cobweb

Totally agree. I would love to see Laracey, Gerrity, and/or LaFreniere in Symphony in C, second movement. Also I could see all three getting a shot at "Diamonds." And I'd add Unity Phelan as well, for both roles.

I also really like Abi Stafford. I find her very musical and pleasing, with a piquant charm.

Week 2 casting up. No one new in La Sylphide. (And no Woodward...??) But, Roman Mejia debuts in Allegro Brillante. Whoa. Must see.

I like Chamblee the best in roles where his elegance shines, rather than the leotard ballets or modernist pieces. For example, he's been leading the third movement of Glass Pieces for awhile, and to me he lacks the requisite angularity and force. But in, say, the corps of "Diamonds" and other similarly grand, elegant pieces, he really stands out. MHO.

Like!

Thanks for the question On Pointe. NYCB conducted an investigation, presumably directly related to the lawsuit but we really don’t know what they were investigated for. Given my personal lack of knowledge, I’m willing to assume that NYCB, presumably overseen by Amar and Zach’s union reps, did a good enough job in meting out punishment. As an audience member, I don’t feel I need anything more. As for Finlay, that is now beyond NYCB. If the allegations are true, he should face the music. If not, good luck to him in rehabilitating his career and realizing his talents.

Kowroski certainly has her work cut out for her (and Tyler Angle, too). While many were raving about her dancing last year (I was one), many were not (at certain points I was one of those, too). In any case, I'm also ready for some new interpreters of these roles. It seems the Interim Team is not going to promote. That seems a shame, especially when it comes to the male ranks. While I'd love to see Ashley Laracey take her deserved place among the female principals, I can't actually say the female ranks are thin. When it comes to the men, however, they need to step it up. If Joseph Gordon acquits himself well with his big new assignments, he would seem ready to become Principal. But what about the very thin male soloist rank? If they are going to promote men who may make it to principal one day, it's time to promote Harrison Coll, Silas Farley, and possibly Sebastian Villarini-Velez. On the other hand, they could also promote a few men who may remain as, um, "flagship soloists." Dependable, highly experienced men who could fill this bill include Daniel Applebaum, Devin Alberda, and Andrew Scordato.

In looking over Week 1 casting, I note the absence of Ashly Isaacs. Seems like she has been out for ages - I can't remember the last time I saw her. She has done the third movement of Symphony in C, but I'm taking the fact that they're that to Woodward, as an indication Isaacs is likely still out. I also wonder why they don't let Alston Macgill do that role again, as she did it in the Paris video. Also, no Harrison Coll, but then, I don't think he's done featured roles in any of these particular ballets, so hopefully that doesn't mean anything. Why no Ashley Laracey in Concerto Barocco?? 😕 As to the hold music... I got "Serenade" again today... can't wait for performances, and ballet-alert commenting, to begin!!

... and didn’t you not long ago also have the experience of being the only person seated in the entire fourth ring? Sometimes the box office seems a little confused. They are very pleasant and helpful, but I do get tired of hearing the “Serenade” music while on hold. I finally got my subscription tickets the Saturday of Labor Day weekend.

I don't have my old programs handy, but I'm pretty sure I saw her in West Side Story Suite. She is inexplicably underused.

The complaint does not say. I'm not sure why it matters, when the complaint asks why the company has not barred the donor from donor events. Nor has it done anything to the employee(s) involved in the email chain, one of whom allegedly wrote that he masterbated to the images he received. You are right, Helene. "Donor" may be poorly defined, but that misses the point of that aspect of the complaint. I still haven't had the heart to read it. It's all too depressing.

Re Chase Finlay, I look forward to hearing some kind of response from him, in whatever form that takes as the legal process proceeds. Could he really have taken videos without her knowledge - like having a hidden camera aimed at the bed which he furtively activated? I find it hard to believe anyone could be so lacking in sense and decency, so I'm wondering what his version of events is (most likely - that she did in fact know about it the taping, but this was conveyed orally so there is no documentation). But if it did happen as described in the complaint, he'll have to deal with the consequences.

I see what you mean re: going too far with no touching, all I can say is that in the moment it really creeped me out. The more I think about it, and considering what vipa said about her experience as a dancer, maybe it wasn't just the touching that I was reacting to, but Martins' whole persona. I really left that event with a very changed view of him, seeing him as pompous yet pretending to be humble, and oh-so-casual in touching the dancers, with an air that implied (or so I took it) that he could touch them freely because he could never possibly be suspected of any prurient interest, which I didn't believe for a second. Also, someone else above asked if he was also touching the men like that - no, he definitely was not.

Vipa, it was an event with dancers from the company. I know I mentioned this same thing last year when Martins was fired, and some of you, including you I believe, disagreed with me. For me, I found it troubling, and it changed the way I saw Peter Martins.

... in this vein, I recall the demonstration I saw a year or so ago, with Peter Martins and several of the dancers onstage. He was touching them unduly - not for the purpose of corrections - rubbing one dancer's arm casually as he stood there talking to the audience, or going out of his way to reach for another dancer as she was leaving the stage and squeezing the back of her neck. It really turned my stomach. I felt, someone on the Board should tell him to stop this. These women are in no position to object, both because it was their boss, and because he was doing it onstage in front of an audience, where the pressure was on them to "play nice." Thanks for the clarification, nanushka. I didn't want to be misunderstood.

Nanushka - I was not expressing an opinion, but raising a question. And thank you vipa, for your answer. You touch right on the thoughts that were percolating in my mind.

Yes, of course. I hope I am not taken to be condoning that. If Chase actually did this, he should suffer the consequences. I was referring more to the comments up-thread (as I recall) about whether the professional ballet workspace is different from other workplaces in ways that might be related to physicality and sexuality.

Google always seems to know what I'm interested in, and just half an hour ago served up a 6-month-old article by Camille Paglia from Hollywood Reporter. It gets back to the question, discussed up-thread, of whether the physical nature of ballet somehow means standards should be different from the regular workplace (paraphrasing what I remember from that discussion). Paglia writes: "The performing arts may be inherently susceptible to sexual tensions and trespasses. During the months of preparation for stage or movie productions, day and night blur, as individuals must melt into an ensemble, a foster family that will disperse as quickly as it cohered. Like athletes, performers are body-focused, keyed to the fine-tuning of muscle reflexes and sensory awareness. But unlike athletes, performers must explore and channel emotions of explosive intensity. To impose rigid sex codes devised for the genteel bourgeois office on the dynamic performing arts will inevitably limit rapport, spontaneity, improvisation and perhaps creativity itself." I guess the question is, can one have a less rigid sex code, and still avoid abuses or harassment? Are they inevitably linked? How are they different?

As I still have not read the complaint, I thank those of you who have and have answered my questions about it. New question: is the "donor" who is mentioned identified in any way beyond "a donor," in other words does it say major donor, sustaining donor, whether the person is on any committees, has formally hosted official functions, or any other designation beyond "a donor"? I mean, I am a donor. The amount I give is piddling, of course (although they will get more from my eventual estate), but the point is that pretty much anyone could be "a donor." If I got drunk at a party and my microphone was cut off, NYCB would never know or have anything to say about it, even if some of the dancers were there.

Wait. They’re NOT accused of exchanging nude photos/videos??

This may already have been covered (I’m having trouble keeping up with the relentless stream of posts), but can anyone outline what is the trajectory of a lawsuit such as this one? Does NYCB file a “counter-complaint”? In what scenario does this kind of suit wind up in court?

It seems like if it was a major donor or if these were official NYCB events, that would be specified as those are significant details. I wonder why this person is left anonymous.

Finlay (or his lawyer) released a statement? I haven't heard about that. Any links?

Interesting question. I'm also curious about how union regulations may have played into all this. Presumably the union would have been involved in the investigation. Would union regulations also have affected what punishments could be doled out?

Be that as it may, I still don't know why we can't assume the company may have acted reasonably, considering that they did an investigation and therefore, have a lot more information than we have.