Pique Arabesque

I do not find retiring dancers' (literal and figurative) embrace of Martins to be heartwarming. Just because someone was supportive of you doesn't mean they weren't abusive to others. 

Waterbury's documents were certainly prepared with a lot of care, and at no point did Waterbury present herself as a dancer or employee of NYCB in order to shake them down. She said that she was Finlay's ex-girlfriend, who accidentally stumbled upon communications between men in the company in the course of checking her email. 

The law is often behind the times when it comes to sex crimes. Even if it doesn't meet the definition of revenge porn (and I'm not sure about that), Finlay's actions still are a grievous violation of privacy. I cannot say what Waterbury plans to do re criminal charges. And the group chat was absolutely connected to Waterbury. Finlay shared her nudes with his friends, and Ramasar even requested that Finlay "send him that pic [of Waterbury]." This is all in the filing. Waterbury would have probably never seen the texts if Finlay had not willingly given her his laptop (bad move, Chase!). And she absolutely did the right thing in making these communications public. The management and dancers of NYCB - along with the general public - had a right to know about the types of communications that these men were having about their colleagues. Defenders of Catazaro and Ramasar repeatedly raise the issue of *privacy,* and it is clear that the texts were clearly not meant to find a wider audience. That being said, they revealed each man's lack of ethics and character. If they think that women are 'sluts' and think about corps women as jailbait, how are they expected to partner and dance with them? 

While I am glad that AGMA is advocating for its dancers, I wish they had not reversed NYCB's decision about its own personnel. This undermines the gains that have been made regarding workplace sexual harassment in the wake of #MeToo. It is possible that they were texting and exchanging nudes at work, which would also make it a *work* issue and pull it out of the realm of the private. While some have criticized Catazaro and Ramasar, they have also received an enormous amount of support from NYCB dancers and fans. Both men have also been able to dance almost continuously.  Longhitano is an NYC finance guy with enough spare change to donate to NYCB. I have not heard anything about him being fired from his job. He will be fine. Hardly a "derailing."

Ashley Bouder is one of the company primas and has been a dancer at NYCB for almost 20 years. I'm sure that the NYT contacts her for comment, not the other way around.

But some will clearly circle the wagons around powerful men at any cost.

So happy for her! Congrats Katie!

11 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Waterbury misstated her age and was described as "a student of the NYCB".  Longhitano was described as a "member of the Junior Board",  and it was suggested that he was an employee of NYCB.  She claimed knowledge of a sexual assault by a member of the company,  which has been denied by NYCB. The suit goes to great lengths to give the impression that she was a member of NYCB,  and she has been so described in the press.  (Those are a few things I recall without re-reading the suit.)

The media accounts of Waterbury that I have seen all make it clear that she was a SAB student, not a member of NYCB. I also never thought that Longhitano was an NYCB employee - most reports have described him as a "donor." Waterbury was in her late teens when she began dating Finlay, but is now in her early twenties. I am not familiar with NYCB's denial of any other assault allegations.

Frankly, whatever "mistakes" may have occurred in her legal documents are minor, likely unintentional, and easily corrected. Fixating on this is grasping at straws and seems like a convenient way of smearing a survivor. And regardless, they pale in comparison to Finlay's revenge porn and the vile group chat he started with Ramasar and Catazaro. 

The arbitrator's decision is less of a vindication of the character of these men, and more of an indication that making misogynistic comments about coworkers is not a fireable offense until it becomes criminal. It is unfortunate that these men are being celebrated while people like Bouder - who are trying to make the company more equitable - are criticized for not being "classy" enough. As others have pointed out, Catazaro is arguably in a much better place professionally than he was pre-incident, and Ramasar will likely be welcomed back into the company with open arms. (And counseling seems very appropriate for a nearly 40 year old man who almost derailed his career to send his girlfriend's nudes to his friends). This should punch a wide hole in the idea that the #MeToo movement derails men's careers.

Marv Albert pled guilty to assaulting a woman and was back on the air in three years. I wouldn't be surprised to see Finlay - who is experiencing consequences that are much less severe - to be back coaching "Apollo" within the next five years.  

2 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Yes, but have any of her allegations regarding the text messages sent by and to the various parties named in her suit been disproven? 

Not to my knowledge. Finlay resigned before he could be fired, and Waterbury went public with her allegations 8 months ago (providing plenty of time to discredit the texts themselves, which hasn't happened). Ramasar and Catazaro have also admitted that they participated in it. Waterbury's critics are focused on criticizing details about her biography and the methods that she used to obtain access to the material, which implies that they have accepted that texts themselves were real.

5 hours ago, NinaFan said:

Balanchine was pure genius.  And Robbins was absolutely brilliant.  You can sit me in front of their works daily and I’ll never tire of them. However, I am still of the opinion that new works need to enter the rep or the company and it's dancers will stagnate. 

I personally happen to enjoy most of the ballets created by Peck, Wheeldon, and Ratmansky, as well as some of the other lesser known choreographers.   I may not always love the music, the costumes, or even the choreography, but I still look forward to seeing new works.  Some are gems, most are not.   Just this past Saturday I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the new Abraham ballet (Runaway) along with a Peck, Wheeldon and Martins ballet.    Yes, the classics of Balanchine are the backbone of NYCB, but why stop there?    

Agree. And I would put Robbins in the genius category (particularly as someone who choreographed iconic works for ballet, musical theater, and film, and had a larger pop culture impact than Balanchine).

And though most new works will not stay in the rep, it is important to keep those creative gears turning. What makes NYCB unique is that it's a choreographer's company that is at the forefront of creating ballets that are subsequently disseminated around the world. It's not just a repository for Balanchine/Robbins works.

On 9/27/2018 at 10:57 AM, On Pointe said:

Is there evidence of a backlash against Ms. Waterbury?  All I have seen is universal praise and support for her.  Members of NYCB are wise not to speak out about an ongoing lawsuit,  and have likely been ordered not to by management,  an almost universal practice when corporations are sued.  As a member of two performers' unions,  I am concerned about the rights of the union members involved,  especially what I consider the unjust termination of Zachary Catazaro.  Questioning elements of the Waterbury  complaint does not constitute a backlash.  

The court will determine if reading Finlay's text messages is snooping.  But reading a romantic partner's private communications is almost guaranteed to end badly,  even when there is no reason to suspect any nefarious activity.

There is quite a bit of support for Waterbury, but there is also backlash that centers the concerns of the accused men. I think that most people agree that Finlay messed up, but there is a pernicious idea that Ramasar and Catazaro have been unfairly caught up in Waterbury's grievance against her ex, when in fact they are grown men who were active participants in the reprehensible communications. Ramsar could have elected not to participate in the nude sharing, and Catazaro could have told Finlay that his behavior was gross. While termination might seem severe to those who are used to dismissing similar behavior as private locker room talk, I am not going to cry any tears for these men. 

I agree that NYCB dancers should not be obligated to make statements, but the support for Ramasar at Carousel and Sterling Hyltin's defense of Ramasar in the comment section of her IG posts reveal that dancers are unafraid to do so.

And any person who makes sexual misconduct/assault claims understands that their claims will be looked over with a fine-toothed comb. However, there is a difference between fact-finding that is intended to uncover the truth vs bad faith questions that are intended to impugn the character of the survivor and place a smokescreen in front of the accused.

As for the 'snooping' - it seems that Waterbury was simply trying to check her email and had the misfortune of stumbling upon Finlay's communications. I see no reason to think otherwise.

On 9/27/2018 at 3:55 AM, KayDenmark said:

I'm assuming Good Morning America agreed to some ground rules before the interview, and morning TV interviews are by nature very short and not comprehensive.

Jezebel wrote a sympathetic (and slightly profane) story based on the original NYPost story about Miss Waterbury's complaint; the story contains no original reporting. 

I looked for a Teen Vogue article on the case without success - can you provide a link? (I did find a fun Teen Vogue piece on the NYCB female dancers' skincare routines, though: https://www.teenvogue.com/gallery/new-york-city-ballet-dancers-share-skincare-routines)

At any rate, Miss Waterbury hasn't had to deal with an impartial journalist asking awkward questions, and if I were her or her lawyer, I wouldn't make that part of my strategy either. 

 

Today's September 27th. Shouldn't we be hearing from Chase Finlay soon?

Morning TV interviews do tend to be short and not particularly comprehensive, but my argument was that the GMA producers do have editorial standards and must have found Waterbury's story credible to put it on the air (Aside: I think that CBS' morning show does a good job of balancing the superficial and the serious). 

And the Jezebel article shows that there is interest from the feminist press in Waterbury's story. (Your original post expressed surprise that Waterbury had not done an interview with a more feminist-leaning publication). I double-checked and couldn't find anything from Teen Vogue, but there has been coverage in the WaPo and WSJ. 

Waterbury has an established relationship with Shiffon, which is likely why they got the first interview. I don't think she is fearful of talking to a *serious* journalist, though I agree that it shouldn't be a priority at this point.

On 10/4/2018 at 9:20 AM, abatt said:

NYCB's own conduct raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of the firings.  The fact that they initially only suspended them for four months, and a week later fired them, suggests that NYCB itself initially concluded that there was no grounds to fire them.  What facts came to light during that one week period that moved them from the relatively minor punishment into the opposite extreme of firing?  Was it the feelings of a few dancers?  Was it bad publicity from the Waterbury media blitz?  Under the circumstances that transpired, the legitimacy of the firings needs to be evaluated by an impartial person like a mutually acceptable arbitrator.  The union isn't just going through the motions of doing its job - there are significant issues at stake here.

 

I'm probably in the minority here, but I thought the stunt of having Reichlin read a prepared statement with all the dancers surrounding her on stage was inappropriate.  The dancers were being used as pawns by the company (management) to give the company some much needed positive publicity.  But that's not their job.  Their job is to dance.  To the extent that individual dancers feel strongly about what's happening, they can express their feelings on their own social media platforms. Requiring them to be herded on stage in a show of unified support was not appropriate in my opinion.

Added:  We now know that there is no unified position among the dancers regarding the firings.  Some support the terminations; others do not.

Unless one is an NYCB insider - and we are not able to discuss inside information here - no one can determine what specific piece of information led to the firings. Management could have felt that the communications were more damaging than initially anticipated, causing the suspension to turn into a termination. Calling the firings 'illegitimate' without insight into management's decision process is a step too far. (Also, referring to Waterbury's few interviews as a "blitz" also seems cynical).

I found Reichlen's statement to be very generic and harmless. It simply emphasized NYCB's emphasis on creating a positive company culture. While I do agree that a dancer's only real duty is to dance, referring to dancers as 'pawns' strips them of their agency in the situation.

On 10/6/2018 at 6:56 AM, KayDenmark said:

I wouldn't say that any of these men have been "redeemed", although they may not have been punished to the extent some would like. None of them has come close to reclaiming the status or power they once had. Louis CK has come the closest, since he is back onstage, but media reports say his (unannounced) act isn't going over well with audiences and venues are being forced to offer refunds. 

 

One thing we haven't discussed is the sign that the New York Times says was posted at City Ballet's stage door before the new season began in September. According to this article, it  "demanded “justice for the accused men of City Ballet,” called for a boycott of the company and urged people to 'stop believing the word of jilted whores,' along with even cruder insults."  Is the implication that this is from some deranged 'fan' of the ballet, or that it was posted by a company insider who presumably supports Catazaro and Ramasar? (I doubt Finlay has many supporters outside of his circle of family and friends.) 

 

It is not the responsibility of victims - and even the general public - to redeem abusers. And as others have said, the #MeToo movement is very young. However, there have been many countless instances where the rape/misconduct allegations didn't stick in the courts or the public imaginary, and the accused was allowed to go on with his life and reputation unscathed - Kobe Bryant and R Kelly immediately come to mind. Also, Marv Albert was convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery. He was fired from NBC, but brought back less than 2 years later. He currently commentates on TNT. For all of the patriarchal *what about the men!!!* handwringing (and those of you concerned about the *unjust* firing of Ramasar and Catazaro), they do just fine in the end. 

And most strikingly, Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to SCOTUS yesterday, even after facing multiple credible accusations of sexual assault. He is someone who has become even more powerful and influential since his abuse allegations emerged.

2 hours ago, On Pointe said:

That some female dancers felt uncomfortable being partnered by Ramasar and  Catazaro is no justification for their termination.  They are professionals in the performing arts,  where artists work with people they don't like all the time.  If in fact NYCB  fired the dancers because of complaints about their private communications,  they have set themselves up for being sued by Ramasar and Catazaro,  who would have a far stronger case than Waterbury. Ramasar and Catazaro  are not accused of abusive behavior in the workplace,  and compared to the published material ascribed to the current nominee to the Supreme Court,  their private communications are pretty small beer - pardon the Kavanaugh pun.

9

I don't think that the opinions of female dancers were the sole justification for the firing, though I am glad that the interim team is listening to their dancers. I imagine the texts/images were the deciding factors in the firings. There is also a difference between working with someone who you have a personality conflict with vs working with someone who has been accused of wrongdoing. The strength of the Ramasar/Catazaro case vs Waterbury's is also relative. 

There is also a tension between communications covered by privacy laws and acceptable behavior for NYCB dancers. And with the ubiquity of electronic devices, notions of acceptable behavior extend beyond the workplace - especially when your private communications concern coworkers. While the correspondence between Finlay, Ramasar, and Catazaro might seem small in comparison to the assaults that Kavanaugh is alleged to have committed, there are many instances of people being fired for behavior that was perfectly legal, but didn't look "good" professionally (for example, school teachers who were fired when their pasts as exotic dancers were revealed). I find this entire situation much less egregious than that. 

4 hours ago, abatt said:

 I found it astonishing in the above article that some dancers were upset that their union was challenging the firings.  That's the core function of the union - to make sure management deals fairly with employees.

 

The union is just doing its job in appealing the firings, but the dancers are certainly entitled to their feelings, especially as the union's job is also to ensure a safe workplace for those still employed by NYCB. I would not want to be in a workplace where men made rape jokes about my colleagues. These dancers might also be concerned that their nude images might be circulating.

I was more disturbed by the group of dancers who took a smiling photo with Ramasar at Carousel shortly after his firing and the individuals who seem to think that Ramasar and Catazaro are the real victims in this situation.

5 hours ago, DC Export said:

I have been lurking on this thread since this whole situation came to light. I am a young woman and a survivor myself, and I say bravo to Macaulay.

I was all behind actions being taken to ensure that the facts are had (i.e. suspending Catazaro and Ramasar) before making judgement. But the firings seemed incredibly premature to me, and I am deeply concerned about the larger implications of "guilty until proven innocent." Lately it almost feels like we're leaning toward "guilty if accused," with flashes of Abigail Williams and John Procter.

I think its also worth mentioning that this is not a criminal proceeding (therefore, guilt and innocence - at least in the criminal/legal sense - are not issues here). Comparisons to The Crucible or The Scarlet Letter seem overwrought. This is not a life or death matter.

12 hours ago, fordhambae said:

My point is, it was our problem. We are still friends in fact and he is in a much better place now (recovered alch etc). 

I don’t see it as having warranted a larger scale investigation or lawsuit against GS even if many men there are similar (they are).

Thats why I feel strongly about this, I believe this should be between the two parties who dated.

It was his problem. You are a survivor. If there are a large number of abusers in an environment and leadership is looking the other way, then there is a culture of abuse. Glad he has recovered, though.

I think that some of the backlash to Waterbury, broadly speaking, comes from the fact that it is making others reckon with their trauma. People are upset that she is publically asking for accountability instead of staying silent/minimizing the severity of the behavior like previous generations of survivors.

Also as Finlay's partner - who accompanied him to official NYCB events - she had more access to the goings-on inside NYCB than the average former SAB student. I'm sure he told her quite a bit, and she saw some events herself. I have no reason to believe she was snooping. And it's always a terrible idea to give any passwords to anyone.

As for her desire to avoid a rigorous interview: she was interviewed by Good Morning America and Teen Vogue and Jezebel have covered her story.

2 hours ago, On Pointe said:

You bring up an interesting point - from the transcript,  there is no evidence that Finlay and Catazaro  were engaged in a group chat.  It appears to be a conversation between just the two of them.  Is a private communication between two people treated differently than a group chat by the law?

One could argue whether "underage" means under eighteen or under twenty-one.  While drinking under the age of twenty-one is against the law,  merely being in the presence of a young person at a social gathering where alcohol is served is not.  But "partying with underage girls" has a nice salacious ring to it,  what my high school English teachers would call "writing to persuade".  BTW in that same conversation,  they discuss the age of consent (they're wrong - it's seventeen in New York,  not eighteen)  and agree that "prime time" for women's bodies is "18-22.  It's crude and it's tasteless,  but it indicates that while young women appeal to them,  they aren't  considering underage girls.

Employers care about tasteless jokes in the workplace.  What happens on the employees' own time is literally not their business.  If the corps woman found the men irresistible and consented to sex,  that is the point I'm making.  It's possible to read it just that way.

At any rate,  Finlay has taken himself out of the picture.  If I were Catazaro,   I'd argue that any communication between the two should be off-limits regarding his just cause hearing.

People should treat all electronic and internet communications as if they might be discovered. In this era of metadata, there is no real privacy anymore. One should not type anything 'privately' that they feel unprepared to defend in a public forum. To answer your question, I have found that law is often behind developments in technology. (There also might be a generational gap here in these discussions of privacy).

We can split hairs about what it means to be "underage" (shades of R Kelly there!), but over 18 makes you an adult in every US jurisdiction, and over 21 means you can drink legally in every jurisdiction. While it is not illegal for underage children to be in the presence of alcohol, the $150,000 in damages that occurred in the hotel room suggest that this was not some tasteful reception, or even a laidback gathering (and the claims appear to suggest that the girls were specifically invited to the event with the intent of consuming alcohol). And all writing is meant to persuade - sometimes the 'salacious' event is in fact, salacious (though I am more concerned about the safety of the underage girls than gossip). 18 to 22-year-old women are adults - but the fetishization of the "barely legal" woman is not only crude but also deeply misogynistic. 

Also, the texts between Finlay and Catazaro could have been sent while they were on the clock, using Lincoln Center wifi. Regardless, they involved the company as soon as they looped the poor corps woman into their misogynistic drivel (and there is no evidence to suggest that she wanted to have sex with them).

I am glad that Finlay has resigned. The communication between Finlay and Catazaro is public knowledge, but I'm sure that his union rep and/or lawyer are currently mounting a zealous defense.

17 hours ago, Marta said:

I nominate Marina Harss as the next Chief Dance Critic of the NYT.  She's knowledgeable about many forms of dance  as well as opera and music.  I think [but don't know] that she has also had real live experienced at the ballet barre.  Hers is a fresh voice with a slightly different perspective.

I second this! 

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

What "they  thought" does not matter.  They can think whatever they want.

A number of women in the company can be described as "underage girls".  If there is a party where "the company" is invited,  those dancers will likely be there.  The complaint makes it seem that there were only underage girls present,  which strikes me as highly unlikely.

Clearly Finlay and Catazaro  were joking about how they are so devastatingly attractive the girl would have "no choice" but to have sex with them.  That interpretation is just as likely - more likely - than the conviction that they were plotting rape.

They ceased to be thoughts once they were communicated in the group chat.

I have heard that some apprenticeships can be offered at 17, but most company members are 18 and up. Though it is still not legal to drink alcohol between the ages of 18-20, you are still an adult. "Underage" specifically connotes someone who is under 18.

Jokes about non-consensual sex are not funny and reflect poorly on the character of those making the joke. Employers care about that. (Also, if the butt of the joke is that the corps woman found Finlay and Catazaro irresistibly attractive, then she would, in fact, be consenting to sex).

16 hours ago, Amy Reusch said:

Any performing arts institution without State or Royal subsidy is a house of cards.  

Tell me again where NYCB's longtime co-tenant  at the State Theater, NYCO, is these days?

1

While many American arts institutions are in a precarious state, NYCB is not one of them.

12 hours ago, On Pointe said:

In a non-sexual context,  I've thought and said a lot of things about people I've worked with that would have caused a great deal of awkwardness if they had known about them.    Rod Rosenstein is in very hot water over an offhand remark he had no reason to believe would be published in the New York Times.  Ms. Waterbury  is not the only person with a right of privacy.  As the exchange between Catazaro  and  Finlay  had nothing to do with her,  they only served to embarrass Catazaro  and imperil his career.  What the two of them said on their own time is their own business.  They didn't  post it to Facebook or publish it in any form.  This policing of adults' private thoughts smacks of fascism.

Catazaro embarrassed himself. And Finlay and Catazaro are Millenials. They, more than anyone, should understand that no print or electronic communications - even a group chat that is not put on public-facing social media - are really private. This is not about 'thought crime,' either. If they had that conversation in Finlay's apartment, we might not be having this conversation. This is not fascism.

14 hours ago, abatt said:

I guess we will have to disagree.   I don't regard Waterbury as a whistleblower.  A whistleblower is someone who informs on an illicit organization.  The illicit behavior, however, was committed by an individual on his off hours in his personal life.  There is no basis to impose liability on NYCB for the private actions of Finlay and his friends.  Time will tell, as they say.

 Certain aspects of the illicit behavior were allegedly covered up by the organization, which would make them complicit. But yes, time will tell.

Sidebar, but if anything, this whole situation has revealed the deep "small c" conservatism of ballet dancers and balletomanes. Reducing this situation to one bad actor and reducing his colleagues to men unfairly targeted by the #MeToo pitchforks (and absolving an employer from any responsibility) is a good way to perpetuate workplace sexual misconduct. I want to end rape culture, and I believe survivors. There are much easier ways to gain one's 15 minutes of fame than reliving the most traumatic experience of one's life or fabricating trumped-up accusations that will eventually destroy your reputation and even your livelihood once exposed (ask Crystal Gail Mangum). Survivors know that their character will be attacked (just ask Christine Blasey Ford and Anita Hill) and their claims will be pored over with a fine-toothed comb.  In fact, Ford and Deborah Ramirez (Kavanaugh's second accuser) have even requested an FBI investigation.

11 hours ago, On Pointe said:

Have Finlay,  Catazaro  and  Ramasar  been accused of appalling disrespect towards their partners and other female dancers in their work at NYCB?  I don't  think  so.   Ashley Bouder still has photos of herself with all three on her Instagram.  If they had been problematic I don't  think they'd be there.  Evidently their adolescent  behavior does not extend to the workplace.

This really is a workplace issue,  whatever you think about what they did in their private lives.  Did  Catazaro and  Ramasar  fulfill the terms of their contracts and treat their work colleagues with respect?

 

Circulating nude images (some of which were taken without the subject's consent) and engaging in degrading talk are examples of disrespect towards colleagues. Regardless of how superficially polite they may have been in the studio, it is clear that they thought of some of their female colleagues as chattel. And just because Bouder hasn't gone through the extra effort to delete old photos doesn't mean that she approves of their behavior. As I have illustrated, bad behavior outside the workplace occasionally has consequences within the workplace. If these men had exercised better judgment, they would be dancing right now. They created this situation. They are not the victims here.

And furthermore, as I have also stated, NYCB allegedly knew about aspects of Finlay's behavior - the drunkenness, parties with underage girls - that crept into the rehearsal room and official NYCB tours.

Also, Finlay and Catazaro were clearly joking about rape (the text exchange re the corps dancer). Sex without consent - "giving her no choice" - is rape. (And Catazaro claims that he never saw the images of Waterbury).

2 hours ago, Longtimelurker said:

These posts don't sound like what I would expect to hear from women working in a dangerous workplace where rape, sexual assault and domestic violence are rampant and tolerated by management -- especially Lovette's video where you can feel the sincerity of her comments in a more visceral way than you can when reading a written post. This sets up an interesting contrast between what is alleged by Waterbury versus the increasingly public support conveyed by the women of NYCB. Although the courts will have final say, for now I am inclined to side with the women who work in the company and have a better understanding of the workplace environment and culture.

While I am not negating these women's personal experiences, it is important to note that these are all principal women with social capital and influence. I also did not take their statements to be rebuttals of Waterbury. Placed in context, they reflected gratefulness for their long, successful careers.  That doesn't mean that the NYCB is immune from sexual misconduct. (I found their statements less problematic that Sterling Hyltin's defense of Amar, which reiterated the hoary victim-blaming rhetoric that has swirled around this conversation - and will have the intended or unintended effect of intimidating any people from coming forward to corroborate Waterbury's claims).

On 9/22/2018 at 10:58 AM, laurel said:

Lane was promoted July 2017, a little over one year ago.  She'd had such an amazing spring season, with her two spectacular Giselles and unplanned debt in Swan Lake.  I think management felt pressured to promote her to principal.  Back in 2006-2007 it seemed she was being fast tracked for promotion, with her debut in the old Sleeping Beauty occurring just prior to her promotion to soloist.  With the introduction of the "guest artist" policy, I think the AD lost interest in her and abandoned her to soloist purgatory for a decade.  Her promotion to principal last year offered management the opportunity to build on the excitement she'd created in the spring by offering her that long-awaited debut in R&J and a proper Swan Lake performance with more than a couple of days' rehearsal.  As we know, these things never happened and just contributed to the loss of inertia and public interest in the company as a whole.

This isn't a new low for Lane; it's a new low for the AD and company management.  They are doing to her just what they did to Veronika Part; one show a season, if that much, and ultimately no renewal of contract.  I really hope Lane utilizes all this free time to begin lining up more guest appearances around the U.S. and especially in Europe, where everyone can see how good she is and experience her on-stage magic, and ultimately finding a new home.  She just turned 34; she still has time left to make a great impression in a new place and continue to dance at the top of her game.

I don't think that McKenzie is sadistic enough to promote Lane with the with the intent of humiliating her. 

On 6/15/2018 at 12:40 AM, laurel said:

Gorgeous, emotionally fluid performance by Stella Abrera tonight in R&J.  Her golden dancing lit up the stage to the extent that her partner, competent but charisma-free James Whiteside, completely vanished from view every time they shared a scene.  And I think he realized it, too.  Three years ago, after sitting through a ghastly, amateurish performance of Juliet by Misty Copeland just prior to her promotion, I swore I would never attend this wonderful ballet again, but tonight, what Copeland had destroyed in my eyes was rescued and reborn for me by Stella's dancing.  So glad I decided to see it!  I'm not sure she'll ever be "permitted" to dance Juliet again.

Spotted tonight in the audience:  **Marcelo Gomes** (!!), seated orchestra right with his partner, Nick, along with Gennadi Saveliev.  All three appeared happy, relaxed and glad to be there.  And I fantasized:  ten years ago, in another reality, another time, it would have been Marcelo on stage with Stella in this ballet, and everyone of us would have been happier and better off for it.

You should see Copeland in the La Scala production of R&J with Bolle. It's fantastic.

On 9/22/2018 at 2:24 PM, On Pointe said:

It seems that,  as far as the mainstream media is concerned,  the NYCB story doesn't have legs (pardon the pun).  Could be because the Kavanaugh  nomination is so critical to the nation,  and fraught with drama,  that it's driven other sexual misconduct stories off the radar.  Meanwhile I've had time to go over the amended complaint and I have to ask those who genuinely believe that firing Zachary Catazaro  was justified:  why?

Catazaro did not take photos of the complainant,  apparently did not see them or share them,  and he was the previously unnamed male principal who refused to participate in Chase Finlay's sexual harassment  schemes.  His greatest sin appears to be sharing a photo of a woman's breasts where that woman's face is not visible.  That,  and a couple of texts using language that,  while crude,  can be heard on every street corner in the US.  None of this was intended to be public.  After that descriptive passage,  Catazaro is barely mentioned.  For that he loses his career?  It doesn't  seem fair or proportionate punishment to me.

If Catazaro  had been a problematic employee in the past,  it would have been known to NYCB management long before the Waterbury case.  So unless he's got a body in a fridge somewhere,  why was he fired when,  as alleged in the complaint,  dancers who were involved in domestic violence and rape were not?  I could be wrong of course,  but I predict that AGMA will recommend  he be reinstated,  with back pay.  I'm interested in hearing other views.

Catazaro's language was more than crude, though. According to the amended complaint, he and Finlay engaged in an extended back and forth where they fantasized about raping a corps member (Finlay specifically used the language "give her no choice"). I don't know if NYCB has any character/behavior clauses in their dancer contracts, but conversations like that would probably fall under that umbrella. An NYCB job is an enormous privilege - not a right - and I imagine that dancers are expected to elevate themselves beyond "street corner" talk. And this is not unprecedented - a few years ago, several incoming Harvard first-years lost their places at the university when racist group chat messages that circulated among them were discovered. (And if you don't want something to be public, you shouldn't put in in print.)

5 hours ago, abatt said:

Yes, her claim is against Finlay, and potentially against any of his friends who also distributed her image after receiving it from Finlay. SAB and NYCB are in the suit because they have deep pockets.  Hopefully the institutions will be dismissed from the suit.  If and when that happens, Waterbury's chance of collecting her damages from Finlay may be an uphill battle.  He comes from a wealthy family, but their wealth is not his wealth.  He is an unemployed student at the moment.  

If any members of the company were her friends, I'm not sure they still are. By intentionally embarrassing members of the company such as Alexa Maxwell and others by repeating the stories she has heard or says she has heard, all she has done is treat other women poorly.  For someone who holds herself out as a representative of "me too",  Waterbury has not done any of these women in the company a service.  .

If anyone embarrassed Maxwell, it was Ramasar, who sent her nude photo to his friends. It would be a shame to punish whistleblowers for attempting to hold institutions and the people in them accountable. SAB and NYCB are in the lawsuit because they are alleged to have turned the other cheek to their male dancers'/patrons' bad behavior. Longhitano's drunken rant and Finlay's DC party (and showing up to rehearsals drunk) all occurred on the clock and were allegedly swept under the rug. Historically, Balanchine's attempt to force Farrell's hand in marriage, Martins' dalliances with then-underage dancers (and the domestic violence incident) have shown that NYCB has not been the safest place for women historically - and all of those events happened before Waterbury was even born.

Though Finlay is currently unemployed, family wealth is passed on generationally. 

Also, NYCB is an enormously powerful arts institution with a large endowment. If it survived the death of Balanchine and the departure of Martins, it will survive this. No one person is going to "bring them down." 

And no one is trying to police male sexuality - if Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar wanted to talk about how hot Jennifer Lawrence is, that would be their business. The issue was the nonconsensual distribution of photos and the company that allegedly overlooked it.

4 hours ago, dirac said:

Sad news. I am sorry we will not have him around for more years but as Drew says, what a life!

 Always an engaging interview, too, if not necessarily the most reliable of sources.

You are likely right, Tapfan. The interview I link to below certainly suggests that he wasn't close to his old troupe.

 I hope that people who saw him dance in person will write about it here.

An interview from January of this year from the Times by Gia Kourlas.

 

RIP, Mr. Mitchell. My heart sunk when I read this news today.

I hope he did not pass on poor terms with DTH. He may have just preferred to stay out of the limelight. 

Calling him "unreliable" seems a little harsh. His interviews were always illuminating for me and created a vivid picture of what it was like to be an early Balanchine dancer.

3 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

What is your source for this statement?

The fetishization of the "barely legal" woman (aka she's old enough so I won't go to jail, but young enough to manipulate) is a very common trope.

2 minutes ago, meatball77 said:

It's pretty typical for there to be strict no-fraternization rules when a school has underage teens as well as those who are college age.   From what I understand there is a very strict no fraternization rule between the HS students at UNCSA and the college students in the dance program.  They are expected to maintain a strict separation when they are not in class or rehearsals together.

If SAB/NYCB doesn't have a policy that prevents socializing between the school and the company that was a problem waiting to happen.  Evenmoreso if the fraternization wasn't between the school and the apprentices but was allowed between the teens at SAB and principals who were 5-10 years older than the students.

1

I agree with this. There should be strict no-fraternization policy between SAB and NYCB, even if the SAB dancer is 18+. 

1 minute ago, On Pointe said:

I think we are reacting as if Merson's assertions are true.  But as the saying goes,  if it ain't broke,  don't  fix it.  While there have been unequal relationships between dancers and students in the past,  there isn't  any evidence presented that it is either rampant or much of a problem.  It would be difficult to craft a policy forbidding,  for example,  an eighteen year old NYCB dancer from dating an eighteen year old SAB student.  They could even be legally married in New York.

4

Merson's assertions have provoked mixed reactions from the broader ballet community (mod note: I am not talking about this board, in particular). There are survivors of sexual harassment/assault who see themselves in Waterbury and understand that false sexual misconduct claims are very, very rare. There are others who think this is a tempest in a teapot and are more interested in defending the accused and the institution than demonstrating accountability.

The fact that this claim has been filed (along with Martins departure, etc) suggests that something is in fact broken. The #MeToo movement has encouraged a reevaluation of norms in the entertainment industry at large. Things that might have been acceptable previously, like May-December relationships between people with differing levels of power, are now thankfully being reevaluated. The hypothetical 18-year-old SAB student/NYCB corps dancer couple likely began dating when they were both students. It is not the same as a principal danseur in his late 20s or 30s beginning a relationship with an 18-year-old SAB student (which while legal, is still creepy and predatory. The young corps woman/older principal man relationships give me pause as well, but that's for another post).

While people with significant age gaps can have relationships based on love and respect, many 25+ year old men who pursue 18 year old women would likely be having relationships with underage girls if the law allowed. And according to the claim, Finlay and Catazaro specifically fetishized "barely legal" women in the 18-22 year old range. Yuck.

13 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Piqué Arabesque said:   if Finlay gave Waterbury his password, it's very likely that the texts automatically popped up on his home screen as soon she logged in. 

It was Finlay's computer.  Wouldn't he know about that feature?  I would question the claim that he allowed Ms. Waterbury  access to his computer for that very reason.

It's a shame that real people and their careers are being shredded (and I include Ms. Waterbury)  because,  from a legal and intellectual point of view,  this is a fascinating case.  There might even be a Constitutional question as to an employee's rights regarding the expectation of privacy in personal communications.

 

He probably knew about the feature, but just didn't care. Or didn't think that *those* texts would pop up. I don't see any reason to suspect that she was snooping around.

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

Speaking of so-called company culture,  in the complaint,  it is mentioned that other male dancers tried to persuade Finlay of the error of his ways,  and that what he was doing was wrong.  The names of these men are not disclosed.  They studied and worked in the same environment as Finlay.  What is it about NYCB that caused them to exhibit good morals but not Finlay?  Nothing!  This is not a ballet issue,  it's a personal issue.

Good for those men! However, if senior management allows the Finlays to flourish, then it does become a company issue.