Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

nanushka

Senior Member
  • Posts

    2,766
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nanushka

  1. I agree. And it’s well past time for the unvaccinated to start carrying more of the burden of the consequences of their choices, which have brought us to this point. New variants will continue to emerge as long as there isn’t a larger proportion of the population vaccinated.
  2. Yes, I adored the Disney+ show On Pointe but it’s true that, at least to my sense, the duo who played the child leads were not Broadway quality for their age. Their training had not primarily prepared them for acting/miming roles.
  3. Yeah, I read dancers’ memoirs for candid reflections on a dancer’s life experience. If that includes some complaints about experiences that, from an audience member’s very different perspective, I cherish — well, I’m not going to get annoyed. That’s part of the deal. It’s showbiz. ”It’s their job.” Well, I complain about my job too.
  4. Right, because vaccinated people are less likely to have those spreadable infections in the first place. I’d be all in favor of a mask mandate even if they don’t do much to enforce it. (I wouldn’t want enforcement to disrupt performances, for instance.) In a non-socially distanced theater it doesn’t seem like a bad idea; I personally don’t mind wearing a mask, and have found ones that are comfortable; and a mandate would at least establish a baseline social norm. Again, compared to no intermissions, it would at least make reasonable sense (to me).
  5. In terms of public policy, though, the goal is not typically to wholly eliminate risk (or, conversely, to ensure absolute safety); the goal is to, within reason, minimize risk. A vaccine mandate for those over 12 would be a definite step in that direction — more clearly than, for instance, not having intermissions.
  6. I purchased the audio book and am a few chapters in, enjoying it so far. Pazcoguin narrates it herself and has a nice voice for it. I look forward to getting further in during the coming days.
  7. You should have gotten an email on Monday. (Mine arrived a little after noon and showed up in my Gmail "Promotions" folder.) There's a link there that will take you to the ordering pages; you'll also need to make sure you're signed in on their site. It's possible that just logging in will be enough, without the link. And phone orders can be placed at 212-496-0600.
  8. And Shevchenko was cast as Giselle for the 2020 Met season, wasn’t she? With all the newly promoted principals, I hope they’ll cast broadly for this run.
  9. I was really hoping they'd do Giselle! So happy we don't have to wait until May to see a good old-fashioned ABT full-length, and it will be great to see one in that theater!
  10. How many people "loyal to the entity...for decades" are likely to be sufficiently "put off" by the change that they drop that loyalty? (By no longer donating? Sure, maybe a few, I guess. By no longer attending? Even fewer, I think.)
  11. Not at all, thanks! You mentioned it was a premiere, so I was just curious if you knew which. I completely agree there's nothing implausible about the details in (what we currently have of) Pazcoguin's account.
  12. There are apparently policy tradeoffs, though. I think it's reasonable to say (as I do) that I wish companies such as NYCB would require audience members to be vaccinated (with the exception of children who can't be), and then let us have regular intermissions, etc. so we can enjoy performances more like we used to. One can express an opinion about policy matters without getting stressed out about it. The very sad fact of the matter is we are still quite needlessly not past this pandemic because far too many people have chosen not to “follow the science” and get vaccinated — not just for themselves, but for the benefit of all.
  13. Out of curiosity, what was the work and role she was rehearsing? I'm not aware of the circumstances of her injury, and I don't think the article specifies.
  14. Aren't you? We don't know what she did or did not do. We haven't read the full account yet. We don't even know what she thought or felt about Ramasar's alleged behavior. This is all we know: We do know, from this, that Pazcoguin writes about the experiences in the book and that Kourlas thinks them either "disturbing" or "just plain weird" or possibly both. That's about it. (It never says "every day"; presumably this would have happened only on some or all of the occasions when Ramasar personally greeted her in class.) Maybe Pazcoguin wasn't bothered enough by the experiences to think they needed reporting; maybe now, given what else has been alleged about Ramasar, she thinks they're relevant to talk about, since they potentially fill out a larger pattern of behavior. On the other hand, maybe she felt victimized and traumatized all along. We don't know.
  15. “For years” doesn’t mean every day. Maybe in corners, on the sidelines, with not many people seeing, or noticing, or remarking, especially if the recipient doesn’t visibly seem upset. It’s so easy to imagine this playing out. We’ve gotten very little of the story. Rereading the story, be sure to note which words are Pazcoguin’s and which are Kourlas’s. Do we know that no one said anything to any of those people you mention? Especially in today’s world, I think it’s always worth thinking carefully about what one really knows and how. (And why.)
  16. Right. And now she's publishing an account of it in a book she's written. Which may be one reason why she didn't bring it up then, and why she wouldn't now claim it in print if there weren't at least a few company members who are willing to back her up. We haven't seen whether that's the case yet. So I don't think there's a very strong basis now for saying it's a false or non-credible claim. Mightn't this be her way of putting him in his place? Just one possible interpretation. We haven't even read the book yet. I think it’s unwise to pass judgment at this early point.
  17. "She didn't do what I would have done." "She didn't do what women should do." "She didn't do X in situation A, even though she did Y in situation B." Statements such as these do not, in my opinion, support a claim that an allegation is untrue or not credible. And all suggest a lack of understanding of how many victims react to such situations. ETA: I can easily imagine a young female dancer experiencing this — from an older, male, senior company member — and being simply stunned. It happens again, and there's more anger this time, but also perhaps shame (e.g. at not having prevented it), a desire to fit in, a fear of being viewed as problematic, a fear of consequences. It happens a few more times, and by that point it feels almost impossible to say something. ("She should have said something earlier.") It is very easy for me to imagine a young dancer in this situation not thinking, "I should go to management" or "I should bring charges through my union."
  18. What is the "glass house" in which Pazcoguin resides? "Management" was Peter Martins, of whom the article states, "she refers to him as her psychological abuser." She may well have reported Ramasar's behavior; after all, the article also states that Martins was asked for comment about the incidents. In any case, "why didn't she say something earlier?" and "why didn't she stop it?" are very common reactions to women reporting cases of sexual assault or abuse, and there are often understandable reasons why. It doesn't seem as if the issue of her thighs was only a matter of "self-perception":
  19. I think it sounds, at least generally, less provincial and less regional. As @Californiasuggests, think of the names of prominent US city-named ballet companies, orchestras, opera companies, museums, etc. compared with those named by state.
  20. Thanks for explaining further, @On Pointe. "Agenda" had thrown me, suggesting something more consciously planned. What you describe makes sense in its way, but I'd want to know more about the situation (the company, its roster, audience, administration, plans for Edwards, Edwards' dancing) than what I've picked up from casually following the story here.
  21. I appreciate hearing your perspective, but I'm trying to make sure I fully understand what exactly you're suggesting is PNB's "agenda." PNB is hiring Edwards because they don't want "to really be inclusive and reflective of the world they inhabit"? So they've chosen to hire Edwards instead of dancers of "unambiguous" gender for what reason, exactly? What is their motivation in furthering this "agenda"? That they only want to hire Black dancers who fulfill a white desire to see Black gender-non-conforming male dancers?
  22. Thanks for the heads up @California. If seat selection is available this will definitely get me to join.
  23. But critics and scholars have always uttered ephemera, haven't they? Once there were coffee houses and cocktail parties (remember those?); now there's Instagram and Twitter. Unless there's a Boswell on the scene to record those thoughts, one just has to note them in one's own diary, or hope they reappear in some more permanently accessible form. I wonder if the seeming impermanence of these media is part of what allows for the free-form trying out of ideas that we see from such writers. (Though Macaulay has certainly written some questionable things in published print...)
  24. @Drew, just out of historical curiosity did you see that specific performance? I ask just because, when watching that video, I always think it must have been such an emotional night in the house.
×
×
  • Create New...