nanushka

Many young people of today are, in my experience, quite surprisingly knowledgeable about the realities of inequity and oppression, both past and present — especially those who are likely to be reading New Yorker reviews of Broadway musicals. In any case, I think the majority of readers of the magazine, both in print and online, would be aware that brown face, black face, yellow face, etc. were and are not just tacky choices or silly racist stunts but artistic conventions that were visible manifestations of deep and widespread systemic problems. Personally I don't begrudge the critic for making that assumption about her readers, given space constraints in a journalistic context. (Readers unfamiliar with Ramasar’s background may even have assumed, without the mention that the production appropriately cast Latino actors, that that was not the case; so that clarification may have been purposeful.) I understand, appreciate and respect your perspective on all that, and while we've disagreed about the case on other threads, I don't at all think your views are without merit. I'm at a loss, though, what connection you're implying between the Waterbury dispute and these reviews of West Side Story. (Is the implication that criticisms of Ramasar's performance are fueled by the same sort of bias that has, in your view, led to his treatment as a sacrificial lamb? That would seem like a very large leap to me, and I'm not assuming that's what you mean, but I otherwise don't see the connection and would like to better understand.)

What does the Waterbury suit have to do with it? She literally wrote that the “Sharks are played by Latino actors.” Bernardo is a lead Shark, no? The New Yorker is famous for its rigorous fact checking. I would not personally describe it as “so-called reputable,” but I may well have misplaced faith. In any case, I’m not aware of any errors it’s made in reference to the Waterbury suit. ”In good faith” is a common expression defined in most online dictionaries.

Ok, so in spite of explicit textual evidence to the contrary, you choose to "guess" that the critic is as ignorant as "a large chunk of the public"? That doesn't seem like reading in good faith.

So...contrary to what the critic wrote, those were good times? I don't think a review would really be the place to recount the history you reference. The critic's point seems to have been to celebrate the fact that actors of color were cast in roles that represent the experiences of characters of color. I don't think his name threw her. Just before mentioning Ramasar she explicitly writes, "The Puerto Rican Sharks are played by Latino actors..."

Alexandra Schwartz in The New Yorker is tough on Ramasar, though (and tough on the production as a whole):

Yeah, I'm not at all convinced that the show is going to be a dud, however much discerning audiences familiar with the original may be turned off. Younger and/or less theater-savvy audiences aren't going to care that Robbins' choreography is gone; many may find the racial dynamics (however illogical when considered from a historical or socio-cultural perspective) to be refreshing or interesting; the screens may play much differently to millennials (many of whom find anything tech-enhanced to be inherently more appealing). Throw in some hot wet beefcake and it might just keep bringing in sizable audiences for at least awhile. That said, I haven't seen it, so I'm really just guessing at possibilities.

Thanks for all the info, @BalanchineFan

I think this (bolded) is the part I have doubts about. I would have thought that the legal standard for slander/defamation was considerably higher than that, even if he weren't (as @Leah points out) a public figure.

Sorry, yes, I should have explained my question better. You described Ramasar's lawyer as being "very able," and in the portion of the article I quoted he is described as "complain[ing]" that the protestors are "tossing off words and phrases like they have no meaning whatsoever." Do those complaints have potential legal force? You seem to suggest that Waterbury and/or Levy (who I take to be the high school girl you're referencing) are liable for the impact of the words of one or more of the other protestors and that "somebody needs to rein [them] in." (Neither Waterbury nor Levy seems to have been the one who used the term "sexual assault," as cited in the article.) My question was what Ramasar's lawyer can legally do to stop (or seek compensation for) what's happening and specifically whether there's a strong case that Waterbury and/or Levy are indeed legally liable.

Presumably there's a mode of informed and informative interviewing/reporting that would not constitute a review but that would still be something more substantive than a puff piece, no?

Does this (below) represent a viable legal threat?

Her statement could also have been multi-determined. After all, not only did Brandt have the NYT article and get a double debut, but Copeland pulled out of a performance, and we know Lane has some experience with that. It could've been a convergence of factors, leading to an outburst of related feelings. The fact that none of her colleagues has commented on the post makes me think it was at least widely interpreted as having some reference (even if only oblique) to company members. I could be wrong, though.

I see no reason to doubt her. The statement seems pretty sincere, and it's not as if Hope Hicks is a household name. The quotation is easily found online. For instance, I just googled "hard work quotes," and this was one of the top hits, with Hicks' quotation at the top right: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/hard-work-quotes

I had really high hopes for him once, but far from improving, he's now no longer dancing even as well as he once did. (At least not with consistency; if he is on occasion, I've mostly missed it.) I really thought he could become something much greater. It makes me sad that that never happened.

True, but to @aurora's point, being able to dance very well with short men was a niche that Lane was filling. Taking McKenzie's lack of favor toward her as a given, that was at least something she had going for her.

Got it, thanks for the clarification. I missed the deleted ones between several times looking at the post.

Getting heat? As of now, there are two negative comments with a combined 10 likes. The post as a whole has only gotten 36 comments, none of which are from ballet professionals I recognize. Many other dancers, etc. are liking the post, but all are staying silent, none expressing support. That to me is pretty revealing.

I couldn’t agree more, @Emily12!

I completely agree, Gillian didn’t pull it off.

Oh my I'm just giggling at the very fact of a piece named Bad Smells. Love it. How perfectly expressed.

Gotcha, yeah, I've definitely never seen her do girlish, but her dancing is all around so excellent that I can't imagine not wanting to see her try the role, for the chance she might nail it. Certainly I don't think her physical dimensions make it impossible that she might.

@Emily12 thanks for those wonderfully vivid descriptions! I’m excited to see many of these dancers perform these roles in spring.

Skylar also has a thoughtful Giselle post:

As one with a particular fondness for tall dancers, I'm delighted to see one get the role, as I've never bought into the idea that Giselle has to be shorter and frail. Tall sturdy girls can have heart conditions too. IMO it'll only matter if she can't pull off the second act. But I can't think of anything about her dancing that makes me doubt she could.

Was is it about Shevchenko’s dancing that makes her seem to some not well suited to the role?