nanushka

Oh thanks, I didn't realize ABT calendar had casting listed already too. I was control-F-ing his name on the announcement and was disappointed not to see anything.

What is the debut for Forster? I was really hoping for something, but I don't see anything listed.

I just can't believe that after offering it for an entire week of the Met season as half of a double bill they're bringing it back already for the immediately following fall season. It'd be different if it were the following spring, or if it were a major Copeland vehicle, or if there were any other real justification (i.e. selling point) for bringing it back so soon, but there isn't. Bringing it back now just seems lazy and uninspired—like they couldn't come up with enough fresh material for a full fall season.

If it says anything at all about the actual respective levels of morale in the two companies that’s a pretty remarkable statement about ABT, given the currrent circumstances at NYCB.

Agreed on your second sentence, but the first seems at least debatable. He only ever divulged details in a very veiled manner, from what I recall, and he's since deleted those references. I think it's at least arguable that he remains "in the closet" in at least some sense. The closet is not always something one is definitively IN or OUT of, as queer theorists have explored at great lengths. For instance, one can be "in the closet" in certain spheres of one's life and "out of the closet" in others.

After apparently toying with the idea of being at least somewhat open on social media about his non-straight relationship(s), Fairchild abruptly changed his approach sometime last year; it was commented on at some length on another discussion thread here on BA. This is a very different approach to the one he took with regard to his straight relationship(s).

Gosh, why even mention de Luz in that post? It's almost offensive, tagging it on there after going on about all his own recent accomplishments. (Does that even count as a humble-brag?) It's also kind of hilarious that he writes "I keep my personal life as personal as possible" — now he does, after having his straight marriage trumpeted in various media? Oh brother.

Not in his dancing, though (what I mostly — though not only — meant). I’ve seen older videos in which he’s excellent, with great energy. Now he so often looks like he can’t keep up. I remember a Rubies from a few years ago; the part when he jogs around with the other guys was just sad, embarrassing. And an Allegro Brillante, also the parts with the corps guys, when he basically just marked the steps. Thanks for providing the dates.

Wow, that's surprising, because at least onstage — I've never seen him in person, only onstage (and on video) — Veyette in particular looks (to me) so much older.

I'm one who has been quite dismayed at the news of the alleged behavior related to those scandals, and I'm also one who is quite skeptical of Clifford's fitness for the position, but personally I don't see any connection or similarity between these two things. These are the public social media accounts of professional artists (and other related public figures), who use those accounts in part as opportunities to engage with the public and generally remain visible to the public eye. How is communicating with or linking to them in this manner "creepy"? (Rather odd or off-putting and quite possibly unwise, yes.) Admittedly, I haven't read what Clifford has posted on others' pages, nor have I closely read everything on his own, so perhaps there are some specific statements I'm unaware of.

Very true — hence my observation that it's exhausting. I did not at all mean to imply that it was. (When I wrote that Balanchine was "the father-hero of virtually every post," I meant — with only slight exaggeration — virtually every post on his IG feed, not just recent ones.) I don't see any particular evidence to suggest that's what Clifford is doing, or to suggest that he knows that, but both are certainly possible. Still, if he says he wants the job, I take him at his word and think it's fair to judge him as a serious (even if not very promising) candidate.

Great, thanks for the link!

Thanks. Is it in the written comments on one of the posts?

The combination of relentless self-promotion and absolute deification of Balanchine (the father-hero of virtually every post, including the one devoted to Mitchell above) is exhausting.

I believe @Kathleen O'Connell first mentioned this in a post above—I assumed in reference to one of his many videos (which I haven't been able to bring myself to watch), since I too haven't noticed it in his written posts.

And now Clifford responds to that criticism as well:

Oh I'm sure Finlay didn't "appreciate" it. That doesn't make it relevant to the case. I've yet to hear any sort of evidence-based argument that his "right to privacy" was infringed upon in any legally pertinent way. It's nothing but speculation.

One could argue just about anything one wants, but no one has yet pointed to any relevant law or specific precedent from civil proceedings that would suggest Waterbury's using the laptop (one that she had permission to use) in this particular way might be problematic for her case. The repeated conjectures and insinuations on this point strike me as very curious.

Oh yes, I completely understood. I was responding to @KayDenmark's particular use of the term in response to your own.

Its relevance, at least as the Times sees it, is explained in the third paragraph of the story, immediately after the note is described: The point seems to be that the company is now one of the latest epicenters of this controversy. I assume those at the Times, like most or all in the company, don't know who posted the note. While the word "redeemed" can mean "to get or win back" (in which case the person getting something back is the subject of that active-voice verb), my sense is that the phrase "to be redeemed" (when it's the person who is being redeemed, and so the verb is in the passive voice) and the phrase "to redeem oneself" (when, again, it's the person who is being redeemed) have a rather different meaning. I don't think that "being redeemed" necessarily (or even likely) involves reclaiming the status or power one had before one committed the offense one is in need of redemption for. In many of these cases, that would likely be viewed by many as expecting rather too much — especially after so little time has passed.

For #metoo examples in particular, as others above have said, it's only been a year — and that's for one of the worst cases, Weinstein's. I'd expect his redemption, if it comes, to take a good amount of time. For other examples, Helene mentions some in general (and I would guess that's why she brought up the genocide cases, not to suggest that Finlay et al had committed a wrong on that same scale), and I suppose one could always Google the phrase "he redeemed himself by" and see what comes up. I just know it's a common phrase, and my point was that the person doing the redeeming is the one who committed the wrong. That said... Good point. My formulation above should probably be rephrased as such: "He redeemed himself in the eyes of Y by doing X." Yes, it's not as though no one has given this any thought. It's just that an answer is not yet clear (which doesn't mean or even suggest that redemption is not possible, if that's what some are worried about — though it might certainly be impossible for some perpetrators to return to their previous positions of status, power, prominence and achievement), and I think it will ultimately be a question of what these men (so far they are men, for the most part) do, given the circumstances of their individual wrongs.

It’s only passive-aggressive if you really know the answer and are holding back with a passive-aggressive intent. My personal point was that there is no clear answer and that it’s the responsibility of those who’ve wronged others to figure it out. (Who in this entire past year has said to any of these men anything at all like, "You've done something wrong, and you need to atone for it, but I'm not going to tell you how to atone for it. Just guess!"? I've never heard that even remotely suggested, including on this forum.) That’s why people say things like, “Wow, he really redeemed himself by doing X.”

To the extent that there is a cohesively acting "movement" (debatable), it is not, in my opinion, the responsibility of that movement to establish a redemption process. It is the responsibility of those who have wronged others to discover the appropriate path to redemption. Just as it is the responsibility of the rest of us to be open to at least the possibility of that redemption being achieved — as appropriate, given the particular circumstances of individual cases. ("Redemption" will mean different things, to different degrees, and be achieved in different ways, in different cases.) In some cases redemption will be more feasible than in others, and the processes will necessarily vary. There can be no "established redemption process," I don't think. (Though I imagine it would be possible to at least hypothesize some general guidelines.)

I've really enjoyed Whipped Cream but wish they'd give it a rest for a year. I wonder what Ratmansky's next big project for ABT will be. It's very hard to get a real sense of Jane Eyre from a 40-second video in which no single shot is more than a few seconds long, but judging just from what's there I'm not yet very excited at the possibility of ABT spending a week on it.

Regarding your addendum: the statement was very carefully worded, I thought, so as not to be applicable to the particular views of one "side" of the Waterbury v. NYCB dispute. The values Reichlen was speaking of were ones I'd imagine those on both sides would share. The statement was, in my interpretation, neither in support of or opposition to the terminations. Do we know where the impulse for this statement came from? You suggest management. But it was written by Reichlen and Danchig-Waring. Do we know that they were asked to do it by company leadership?