nanushka

I wonder if it was a problem during the centuries when Capulets and Montagues were typically cast as all white, even in productions with fight scenes. Many people (including, it seems, Moreno herself) find blackface/brownface/etc. to be objectionable even when it's done in service of verisimilitude or to ease audience perceptions.

I understood the "caricatured, cosmetic distortion of Puerto Rican identity" that Pollack-Pelzner was referring to as the implied notion that all Puerto Ricans have darker skin, and therefore that Moreno wouldn't look right if she didn't as well. I don't think he specified whether it was the original lyric or not. It seems from the article that Sondheim wrote about the revised lyric in his book; is that not correct? And of course "gay" didn't automatically mean homosexual then; it does not now either. The clear point, I think, was that Sondheim was self-conscious about the fact that it did have that (at the time) secondary meaning, and that felt revealing.

Thanks for the heads-up. The article is here for those interested.

Good info, though yes, best not to read into it yet. Her husband is in the corps, so quite likely dancing in the production, and they often travel together with their two dogs. But perhaps she'll be dancing one or more currently unlisted roles as well.

According to the Times, Domingo has apparently determined that his previous apology either went too far or has been misinterpreted:

Oh, gee, where to begin? Figure skating drama, sister drama, mental illness drama, Johnny Weir drama, child sexual predation drama, race drama, self-harm drama (of a sort that literally gave me cringey flashbacks the day after watching), January Jones trying really hard to act drama, Russian coach drama, gruesome injury drama (even if not in all cases wholly convincing). There could be a few more skating sequences, but they do a really good job with the skate doubles. Watched the finale last night, very aptly titled "Kiss and Cry." Unfortunately I see the show won't be back for a second season. But as a single-season show it works, ending in a satisfying (if unresolved) way.

Given the great number of years and alleged cases involved, it does seem like a contradiction. That said, the RO had completed their own investigation of Grigolo's actions on an RO tour, I believe, whereas for Domingo they may be waiting to see what outside investigations find. Are there abuses he's alleged to have committed while performing with the company? To be clear, I'm not suggesting the distinction makes sense to me, just that there may be an explainable (if not persuasive) logic to it.....so, maybe not quite the height of hypocrisy? I don't believe there's any indication that they have. The AGMA agreement seems to have been for the union itself not to release the findings, while the alleged victims would not be barred from sharing their stories.

Any other fans?

I guess you’d have to say I’m abnormal, then.

I think you’re projecting a very specific meaning onto her words and then asserting that her words don’t make sense — which it’s true, they don’t, if the very specific meaning you’re projecting is the only one they could have.

So if her photos had already been shared with others, it didn’t matter that Ramasar asked for them to be shared with him too? No further harm? How do you figure that?

Right, but then "the women" and "they" shifts abruptly to "she" in the next sentence. As an IG caption, it seems unedited, was likely typed on a phone, and has the same sorts of inconsistencies (of grammar, syntax, reference, etc.) that are commonplace in speech. As a result, in a variety of ways, it just doesn't really hold up to careful parsing. And it doesn't strike me as evidence of malicious intent to deceive. Is Waterbury behaving in rash, misguided, careless, unwise ways? Yes, I think so. Is she demonstrating malicious intent to deceive the public about Ramasar? No, I don't think so.

Yes, that "women" should be "a woman." Is that "definitely intentionally" misleading? No. It certainly may be intentionally misleading, but whether it is or not is not apparent from that post. Just as likely, the person who wrote it is passionate and confused. Certainly an imperfect spokesperson. Also not, apparently, Waterbury.

I find that very unsurprising. As I said, social media is full of such junk. People are drawn to controversial topics and many of them write dumb things in response. It just doesn't indicate that Waterbury is deliberately misleading. (Misguided, sure.)

As anyone who has spent any amount of time on social media should well know, it is very easy to find plenty of examples of people who express misguided opinions because they have been careless readers and sloppy thinkers. It just isn't that hard to find, on really any topic, and individual examples of it really prove absolutely nothing.

The preceding three paragraphs of the petition's text lay out what the accusations are, and rape is not at all the implication. Even in what you've quoted above, in the immediately preceding sentence, it clearly states that Ramasar was "one of the main parties involved in the picture and video exchange" — i.e. not that he's a rapist. In context, the nature of the "violation" is absolutely clear. The language may be intentionally sensational, but there is no evidence that it's intentionally misleading. And it wasn't written by Waterbury. "Countless women" is pretty obviously incorrect. Otherwise, the petition's text is actually pretty clear and accurate, if one reads it with any degree of care. True, if one reads it quickly and less than carefully, one could make some mistaken assumptions — but that's not defamation, and it's not evidence of an intent to mislead.

Lots to digest in the latest news on the Domingo case. From the Times:

If it’s in the contract that NYCB can choose not to renew, though — which is what I’m suggesting is quite likely the case — then the arbitrator would have known that when making the decision, and there’s no bad faith. Very few of us are guaranteed employment in perpetuity by a given employer until we choose to retire.

Wait, that's the only time she's documented as using the term "violated"? Yeah, that's a totally reasonable use of the word. Completely clear. This. This.

Again, I'm not suggesting they would "fire him twice for the same event." In order to fire Ramasar during the term of his contract, they would need cause; that's what they tried to do before, and the arbitrator found that they did not have sufficient cause. I'm suggesting that, when his contract comes up for renewal, they might simply choose not to renew. I don't believe they are obligated to do so. Yes, AGMA would certainly "review" the non-renewal, but I'm not sure there's anything they could do. Likely they review all non-renewals in part to ensure that those decisions aren't being made for improper reasons (e.g. discrimination against a protected class). He's still on the roster because he's still under contract. That's true whether they plan to renew the contract or not, so he'd be listed now either way. Even if they weren't planning to renew his contract, they would keep him on the roster during the term of the current contract. I don't think they would need to explain it. Again, they wouldn't be firing him, they would simply be choosing not to renew his contract. They would need good cause to do the former (as they discovered previously); there's no such requirement, I believe, for doing the latter (so long as they're not doing so in a discriminatory manner against a protected class). And, of course, NYCB may have made their peace with Ramasar's presence in the company and decide to keep him on until he retires. Again, I could be wrong about all this, as I don't know the specific details of the AGMA contract with NYCB. I'm just basing this on my more general (and very much non-professional, and thus potentially fallible) understanding of how employment law works. One thing I so appreciate about this particular online community is the considerable knowledge its members have in many different realms, so I'm able to rely on others here who have greater understanding of these matters to correct me if I'm mistaken. I've found it to be a tremendous resource!

No grounds. As I said, I understood that they were only required to employ him for the remaining period of the contract they inappropriately (according to the judgment of the arbitrator) terminated. Again, I may be wrong, so if anyone has details about what specifically the union arrangement requires I’d be interested to know. They are not simply required to automatically renew every dancer’s contract from year to year, are they? At least I assumed they were not.

When does his current NYCB contract end? The reason it could change is that NYCB is not required to renew his contract despite being required to finish out the period. of the one they terminated — at least that’s my understanding.

Thanks for the additional info, @bluejean.

That’s definitely troubling. Could you be more specific on where you saw that? I’d like to see exactly what she said. Thanks!

Her Aurora was quite good. Based on her IG posts I get a sense she is very emotionally invested in the current role so it may well have been nerves in large part. ETA: Odile needs a better turner than Aurora though, no? That may also be part of the difference.