nanushka

I wholly agree that "reluctant" is the better word, but — as the sources I supply indicate — "reticence" does not apply solely to speech. I'm not sure how they could be read to suggest that it does, when they quite clearly state otherwise. (M-W's third definition could not be clearer or simpler; the same goes for the OED definition supplied by @Quiggin. And M-W's usage note offers further support.) Kourlas' usage of "reticence" is not incorrect, but it is in my opinion best avoided (and I personally would never use it), if for no other reason than it raises the hackles of certain readers, thus inhibiting communication of her message and generally causing more trouble than it's worth. (Then again, if I wanted to avoid raising the hackles of usage mavens, I would never use "aggravate" to mean "annoy," never use "anticipate" to mean "expect," and never use "hopefully" as a sentence adverb — all of which I do, quite appropriately and with the support of both linguists and much historical precedent.) I am no great fan of Kourlas', and while I may question her taste I am not going to question her knowledge of language when the dictionaries clearly back her up. Maybe she doesn't realize that her usage of "reticence" is controversial; then again, maybe she thought to hell with them.

I can certainly believe that someone who is or believes herself to be a victim would be reluctant to watch a representation of anything at all similar to her own experience of victimization (especially without knowing ahead of time just how dissimilar the episode would be to that experience). That doesn't seem implausible to me at all. I don't recall any claim in the article (by either Kourlas or Waterbury) that Waterbury was reluctant to give a statement. And the explanation Waterbury gives for her discomfort in watching the episode puts her in direct agreement with those here who have suggested that it was unwise for the show to air a fictionalized version of a case that's not yet legally resolved.

It does, actually, though that's not the most common usage of the word. From Merriam-Webster, sense #3: (Kourlas wrote, "I understand Ms. Waterbury's reticence to watch the episode.") That said, the same source, in a related usage note, acknowledges that, when used with that meaning, it still often (though definitely not exclusively, especially since the 1940s) refers to a reluctance to communicate: Still, they conclude that "The use is fully established, though, for other contexts too."

Johnsey has always been "male referred," I believe (he/him/his pronouns, etc.).

I don't. Kourlas implicitly answers the question: That's not to say I think it's good for ballet or anything — just that I'm not at all surprised ballet is getting the attention while symphony orchestras or even opera aren't. As far as I can see, she doesn't say that he did either of those things. The "women" involved included Waterbury; she doesn't imply that both dancers were implicated in actions against Waterbury herself. If the expectation is to be that any reported mention of the case is going to spell out in exact detail all facets of the case in order to guard against confusion by all readers, then yes — it's true that legitimate journalistic outlets such as the Times have failed in that. But, in my opinion, that is an unrealistic expectation. It is not the job of a TV review to make sure that no readers misunderstand the facts of the Waterbury case, so long as what is written (when read with a basic degree of care) is true, not false.

On the other hand, I think the lack of such an explanation makes it even clearer that this is not at all what happened.

The plot of the episode, as recounted by Gia Kourlas, makes it clear that this is more "very loosely inspired by" than "ripped from the headlines": Waterbury agrees that the episode should not have been made while the case is still unresolved: And Kourlas loved John Waters in it, though he unfortunately only appears in one scene.

Just one data point (and there are obviously many other factors involved), according to the company website, Colorado Ballet has 32 dancers across its ranks, from principal to apprentice. ABT has 91.

No, they weren't supposed to be laid off, but when the tours got canceled, the company laid them off for 5 weeks (beginning around the start of last week, I believe). Numerous dancers reported this on social media. NYCB seems not to have laid everyone off, as the recent NYT article about the spring season cancellation reports. Unless the ABT dancers were using the term in an unusual manner, ABT's layoff likely entails no pay. (ABT does not have nearly the financial resources that NYCB has.) I believe the company has set up this Crisis Relief Fund in order to try to ameliorate that.

I assume that is the case, as they are currently laid off for 5 weeks.

I think "substantially" may be the key, though. If the changes are substantial enough (which is why I used the term "historically inspired fiction" rather than "historical fiction" — or say "past-inspired fiction" or "reality-inspired fiction" if "historically" sounds too remote....but the key word is "fiction"), it's potentially much less problematic, because there's more awareness that the show is inspired by true events rather than a depiction of true events. If John Waters is playing a porn producer, that means this is not just a "distortion" of what actually happened but something further removed from the facts. I personally find it hard to believe that, if it weren't for the current Broadway shutdown, there'd be any serious escalation as a result of this episode's airing.

For historically inspired fiction to not stick to the historical facts is hardly surprising or unprecedented (it's been happening probably since the dawn of human storytelling), much less troubling, at least in my mind.

Gia Kourlas has an article in the Times about dancers taking and offering ballet classes on Zoom, IG, YouTube, etc. I'm surprised at the inclusion of so many photos taken (by visiting professional photographers, presumably) in people's homes at this time — though, as Unity Phelan notes, they are fun to see:

Suspended suggests not necessarily for good, which is why I was confused. In any case, it doesn't say any of those happened; it says Scarlett "is leaving the company." Exactly. Nothing unfair about it that I can detect.

Where does it say he’s suspended?

There doesn't seem to be evidence that his employment was indeed "terminated." The language of the headline and sub-headline for the related NYT article seems to put a bit more emphasis on that:

Not sure. The former is described in the message that @California copied above. There’s probably more info on the ABT website, which is linked there.

I’m so happy to see that you can donate directly to the crisis relief fund for company artists (and that they started one, which I hadn’t seen the news of before).

I've been inclined to cut them (i.e. performing arts institutions) a good deal of slack, given the severity of the circumstances and how much has changed in just the past two weeks. And in any case, the question of performances weeks or months off doesn't seem particularly pressing right now. If it takes an extra day or two for clear messages to get here or there — well, it doesn't feel like there's really any rush. Likely, NYCB and ABT are waiting to figure out what they're going to say before they post a statement, and that understandably takes some time. Whether their websites get the updated information at 4pm or 6pm or tomorrow or next Tuesday, it doesn't seem very urgent. I know I'll still be right where I am, unfortunately. I think there's almost certainly going to be no NYCB spring season of any sort, and quite likely no ABT spring season of any sort either. Logistically, in many ways, it just doesn't seem feasible.

It's because they already know it, but I think it's also because Facebook, Instagram, etc. offer important things that platforms like Zoom do not.

I suspect we're seeing dancers using Facebook and Instagram not so much because they lack technical help but more because those platforms are where they already have social media communities established. Zoom has quickly become ubiquitous; lots of people who'd never heard of it two weeks ago are now either using it or at least aware of it. If the priority now were for something more high-tech or high-quality, I think they'd be using it — and if there ever are actual remote professional company classes, I would expect them to be held on a platform such as that. But I think this is a time when the more pressing priorities are connectedness, community cultivation, interactivity (e.g. comments, @s, #s, reposts), and finding new ways to use the platforms that are already familiar. ETA: And it looks like there is indeed a regular Zoom class for NYCB dancers (and some ABT guests) occurring every day now, according to numerous affiliated social media accounts. Different platforms are being used for different purposes.

We need to keep in mind, though, that NYCB would be severely limited in the coming months in terms of what sorts of classes and rehearsals they'll be able to hold. Even if the CDC guidelines reach their currently projected end point, there's still going to be the need for a lot of further catch-up before a season could be presented. I have strong doubts that a spring season will be possible for either NYCB or ABT this year.

Ah, perhaps that explains why the Met On Demand app on my Roku TV hasn't been working since yesterday evening, and the Met On Demand website seems to be having problems as well. They may not have the capacity to really make good on that invitation.

And of course not everyone who attends performances is local (certainly not at the NYC companies, but even for regional companies), and so those who may have been planning to see a performance during a one-time visit to the area are left with no real option other than donation, if a refund is not available.

I agree that it's not the best way to generate good will. That said, the three options @California reports Colorado Ballet as offering do not include a refund option, only donation or (basically) exchanges (i.e. an account credit or a gift certificate), so I'm guessing the Met may be legally in the clear on this. I'd be curious to hear what credit card companies do if anyone tries that route, though.