Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. I hope this isn't becoming overly speculative - but I've worried for the past couple years (and especially since that NYT article came out about Brandt) that both Brant and Lane will eventually end up leaving ABT. SF Ballet is probably closest to ABT in size and rep, and Lane has guested at SF Ballet once a few years back. However, SFB already has a pretty huge roster of female principals (10 I believe), and at least a few soloist women who I'd expect would get promotions in the next couple years. I'm glad ABT is moving away from over-reliance on guest artists, but I still feel so badly that there's essentially a generation of dancers stuck with limited experience but tons of untapped potential.
  3. Wow Sandpaper Ballet was the most fun I've had at a ballet in a while! I'm glad to report that the audience was extremely enthusiastic and engaged the entire ballet, from the moment the orchestra started playing Sleigh Ride. All the dancers had huge grins the entire time, but I have to say my eye was most drawn to Diego Cruz this entire ballet. His smile was so infectious, and I could see some folks next to me pointing him out, too. It was great. In the ballet world which often seems so competitive and serious, it was so refreshing to see a ballet where the dancers actually liked each other and seemed to have real kinship. Even at the curtain call at the end, they all seemed to be laughing and smiling and had a great rapport. It's a shame this ballet seems to be performed relatively infrequently! Also - I was blown away by Danielle Rowe's For Pixie. SF Ballet needs more female choreographers, please! Especially Danielle Rowe! I really hope she gets more SF Ballet commissions. She brought such a great and fresh perspective to the program. (and it was great to see Lauren Strongin did the costumes, I so miss seeing her onstage)
  4. I probably ought to clarify that the ballet Possokhov is staging in Tbilisi is not brand new, but based on his Damned, which he made for Joanna Berman quite some time ago. I'm surprised, actually, that the State Ballet of Georgia hadn't acquired it sooner, given that Medea's native Colchis is located in western Georgia. The national museum in Tbilisi holds jaw-dropping artifacts from that period, and once you've seen them it's not difficult to understand how the legend of the Golden Fleece could have arisen.
  5. A general reminder, which applies to multiple removed posts; Do not discuss the discussion. It is against Ballet Alert! rules.
  6. I don't think Ramasar has a very good defamation case either. He's likely a limited-purpose public figure for defamation purposes. Unsavory and inappropriate as his actions were, I personally think calling him a sexual predator is highly misleading. But from the NYT article, it seems like the protestors using that word are using it out of ignorance and carelessness (negligence), rather than malice, which is the standard public figures must meet in a defamation suit. Ramasar might have better luck moving for a gag order in the current case. He could also trying moving for a more limited gag order or protective order enjoining Waterbury from mentioning Maxwell or contacting her. What happened to Waterbury was abhorrent. But that doesn't mean she should harass people who don't completely agree with her. Her stoking up online trolls like this makes me very nervous. I do feel very sorry for Maxwell. I don't think the First Amendment is implicated here. The First Amendment applies to government restrictions, not actions by other individuals.
  7. He is still listed on the Segerstrom website. I was interested to see that he is performing at the Hollywood Bowl, with Dudamel conducting, on August 11.
  8. pherank, do you recollect when Possukhov last choreographed for SFB? There must have been something after Swimmer, which I sadly never saw. Thanks for providing the message by Madison. I am eager to see who is cast for A Midsummer's Night Dream.
  9. This is appalling behavior, and I think Waterbury should say so.
  10. RAINN's definition does not have the force of law. At any rate, the images were never online. While there is a right to peaceful protest, some of Waterbury's followers are taking it way too far by harassing other members of the WSS cast through their social media. The producers have had to hire cyberstalking experts to deal with the problem, and Actors Equity issued a statement urging affected cast members to bring problems to their attention.
  11. What would be the grounds for Ramassar's attempting to abrogate the protesters' first amendment rights of free speech and the right to assemble? The protesters' words have not caused him to lose employment. Subjectively, the protesters' words could be considered to be in bad taste, but there are a lot of things stated that are abhorrent that are not unlawful conduct or speech.
  12. Thanks BalanchineFan. Anyone can file a lawsuit, whether or not anyone’s claims will survive a motion to dismiss is another thing. I think men who trade explicit non consensual photos of much younger women can be called predators. Not using it as a legal term. I was unaware of the RAINN definition, thanks for sharing that information. Lastly, the revenge porn law is a criminal statute. Waterbury has filed a civil cause of action. I agree that the case against Ramasar is not the strongest but it’s a civil tort claim (on a negligence theory if I recall correctly, no intent to harm requirement.)
  13. First random thought: My lawyer once told me that, "anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time." Here in the USA, I've found that to be true. Two: Waterbury is using RAINN's definition of sexual assault which includes nonconsensual online sharing of sexually explicit images. Sometimes it's called digital sexual assault, revenge porn, cyber assault, etc. I don't think all of the protesters understand the distinction. It's certainly unclear to many who comment on Waterbury's feed. If Ramasar didn't pass on her images to anyone (which he claims he didn't and she does not believe) then he hasn't committed digital sexual assault against Waterbury. When Waterbury says "he sexually assaulted you" she must mean that Ramasar committed digital assault against Alexa Maxwell. [gotta say digital sexual assault is an unfortunate term. Kind of sounds like finger rape] Three: In New York City, and throughout the United States, we have a right to peacefully protest on any public sidewalk. We do not have the right to block entrances or exits, or disrupt traffic. We do not have the right to use amplification. Waterbury and WSS Protest can legally protest as long as they like. I don't know about defamation or slander, but Waterbury is repeatedly calling him a sexual predator. My sympathy for her is fading mostly because I don't see any evidence that he is a predator based on ANY definition of that word. Four: NY has a revenge porn law on the books, but it requires malicious intent. The person sending the images must be shown to have an intent to harm the person(s) in the photos. This law doesn't say anything about requiring consent. Nothing requiring consent to take the photo (at least not in the revenge porn law, privacy laws probably include consent) and nothing about consent to share the photos. I don't see how Waterbury's case against Ramasar, or NYCB for that matter, will hold up in court. No doubt that's why she's making a big push tonight at WSS's opening. https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/revenge-porn-law-new-york.html
  14. I just wish we would get to see a few of Yuri's outside projects here in SF. Here's an update from Madison Keesler regarding her recent absence from the stage:
  15. Yesterday
  16. Roberto Bolle updated his schedule, it does NOT include Onegin performances in Segerstrom as its calendar indicates. http://www.robertobolle.com/agenda-2020/
  17. The ending of Swan Lake represents an eminent composer's attempt to express through music not only a climactic conflict between good and evil, but also the intricate yet inescapable relationship between love and death. Without a doubt, it is one of the most dramatic and powerful moments in classical music—one whose capacity to move deeply never pales even after countless hearings at the theater or in recordings. In New York City Ballet's controversial production this extraordinary moment—and the buildup to it: the rest of the second lakeside scene—is realized magnificently! The three most recent performances during this season's run—Sunday evening with Teresa Reichlen and Peter Walker, Tuesday with Ashley Bouder and Jovani Furlan, and last evening with Tiler Peck and Joseph Gordon—amply demonstrated this. Particularly for a busy company focusing on non-narrative, shorter ballets these performances of Swan Lake were impressive. Together with Tchaikovsky's music and the marvelous work by the dancers, the felicities of the production in my mind easily outweigh all its questionable and unattractive aspects.
  18. Okay, that comment which I did not see changes things. Waterbury could still potentially argue that she was not using a legal definition but rather really believed that what he did morally constituted sexual assault (I’m brainstorming). Given her impassioned nature I’m still not sure that there’s a good case. She’s also talking to Maxwell, ostensibly at least, so it could sound like she is just making the argument that she believes it is sexual assault. But wow, that’s certainly an irresponsible statement. Where the hell is her lawyer?? You don’t have to be extremely famous to the public at large to be a public figure. Ramasar is certainly well known in the arts world and has been the subject of many media reports. The situation is very well-known. ETA: you can be a public figure for a particular limited situation. So if you’re prosecuted for murder and it’s well-publicized and people start saying you’re guilty, even if you’re acquitted, you still wouldn’t have a case. You would have to prove actual malice.
  19. In her Instagram rant, Waterbury writes "He sexually assaulted you, whether you forgive him or not". She doesn't include names, but it's evident by the context that she is referring to Alexa Maxwell and Amar Ramasar. She also claims that Ramasar threatened her, which is new as far as I know. She apparently believes that she can be outraged on Maxwell's behalf and is furious that Maxwell is still with Ramasar. She also spews invective at producer Scott Rudin for not firing Ramasar. As a veteran Broadway producer, Rudin has a thick skin, but he's not known for being soft and cuddly. He might sic his legal attack dogs on her if she continues to include him in her unsupported rants. Is Amar Ramasar actually a public figure just because he performs on stage? I thought that public figures have to actually be famous people. I'd be willing to bet that the average New Yorker has no idea who he is.
  20. It is. Because of the first amendment proving slander is incredibly difficult as you have to prove a high level of intent. Even if protesters were led to believe that Amar committed sexual assault you do have to prove that Waterbury specifically phrased her wording to mislead or perhaps that there was severe recklessness on her part - although I’m not entirely sure on that second part. Maybe there is a tort in Waterbury’s conduct, I just don’t think it’s defamation.
  21. I know this is only available to audiences who reside in Russia. Otherwise everyone has to go to the cinema to see it.
  22. Chudin was injured for a few months apparently.
  23. I think this (bolded) is the part I have doubts about. I would have thought that the legal standard for slander/defamation was considerably higher than that, even if he weren't (as @Leah points out) a public figure.
  24. Just curious. Did anyone see Aran Bell's debut as Albrecht? I don't recall seeing any comments on this thread about Bell's debut.
  25. Waterbury did not say he physically assaulted her. The protesters’ inference doesn’t automatically make her liable, and besides Ramasar is a public figure which raises difficulty of him winning a defamation suit against protesters. Maybe there’s a case for harassment. More likely this will be used by Ramasar’s lawyer to impeach any of her testimony. Maybe there’ll be some sort of countersuit as a defensive tactic but I really doubt from what I’ve seen that he could win a defamation suit at trial. (am attorney)
  26. I described Ramasar's lawyer as "very able" because of his excellent answer to Waterbury's lawsuit. In my opinion, it was the best by far of the defendant pleadings. I'm not a lawyer, but Waterbury and her supporters antics seem to me to fit the definition of slander - the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. Any casual observer of the protesters might reasonably conclude, based on the signs and the slick handouts featuring a glamor shot of Waterbury, that Ramasar had physically assaulted her. Their demand that the producers of WSS fire him show clear intent to harm him. Waterbury's continuing efforts to engage Alexa Maxwell, after Maxwell has made it clear that her intrusions are unwelcome, might constitute harassment. The producers have made their statement - they are not going to fire Ramasar without cause. Good thing, because under their agreement with Actors Equity, they would have to pay him for the term of his contract whether he performed or not. It would also be grossly unfair.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...