cobweb

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.

The company has conducted an investigation. Hopefully it was impartial. They are privy to information that we don't have. The company is currently directed by four youngish people, who are under a mandate to establish a healthy culture, particularly in regards to issues around sex and power. In that light, can we not assume that they acted reasonably? They may not be hoping this "blows over," as someone mentioned up-thread. They may actually have tried to do what they thought was right. We don't have the facts, we only have allegations from one side of the situation.

vipa - your autocorrect is doing the same thing mine does. Ramasar becomes Ramadan. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to repeatedly change that over the past few days!

I'd add, we also don't know what Finlay's version of events is. He has yet to respond. Presumably this will come out in court. He may contend that she did, in fact know about the recording, and or consented to them being shared. Or he may have some other defense. We have no idea whether he has a version of events that would cast things in a different light. I agree it looks bad for him, just pointing out that we don't know his version of events. Also, as to whether the company has responded appropriately, we really don't have any basis to judge that, either. They acted on the basis of their investigation and its findings, of which we have no knowledge. A lawsuit is filed from the perspective of one person, who is by definition aggrieved. That person's lawyer will naturally cast things in the light most favorable for the complainant, and worst for the party being sued. The complaint can't be considered a neutral, factual document. Hopefully NYCB's internal investigation was more impartial than one would expect from hearing one side of a lawsuit/complaint.

Re the errors in the complaint, careless lawyering, etc. If any of you are familiar with the New York law scene, who is the lawyer, does he/she have a known track record of similar cases?

Thanks for the clarification, fondoffouettes. I can see I should get the details before I comment. It’s easy to conflate, or inflate, the issues.

I haven’t had the heart, or time, to read the complaint just yet. Maybe there are details in there that would make me feel differently. But as far as I know, Catazaro and Ramasar, in their private communications with Finlay and possibly others on a text chain, expressed some raunchy and crude sexual sentiments about women including some colleagues. Again, I’m talking strictly about Catazaro and Ramasar here, not what someone else might have said. They are also accused of swapping photos of women they slept with, who probably didn’t know or consent to the photos being shared. I agree they definitely should not have done that, and maybe that is what the suspension is about. I do not hold their sexual wishes, or the fact that they expressed it to each other, in however crude the terms, against them. I am quoting vipa above because I usually agree with her views and I am struggling to sort out my thoughts about all this. I too believe in separating art from artist. Both of these men approach women with care and honor on the stage. That is what matters to me.

I haven’t read the complaint, but as I understand it, Ramasar and Catazaro are accused of swapping intimate photos and expressing their sexual desires about women they know. That’s very different from filming somebody having sex without their knowledge. I do wonder, if it’s true, what was Chase thinking? Or will he contend that she did, in fact, know?