Pique Arabesque

1 hour ago, fondoffouettes said:

Neither Waterbury nor NYCB has accused Catazaro of trading nude photos of colleagues. I’m agnostic when it comes to Catazaro as an artist, but I feel it’s important to consider the facts as they’ve been presented.

According to the NYT, Catazaro has said that he didn't share images of Waterbury, but took part in "communications" that were not intended to "harm or embarrass." That language is deliberately ambiguous but implies that the communications were NSFW and might open him up to some scrutiny.

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

 

In the complaint it states  that,  "Plaintiff ALEXANDRA WATERBURY is a nineteen year-old ballet dancer and a former  student at defendant NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC.",  which is untrue.  While she has studied for some time and appears quite accomplished,  she does not earn a living dancing.  What would be wrong with stating she's a twenty year old model and college student?  Nothing,  but it doesn't  bolster the image of her as a work colleague of dancers at NYCB.

Nowhere in the complaint is it claimed that Ms. Waterbury  and Mr. Finlay  began their relationship  while she was a student at SAB,  whatever her age at the time.  No way would that little detail have been left out if it had happened.  

It's a personal relationship  issue because it's between two individuals who do not work together.  She has never been a member or a student of the NYCB.  Where she went to school is irrelevant,  as is the claim that they "met at the NYCB".   They could have met anywhere,  it doesn't  make them work colleagues.

There was no legal duty for Catazaro to intervene in Finlay's activities.  If the complaint seems like "the tip of the iceberg" it's because it's expertly constructed to make you feel that way.  You're right about Ramasar and Catazaro rebounding from this.  They will,  but they shouldn't have to.  They will have a hard time matching the salary they were paid at NYCB,  unless they snag a regular spot on a TV series.  (It could happen.)

I will let the courts sort out the specifics of Waterbury's claim. I used the "iceberg" language because it contains multiple damning accusations that extend beyond Finlay and Waterbury. SAB is not the NYCB, but it is under the NYCB umbrella. While there might not be a legal duty for Catazaro to intervene, it could be argued that there was a moral one. Many people have been fired for less.  There is a desire to pin this all on Finlay (and Waterbury for stirring the pot) and absolve Ramasar, Catazaro, and the NYCB, but I am not convinced that the firings are a massive outrage. If Ramasar and Catazaro were involved in wrongdoing, they should face consequences.

50 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

I can't speak for others, but this wasn't what I was implying. As I'm not a lawyer, I was questioning the admissibility of evidence (particularly in a criminal case, but also in civil circumstances) of evidence that may have been obtained without consent.

If Finlay gave Miss Waterbury permission to use his computer to check her own emails, that's presumably the limit of the consent he gave her. I doubt he gave her consent to go through Finlay's own emails or old texts, or to take screen shots of them, which I presume is what she showed her lawyer.

Could someone here with a legal background explain if evidence like this is admissible in court?

To me, it sounds like a parallel to inviting a private citizen to my home, installing him in the living room, and then finding out that while I was in the kitchen making the tea he was going into other rooms and opening drawers to collect evidence.

I know that cops aren't allowed to do this without a warrant, but what about private citizens?

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. 

27 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

That complaint is not particularly lengthy,  and mistakes,  even typos,  in a legal document can have devastating consequences.  But mischaracterizing the age and occupation of the complainant is no typo.  Neither is emphasizing a non-existent connection to the NYCB.  The attorney is attempting to turn a personal relationship gone bad into a workplace issue,  which is covered by state and Federal laws which could place NYCB in a disadvantageous position.

It might take every ounce of strength in his body for Zachary Catazaro to get out of bed,  considering that he has been ignominiously fired and his reputation in tatters because of someone else's dispute.  It's unfair to just assume that more evidence against him will be emerging in the future.  We don't know that.

There is no evidence that anyone went to lengths to protect the men.  Finlay took himself out and Ramasar and Catazaro have been punished severely,  with no legal adjudication.  There are at least two dancers named in the complaint - for no good reason - who are exposed to the public because of the complaint itself,  not because of anything Finlay,  Ramasar or Catazaro did.

As others have said, Waterbury dances with Ballet Next, which would make her a ballet dancer. Her reported age could also be the age that she was when her relationship with Finlay began. And though SAB is not NYCB, the school-company relationship is stronger than any other in the US (as we all know, 99.9% of NYCB dancers come from SAB).

This would be a personal relationship issue if Finlay had surreptitiously recorded Waterbury and kept the images/videos for himself. It became a company issue when he shared the images with two colleagues and invited them to share surreptitiously recorded images of NYCB women (I am not sure how this part of the claim is confusing). The complaint says that Catazaro was complicit in the photo sharing, though it doesn't go beyond that. Even if he didn't send a nude image himself (and I'm not sure about this), one could argue that he failed to intervene as a bystander. I say that more evidence will likely emerge because the complaint really seems like the tip of the iceberg.

There is quite a bit of support for the men online (I'll keep it at that). It seems as though the union will intervene on behalf of Ramasar and Catazaro. All three men are handsome and accomplished and will rebound eventually (mostly because society is still not serious about holding abusers accountable). Marv Albert (the basketball commentator) pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual assault charges in the late 90s. He was fired from NBC, but rebounded and currently does commentary for TNT. 

9 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

The biggest problem with the WaPo piece is that it's a load of codswallop.  Ms. Kaufman is fighting the last war - Peter Martins is gone.  Everyone involved in this lawsuit is a grownup,  not children in need of guidance as to what is right or wrong,  even if being around while Balanchine was running things automatically  conferred moral superiority.  (I don't  think it does.)  There are about a hundred dancers at NYCB and only a small number are alleged to be involved in the Finlay-Waterbury affair.  People acted as individuals.  There is no evidence of a "culture" that needs correcting.  If I were a member of NYCB I would be insulted by all these good people talking about what's wrong with me and my company.

This has been a difficult year for NYCB. I don't always agree with Kaufman, but I don't see the issue with reaffirming a commitment to a respectful company culture. Martins might be gone, but the company is clearly dealing with his legacy.

1 hour ago, bcash said:

Because they are artists whose work audiences shared in, and whose careers and lives people have watched for long. To be concerned with their feelings and their embarrassment is a natural reaction, and by extension that concern also touches somewhat on our own mixed feelings. 

People don't know Waterbury. As of now nothing is proved in a court of law, nothing that suggests the firing is fully justified. 

If Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar were concerned about embarrassment, they shouldn't have traded nude images of colleagues. Even if Waterbury is not a household name in the ballet community, there are many people who can relate to her stories of workplace sexual misconduct.

3 minutes ago, Villette said:

It is difficult for me to read people say Alexandra might be opportunistic, partly because I have experienced a situation similar to hers. A difference was that I was too young to legally consent to anything that happened, and the individual who took the images was legally an adult. Having a legal team and/or police officers look at nude images of you, listening to them discuss it, answering their questions, that is humiliating. It takes every once of strength. It is not an experience anyone would go through for any reason other than in an effort to keep it from happening to someone else. When all of this was going on, I became hyper-productive. Throwing myself into my school, my dancing, my writing, all of that became my escape. It was the only thing that kept me feeling like a real person. It may be the same for others. 

I am sorry that happened to you. You are very brave, and I am sure you saved many others from experiencing harm.

8 hours ago, cobweb said:

That is certainly true, and assuming the allegations are true, is evidently what Ms. Waterbury is experiencing. I would certainly not want what appears to have happened to her, to have happened to me when I was that age (or ever, of course, I just mean that I was really young at that age and way more vulnerable than I would be now). I’d just point out that some women may not be bothered, let alone traumatized, by having topless or intimate photos shared. I can imagine that the variables affecting one’s reaction include things like: what exactly the photos include, the circumstances of how/ when one was photographed and by whom, one’s relationship with the person doing the sharing and with the recipients (for example, these may be people you have slept with previously/ hope to sleep with/ have danced with closely since you were a teenager and figure they already know your body pretty well), whether you knew the photos possibly were being shared (you may have had a vague sense and not exactly given consent but not cared much either), whether one has exhibitionistic tendencies and/or enjoys showing off one’s body, whether one has one’s own intimate pictures of the guy/s in question and may or may not have shared them with girlfriends, one’s age and rank relative to the sharer... and more. The point being that there could be a range of responses from intense shame and anger and betrayal, to indifference or even possibly pride. Obviously I have no information about what the reactions are of any NYCB women involved. Just pointing out that the allegation of photo sharing leaves out a lot of highly pertinent details and that women (or men for that matter) are likely to vary a lot in their response depending on those details and their own personality and circumstances. 

Waterbury's complaint clearly states that the photos were taken and distributed without her consent. Nude images of sex workers, for example, are taken with their consent. They are also paid for their photos and understand that the photos will be disseminated widely. This was not the case for Waterbury and the NYCB women.

8 hours ago, On Pointe said:

Key aspects of the Waterbury complaint are ambiguous,  inaccurate and one might say deceitful.  One would hope that she and/or her parents read it before it was filed,  but it's  hard to believe there was no opportunity to make corrections.

Noting that Ms. Waterbury  has been seen in class,  and that her contract with Danskin  remains intact, does not mean she isn't  suffering.  It means that the complaint is not accurate when it describes her as unable to carry on with her life.

I am not persuaded by the argument that the company's investigation found wrongdoing on the part of the male principals involved.  (It's interesting that there are those who readily accept the company's conclusions in this matter,  yet disbelieve the result of its investigation of Peter Martins.)  We don't  even know what Catazaro is accused of.  It might not even be sexual in nature - maybe he wrote something like,  "The Koch Brothers suck!".  A few years ago a company member expressed something similar on social media,  got spanked for it and prompted the company to come up with a formal social  media  policy.  None of the accused dancers put objectionable photos of women on their personal social media accounts.

Somebody is compelled to go after Ms. Waterbury  on a personal level because she's making a personal complaint.  Her lawyer or her parents should have warned her that not all elements in her story are going to go unchallenged,  especially by the dancers who have been dragged into this mess through no fault of their own.  She chose to go on Good Morning America instead of remaining relatively anonymous.  She sued only a few days after the first meeting with NYCB.  Perhaps more effort should have been put into reaching a settlement.

Whether you continue to support the company is your decision of course.  But it's hardly like the Bolshoi,  where dancers fling acid in the eyes of their enemies.

5

1. I imagine that there will be typos in a document of that length. 

2. It could take every ounce of strength in her body for Waterbury to get out of bed in the morning. I am thinking of the people who said that Peter Frame seemed happy in the days before his suicide.

3. I seriously doubt that NYCB would part with 3 of their leading men - particularly Ramasar - if they did not find any wrongdoing. They circled the wagons around Martins earlier this year. There will likely be more information about Catazaro emerging in the subsequent months, but mild criticism of a donor/sponsor (to use your example) is probably not a fireable offense. Also, most social media platforms have a policy against pornography, which is why the images were never shared on social media (Instagram - where the dancers seem to be most active - is particularly tough on this).

4. Waterbury first discovered the images in May, and went public in September. She and her team likely spent the entire summer trying to build the strongest case possible. They are all acutely aware that any sexual misconduct claims will be under placed under a microscope from people who want to protect the men and institution involved. Also, Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar "dragged" dancers into this situation, not Waterbury. She should be applauded for her unwillingness to tolerate an abusive environment. (I am also thinking about Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, who very reluctantly and bravely came forward today. Coming forward publically can be liberating to victims).

Also, as for her relationship to NYCB, broadcast media tends to paint in broad strokes. It is easier for the general public to see her as a *ballerina* (more clickbait-y) than a former SAB student, which probably doesn't mean much to people unfamiliar with classical ballet. I don't think that Waterbury or her team have tried to mischaracterize their relationship with NYCB.

13 minutes ago, abatt said:

He may still be getting jobs here and there, but the main source of his employment  and income are gone, and his reputation has been permanently and  damaged.

I agree with your first point, but men have a (maybe not so) surprising capacity to persevere and rebuild despite the various dings that their reputation has taken. Mel Gibson comes to mind. The allegations against Casey Affleck did not prevent him from winning an Oscar, and James Franco recently won a Golden Globe despite the whispers surrounding him. 

10 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

My point was that the definition of "abuse" changes with time. Calling someone a "bastard" in 1945, for example, would have been deeply offensive and abusive; in 2018 it is a relatively mild insult.  Dating a subordinate, or many subordinates,  was not considered abuse in the 1940s and 1950s.  It was common and the way many marriages began.

On another topic, I find it absurd that anyone could make Heather Watts out to be the trembling, demure victim of the towering strongman Peter Martins. Watts was (and is) a strong, loud personality who can give as good as she gets, which is probably why she hasn't been interested in jumping into the discussion about Martins' misdeeds. If we're going to discuss what Martins did to Watts, we need to discuss what Watts did to Martins too. 

A quote from the much-discussed 1992 Los Angeles Times piece:

Both Watts and Martins agree that the word "tempestuous" is exactly right to describe their relationship. Watts says she has never read Kirkland's book and has no recollection of the stairs incident. In an interview, she at first insists that "Peter and I did not have a physically violent relationship." But after a long silence, she adds, "That is not to say that I have not pummeled him in the arm more than once" and that "if I pushed Peter hard enough, if I shrieked and yelled and cried and screamed and caused a scene, and he couldn't take it anymore, he would restrain me."

 

What is socially acceptable changes with time. Just because it was socially acceptable to date a subordinate in the 1940s and 1950s doesn't mean that those relationships weren't coercive or abusive. And I would argue that "bastard" (especially if it refers to a child born to unmarried parents) is still stigmatizing - even if the stigma is not as bad as it was back then. 

And I don't think that anybody believes that Heather Watts is a delicate flower. But her big personality does not excuse any abuse that she experienced. Also, it is not uncommon for victims to rationalize the violence that they experience ("I hit him first so I deserved to get hit back," etc), in order to regain a sense of power in the relationship. And since the Watts/Martins relationship was likely statutory rape from a legal perspective, there was a huge power imbalance at work.

18 hours ago, cubanmiamiboy said:

Sexual harassment witch hunt can quickly turn from a valuable asset in the fight for equality to a terrifying blacklist designed either to end flirty interaction between men and women-(or men and men)- or to easily profit from it.

Who is being blacklisted? Marcelo is still dancing, and his projects outside of ABT are still going forward as planned (as the many Instagram clips in this thread reveal).

14 hours ago, Parsifal said:

We do not know what the accusation against Marcelo was and if it constituted criminal behavior. Nowadays, the message on media and Twitter is that anything that leaves a woman uncomfortable is harassment, and conduct can have far reaching consequences even if it breaks no laws.

It might be more useful to interrogate why one feels the need to cause discomfort in the workplace. Also, there are men in the entertainment industry who have come forward with allegations (they are not danseurs, but the actors Terry Crews and Anthony Rapp come to mind).

On 1/8/2018 at 8:24 AM, KayDenmark said:

Sorry, but this is nonsense. In the 1940s and 1950s, interracial marriage was considered "wrong", having children outside of marriage was "wrong" and gay marriage was unthinkable. All of these things are accepted and often applauded in 2018. By contrast, in the 1940s and 1950s, the idea of a relationship between a boss and an underling - usually a male boss and a female underling - was accepted and often commonplace. How many men of that era married their secretaries? What's "right" and "wrong" change with time and place, and I'm not sure I'd like to know what the self-righteous types of 2088 will be saying about us. 

I had a long response with multiple quotes that disappeared (ack!), but I wanted to clarify: 

Any abusive behavior is wrong, regardless of the decade in which it occurred.

And to address some other points that have been raised:

I see no issue with Flack's statement. Martins told the NYT that he pushed Darci into an etagere. It is a documented fact. Flack clearly cares about NYCB, and is not out to "get" Martins. Instead, she is encouraging current dancers like T Peck and Mearns to speak out in ways that reflect their experiences while not alienating the people who are making allegations against Martins. (Also, if Flack is "bitter," one might argue that Peck and Mearns are looking at Martins with rose-colored glasses).

One of the best things about the #MeToo movement is that it is questioning certain courtship rituals. It is okay for women to say yes when they are first asked out, and shows that men shouldn't repeatedly pursue women who have demonstrated that they aren't interested in a relationship. The #MeToo organizers are likely not interested in policing women's wardrobes, or ending all workplace relationships. 

Also, married women are harassed in the workplace as well - just an FYI.

And if an individual has a long, documented track record of abuse, then they are an abuser. It becomes fact, and not opinion.

4 hours ago, canbelto said:

I think it's pointless to rehash what Balanchine or Robbins did compared to Peter Martins. Balanchine was born in 1903 and died in 1983. It's 2018 and standards of behavior and attitudes towards women/sex/work/marriage/children have changed. 

Balanchine and Robbins are dead, and there is definitely more accountability for abusers than there was back then, but wrong is wrong, regardless of the decade (you know this, of course - I just wanted to put it in print). More on Balanchine later...

7 hours ago, On Pointe said:

So far,  no current dancer in NYCB has claimed sexual harassment  by Martins.  No dancer has claimed that he created a hostile environment,  with dancers being coerced to acquiesce to his sexual demands or suffer professionally.

And it is unlikely that any current dancer will ever publicly disclose anything. It takes great courage to come forward and disclose your assault. Disclosure can also have negative personal and professional ramifications, which will likely discourage a career-minded young dancer from coming forward. However, the NYT did publish allegations that Martins had sex with dancers. Kathryn Morgan said that she heard allegations that he was sleeping with three dancers, including one principal. It might be easy to dismiss this as rumor or conjecture, but when there's smoke, there is usually fire. I would not be surprised if Martins' relationships with dancers were an open secret among company members. 

7 hours ago, AB'sMom said:

It protects everyone to have rules in place that prohibit bosses from dating or sleeping with their subordinates. Some companies allow these relationships but HR must be notified. It seems ridiculous on the surface but it really does offer a level of protection. 

This doesn't seem ridiculous to me, either. I hope that as a result of this investigation, NYCB develops a "Code of Conduct" establishing standards for workplace sexual ethics/relationships. I am not opposed to relationships among dancers (even though they can end messily), but management/dancer relationships are ripe for coercion and present an ethical minefield (for reasons I have already outlined).

9 hours ago, Amy Reusch said:

Ummm... .I take issue with this.   Where is the evidence that Balanchine slept with his dancers?  As far as I understand, with the exception of Danilova with whom he was understood to have a common law marriage, he married his dancers before he slept with them...   

Back to Balanchine: Clive James argued that Balanchine slept with his dancers. And marriage is not a balm that heals abusive/coercive relationships, particularly with the dancers that he married/wanted to marry. Maria Tallchief didn't want to marry him him initially, and her family disapproved of Balanchine. He got a quickie divorce from Tanaquil LeClerq to marry Suzanne Farrell (nearly 40 years younger than him), and her refusal to marry him lead to her departure from City Ballet.

Also, I would encourage everyone to watch Oprah's remarks from the Golden Globes last night. She addresses many of the political issues that have been raised in this thread, focusing on the story of Recy Taylor, a black woman who was raped by six white men in Alabama in1944 (since there seems to be an assumption that black people only factor into sexual assault cases as "falsely accused" defendants).

6 hours ago, Helene said:

Again, creating a hostile work environment doesn't require non-consensual sex: it's when the boss is having sex with his or her employees. 

This is key. While the dancers that Martins is alleged to have slept with as AD of City Ballet were probably of age, they could not have consented to a relationship with him. Consent is not just about saying "yes" - it's also about feeling free to say "no" without fear of negative consequences. Consent can't be given under duress. He was their supervisor, and employee/supervisor relationships are defined by an imbalance of power. Martins was responsible for promotions, casting, etc - all things that could shape the trajectory of an entire career. It is very likely that dancers were fearful of experiencing negative career consequences should they decline his advances. 

In these situations, I also wonder about the dancers who aren't sleeping with the AD (speaking generally). Are there talented dancers who were passed over just because they didn't catch the AD's eye? (Just thinking out loud here).

And not to sound like a broken record, but while Martins' relationships with Watts and Kistler as a dancer are most likely not part of the formal investigation, they establish a precedent for his tendency to target young women.

The lengths that people will go to defend terrible men (Cosby, Martins, etc)...

5 minutes ago, vipa said:

I know I am viewing this public dating situation differently than some or even most. But here it goes. Yes, there was a big age difference between Martins and Kistler, but they were fellow dancers. Yes, he was a principal but she was the "chosen one" who was given principal roles as soon as she joined the company.  They were in classes and rehearsals together and performed together.They shared experiences, interests and careers.  In my mind, and I know many will disagree, this is different from a District Attorney or a Judge picking up a high school student.

I feel this is very complicated and there are a lot of gray areas. One thought is that a young woman is in a ballet company. She is expected to have the maturity to fulfill the demands of a complex full time job (career) and all it entails. Perhaps that young woman should be trusted to say yes or no to dating a particular man. I am not speaking about sex I am speaking about public dating. Perhaps she feels flattered or is star struck so there is pressure. Perhaps a lot of things.

It's complicated.

I don't think it's complicated at all. There is a lot of understandable admiration for the way that Martins steadied the ship after Balanchine's passing and built NYCB into the organization it is today. As a result, behavior that would be indefensible for any other man is being defended.

And depending on the laws, "public dating" between a minor and a middle aged man should be more accurately described as "grooming" (and statutory rape if the relationship was sexual at that point). Even if there was no sex in the beginning stages of their relationship, Martins was obviously courting Kistler (yuck!), which is still inappropriate. It does not matter that he is Scandinavian, or it was a different time, or they were colleagues, etc. And just because Darci was good enough to be in NYCB does not mean that she was emotionally ready (or legally allowed) to engage in a romantic relationship with a man who is old enough to be her father (as AB'sMom just said). Also, one wonders: were there no women in their late 20s or early 30s in the company that Martins could have dated? Speaking generally, I've found that predatory older men often pursue and groom younger women/teenage girls because they are looking for someone to control.

And though the Kistler/Martins relationship is not part of the investigation, the fact that it followed a relationship with an underage Heather Watts is eyebrow raising, to say the least. And according to the NYT, Martins allegedly had sexual relationships with current dancers, who are 40-50 years younger than him. There is an obvious power differential there, and paints an unflattering portrait of Martins as a figure who wants to control much younger women.

Of course, there are women (Mearns, M. Fairchild, Hyltin, etc) who have defended him publicly, and I don't want to erase their experiences. However, abusers also know how to pick and choose their victims.

24 minutes ago, ABT Fan said:

Lordy, I guess I didn't think this could get worse (and, I'm including Martins' latest DUI in that sentiment). Lavery? I'm guessing that dancer probably signed an NDA as part of his "salary" so we may not learn those dirty details. Can we expect this whole sordid affair to be played out in an upcoming Law and Order: SVU episode? 

Yes, body shaming accusations do not belong in this investigation. Of course, leaders should be tactful and hopefully kind in addressing weight issues, but lumping in "He told me I was fat!" with serious physical and sexual abuse allegations is ridiculous.

Sexual harassment and physical abuse at a ballet company is peak SVU. I'm sure that Dick Wolf and Co. will be all over it.

Weight/body shaming isn't sexual or physical harassment, but one could argue that it does contribute to a toxic work/school environment. I think it's particularly important to be delicate with minors like Ms. Stewart. Honestly, I think that any sensitive conversations about a minor's progress at SAB should happen via the parents/guardians, not the student. And it seems like Stewart was berated by Martins for experiencing a natural developmental process. "He told me I was fat" sounds trivial, but I can understand how that might contribute to an eating disorder in an impressionable young girl. And adult dancers need to be given a consult with a nutritionist and a meal plan if they are asked to lose weight. Dancers tend to be Type A perfectionists, and some will go to extreme measures and starve themselves.

There is also a difference between a situation like Kathryn Morgan's - where an illness leads to weight gain - and a size 2/4 dancer who is asked to become a size 0 dancer for "aesthetic reasons" (I think that Balanchine often had unreasonable expectations for dancer weight loss).

On 12/31/2017 at 1:32 AM, pherank said:

Please say more about what you mean by this.

The samurai warrior/coy geisha pairing traffics in gendered/raced stereotypes of Japanese culture. It is also generally performed by dancers who are not Japanese, thus constituting a form of yellowface.

This transition might feel abrupt, but I think that NYCB can thrive without Martins. And if the various allegations are true, he needs to go. As others have mentioned, he would have likely departed within the next 10 years regardless.

The company is dancing better than ever, and the Balanchine/Robbins rep is still its beating heart. As long as the new AD understands both of those things, I believe that the City Ballet will remain in good health. Once everything stabilizes, this might be a good opportunity to purge the rep of Martins' bad ballets and refresh some of the stagings (thinking of "Swan Lake" here). And I don't think that Millepied is necessarily a frontrunner (the NYT article seemed to be mostly speculation). My money is on Lourdes Lopez or Peter Boal. 

Most of this conversation has focused on classical ballet, but I've always found "Bugaku" to be irredeemably Orientalist.

Alastair Macaulay (the lead dance critic for the New York Times) loves McRae. I think Macaulay may have even said that McRae was the RB's best principal man at one point. In my opinion, Edward Watson is the male RB principal who seems to get a lot of unnecessarily negative attention.

I'll keep my observations short and sweet:

BEST

The continued personal and professional successes of Misty Copeland - and the ways that she has exposed racial resentment and classism in ballet

The deep bench of rockstar principal women at NYCB

SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE

Justin Peck's THE TIMES ARE RACING - there was so much joy and abandon in this ballet, but the electronic score was often loud, dull, and repetitive

WORST

The Peter Martins and Marcelo Gomes situations (though I think that balletomanes have been too quick to defend Gomes, especially since we don't really know what happened).

Misty's KennCen performance with Robbie Fairchild (a part of the Carmen de Lavallade tribute) was broadcast on CBS tonight. Link below:

 https://youtu.be/nlUGjpyqo4

Lovely work from both dancers!

I also thought the de Lavallade tribute was amazing. The movement quality seemed to be a particularly good fit for Misty, who looked lush and lyrical with Robbie (I want to see them dance "The Man I Love" PDD now!). Stella was charming and witty, and the Ailey dancers were superb, as usual (particularly AGM).

11 hours ago, abatt said:

Misty has signed on with Estee Lauder, and is their new spokeswoman for the fragrance Modern Muse.  (Kendall Jenner was their former Modern Muse spokesmodel.)

 

http://www.elle.com/beauty/makeup-skin-care/news/a47049/misty-copeland-estee-lauder-modern-muse/

Wonderful! This is such a good opportunity for her. She is an underrated lyric/dramatic talent, and its very obvious that her story resonates with many people. A shame that her success seems to get under some people's skin - seems to say more about her critics than her. There is room for more than one successful ballerina at ABT.

Unless her buddy Taye Diggs recommends a good acting and vocal coach, Im certain her performance will be just as wooden as it was in Romeo & Juliet.

Diggs is quoted in the NYT article - he thinks she'll be fine. Anyhow, Ivy basically dances and looks pretty for the entire show.

Just curious if Copeland can sing? Is this something in her future...to be moving towards Broadway? In case things don't go her way with the ballet world?

I don't think that Copeland has a singing background. However, I saw OTT about 9 months ago with Fairchild, and Ivy had one song (which does not require the possession of a big singing voice). I don't imagine that Copeland will leave ABT anytime soon (sorry atm711), but I could see her joining the cast of another musical if this goes well (like R Fairchild/T Peck).

I enjoyed the show, but I think that the Lyric Theater is way too large (which could explain why it's not selling well). There is a candy shop in the building, for perspective.

I think the promotions also hint to 2016 Met Season programing. I think Simkin will have a better season next year, especially if they bring back Don Q and Corsaire. I think this season was heavy on ballets such as Romeo and Juliet, Giselle, Othello, etc, to give Kent a strong final season. Poor Herrera and Reyes only got their Giselle. Also to prepare Copeland for her "promotion", which was impossible to ignore as she pursued her PR campaign.

Simkin's situation is similar to Daniel Ulbricht's across the plaza. Both are great technicians, but they are too short to play danseur noble roles. Also, Copeland's promotion is a fact - no need to put in in scare quotes. Also, I'd love to see this community retire the phrase " PR campaign."

I hope Abrera gets paired up with solid partners (Hallberg, Gomes, Bolle, etc) in whatever she is cast in. I wouldn't want to see her with Stearns, etc. Her partnership with Shkylarov was so promising that I hope they get more opportunities to dance together.

I agree! Shklyarov has gorgeous classical technique, and is a great actor. I'd love to see more of him at the Met.

I actually believe that the likeliest possibility is that when an audience member gets something special from a particular performer that performer's technical lapses become miniscule. I've expressed this view before. My example in opera is Natalie Dessay. I have been in the audience when she didn't quite hit a note but that wasn't my take away. I've seen Cojocaru badly stagger out of turns from fifth in Don Q, I've seen Maria K over at NYCB have near disasters in Symphony in C. That does not diminish them as great artists in my mind. I am a fan of Sarah Lane's because of what I view as a purity of line, beauty of port de bras and rare classicism. For me personally I will overlook a technical lapse here and there in her case. If I see a dancer who in no way takes me to another place I focus on the technical lapses. In NYCB that's Erica Perreira in ABT that's Seo Hee and Misty Copeland. That's how I see things as an audience member. It has nothing to do with promoting my favorite and it certainly has nothing to do with race.

I think that Helene's point was also that one does not necessarily need to be "Team Lane/Abrera" or "Team Copeland," especially when there is likely some overlap in their fanbase outside of BA. Personally, I find Copeland's port de bras to be very expressive, and I believe that her promotion was deserved. I also enjoy Lane's dancing, and would like to see her in more principal roles. But these are also my subjective observations as well.

kfw, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on these issues. Going through 200 plus pages of mean-spirited conversations about Copeland is not a fun way to spend one's morning.

dirac and Aurora - Thank you.

variated - Thank you as well! Ballerinas are avatars of femininity, and there are a lot of people who think they should be seen and not heard. Throw in the notion that black women are forward and aggressive, and you have a perfect storm.