Longtimelurker

I hope that the company can figure out a way to get around whatever it is that is preventing them from streaming footage from past performances.  I also agree with many of the negative sentiments here regarding the online gala, but I also hope that we are in the minority and that the company was successful in their fundraising efforts.

15 hours ago, cobweb said:

Somehow the description of "ABT: Together Tonight" doesn't appeal to me either. It sounds like it will be a lot of puffy short pieces and probably speeches (no thanks). Also the tone of it sounds out of touch, is this really a time to celebrate ABT's history and look forward to a bright future? I think it would be better to frame it honestly as a response to the current situation, with an entire season and many performances cancelled, Stella's farewell missed, etc, and maybe working in references to ABT's history and future but grounding it in the current reality. Just MHO. 

Well said as I also felt like there was something "off" about the tone of this event. It just seems like a gimmicky attempted cash grab. Other companies have been demonstrating the artistic value that they bring to the world and subtly letting people know how they can support the future of those institutions. I wish ABT would do something similar.

18 hours ago, Drew said:

It still wouldn't look like the high quality streams being put out by other top companies, and I think that's a problem for them in terms of the image it conveys etc.

I feel for ABT--over the years they have done such wonderful things with substantially fewer resources than NYCB and I worry about whether they can make it through the storm....

Did the company not record some of their performances? I would think that they would have in order to have content for advertisements and have archival footage for future reference.

Also, although they are not as well-funded as NYCB, I would think that ABT would be able to survive since they have significantly cut their costs by not paying their dancers. Although that's not a decision that I agree with, since they own their rehearsal studios and won't be paying rent for the Met and Koch while not performing, the only significant fixed cost I can think of is their administrative staff. I can't imagine that the staff costs even over an extended period would be more than their endowment and other sources of funds. Perhaps I am not seeing the whole picture, however, and I'm not a financial expert, particularly in the arts and non-profits.

21 hours ago, Leah said:

Just got an email for whatever this is:

Misty Copeland and Calvin Royal III. Photo: Ruth Hogben.

American Ballet Theatre: Together Tonight

Tuesday, May 12 at 7:00pm EDT

American Ballet Theatre is excited to present American Ballet Theatre: Together Tonight – a virtual celebration in support of the ABT Crisis Relief Fund on ABT’s YouTube Channel on May 12 at 7:00pm EDT! Join America’s National Ballet Company® from the comfort of your home for a festive evening of dancing and camaraderie as we recognize the incredible milestones made during ABT’s first eight decades and look forward to our bright future. Exciting cameos from some of your favorite dancers and celebrities, as well as one-of-a-kind experiences and items available for auction will be announced soon. Check back here for the most-up-to-date information!

I received this too and was confused as to what it is as well. I really hope that they start streaming some of their performances soon.

On 4/8/2020 at 1:08 PM, nanushka said:

This is terribly disappointing — but not at all surprising — news. I so hope that all the dancers who were set to get exciting new opportunities this season will be given the same (or better) chances next year.

It's also sad that we've now likely seen the last 8-week Met season of ABT.

Why will not see an 8 week Met season again? Very sad if true

1 hour ago, miliosr said:

A few thoughts regarding ABT's - at times - precarious financial situation . . .

ABT was never as fiscally sound as the New York City Ballet in part because of an overreliance on Lucia Chase's personal fortune to get them through hard times. Eventually, the company did get serious about diversifying its fundraising but that was a late development compared to other companies.

In addition, various shocks over the past 30 years have compounded ABT's fiscal problems. The profligacy of the Baryshnikov era left the company so deeply in debt by 1992 that everyone thought the company would fold permanently. So certain was the expectation of an implosion that no one was willing to take on leadership of the company except Kevin Mckenzie.

As fate would have it, this kicked off a new Golden Age at ABT as McKenzie, starting with a base that included Julio Bocca, Alessandra Ferri, Susan Jaffe, Julie Kent and Amanda McKerrow, added such future bold-faced names as Max Beloserkovsky, Jose Manuel Carreno, Angel Corella, Irina Dvorovenko, Paloma Herrera, Vladimir Malakhov and Ethan Steifel. He also developed in-house stars such as Herman Cornejo, Marcelo Gomes, David Hallberg and Gillian Murphy.

Even during this Golden Age, though, ABT had to contend with various fiscal crises. There was the dot.com implosion in 2000 which hindered fundraising and then the much larger and more serious Great Recession of 2008. So, for every financial gain the company has made over time, it has also endured some fairly significant financial shocks which have often set them back for years.

One more point to make: Before anyone praises the New York City Ballet to the heavens for keeping its dancers on salary, let's not forget that in 2008 they released all those dancers they deemed expendable as a response to the Great Recession. ABT, in contrast, worked out an arrangement with its dancers so that everyone took a pay cut but no one lost their jobs. I dare say that the New York City Ballet's response in 2020 is in part a reflection of how much bad press it received for its actions back in 2008.

 

 

Thank you for such a detailed recap of ABT’s financial situation. Hopefully the company can get to a point where it is more easily able to weather economic downturns.

1 hour ago, Leah said:

It’s sad but it’s to be expected. I was surprised that NYCB was even able to pay everyone.

Why is that to be expected? Some others have mentioned that NYCB is stronger financially, but is the difference so large that not paying the dancers is necessary? I recall that some smaller companies are paying their dancers during their cancelled seasons (Colorado Ballet for example), so I would have a hard time believing that those companies are stronger financially than ABT. I think that not paying dancers should be an absolute last resort for a dance company. Perhaps ABT is being penny wise and pound foolish in the message it is sending regarding the value that it places on their dancers, and this could result in the company having more difficulty in attracting top talent in the future. They work too hard and are too skilled to be treated in a disposable manner. Is the financial situation at ABT really that bad?

4 hours ago, nanushka said:

I assume that is the case, as they are currently laid off for 5 weeks.

They weren’t supposed to be on a lay-off as they had tours to Chicago, Detroit, Durham and the Abu Dhabi scheduled for the spring that were canceled. That’s a significant amount of income for the dancers to lose if the company is not compensating them and would be financially devastating if that sets a precedent for how they would handle the cancellation of the Met season.

nanushka, I just noticed in the NYCB Spring Season Cancellation thread that you posted that they would continue to pay their dancers. I truly hope that ABT is taking care of their dancers in the same manner!

Does this mean that the company is not paying its dancers during this period?

On 6/6/2019 at 10:36 AM, abatt said:

Worst:  David Parsons Pied Piper

              MacMillan's Anastasia

              HereAfter or was it renamed After Here

Those are what immediately come to my mind.

I am happy I didn't see any of those performances as Jane Eyre was the worst thing I have seen at ABT and am surprised that Mackenzie chose to stage this. I agree on most of the criticisms that have already been posted, but I also found the choice to have 2 different dancers play Jane to be confusing and unnecessary. 

2 hours ago, Rick said:

Macaulay seems to be giving Finlay, Ramasar, and Catazaro the benefit of the doubt. In fact he seems to be implying that the furor over Waterbury's lawsuit is overblown. I wonder what the female dance critics are thinking.

I also think his remarks are probably based on insider information that many of us are not privy to. For example, I think that most of the public didn't know that Finlay had previously been suspended until the article in the New York Times today. I don't think it's a stretch to think he probably has known about that for quite some time.

That was a incredibly strong statement of support regarding the values of the company made by the dancers. The narrative that Waterbury needed to speak out because the female company members were unable to themselves must have been insulting. I'm glad that false narrative has been put to bed with this statement. Bravo to Tess and the whole company for making this stand with their moving words!

3 hours ago, Olga said:

Yesterday, at least three pincipal women posted to Instagram essentially praising the company and stating how glad they are to be in it. Lauren’s post was in an Instagram story in which she spoke directly to the camera. I can’t reproduce it. Here are excerpts from the other posts:

Maria: “NYCB is so strong and I’m so proud to be a member of this glorious company for more than twenty years.”

 

Sara”...nycballet is unreal and amazing. I feel so f**kin lucky to be in this company.”

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.

These accounts further confirm my negative opinions and suspicions about this individual. One can see from his post on February 11, 2013 that he was involved with an event for ABT.

6 minutes ago, Helene said:

The Company is claiming they had no responsibility for what the dancers did on their own time, and that the lawsuit should not apply to them.

Yes I understand they may have to amend that part of their defense, but does it actually matter from a legal sense if the messages were exchanged during work hours? From a logical point of view, I don't see how the timing or location of where personal messages were sent would change the company's responsibility for their content.

2 minutes ago, bluejean said:

I'm still new here and hoping this post is acceptable.  I noticed and am pondering Sterling Hytin's comment on Ramasar's last post.  I believe Ramasar's account is still public-facing, and thus, okay to reference?

Another user left a comment on the post, challenging Hyltin and Kowroski on their "public support" of Amar.  Hytlin responds:

I absolutely understand your sentiment, @(user) and hold young girls everywhere in my thoughts in all my actions.  It's my duty to do so.  However, there is too much hate and quickness to convict in this world. Part of being a role model for youth is also showing support when someone is actually trying to take responsibility. I did not "like" or comment on his previous post because there was nothing that went in the right direction in regards to acknowledgement or apology. Part of being a role model is teaching compassion when it is appropriate to do so in order to promote healing and kindness in general. And, yes, there is plenty that the general public doesn't know regarding this horrendous situation.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bn1VElYAjUE/?taken-by=ramastar81

 

Thank you for pointing this out. I admire the attitude she is taking toward this situation, especially in light of her comment at the end that there is much to this situation that the public is unaware of. I think many of us who only have publicly available information have been quick to judge the dancers and condemn the company.

4 minutes ago, Helene said:

The Company still maintains that all communications were sent off hours and off premises, and that they are the uncondoned actions of private actors.  Starting with the original complaint, the claim is that they were sent during work hours. The revised complaint seeks to counter the Company's claim by adding some dates/some dates and times.  The Company would be between a rock and a hard place if the communications they investigated were date/datetime stamped during work hours, but they claimed were not.

I understand that it would look bad for the company if they had to backtrack on their claim that the communications were sent off hours and off premises and it would bolster their reasoning for firing Catazaro and Ramasar in their dispute with the union, but is there a legal ramification related to the Waterbury case if they had to backtrack? Employees at every company send personal texts during work hours on company premises as well as on off hours and off premises and the ability of the employer to know what the content of those messages doesn't change with the timing or location of when those messages were sent or received.

1 minute ago, nanushka said:

Maybe, but not necessarily. I don’t know who his employer is, and it would depend on whether that employer has a habit of improperly tolerating abusive behavior that it is aware of or should be aware of. That’s what would make it “systemic,” and that’s what Waterbury seems to be alleging of NYCB.

There are indeed cases of individual “bad apples,” much as that phrase gets abused. It’s possibel that, at his workplace, Hall is such an individual.

That is a valid point and underscores the importance of validating some of the most incendiary claims made in the legal complaint such as the claim that a principal raped a soloist. Until we have evidence to the contrary, I am still giving the company the benefit of the doubt as I cannot believe that the company would have turned a blind eye to that if there was some merit to such a serious charge. If it turns out that the company dealt responsibly with that type of situation, then all you have evidence of is reprehensible and in some cases illegal behavior in private text messages which the company did not and could not have known about.

2 hours ago, balanchinefreak said:

At this point it seems to me we stand here:

Finlay, Ramasar and Catazaro (and others still unnamed, which may well be named) engaged in an exchange of emails that was reprehensible, repulsive and totally beyond the boundaries of bro talk. 

This is (sadly, IMO) not - yet - illegal in NY State. Governor Cuomo, your signature awaits.

Hence, Waterbury took civil action.

Ramasar and Catazaro are union members and their union will stand up for them. According to the strict rules of the contract, they may have a case. Not illegal, off-hours.

I don't  know. 

But I do know this: NYCB depends on good will, private donations, and public monies. For them to say, "We couldn't fire them because what they did, while repulsive, was off-hours and not illegal," would be impossible. Perhaps there is something in the contract that refers to this - again, I don't know.

I believe - and I stress this is my belief - that Longhitano was the ringleader of this mess, and I think NYCB might have a case against him.

But Ramasar is 36! As for Finlay, I have no words. Catazaro - this is a lesson in drawing boundaries. At a certain point you have to learn how to draw boundaries and risk losing friendships.

In D'amboise's book, he tells an anecdote of going back to his gang in Washington Heights, after a year or two in the City Ballet. He was the true street kid, not Villella, who came from a middle-class family. He related that the boys all passed around dirty pictures of women and they all guffawed. That generation's version of cyber-porn. He was disgusted by their low-class behavior, which he once partook of.  He left and described it as an "amputation."  He never looked back.

Some of the worst behavior alleged in the suit are attributed to Catazaro including circulating explicit photos of a former SAB student and discussing an aggressive sexual proposition to one of their colleagues with Finlay.

1 hour ago, nanushka said:

Waterbury's complaint does not seem to be primarily that NYCB failed to protect its dancers from every possible threat coming from inside or outside the company; it seems to be primarily that NYCB failed to stop (some of) its dancers from transgressing appropriate norms of behavior and from violating the rights of their colleagues and of other vulnerable individuals.

In other words, NYCB (according to Waterbury) has a systemic issue because it allowed (some of) its dancers to get away with bad behavior.

The appropriate parallel, it seems to me, would be if ABT implicitly or explicitly tolerated improper and harmful behavior by some of its dancers — not if ABT failed to protect its dancers from every possible threat.

It seems more reasonable to me to criticize an institution for doing the former than for doing the latter.

So if that is the case then is there also a systemic issue at the employer of the Craig Hall named in the complaint? And then if we consider Longhitano as he is also a donor at ABT?

Some of the most vile actions and comments in the complaint are attributed to Hall. I truly feel for the soloist whose pictures he circulated. Based on the additional details disclosed in the revised legal complaint, it is not difficult to deduce who she and she must feel violated and betrayed.

14 minutes ago, Helene said:

No, I don't believe that ABT has any responsibility to protect its dancers from NYCB's dancers and donors, unless a complaint is brought to them or there was a well-publicized issue.  If they were monitoring ABT dancers' social media, which is not a given, the donor's posts should have been a red flag, if he was recognizably one of theirs.   If they could confirm transgressive behavior, they should have told him his money is no good there, because his money could become too expensive. (And Longhitano's money has proved expensive for NYCB.)  Hopefully, if he is still a donor, they will act immediately and follow NYCB's example.

If NYCB has a donor who is problematic in public, especially one on the Board of a group that is part of the organization, or about whom they've been presented with evidence of wrongdoing, they should, proactively, remove that person's affiliation, however much it hurts and however delicate the situation is.  They apparently have.

I believe all ballet companies have the obligation to attempt to counter proactively the sense of entitlement that male students and dancers can feel because of the disproportionate amount of scholarship money and attention they get because of their relative rarity -- a friend calls this "ballet's real affirmative action program" -- to judge male and female students and dancers by the same standards of behavior, to discipline students and dancers when they exhibit bad behavior, regardless of rank or perceived value to the Company, to have a complaint procedure that neither discriminates against nor punishes people who raise them, and to have leadership that leads by good example.  I expect to win Lotto without buying a ticket before this happens.

No, I don't believe this is a fail-proof method to stop "private" bad behavior that needs to be detected and raised to be addressed.  But unless the organizations do everything possible to prevent it by creating a respectful workplace in which detected bad behavior is not tolerated, they don't get to just wash their hands of it and relinquish responsibility, especially where the schools are so intrinsically tied to the companies.

 

I agree with nearly everything you said. I also don't think that ABT's inability to protect its dancers from these predators demonstrates an institutional failing at ABT, just as I equally think that NYCB's inability to protect someone who isn't in the company doesn't demonstrate an institutional failing.

I also hope that ABT takes similar actions to NYCB as regards Longhitano. I also looked through old playbills and noticed that he is not listed on NYCB's Young Patrons board. Perhaps that was another inaccuracy or the company removed him from that position. Longhitano could have also stepped down, but that seems unlikely given his Linkedin profile and other information he posted on public websites.

In my opinion, NYCB has arguably been the most proactive company in instituting what your friend calls "ballet's real affirmative action program". The female principals are their most valuable assets and treated as such. There are also less of them in number than the male principals, even after 3 of them were fired. I cannot speak to how this is handled at SAB one way or the other however. I also am extremely skeptical that any such actions could have prevented the Waterbury situation.

1 hour ago, Helene said:

Do you mean does anyone believe ABT should be able to protect its dancers from NYCB's dancers and donors?

 

Yes and Longhitano was or is an ABT donor as well. Longhitano aside, if the logic is that NYCB has a systemic issue because it can't protect someone who is not affiliated with the company, does ABT also have a systemic issue because it can't protect its own dancers?

7 hours ago, Dreamer said:

Jared Longhitano’s Linkedin page shows that he’s involved with several arts organizations in NYC. Besides being a Junoir board member at NYCB, he is a member of Young Associates Steering Committee at the Met Opera, part of the Junior Council at ABT and the scariest of all, he is the Head of Young Patrons Group at YAGP.

 

Longhitano's association with YAGP is most disturbing. His Linkedin profile says he is the founder and head of the Young Patrons Group at YAGP. In previous posts, I have lauded NYCB's efforts in expanding its audience to the younger generation through initiatives such as the Young Patrons, and this does not change my stance on that -- the arts need to continue to build on these efforts. However, why does an organization such as YAGP even need a junior committee?

The amended complaint (as others have said, not for the faint of heart) also alleges that Finlay, Longhitano, Catazaro and Ramasar referenced in conversation or traded explicit pictures of dancers in ABT. For those who feel that NYCB has done an inadequate job of protecting its dancers, do you also feel the same could now be said about ABT?

As more details of this situation come to light, I am more convinced that this is a case that could not be prevented by rules set forth by an institution. Luckily in this case, Waterbury has come forward to let the world know about their misdeeds so that the problem can be rooted out. Although I disagree with her about exactly where that problem lies, I applaud her for that.

11 minutes ago, Helene said:

While the complaint, which she didn't write, might be sloppy, I've seen no evidence that Waterbury has been deceitful.  Anyone can have their own doubts and suspicions, and that and $10 will get one a Frappucino.

Anyone can consider her possible motives, but that doesn't make those theories or suppositions valid content for this board, unless they are raised in official news by ballet professionals. 

If you'd like to start a ballet board of your own, you can create your own rules and define what can and can't be discussed.

Then I am confused. I assumed that discussing her possible motives was within the rules of this board as it is something that has been discussed and not deleted. My response was not related to what is allowed by the rules on this board but rather whether discussing it was something that added substantively to the topic. I think that since her lawyer and the media have mischaracterized her relationship with the company that she has chosen to sue, her motives for both suing the company and why that relationship was not accurately reported is something worthy of discussion. Apologies if that or anything else I have said is against the rules of this board.

42 minutes ago, nanushka said:

THANK YOU, Drew, for so effectively conveying (in your whole post, but especially in this paragraph) what I've been thinking and feeling while taking in these responses to Waterbury's claims.

The first represents a woeful ignorance of the realities of how acute psychological distress can actually manifest itself.

The second — well, I don't see why it matters in the least how she found the text messages, etc. Maybe she was snooping — maybe she had suspicions and those led her to snoop. (If her allegations are true, she apparently had good reason.) Even if I knew that to be the case (and as others have pointed out, there are some very good explanations for how she could have found them without snooping, so I see no need to grant that), I would not think that it matters.

As for the third: we have no way of knowing Waterbury's (possibly complex mix of) motivations for taking action (assuming that we're not all willing to just believe what she says are her motivations — and it's clear that some are not), but again I don't see why they matter, so long as her claims have a basis in demonstrable evidence. A victim doesn't need to be a saint to deserve justice or reparation; if she did, we'd have little use for a legal system.

I agree with most of what you said except for the third point. I think those on this board should consider her possible motives for including NYCB in her suit. This is a ballet board after all and her actions are affecting one of the leading institutions of this art form so open to discussion. Also some media reports and her legal claim have made incorrect characterizations of her relationship with the company. I think that also makes it fair game to consider what the true relationship is and how that could effect her motives and mindset.

30 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

As has been noted before, the legal complaint filed by Ms. Waterbury is rather sloppily drafted and difficult to parse. There are many references throughout to a NYCB Principal dancer who is not named, but who is alleged to have taken part in some of the more egregious activity described in the document: 

Mr. Finlay and another NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC., principal boasted that they were going to "double team" a religious female corps member at NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC. and "leave her with no choice." Of course, Mr. Finlay wanted to video that too and wrote "that would be ultimate sex persuasion." (Par. 32)

Defendant CHASE FINLAY also repeatedly asked another NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC. principal for explicit photographs of a female Ballet member which were shared by the Principal on demand. The two also engaged in a group chat with another male Ballet member who suggested the three men "...get like half a kilo [of cocaine] and pour it over the [female ballet members] and just violate them" to which defendant responded with two 'thumbs-up' emoticons. (Par. 55)

I'm curious as to whether NYCB knows who this dancer is, and if so, whether they've taken any action against him, and if so, what it was and why it hasn't been made public. And if not, why not. Perhaps Ms. Waterbury and her lawyers never revealed his name or perhaps the claims were unsubstantiated. The charges in Par. 55 are very similar to those attributed to the Donor in Par 27; perhaps it's bad drafting and separate incidents are being conflated. 

Couldn't Catazaro be one of the unidentified principal dancers referenced in Waterbury's claim? In his carefully worded defense, he only specified that his transgressions were not specific to Waterbury and not during company hours.  There are a number of text exchanges referenced in the legal claim that could be attributed to Catazaro even if what he says is true.