Drew

I actually could not resist watching the Bolshoi class and was disappointed when they cut away from it, as seemed to me, early and a bit abruptly --  especially since the next segment was recorded anyway. Then when I saw the company was doubling down on last year's Bayadere rehearsal with Vaziev drilling the corps, I couldn't resist staying up for that as well.   (He is undoubtedly tough, but watching the dancers and reading the sub-titles...his corrections did seem pertinent.)

I'm afraid I will spend the rest of my work week paying for this, and now really will go and try to get some sleep.

No luck on the link. Thank you very much for trying. Unfortunately, my work week is such that I should go to sleep pretty soon anyway....I always love the Bolshoi class but will hope they put it online and that I can pick up some other things live tomorrow.

Am enjoying what I have seen of the Australian National Ballet. (Had no idea a contemporary choreographer had decided to revisit Spartacus...)

Link didn't work for me. I did find the Australian National Ballet FB page but I don't seem to be able to get a genuine full screen picture with it--just a window-which I can enlarge somewhat--with the FB feed next to it. (That's when I hit the "full screen" icon--I get the full screen of the entire FB discussion side by side with the window.)  If that's the best picture I can get for the rest of World Ballet Day...then...ugh....

Edited to add: I did finally get a "full screen" picture--much better--though I'm still not sure why sometimes I can and sometimes I can't. ! Still can't get to World Ballet Day's own feed....not sure what the problem is, but will try harder...

Thank you @Quinten for that analysis of what Lopatkina does with her port de bras in the Paquita variation ... Cyclingmartin requested no merely subjective declarations of admiration but analysis often fails me with Lopatkina. One quality she has that I don't know how to analyze technically with any exactness is how she seems to respond to the texture of the music. Ratmansky once praised a very different ballerina (Plisetskaya) saying her musicality was such that she was able to dance the orchestration. When I saw a 2013 Lopatkina Swan Lake that was exactly how I felt, as if her movements subtly took on the colors of the instruments. But one thing I think I can sort of grasp is that she both articulates the phrases and yet also connects everything in one flowing whole -- any good ballerina does that to some extent, but the few times I saw her (and in video I have seen) Lopatkina seems to me to fully realize that ideal ... And though you can see the accents, she doesn't punctuate her dancing the way some ballerinas do--the beauty is mesmerizing.

Oh...I was doing a search on AGMA and notice that September 20th they posted a statement on sexual harassment in the workplace but also a change in how people can report on those issues. Has this been posted already? I infer they wanted to make it easier. Why they made that change or whether it will be helpful or not, I can't say:

https://www.musicalartists.org/agma-condemns-all-sexual-abuse-sexual-harassment/

I agree with @nanushka  and @Helene as well--the statement is (prudently) not worded in a way to take a position on certain things, and obviously the dancers would not say anything that might put the company in any kind of legal jeopardy ...  But insisting that art shouldn't be considered more important than moral decency could be read differently than as, say, a slap at someone for coming forward or as an expression of offense at the conversation that is currently happening.

Hello cyclingmartin--I'm not able to take on your very interesting post in any kind of detail at this time--studying each video etc.--but I am struck that your list of dancers doesn't include any from New York City Ballet--of course I know you can't list dancers from every company in the world!  I mention NYCB because I think they include some of the most musical dancers in the world; and they are dancers who are consistently challenged by a very wide range of scores and sometimes dauntingly complex ones. The company as a whole is usually characterized as dancing slightly ahead of the beat which can give them a very energized look and, at its best, makes it seem as if they are bearing the music in their dance phrases. (I know that's a slightly "subjective" formulation.) I find their best ballerinas can slow down and speed up within a phrase in a very interesting way as well. Meeting the music at crucial times but playing with and against it at others (eg among today's ballerinas Tiler Peck).

One common subject of debate is to what degree dancing the score at the "original" tempo matters. I think for some fans, when one sees performances in which conductors slow down to accommodate dancers, the dancer's musicality and/or the choreography itself loses some of its appeal. I'm not a purist on these matters and I loved Makarova, but her musicality was constantly slammed for distortions of tempo. As a counter example: in Ratmansky's Sleeping Beauty he seemed to insist the fairy variations be done at faster tempos--I'm not expert enough to say the tempos were exactly as Tchaikovsky dictated, but from what I read that was behind his choices as he thought it got closer to Petipa's intentions as well.   I found the results very effective for making those variations come across charmingly...

To my knowledge Petipa choreographed 32 single fouettés:  that was a "trick" Legnani (Petipa/Ivanov's Odette-Odile) was known for...I agree with you that dancing them on the beat can be very effective--especially with a ballerina who doesn't require that the music dramatically slow down.

(Regarding video: I have to admit I'm always a little uneasy about youtube for discussions of musicality in particular. If the audio and visual are not perfectly coordinated the representation of the dancer's musicality is always going to be a little off. In ballet the difference between "very good" or "just about" and "great" or "exact" can be a big difference.  Like you and others, I do try to learn from videos including on the subject of musicality--but ...I also know a dancer's musicality resonates very differently in the theater.)

I love World Ballet Day, but per usual it makes me feel like an idiot as I can never figure out where to go to watch things when they are happening. (Every year someone on THIS website helps me out.)

Is there one FB page where everything is being shown?  I have found a FB page for" World Ballet Day," but it's not at all clear that's where I go to watch everything.  They don't give a link or say--or even say, watch it HERE.

(I do greatly prefer youtube which is easier to search and which I can watch on my television--hence much better picture too.)

I hope there is a great deal more that is live than last year--from all companies--but I'm not hopeful. Last year often felt like a bunch of infomercials and not just from the Bolshoi. The company classes have actually come to be my favorite part.

Thanks--Siobhan Burke posted as well quoting from Reichlen's statement after commenting on the Abraham premier:

Thank you....

I am very eager to read impressions and reviews of this production. In a relatively recent interview regarding Harlequinade, Ratmansky indicated a loosening of the reins on the subject of Petipa-era style (as he interprets it). As I recall he said it required an enormous amount of rehearsal, presumably more than the circumstances of most stagings allow.  It will be interesting to see what he and the Berlin dancers do with this Bayadere. 

He is a stunning talent--I wouldn't pass up a chance to see him either!

5 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Even if the company goes through every dancers phones and finds things they don’t find appropriate, even if it turns out female dancers were also acting poorly to male dancers too, if they decide to fire 5 more dancers, 10 more or even 50 more, Waterbury was still never an employee of the company.

 

I once dated a Goldman Sachs employee who was abusive. Can I launch an internal investigation and have the phones of all GS employees worldwide vetted? 

I am very sorry you went through that.

I suppose the answer to your question depends on the circumstances of his abuse and who else at Goldman Sachs, if anyone, was involved.

I assume even if you did have a case--judge didn't dismiss it etc.-- because of plausible indications of a massive problem at Goldman Sachs, blah, blah there would still be limits on whose phones could be vetted etc. Law is slow and complicated.

One might also recognize that a lot of women (in ballet and other fields) may feel helped when they see an Alexandra Waterbury step forward. Based on what I see on Twitter etc. I'm very inclined to believe her when she says she is getting thank you messages.   That's separate from the details of her case and what the law will decide and whether Ramasar  and Catazaro will get their jobs back or NYCB will have to go to court or not. For a lot of victimized women, who precisely don't step forward--and not because they don't have a problem--it can be meaningful to see someone do/say something they are not willing or able to do. But in a case like this certainly people get hurt starting with Waterbury herself. That's not on Waterbury--whether it is SOLELY on Finlay or on Finlay and Ramasar or Finlay, Ramasar, and Catazaro or on larger problems at NYCB or larger problems in the ballet world  or in society as refracted in the ballet world....Well, this thread has shown we all lean different ways on the matter. And much of the truth won't come out until much later...all of it perhaps never.  What I find puzzling is the suggestion that Waterbury, who brought a complaint that led the company's own internal investigation to take action against three of its leading dancers is somehow the cause of the company's problems. I just don't find it plausible that NYCB suspended Ramasar and Catazaro lightly, or, later, decided to fire them (even if the company is later forced to go back on the latter decision).

(Making Waterbury the villain over privacy laws in this case? Well, I don't know if such laws apply under the circumstances, but if that's what the company or the male dancers involved decide to do, that should play just charmingly to the general public....and I daresay will do a lot to clear up the shadow over NYCB's reputation. [That's a joke.]) Edited to add that perhaps in the current U.S. public sphere I should not be so sure that that IS a joke.

19 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Seems like she’s the only one with a problem

Seems like she is the only one to come forward at this time. Though we don't know what has been going on behind the scenes that led the company to decide to fire Catazaro and Ramasar.  But if no-one else has a problem, then discovery may, in turn, prove no problem for the company--if the case goes forward that is.

As to why people wouldn't come forward even if they do have a problem, you will find a lot out there on social media these days on why women don't come forward in cases of sexual harassment, assault and worse, but in a case like this the reasons could extend from they didn't know their photos were being circulated to they were embarrassed to they are concerned about the impact on their careers (at least one person on this thread has speculated that coming forward hurts Waterbury's career since she is perceived as litigious) to... well...you name it...there are numerous reasons women who are subject to sexual mistreatment of all varieties prefer not to sue or even complain. And NOW they may feel under pressure as friends of the fired dancers etc. or indeed if they are receiving the kinds of ugly insults/threats Waterbury says she is receiving.

(I'll add that if it were to emerge that say the company is full of dancers who have "no problem" with the worst of the things alleged in the complaint...well, that in itself would be a problem of a different kind and in fact support the suit against the company. But I assume for now that that is not the case.)

As for people who might be called to answer questions in discovery etc. -- it has already been mentioned above that there are mechanisms to protect their identities if/as appropriate (eg a rape victim). I don't think this case is going to get to discovery, but if it does, then I hope those mechanisms are deployed appropriately. As for the suit making even unnamed dancers recognizable--so that people do know who they are, I think that may be restricted to a handful of New York ballet professionals or people with good friends in the dance world. Not the general public. I've heard my share of ballet gossip in my time and I have no idea who the unnamed parties are.  Not saying it might not be uncomfortable for them, but the vast majority of people only know those named.

My inability to type cleanly really is mortifying. I have edited my post above...and yes, in clips Bulanova looks like a gifted turner.

That is very big news about the Paquita.

Perhaps D.C. will get to see the Khoreva, Ionova, Nuikina trio of odalisques....It would be fun to see Bulanova in a featured role as well.

13 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Waterbury states in the article that they were talking about moving in together and finances, so I assume it was a serious relationship.

I meant assuming that the drug/drinking problems were serious NOT the relationship. I'll edit to fix any lingering ambiguity.  I wanted to avoid treating it simply as a known fact that Finlay's drinking/drug problems were serious ...

1 hour ago, KayDenmark said:

This is such an odd locale for an interview - if Waterbury really wanted an audience, I'm sure digital outlets like Teen Vogue, Bustle, Jezebel or Babe.net that are popular with young feminists would have been more than happy to speak with her and bring her message to many more people.  

But maybe they wouldn't offer her (and her lawyer) complete editorial approval and "Shiffon" would. 

The article reads like a way to get out in front of Finlay's upcoming response to her lawsuit. Clearly Waterbury expects him to claim invasion of privacy because she shuffled through his computer.

 

Waterbury has been featured before as a representative for the Shiffon brand--I assume as part of her modeling career. At least I found something from April 2018 for a series called "What's in my Jewelry Box." It's marketing but the format is an interview that discusses Waterbury's life as well as her jewelry.

On their website Shiffon says: "More than just a jewelry brand, Shiffon aims to be a supportive, powerful network for women." If they want to promote their business that way, then it's not entirely surprising they would do another feature on Waterbury now, especially in view of other ways they have promoted themselves, including a "duet pinky ring" that is supposed to symbolize their message and which Nicole Kidman and Shailene Woodley wore at the 2017 Emmy's. They say they "are donating 50% of the sales of the rings to seed grants for start-ups around the world whose mission it is to support, uplift, educate or promote the well-being, safety, health and general advancement of women and girls."

I only know this because I looked them up and stumbled across the following article which describes the company as a collective of 8 undergraduates  (as of the date of the article which is September 2017): 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccasuhrawardi/2017/09/18/hollywood-a-listers-are-part-of-a-quiet-movement-and-its-supporters-are-wearing-this-ring/#7e9a6d7c5d68

46 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

If they were a couple for that length of time, she would have also known about his 'drinking and drug problems' too.

I wonder why she didn't get him help or why she stayed with him if he was such a bad person allegedly.

Does it really puzzle you that she would stay with him even knowing about drinking and drug issues? I'm thinking that if I had a nickle for every person I knew who stayed in a problematic relationship hoping it would get better, I could afford to see a lot more ballet than I do...maybe even start my own ballet company....

Especially when the problems are related to drugs or drinking, people overlook, hope things will get better, excuse etc. ...I don't have to add in all the other factors (age difference, former SAB student and principal with New York City Ballet), because it's just very common. One sees even sophisticated, experienced, older people who stay in relationships that have serious problems. For all kinds of reasons, good and bad. (Sometimes it IS worth it to stick out a tough time in a relationship.) From what she says, she got out of the relationship when she found out about the texting and photo sharing etc.

Who knows if she tried to get him help or not? Or if she fully grasped how serious his drinking/drug problems were when they were together (assuming his problems were serious)? Given the age and life-experience gap, it's always possible--I myself think more than possible--that there was a power imbalance in the relationship as well and there are dozens of other possible reasons why things would play out the way they seem to have done. 

Finlay a "bad person allegedly"? Not necessarily -- he did bad things "allegedly" -- that's a little different.

5 hours ago, On Pointe said:

  Yet Dr. Ford is not blaming Georgetown Prep,  Deborah Ramirez isn't blaming Yale for their alleged treatment.  (It's telling that previous nominee Neil Gorsuch  went to the same school,  but has never been accused of misbehavior.  Schools and employers can only control so much.  It's individuals who are responsible for their actions.

This gets us far afield from the precise issues in the Waterbury case. And the particular cases you mention would have to look at those institutions some 30 years ago ... but in fact there are all kinds of institutional criticisms/discussions and even title 9 investigations around sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape on college campuses. (Some people reading here may know the film the Hunting Ground which deals with a range of sexual misconduct on college campuses and institutional responses to those behaviors that have allowed the worst of them to persist. And it discusses Title 9 suits brought by students. The same filmmakers made a film about sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape among personnel in the military and the military's responses to it--The Secret War; the Secretary of Defense at the time (Panetta) had a screening of it; he didn't say, "well, that happens everywhere so we don't need to look at how/why it happens in the military." Nor did he claim military exceptionalism "well, you can't be surprised that soldiers rape.")  

And systemic critique has never meant that everyone who attends a school or every employee at a workplace participated in problematic behavior.

But whatever one's own view of institutional (or systemic) criticisms, it would be incorrect to think that there have been no attempts to pursue them AND reforms -- sometimes through the courts or through government -- when it comes to universities. It has led to mandated Title 9 training and such-like.  In universities, that is, many people and institutions are looking at systemic issues around sexual misconduct that impact women especially -- though not exclusively. Of course, under the current administration Title 9 is being handled differently than under the previous one. (I don't know the details about the differences; but have seen articles addressing it.)

I think everyone understands that it is tricky to find the right balance in all these issues--what is useful reform, what is useless hand-wringing or government/institutional over-reach; what is helpful and what, in fact, perpetuates the problems it sets out to solve. (I've at least once seen what I think of as the last...) But I also think that a complete absence of systemic/institutional critique stands no chance of leading to better workplaces and schools. Especially when you can show that workplaces/institutions often have been protecting the individuals that create the problems and, in some cases, commit crimes--as I believe has been shown in the case of universities. Edited to add: Institutions are shaped by individuals--absolutely--but one doesn't have to be a sociologist (or a dialectician) to understand that it's "vice versa" too. Both can be true.

What's any of that have to do with Waterbury's case and NYCB? What I wrote above was exclusively a response to the remarks I quoted, not a comment on her case.  Still...

Does one have to wait until actual sexual assault is involved before it pays to look at larger issues in any institution? Does the fact that problems occur in all kinds of institutions mean that no institutions have any responsibility ever? And are there really no systemic or broader issues at New York City Ballet that might be addressed? As we all have repeated ad nauseam the courts will decide on the legal standing of the suit against NYCB and the three dancers named. As for moral or professional issues that may not rise to the level of legal ones...I hardly think it's an outlier position or...uh...."fascist"  to hope that NYCB is doing some internal review and self-interrogation in the wake of this mess and the coming change of leadership. Perhaps SAB as well. The fact that these are GREAT artistic institutions--essential ones as far as I am concerned--seems to me to make it more not less important.

(I'm assuming the allegation about rape in the suit, though it may represent something Waterbury heard and therefore believes to be pertinent, would be difficult to prove, and I prefer to leave it out of this discussion until/unless there were to be a lot more information.)

What a fantastic sounding series of events. I hooe to read reports by people able to attend. 

41 minutes 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 was responding to your comments about about toxic masculinity in adolescents--I believe we are all agreed here that Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar are not adolescents. I wasn't referring to them in that sentence at all, though reading my post over I see how it could be construed as directed at them.

That said, based on what we know so far (which may be missing information) I don't think Ramasar and Finlay treated Waterbury with respect; and I don't think joking about raping (or even "double teaming") a colleague is exactly respectful either.  The fact that Waterbury is not a work colleague and that the joke was outside the workplace (assuming that gets confirmed) may save their jobs--Ramasar's and Catazaro's that is...What it says about New York City Ballet is, to borrow Lovette's word, less "transparent" to me. I mean that exactly--not that I know the answers, but that it's not clear.

(Edited to add: if it turns out that they circulated sexually explicit photos of dancers in the company without their consent...that, too, I would find disrespectful. Perhaps I should save "appallingly" for worse things--but circulating such photos of fellow workers without consent would be bad enough.)

By the by, here is Marina Harss's recent piece in Dance Tabs--it's a review that also discusses the current situation and mentions transparency in a slightly different sense:  http://dancetabs.com/2018/09/new-york-city-ballet-jewels-all-balanchine-4bill-new-york/

1 hour ago, Dreamer said:

Drew, you probably did not mean it this way but this comment sends shiver down my spine reminding of how prophetic Philip K. Dick was. Have we reached the state where pre-crime no is longer a science-fiction but a reality?

You are right--the issue is NOT and should not be pre-crime which would be at once tyrannical and absurd. Also I rather assume the two men were joking however unpleasantly. But once these words became public, are they a non-issue for Catazaro's fellow dancers and his place of work? NYCB seems to have decided otherwise. On the face of it, it's not clear to me that that is automatically the wrong decision. Was the firing over-reach? Well, the union thinks so and arbitration will decide.

(Lauren Lovette spoke about safety in her instagram post..."we are speaking up and working every day to make our work environment more safe and transparent.")

35 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Ms. Waterbury's case is a civil action.  It is yet to be determined that a criminal action took place.  It likely will never come to that.  At any rate,  it's the police that do the investigating,  not a suspicious girlfriend snooping in her boyfriend's email.  It's telling that the first version of the complaint did not include this conversation.  If it had been necessary for Merson to make his case,  it would have been in there.  At any rate,  in my opinion,  Catazaro  and  Finlay  were not joking about rape.  As there are others here who feel otherwise,  one can conclude that we might represent  a microcosm of the public - some will find it a hanging offense and some will not.

I listened to the podcast and what Barry Kerollis calls toxic masculinity is behavior familiar to anyone who has spent time around adolescent boys,  whether they dance or play football.   They are not yet fully formed men and they tend to do silly things.  But men from every  walk of life have done what Chase Finlay is alleged to have done.  It's not a ballet problem,  it's a human problem.

Oh I was actually just editing my post to get rid of the word criminal--so point taken!

I don't think joking about rape is a hanging offense. I don't care for it either and think it can be destructive in the workplace. Fairly or unfairly, Catazaro's words are now known to his fellow workers.

Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar are not adolescent boys. (And not all adolescent boys behave with appalling disrespect to women. By a long shot.)

Men from every walk of life have done what Chase Finlay is alleged to have done or something like it or worse.  Yet some workplaces are worse when it comes to such things than others. Consistently. So things can be done to influence how people conduct themselves towards one another without veering off into thought control and fascism. Has NYCB done all it reasonably could have done over time on these issues? I've already said that I don't believe so.

That "ballet" generally shares in problems pervasive in our society is hardly a reason for people in the ballet world not to try to address those problems. Though it may be a reason to realize there is a limit to what can be done in any one given sphere without larger social movements. And I'm not yet prepared to give up on positive change altogether.

50 minutes 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.

These are serious concerns--I mostly wanted to indicate my strong conviction that a joke about giving a women "no choice" in matters of sex is a joke about rape not about "convincing." Still, it is worth remarking that these are not thoughts, but words. And words that however jokingly refer to a potential crime. Still, as you say, private words--at least as far as we know from the case so far..

But these private words became public because of specific actions one of the two parties to the conversation is alleged to have committed. Having become public they impact the company and its employees, and the company might reasonably feel a need to address them.  In this case they decided to do so -- first through suspensions then firing; the union (and others) are arguing the last is over-reach. That will be determined in arbitration. As far as Waterbury's suit goes, likewise the courts will determine ... But yes, when one (purported) crime/wrong is investigated (Finlay's actions in this case) other stuff, that might not be expected to come out, comes out. (And given that the point of her suit against the company is to argue that this case isn't just about Finlay, her case then has to show just that.  Though I continue to think that a suit against Finlay alone would still raise issues for the company. If she were suing ONLY Finlay, would his exchange with Catazaro never have become public? I think it might have.)

And once something like these emails do come out (for whatever reason), that has consequences.  And can raise red flags which, even if the courts decide don't rise to the level to justify a suit against NYCB or Catazaro might be worthwhile for NYCB to address. 

Barry Kerollis discusses these issues in general terms regarding the ballet world and talks about what he thinks it needs to address -- not the specific case -- in the podcast Helene and Quiggin mentioned.

In terms of public perceptions, I will add that given that these words became public Catazaro's unwillingness (so far) to express any kind of regret or humility (as Ramasar did in his second public statement) is all the more puzzling to me, especially if he is trying to save his career. I imagine that if you said something about co-worker that came out and caused "awkwardness," as in the scenario you invoke in your post,  you might apologize EVEN IF you were pissed off that something you thought was private became public and you didn't think it should have. Perhaps you would not, on principle, but I have seen one similar scenario at my workplace and apologies were made. And of course perhaps we will see them made in the future.

(I don't think apologies are some magic panacea--especially if there are systemic problems...and I know they have to be worded carefully when one is being sued. Still, it's just one of the things I have noticed with surprise in some of the statements made as this case unfolds.)