nanushka

On the previous page of this topic it was discussed that G. Pazcoguin has posted on social media about that.

That video of Allegra in the 2nd mvt. is one that I'd never trade in, however much I'd love to see more of Gelsey.

There's also a video of Gelsey dancing with Jacques d'Amboise in Balanchine's MND on YT. It's not a high-quality recording, but her dancing looks superb to my eye — light, youthful, delicate, gorgeous.

Yes, I definitely feel that too. I'll be at a few!

Perhaps something low-key is for the best after all this year. I imagine a bigger celebration this month might feel a bit off for many in the company and audience, no matter what their feelings about recent developments.

I had her in mind for my third choice. Talk about gorgeous photos! If I'd been following her career, though — well, I can imagine the heartbreak of how it ended.

I posted something on another thread (it was, admittedly, pretty far off topic!) that I thought might be an interesting topic for a separate discussion: Gelsey Kirkland is probably the one dancer from the past whose career I most intensely wish I had witnessed. In part, this is because there's just so little recorded evidence of it. I've scoured YouTube and relish everything I've found (especially the two complete [or in one case near-complete, and with only reconstructed sound] performances of T&V — I consider the telecast version to be perhaps the greatest complete ballet performance ever professionally recorded, at least of those I've seen), but there's just so much less of her on video than of some other dancers of her era and prominence (for a variety of reasons). The other reason I wish I'd seen her is that my sense, from those videos, is that she was truly unlike any other dancer. Of course that's true of many—but, for instance, I think I know kind of what it would have felt like to see Baryshnikov, or Makarova, or Verdy. (Of course I could be wrong.) Not because I've seen other dancers who are quite like them, but because I suspect I've seen other dancers who have provoked in me the same sorts of reactions that they would have provoked. My sense is that Kirkland would have provoked something quite distinct. She was sui generis. Actually, for some of the same reasons (a limited number of recordings and a real distinctness of character and qualities), but also for some others, I think Farrell would be my runner-up in the "wish I had been there" category. I'd love to hear others' ideas! Which dancer from the past do you most wish you had seen live, and why?

That's a really interesting idea. It certainly wasn't the only significant factor (for one thing, I think they were just fundamentally, temperamentally unsuited to one another), but it very well could have played a substantial role in shaping her responses and, thereby, their relationship. It's so easy to forget how strong an impact serious chronic pain can have on one's experiences (especially when one doesn't have the same experience of pain as another person — which one never does). Kirkland is probably the one dancer from the past whose career I most intensely wish I had witnessed. In part, this is because there's just so little recorded evidence of it. I've scoured YouTube and relish everything I've found (especially the two complete [or in one case near-complete, and with only reconstructed sound] performances of T&V — I consider the telecast version to be perhaps the greatest complete ballet performance ever professionally recorded, at least of those I've seen), but there's just so much less of her on video than of some other dancers of her era and prominence (for a variety of reasons). The other reason I wish I'd seen her is that my sense, from those videos, is that she was truly unlike any other dancer. Of course that's true of many—but, for instance, I think I know kind of what it would have felt like to see Baryshnikov, or Makarova, or Verdy. (Of course I could be wrong.) Not because I've seen other dancers who are quite like them, but because I suspect I've seen other dancers who have provoked in me the same sorts of reactions that they would have provoked. My sense is that Kirkland would have provoked something quite distinct. She was sui generis. Actually, for some of the same reasons (a limited number of recordings and a real distinctness of character and qualities), but also for some others, I think Farrell would be my runner-up in the "wish I had been there" category.

Helene, I'd be very curious to hear more of what you remember as the reactions among those in the ballet world to Gelsey's book, and the response she received. I wasn't paying attention then and so only know bits and pieces. And anyone else, too — would love to hear more details.

Unfortunately, though, we don't know what or how much those people know, or what the source of their information is. They could very well know only Marcelo's side of the story. Personally, I'd love to think that Marcelo is completely innocent, but there's just not enough publicly available information to make me think one way or another. We have no idea who the alleged victim(s) is, nor what Marcelo is accused of.

No, I do not. That’s not what I meant nor what I said.

To clarify: I did not interpret the above to mean “I don’t think the term sexual harassment should include behavior such as this.” I interpreted the above to mean “The term sexual harassment does not currently and commonly include behavior such as this.” I apologize if I was mistaken.

I accept that when people seem to use terms in the way that they are currently and commonly understood, they (the people) are attempting to communicate the meanings that they (the terms) commonly have. It’s not a moral judgment. It’s a pragmatic and communicative one. (Cf. Grice.) But I also see no good reason not to accept the definition of sexual harassment that I outlined. So yes, in that result we do differ.

Nonetheless, you have provided no evidence that it is not the current legal and common definition of the term. And so I persist in thinking that those here using it in that way are fully justified in doing so.

Again, though, I was not talking about Balanchine. I was talking about the particular legal — and, I believe, culturally current and common — definition of the term sexual harassment.

I was not talking about Balanchine. I was talking about the definition of sexual harassment.

I believe this is a misunderstanding of the term sexual harassment. I may be wrong, but I believe that if I, as a supervisor, pressure a subordinate to marry me and professionally punish his/her later spouse (also an employee) for his/her refusal, and if none of those facts is in dispute, then I am legally guilty of sexual harassment — and the employee, his/her later spouse, and all of my other subordinates (because my actions have communicated to them that, if they do not submit to my potential future sexual advances, they will in some way be professionally punished) are all victims of that offense.

It isn't. At least not legally, not in the workplace. Again from the EEOC: Isolated or finite incidents have to be quite severe in order to rise to the legal standard of sexual harassment. Simply flirting with a colleague, asking a colleague on a date, wearing flattering or suggestive clothing, making an off-color joke — such behaviors may be inadvisable, but they do not rise to the legal standard. Assuming the harassment is not of the "quid pro quo" type (for example, a supervisor soliciting sexual favors from a subordinate, with the suggested or explicit promise of advancement — in which case a single instance is sufficient), a sustained pattern of offensive behavior is generally required in order for the legal standard to be met. As far as I understand them (and admittedly I'm not a lawyer or otherwise a specialist in this field), the laws are written in a way that should ease your concerns. And really, if people need to be educated a bit — i.e. hey, it's not okay to ask one colleague 10 times for a date and repeatedly corner him/her in the staff lounge with your arm around his/her shoulder — is that so bad a thing?

I'm not sure if you're responding to what I wrote, but I said "many would feel." I did not include myself in that. I was responding to someone who apparently does feel (rightly or wrongly) that some forms are more harmful than others: And in response to what I've just quoted, I'd say: it only trades on that emotional charge if one assumes anyone who hears "X" is going to think "10" instead of thinking of the real definition of the term. Personally, I don't agree to change my language use just because someone somewhere may have a misconception of what the words actually mean.

I'm not sure that I am. My point is simply and exactly what I said: If a supervisor attempts to initiate a romantic/sexual relationship with an employee and, out vengeance for being denied, that supervisor subsequently professionally punishes that employee's spouse, who is also an employee — that is one example of sexual harassment. (Keep in mind that not only the employee and the employee's spouse suffer from this offense; so does anyone else who works there and may feel or fear that the same fate could befall them. That's what's meant by a "hostile work environment," which is one of the effects of workplace sexual harassment. And that's why "sidelining someone out of romantic pique" is not in fact "a far cry from demanding sex." It contributes to a workplace environment in which all employees feel that the boss may make the same demands of them and punish them if they don't submit.) And, fortunately or unfortunately, yes: the term "sexual harassment" is broad enough to encompass a whole range of behaviors, some of which many would feel are more harmful than others. That's how language, and law, sometimes works.

For a supervisor to professionally punish the husband of a woman that supervisor has unsuccessfully attempted to initiate a sexual or romantic relationship with absolutely falls within the most common (and legal) definitions of sexual harassment, as one would learn in any basic workplace training on such matters. (Note that I'm making a point about the definition, not about Balanchine.)

Definition #3 of backlash in Merriam-Webster: I think this is what those who've used the term here have meant by it.

But I don't think that is the question we have been discussing. I don't think anyone here has argued that dancers don't "feel more free to speak out now." But "dancers feel more free to speak out now" is not the same as what you were suggesting above: Asserting that dancers are unlikely to shy away from speaking out is very different from asserting that they now feel more free to speak out. One can certainly agree that they feel more free to speak out while still thinking it's likely that some or many will continue to shy away from speaking out. "More" and "less" are relative. A dancer could feel less afraid of or hesitant about speaking out now than 6 months ago and yet still be pretty darned afraid and hesitant — so much so that they (and many others in a similar position) don't do it.

The letter Deneuve signed was also signed by more than 100 other prominent women in France. This is not the first indication of a backlash, and of course there will be more. It's an open question which force will prove stronger: change or inertia. Whatever happens, major social changes do not occur as simple shifts from point A to point B. That's not how society operates, and especially not when such potent forces — power, sexuality, etc. — are at issue. I think it would be naive to think otherwise.

So what you're asserting is that, if a person in general (not Peter Martins) were guilty of sexual misconduct, his victims would probably speak out — because why wouldn't they in today's climate? I'm confused because that's nearly identical to the characterization of your views that I made above: I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult. I just don't understand precisely the point you're making — or, rather, I don't understand how your point differs from what I suggested it was above.