her finest shape, but she wasn't far off, either.



Angle is City Ballet's finest partner since Jock Soto retired, and it was a treat for me to see how quietly and calmly he supported Ringer through the Nutcracker's very long and very tricky adagio. He was also fine and drama-free in his own short solos, and, for me, any slight deviations from his best line I noticed were hardly worth noting, or mentioning afterwards. I've seen Angle perform since then, and he's back to his best form, as I was quite sure he would be.

In ballet, it's not irrelevant to make note of a dancer's weight. As much as you might like to, you ultimately can't separate the dancer from the dance. It also was not incorrect of Macaulay to note that Ringer and Angle were above their best weights: they were.

I don't think that Ringer's history of weight and body-image issues make it somehow less appropriate to note her weight. She's a professional, and she's been consistently at, or near, the pinnacle of her profession for the decade or so that's passed since she rejoined City Ballet; she long ago slew, or at least tamed, those demons. Also, dancers are used to harsh criticisms. As one professional not distant from this fracas told me recently, "we're much harder on ourselves."

But just because an observation is both relevant and correct doesn't mean that it's appropriate or, more importantly, useful, and just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.

After a few paragraphs of heartfelt and, to my eye, illuminating, comments on Balanchine's choreography, Macaulay didn't leave himself space to say more than a few sentences about the performance at hand. As he wasn't exactly thrilled with the performance, perhaps it's just as well.

For me, the two real questions about Macaulay's remarks are ones of value and tone. Of all the observations he might have made about the performances of Ringer and Angle, was their weight of such aesthetic importance as to make the cut and merit inclusion in the very few words he gave to, not Ringer and Angle, but his New York Times readers? Was it really THE most important image for his readers to keep in their minds' eye about the pair's performance, against which all others should be filtered out?

Clearly Macaulay thought it was, or he would've mentioned something else. But what would Macaulay's choices tell a Times reader who'd attended that performance and then turned to the review for further enlightenment? (Of course, Macaulay mentioned more than the dancers' weights; he also criticized their style, saying they "dance like adults, but without adult depth or complexity." I'd perhaps understand this better if he'd mentioned a way in which they actually do "dance like adults," rather than [or in addition to] two ways they don't. He clearly has a very high opinion of the Times' readers' power of deduction; alas, my own isn't up to the task.)

As for tone, snark has had an honored place in criticism since the days we called it sarcasm. But, really, how much wit does it take to make fun of someone's weight? Macaulay certainly has plenty of cohorts in this endeavor, especially in the dance world, but does he really want to stand among them? More importantly, does the Times?