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

nanushka

Senior Member
  • Posts

    2,781
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nanushka

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. “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.)
  6. 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.
  7. "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."
  8. 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":
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. Thanks for the heads up @California. If seat selection is available this will definitely get me to join.
  13. 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...)
  14. @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.
  15. nanushka

    Sarah Lane

    That was my interpretation as well, based on these passages: The implied timeline suggests to me that the offered R&J was for sometime after the 2020 Met season (presumably whenever the work would next be performed).
  16. nanushka

    Sarah Lane

    I also don't see Sarah suggesting that the injuries were Cornejo's fault. She focuses on the practical impact on her:
  17. Sarah has given an interview to POINTE titled "Sarah Lane Opens Up About Her Career, Leaving ABT and Her Hopes for the Future":
  18. Sounds (especially now) like a lovely evening, @canbelto!
  19. I’d be happy to explain on DM why I think differently.
  20. Copy editor here (among other things). Personally, I wouldn't alter the original sentence if I were copy editing the article. I think it clearly communicates all of that in a sentence that also conveys the author's style. [ETA: To clarify, I haven't read the full article. I'm basing my judgment only on what was given.] It's not my job as a copy editor to impose my own style, just to make sure that the author's style (if there is one) isn't causing problems. (And if there isn't one, then I can perhaps provide one — if there's a need for one, given the context.) (And yes, we get what the writer gives us, which includes all that's not given explicitly.)
  21. Huxley really did look gorgeous in the b&w, agreed! (And yes to everything else in the three posts preceding mine.)
  22. I had similar thoughts about the DaaG excerpt, actually. (And I teared up as well!) When Duo Concertante was filmed with a very frontal orientation, I thought, "Ok, good, the 360 approach was fine for that first piece but I hope we don't go back to that." I also tend to sit to the side — primarily due to cost, but I similarly appreciate the oblique view. And when I see multiple casts of the same show, it can be interesting to try both sides (though I tend to be most comfortable audience left, for whatever reason).
  23. I agree. I really wish that those filming dance would recognize when a frontal orientation is important to maintain (which in my opinion is almost always, to at least some degree). These dances (with the possible exception of the new Peck — though probably even there, if it's intended to have an afterlife) were designed to be seen on a traditional proscenium stage, and the audience perspective is important to how they visually work. I'm sure it's fun as a filmmaker to get into the space with the dancers and play with the 360-degree orientation, but when watching filmed dance I prefer to see the visual structure of the work more fully respected (as it was in the Duo Concertante excerpt). Some of Coppola's comments in the recent NYT interview relate to this: There are obviously great inherent challenges to filming dance; I just don't think her solutions to those were generally the best possible ones. The finale of Divertimento No. 15 is neither the Balanchine finale nor the particular movement from that work that I would have chosen to include — but I suppose it made sense, given the scoring for strings and the number of corps dancers involved. Regardless, I found it moving to see the company back in these spaces and enjoyed the dancing itself.
×
×
  • Create New...