Stecyk

From the judge's decision:

By stating that "the twists and turns of the complainants' evidence in this" I think he shows he has far from "a firm understanding of the reasonableness of reactive human behavior in the dynamics of a relationship." If he had simply said, "I understand the dynamics of the situation, but in this case, the behavior of a victim and an opportunist was indistinguishable, and the rule of law is, I can't rule him guilty with reasonable doubt, and I won't" I would have respected his decision, which was predictable in any case.

I don't know of research done for men in the same circumstances, but, especially in very closed social and professional groups, which Canadian entertainment is, women have been trained to question their reality of sexual situations, given the consequences of coming forward and bringing charges, which would have been unthinkable in the early 00's, especially against a "nice guy" with high connections in the entertainment world working for state television and huge support from both management, representatives of the state, and his union. With a climate shifting slightly to the better, they might have had a fighting chance if he had attacked them today, but reconstructing what happened over a dozen years of suppression and rationalization was a non-starter.

And if you still think that being identified in a court decision and deemed unreliable is of no consequence, and only he has suffered in any way, I don't know what to say in response.

At least now you've read the court decision, though I am puzzled by your earlier comments where you wrote with such force and conviction.

I am surprised by your comment, "I think he shows he has far from 'a firm understanding of the reasonableness of reactive human behavior in the dynamics of a relationship.'" I can't help but wonder if you are qualified to judge a judge's reasonableness of understanding. And, then you conclude that paragraph by writing, "...which was predictable in any case." I have no clue what you meant by that, though it doesn't matter.

While I could go through the court decision and pick point by point to state my position, we both know that would be a useless endeavor, for neither of us will convince the other. Instead, I urge others to read the court decision for themselves to reach their own conclusions.

I will, however, write a few words. Like many, I thought it was "game over" for Ghomeshi when the story first broke and his public relations firm dropped him after more women came forward. Then, when I learned of his acquittal of all charges, my closed mind opened. Why and how did the court arrive at its decision?

I read a few online articles and watched the CBC segment on the decision. Some of the comments made by the ex-cop in the CBC segment helped me to understand how the situation arose. He indicated that when a sexual assault victim comes forward to lodge a complaint, the police and the Crown trust that individual. They don't interrogate the individual nor do they go through the individual's hard drive, for that would only worsen the already dismal number victims coming forward. I agree with that position, because as a society we want justice to prevail and thus need victims to come forward. After the CBC broadcast, I read the court decision.

One of the issues I have, however, is that complainants must under oath provide to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not a selective version of the truth. In a similar vein, the judge showed his dislike of the possible collusion where approximately 5,000 messages were exchanged.

As your summary comment, you wrote, "And if you still think that being identified in a court decision and deemed unreliable is of no consequence, and only he has suffered in any way, I don't know what to say in response." One complainant deliberately chose to reveal her identity at the very start of the "Ghomeshi Scandal," while the other two complainants are completely anonymous. I trust you read the court decision carefully, so I am perplexed as to how two anonymous complainants (indeed, it's against our laws to reveal their identities--see the preamble to the court decision) are identified.

Our discussion, Helene, is unfortunate. As our discussions progressed, we each stated our positions with fervor. I suspect we each felt frustration with other's lack of understanding and empathy. And our discussion devolved from there. That's unfortunate because we agree on so much more than we disagree. So in an effort to repair some of the damage, please allow me to state where I believe we do agree.

Earlier you wrote, "The asymmetry of gender and influence is also interesting." I am positive we both agree that your statement could be expanded to include race, skin color, and sexual orientation, among others. I suspect we both believe people's influence should rise with their character and their ability to contribute. If we had a more diverse group of people who influence our societies, I believe there would be more opportunities for everyone. Unfortunately we are not there yet. Without veering off into politics, one need only look at the current political environment to see how much room there is to grow.

I get the impression from our discussion that sexual assault is a hot-button issue for you. Every reasonable person is against domestic and sexual violence regardless whether the victim is male or female. As we know, overwhelmingly most victims are female.

A friend of mine is a retired Crown prosecutor. She indicated that if she were victimized, she would not go to the police because of the hell victims go through. Given her knowledge and prior position, that's a strong and unfortunate statement. While I don't know what the proper steps should be, obviously we have more work to do.

I am positive we both believe in fairness, honesty, and justice.

So with that, I hope we have reached some common points of understanding.

For those reading this thread, I urge you to read the court filing: Ontario Court of Justice - Between Her Majesty the Queen and Jian Ghomeshi (pdf). In case this link no longer works: Date: 2016.03.24 and the Court File No.: Toronto 4817 998 15-75006437.

Exercise your own independent judgement to reach your own conclusions. I believe this judge provided a well-written explanation of his findings. He knew that this case is high profile and would be subject to much scrutiny.

No repercussions in revisiting a traumatic experience and being scrutinized by the state? The state might not have gotten the results it wanted, but they would not have brought it to trial by blindly accepting the women's description of humiliation.

Trials are to determine guilty or not guilty, never to determine innocence. As far as being quick to judge, I'm willing to believe he is as guilty or not guilty as, let's say, Bill Cosby as far as consent is concerned.

The trial took place in context, so that my comment was in regard to both.

Helene, you're cracking me up. I am surprised you didn't mention OJ Simpson--you have a good sense of humor.

You're right, though, that the state felt it had a good case. It's too bad that it learned more facts at trial. Those should have been discovered prior to trial.

Did you read the court's decision? Or, perhaps, watch the CBC discussion last evening? I found the broadcast balanced. They interviewed the women. And, they also interviewed a former cop now working for his own security agency. He discussed that it is often difficult to draw out all the information from the complainants in these types of cases. You have to take them at their word. As discovered by the defense, there was more to complete the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And that's what our system of justice relies upon, especially when the case boils down to "she said, he said."

Yes, I'm sure his accusers are sharing martinis and have walked away unscathed.

The asymmetry of gender and influence is also interesting.

Your first comment is comical, though somewhat unexpected. Please remember, I didn't indicate sympathy for either party. And, one must admit, some of their discussions and actions do raise questions and doubts. Still, it seems odd that one can level serious allegations without repercussions. That's the point I was driving at.

Most are quick to rush to judgement. One just hopes that he or she is never on the receiving end.

One should remember, too, that Ghomeshi was declared not guilty. He was not, however, declared innocent. There's a difference.

Now, as to your second point, I am not sure what you are driving at. Is a broad societal remark, or is it confined to this court proceeding?

The state felt it had a case, and they brought him to trial. Having to defend oneself is what would have happened to anyone charged.

I agree with your comments. It's interesting, though, that the state's case fell alert on the credibility of the witnssses. The judge found that they lacked credibility. Yet, there are no direct repercussions. Put differently, the asymmetry in consequences is interesting.

I hadn't been following along with this case, and so didn't know there had been a decision.

From an employment perspective, did belonging to a union help or hurt Ghomeshi? Did the union play its proper role?

From a societal perspective, I find this case interesting in that two of the three women kept their publication ban--that is, the media is not allowed to reveal their identities--yet Ghomeshi's career and reputation have been harmed, not to mention his finances in having to defend himself. Because this was a criminal case, the state--that is, Canada--prosecuted the action and picked up the tab.

As I understand , there is still one more trial. Once again, Canadians will be focused on that outcome.

I was just thinking about this in light of the comments on the new documentary about Merrill Ashley. Apparently she makes a number of comments about the work ethic of the current crop of dancers, and got a lot of pushback.

You have a point -- some people respond well to that kind of commentary. But in general, I think public humiliation is a poor tool. It's one thing to confront your employee inside the institution you run -- it's another to make statements to the general public.

In general, I agree. If I were a dancer (I am too old and don't have the proper body build), I wouldn't appreciate being identified for poor performance in a public setting either. A private conversation alone would more than suffice.

However, dancing is a public profession. So they should be aware that others, including the director, might make some public comments related to their performances. For the director, too, it is not so easy. If he is constantly making derogatory remarks about his dancers in public, the obvious question becomes: Is it the dancers or him?

Regarding Millipied, I wonder if his remarks--though they might seem unduly harsh to some--will be a catalyst for positive change? Had he kept his mouth shut, would the "problems" last longer? Has he caused others to look at the POB through a more critical lens? In other words, will there be some good resulting from his comments?

If I may analogize from Anna Karenina, all happy and content ballet companies are alike but each struggling ballet company is unhappy in its own way. Sometimes unorthodox measures are effective.

But I think it is a bad idea, no matter the context, to speak slightingly of the people you are supposed to be leading, even if you see yourself as already out the door.

I am curious, though, if criticizing a dancer in public is so taboo. In hockey, for example, coaches often criticize their own players in public. Yes, I know, hockey is a sport while ballet is an art. I get that. However, people are people. Dancers are expected to perform at a certain level. If they fail, then they are open to criticism.

Is the situation really that black and white? Directors never criticize their dancers in a public setting?

A director should consider the dancer first. Some dancers might be determined to dance even better if they have singled out in a public setting for performing poorly. Others would wilt under the increased pressure. A director's main goal should be to create great performances, not sheltering or protecting his or her dancers from deserved criticisms.

Well, it's the kind of thing that's hard to turn down. I wouldn't have had the smarts to say "no thanks" to an offer like that when I was his age.

He should have called Christopher Wheeldon up and asked him what he thought about that whole running a company while creating great art thing. In fairness to both gentlemen, plenty of people have, still do, and will continue to both run companies and create new work (ahem, Balanchine) -- Millepied wasn't necessarily wrong to think that he could too, although the POB is admittedly a different beast from the LA Dance Project.

Agree with your comments, pherank.

BBC: Benjamin Millepied: Paris Opera Ballet director steps down

In a statement posted on Twitter, Millepied - who has also directed films and music videos - said he wanted to "concentrate 100 percent on creating" instead of administration.

He added: "My functions as director... take up so much time that they have considerably reduced that for artistic creation, which is essential in my view."

He said he had originally accepted the position with "great honour and gratitude" and expressed his love for the company.

One has to wonder why he took the position if he wanted to concentrate fully on the creative side without the distraction of the administrative work.

Right. Of course we're not likely to get all the details on this until someone writes a weighty tome on the subject, but we're really just learning, again, how difficult it is to run a large organization, connected to the national government no less, and try to enact structural changes, and changes to product - that takes a lot of time and energy even for the most charming and talented executive. Millepied plainly doesn't want to fight the good fight. It helps when your wife is worth millions - he can take off at need. ;)

I'm starting to wonder if he didn't tell POB management up front, "we'll try it for a year and see if it gets anywhere, otherwise..."

Taking off when the going gets tough doesn't help one's credibility for other endeavors. Most ventures worth doing are tough.

There were likely several significant communication issues. For example, did Millepied perform an adequate assessment or due diligence before accepting his new role? Did he and the rest of the management team agree in broad strokes regarding the planned changes over the next several years? In other words, did he get buy-in upfront? Once he began in his role, did he keep the management team informed of his progress toward his stated goals, and equally important, did he keep them well informed of his desired changes to the agreed upon desired goals?

Large organizations are difficult almost by definition. Yet, exceptional leaders find ways and methods to make things work. They are able to convince others of their grand visions.

That said, if it truly wasn't working out, then the sooner he is gone, the better.

From the New York Times article, Benjamin Millepied to Step Down From Paris Opera Ballet:

In interviews with Le Figaro and in a documentary, “Relève,” broadcast on the French television channel Canal +, he spoke of his dislike for the rigid hierarchical system of grading and promotion at the Opera, his dissatisfaction with the training at the Paris Opera Ballet School — the near-exclusive source of dancers for the company — and the need for the company to be more racially diverse.

I found these comments interesting in that there is some parallelism with Filin's actions from the Bolshoi. Both wanted to introduce more variety.

Wall Street Journal: American Ballet Theatre Names New Executive Director. (subscription required)

Last fall, Ms. Barnett helped launch a multidisciplinary conference that drew arts, business and science leaders to Lincoln Center, and also built out advisory councils in China and Latin America, whose members helped Lincoln Center identify opportunities abroad and also provided philanthropic support.

“They are really our eyes and ears on the ground in these regions of the world,” said Ms. Barnett, 37 years old, a former ballet student and Harvard Business School graduate who has also produced commercial theater.

In her new post, Ms. Barnett said she wants to harness the “great affection” that Ballet Theatre has built up around the world and forge new collaborations “to bridge the white space between engagements, through individuals or corporations that can become local champions for the company and its work.”

TheGuardian.com "'​If the Bolshoi is sick, it’s because Russia is too': the ballet company's backstage dramas"

Follow the link for the complete article.

(Apologies, this link was already covered in the links section.)

From 2013 to 2014, a small film crew was allowed unprecedented access to the Bolshoi ballet company, partly to tell the story of the shocking acid attack on its artistic director, Sergei Filin, in January 2013, but also to probe the background to that event. Bolshoi Babylon is a stylish fly-on-the-wall account of conditions within the Moscow company, but it’s also a chilling evocation of the larger politics that govern its home theatre. No one who’s seen Nick Read and Mark Franchetti’s film will be surprised to learn that, shortly after its completion, Filin was served notice that his job at the Bolshoi was over.

The criminal investigations and internal soul-searching that followed the acid attack opened a can of worms at the Bolshoi – and a few of them are captured on camera. Dancers hostile to Filin talk candidly about their reasons for resenting their director, and discuss chronic problems in management style – although many of these Filin inherited. But the film also goes wider and deeper in looking at the problems within the Bolshoi theatre itself, and at its historically close and dysfunctional connection with the state. As one interviewed source puts it: “If the Bolshoi is sick, it’s because Russia is sick too.”

While waking up this morning, I listened to BBC HARDTalk with guest Sylvie Guillem. When I went searching on the BBC site, I got the impression that I was listening to a repeat from earlier this summer.

Here's a link to the podcast: https://player.fm/series/hardtalk/ballet-dancer-sylvie-guillem

And, here's a link to a YouTube that captured the interview:

I hope I am not repeating content that is already on Ballet Alert. I did a quick search and didn't find reference to this interview from August 2015.

I have seen Roman identified in the Variety review of the film as Roman Abramov. A 2013 New York Times article about the Bolshoi "claque" features the same person. He is a key figure in the claque--organized groups of fans who, according to the article, pre-arrange to cheer for certain dancers in return for favors from them (eg free tickets). I was surprised the filmmakers presented him as no more than an especially passionate member of the Bolshoi audience. I don't doubt he adores the Bolshoi, but if the Times' article is accurate, then he isn't entirely outside its circuits of corruption either--for all his talk of the Bolshoi as a "temple." Here is a link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/arts/dance/designated-cheering-spectators-thrive-at-the-bolshoi-theater.html?_r=0

Thank you very much for that link. The article certainly colors my initial impression of Roman Abramov. And, I agree with volcanohunter that it might have been better to leave him out entirely of the film. Without knowing the background story, I had one impression. Now, after reading the article, I have a much different and worse impression.

New York Times: Wild Applause, Secretly Choreographed

Some ballet insiders contend that the claqueurs also profit by reselling passes. Mr. Abramov categorically denies this, saying the Bolshoi’s administration traces the artists’ passes, so a resale would be discovered and he would be immediately banned from the theater. He says the claqueurs’ motivation is a simpler one: They are fanatics. (“I would love to pour a ton of acid on her head,” he remarked cheerily about a critic who had offended one of his favorites.) Mr. Abramov and his associates enjoy closeness to the stars, and serve as ferocious defenders of the Bolshoi’s conservative, classical tradition. They also need tickets.

Given that this interview took place after the Filin attack, I am surprised and disappointed by his choice of words.

“Artists have very fine and delicate natures, they have a very delicate nervous system, and, unfortunately, all of them have a strongly inflated self-image,” he said, a little mournfully. Dancers, he said, have an additional problem: “Mainly they are dumb.” He added, “They can be told what to do eight times, and on the ninth time they will still go in the wrong direction.”

Another unfortunate comment. I have found, as a general rule, that those who have achieved considerable success in any field are usually surprisingly bright. That doesn't imply that I always agree with them. I find, however, that when speaking with them, they have given their chosen vocation or field of study a lot of thought. The dancers in the film, for example, came across as thoughtful and well spoken. I don't know how he could attend so many ballet performances when he holds the dancers in such low regard.

As an outsider of the dance world looking in, I found Bolshoi Babylon an interesting film.

I found the precariousness of the dancers’ lives somewhat surprising. For example, one of dancers remarked that she did not have enough work and later had too much work. One can only imagine the stress that must bring to a single parent. I had expected that the dancers with the Bolshoi would have a certain level of “comfort” in an expectation of pay, with some variability. Yet, it seems that variability could be extreme.

Without pinpointing specific comments, I found the directness of many of the comments interesting. I sensed the rivalry amongst different factions of dancers. Moreover, I sensed the unease the dancers had with management.

I recall learning about Filin’s attack and feeling sad. This film brought back many of those sad feelings. Whatever I think about Filin, I cannot help but have great sympathy for his position. His life’s work has been thrown into question and he has been severely hurt, both emotionally and physically. He might even face an uncertain economic future, which only a few years ago would have seemed unimaginable. I feel great sadness for him.

During the opening scenes, we learn that a fan named Roman had been to (nearly?) every performance for the past 32 years. He’s certainly a passionate patron of the Bolshoi. I found his passion interesting.

I enjoyed the scenes with Boris Akimov, one of the ballet masters. He seemed to have a philosophical bent as well as a strong sense of humor. He, in particular, is one person that I would have loved to have a long discussion with. His sense of Bolshoi’s recent history, say last 40 – 50 years, would be interesting. And, his discussion about dancers would be fascinating, too. Which dancers exceeded initial expectations and why?

Furthermore, he remarked something to the effect, “Even those without much talent have ambitions.” Obviously, that remark is relative. One can’t become part of the Bolshoi with being extremely talented. Yet, it made me wonder how long those who are less talented last at the Bolshoi? Do the vast majority of the 250 dancers last only a year, or two, or three?

Although I commented that I would have loved to have a long discussion with Akimov, I would have loved to have talked to most of the participants in the film. I know I would find the dancers themselves endlessly fascinating. To rise to the professional level at the Bolshoi, there must be something special about each one of them.

Urin, of course, would be an interesting person to meet. What were his thought processes from when he first arrived to where the company is now? Is he satisfied with his progress? What were his greatest challenges in creating change? And so on.

Filin would be another must person to meet. My intuitive thoughts are that conversation would be complex. There are likely many hopes and dreams that remain unfulfilled coupled with regrets. Moreover, there was so much pain and drama. And last, there is the uncertainty about his future.

In short, I found that this film crack opened the door into the Bolshoi world. As I learned more, I found I had even more questions. And, although I found this movie sad, I was left with more knowledge and hope that the situation has improved.

A New York Times online article Review: ‘Bolshoi Babylon,’ Russia’s Famed Ballet Troupe in a Scandal’s Glare was posted on Sunday, December 20, 2015. According to a note attached to the article, "A version of this review appears in print on December 21, 2015, on page C3 of the New York edition with the headline: A Documentary Looks at the Bolshoi in a Scandal’s Harsh Glare."

A subscription might be required to read the online article.

New York Times (subscription might be required): The Rise and Rise of Misty Copeland.

I believe the online version was available on December 19, 2015. A version of this article appears in print on December 20, 2015, on page ST12 of the New York edition with the headline: Misty Copeland Takes Flight.

Before creating this post, I searched for "Bolshoi Babylon" and found this thread. I hope I am not posting information that hasn't already been posted elsewhere.

I read the following three articles on the New York Times (subscription might be required):

1. ‘Bolshoi Babylon’ Explores a Secretive Ballet Troupe
2. Maria Alexandrova on the Bolshoi: ‘We Still Don’t Know the Truth’
3. Anastasia Meskova on the Bolshoi: ‘I Was in the Middle’

Harvard Business Review Case Study: Should He Be Fired for That Facebook Post? (Subscription generally required, though I believe you're allowed a few free reads per month).

There's an interesting case study about an employee who makes an inappropriate post on Facebook. The question becomes what to do about it. The answer hasn't been provided, though there are some excellent responses from readers in the comment section. Many of the readers who commented have high profile positions and have views worth considering.

Anyway, I thought HBR Case Study might be of interest to those who find this topic interesting.

An Edmonton Journal article: Wedding Tales: Alberta Ballet dancers now partners onstage and off.

“He was the hottie in the company … and I was the newbie who didn’t even notice him on the first day,” Reilley remembers.

They were partnered for The Nutcracker’s Waltz of the Flowers and became friends. Their love of music and sharing of favourite songs led to their first date and becoming more than friends.

On July 25, the onstage dance partners married and became partners in life.

Their wedding had “everything that we like,” says Reilley, 28. Or, as her brother put it, it was so the two of them — “it was elegant, yet there was a food truck,” says Kelley, 32.

The virtual reality video with The Wall Street Journal's article Virtual Reality: Behind the Scenes With a Ballerina at Lincoln Center is very good. I was watching it with my iPad and iPhone. As I moved either device from side to side, the video moved side to side, as well. Similarly, moving a device up or down moved the scene up or down.

A subscription might be required to view the video.

The world of the elite ballerina is one of sore limbs and lithe bodies, demanding rehearsals and cavernous theaters. Sarah Lane, a soloist with the American Ballet Theatre, danced through it all as she prepared the title role in “The Sleeping Beauty” in Manhattan.

The Wall Street Journal used a 360-degree virtual reality camera to record Ms. Lane in the preparations for her performance. With this new medium, viewers can take an intimate backstage tour of the Metropolitan Opera House, sharing Ms. Lane’s experience in the rehearsal studio, the make-up room, and standing in the wings, waiting to go on.

AG, the answer to our questions is that people are strange. Some don't think beyond their immediate wants and needs. Fortunately, small problems such as these can usually be addressed by the intervention of an usher.