Drew

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.)

1 hour ago, fordhambae said:

I believe that leave her no choice is about convincing not about raping.

 “I want to get this job and leave them no choice”. Does that sound like that person intends to rape the interviewer? ...or could it mean they’re going to try their hardest to convince them so they say yes. 

 

If a date told me s/he was going to give me "no choice" about sex, I wouldn't assume I was in for a lot of great poetry; I would call a taxi...or, in some situations, 911.

In other words: "Leave them no choice" when the subject is sex? That's language referring to rape. (Uh...if it was a joke, then its being a joke argues in favor of the more obscene interpretation as much as ordinary usage-in-context does.)

I do tend to think the men in this case were joking, but...well...let's just say that if I had a colleague at work who made a joke like that about me and I found out about it, I would look into filing a complaint. And I probably would not feel comfortable working with that person.  The dancer at NYCB may feel differently--though I kind of doubt it--but that doesn't make that kind of joking the least bit less problematic for NYCB as a workplace for women and, indeed, for men.

Alessa Rogers reports on her blog "The Expat Ballerina" that she has joined the Royal Swedish Ballet -- currently directed by Nicolas Le Riche.  Actually she posted this over a month ago, but I only saw it this morning. When she was with Atlanta Ballet her dancing was one of the highlights of any performance in which she appeared. I find Rogers a magical dancer and also...The Expat Ballerina is quite an entertaining blog:

https://www.expatballerina.com/my-big-news/

53 minutes ago, abatt said:

 If and when NYCB wins and gets the case dismissed, they should send a press release touting the victory to every news outlet in existence.

At the same time, they might be wise as well as compassionate not to be seen as attacking Waterbury or taking her suffering lightly.

40 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

She is trying to get money. Look at Merson's case records https://mersonlaw.com/

He doesn't care about changing culture, he cares about making HUGE money... and guess who has the money here.... not Finlay!

As an aside I can't help reflecting that  if I were Finlay I would rather be sued than face criminal charges that could land me in prison. But that's just me. 

As far as your point goes--yes lawyers take these cases for money and NYCB has money. As it happens, in our society anyway, money awards in lawsuits and/or settlements have proven to be one way to get institutions to look at themselves and change...in this case it may be a non-issue if the case is thrown out and/or a case goes forward and shows no change is needed.  But it might not be and statements made by  Bouder and Lovette, as well as the company's decision to fire Catazaro and Ramasar (however that gets resolved) suggest that not all the dancers are treating it as a non-issue even if they want to defend the company as an institution, which they surely do.

In any case, in our system of law wanting to "get money" is a legitimate way of seeking redress, even as saying someone wants to "get money" is sometimes used as a way to discredit them. To me it's more than believable that Waterbury sees her case as a case about NYCB and not just Finlay even if she is wrong.  And cases involving sexual issues are incredibly painful for victims to go through. The vast majority of victims in these cases do not take any legal action lightly or merely greedily--it's just too hard and too humiliating.  In fact I assume motives in most lawsuits are complex -- I said that above...and I have no problem with that.

NYCB in all this? I just don't share the view that several have expressed that it's obvious they bear no responsibility. Even if it's not a legal responsibility (which courts will decide): if an organization does an in-house investigation and finds that THREE of their top people are involved in behavior that is judged to be problematic, then I own it's very hard for me to take it as simply given nothing more is going on... that, say in this case, it's no more than one bad apple plus two slightly oxygenated ones...

Fraildove posted just as I was wrapping up my typing...I think s/he puts some of these issues more eloquently than I do, but I will go ahead and post...

One person's revenge may be another person's justice. Or her self-affirmation in the face of mistreatment.

In any case, Waterbury didn't create this situation and has every right to seek redress for what was done to her from whatever parties she thinks bears responsibility. For whatever motive. That is, unless it was established that she was a liar,  her motives seem to me a non-issue, and the company's own investigation confirms that they found her concerns to have some basis in truth. (Though the details of what they confirmed remain confidential, and that's a very different matter from confirming all the things alleged in the formal complaint.)

Her lawyer thinks there may be a case against more parties than Finlay. The courts may well decide otherwise--NYCB obviously thought and probably still thinks so, as do many here. But her suit is a response to things done TO her and around her; the damage to NYCB's reputation was done by others.

(I'll add that the idea that NYCB's reputation wouldn't be hurt if Waterbury only sued Finlay seems dubious to me--of course other names and stories were going to be part of the case against him. He was sharing photos and video with other employees at NYCB--Ramasar at the least, and Ramasar also happens to be one of their biggest male stars. How was NYCB's reputation NOT going to take a hit on the basis of the case against Finlay alone?)

Anyone can think what they want about Waterbury, but if NYCB or its dancers, for example, were to take the position that SHE is the source of their problems, I suspect their reputation would take another hit.

I find turning the case into an excuse to bash Martins for everything from firing Suzanne Farrell to not having Balanchine's gnomic wisdom to be absurd. (Bash him FOR firing Farrell if you like--that's a different matter.) And the implication of pieces like Bentley's that in Balanchine's day all was high-minded self-sacrifice and that in Martins' day all became narcissistic self-glorification seems to me itself a piece of narcissism and disrespectful of many great artists. But that's very different from simply giving the company a pass on everything that has happened while insinuating and/or stating that it's somehow Waterbury's fault.  

3 hours ago, Royal Blue said:

What an exceptionally dignified, solemn role that originally danced by Mimi Paul in Emeralds is! This is the part in Jewels—especially in the ethereal choreography for her solo and the “walking pas de deux” (accompanied respectively by Fauré’s haunting “Sicilienne” and “Nocturne”)—that powerfully evokes intimations of another world, and thereby constitutes a coveted antidote to all the extraneous, incessant noise in this one. Wednesday evening's debut by Unity Phelan in this role was ineffably thrilling. This was the debut of the week I was most looking forward to and her performance, situated between two sublime renditions of the same part by a transcendent Ashley Laracey on Tuesday and Thursday evening, exceeded even my trustful expectations. It would be a salutary, gratifying experience for mere mortals to witness this at whatever occasion in this troubling world; however, in light of the chaos swirling around NYCB presently the sublimity and spirituality of the beauteous dancing with downcast eyes by both women could not have been timelier.

The solo for the ‘second’ Emeralds ballerina is pretty much one of my favorite solos in all Balanchine and actually in all ballet. Love reading about Phelan’s debut and also Laracey in the role....

Regarding the Steichen...I wish I had known about Holly Howard when we had a thread/discussion going back and forth about just how courtly, romantic, and idealizing Balanchine’s relations to women really were....

Very sad news--but what a great life he lived!

Rest-in-peace Arthur Mitchell....

Going with an open mind to any performance is important. But actually enough financial and sometimes health stress is involved in my ballet travels that I tend to attend performances with a predisposition to find something to admire and enjoy.

But I have seen this particular production in the theatre (not just broadcasts) several times with different casts, though of course I don’t get to see it as often as some others on this website. Perceptions can change over the years with different performances and having learned new things etc, so maybe that will happen if I see this Swan Lake in 2019.  But this production is not an unknown entity or new to me. (I also saw Grigorovich’s earlier production in one of the most thrilling performances I was ever lucky enough to see—with Semenyaka.) And the measures of Tchaikovsky’s score that the current production cuts have also always seemed to me among the most transformative and moving ever written for ballet....

I am not sure why seeing a lot of ballets on bare stages changes the fact that one can prefer some sets and costumes to others. (Even with bare stage ballets—some seem suited to the bareness while others definitely feel as if something is missing. I have often wished I could see Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto no, 2 with its original Ballet Imperial drop which showed the citiscape of St. Petersburg with the Peter and Paul fortress.)

Anyway, if I am fortunate enough to make it to London to see the Bolshoi (as I am going to try!)  I am hoping to see Stepanova in either Swan Lake or Bayadere, but certainly the one production I most hope to see this summer in London (and spitting to ward off the evil eye) is Bayadere...

I prefer the traditional character dances of Sergeyev’s version which I think the Bolshoi could dance fabulously. Mileages do vary...for me, the amount of time given to Siegfried dancing with the evil genius, at times almost as if being manipulated by him and other specific quirks  of Grigorovich’s production lessens the sense of the prince’s and Odette’s agency

But you surely might convince me  that I just wasn’t following what was intended,  and need to interpret differently...I still doubt I would ever love this production with its grim, sometimes sour-toned  visuals and missing measures of Tchaikovsky final, trancendent moments.  As sometimes happens at the Bolshoi, I still look forward to the dancers even when I don’t care for a production.

I am most excited to see the Bolshoi dance Bayadere and hope I am able to do so!

7 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Perhaps you live a sheltered existence compared to many but I will point out that the masses engage in picture sharing of all natures on a round the clock basis (ie: Snapchat). Whether it is appropriate is one thing but normal it most certainly is.

The commoness of photo-sharing of  “all kinds” is also one reason there are new laws against certain kinds of “sharing” —- eg of intimate photos/video shared without consent, revenge porn etc. 

22 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

[...] But nobody here can say for certain how the dancers would react.  Would they be so outraged that they would demand the firing of Catazaro  and Ramasar,  who did not take the photos and (weren't the only ones who saw them)?

 

Let's just say if an employer didn't seriously discipline someone who had circulated illicit/illegal photos of a fellow worker I'd wonder if that wouldn't be potentially problematic even if the particular worker forgave the person who circulated them. Why? because of the creation of a hostile workplace for others who might feel very differently should it ever happen to them or indeed even have concern about being in a workplace where illegal behavior was tolerated.  To say nothing of the moral pressures it places on an individual to pretend they don't care when they do ("oh if you didn't make such a fuss poor X wouldn't be losing his/her job"...)

The situation here doesn't involve an employee, so it's different. But the allegations in the complaint suggest employees may have been victims as well. It's an allegation--it may just be based on rumors; it may not be true. But it's a serious one and it seems to me a very mild position to hope the company has been looking into the matter to see if there is anything behind it.  (To say nothing of some of the other allegations.) Even the most minimal respect for all the dancers--male and female--and their status as professionals would suggest it shouldn't be blithely ignored--and even if fear of future lawsuits wasn't yet another issue.

10 hours ago, On Pointe said:

So many of the company's principal dancers and soloists have expressed support for Catazaro and Ramasar,  the people they interact with the most,  one wonders,  who are the "community" members who can't tolerate their presence?  Why should their opinion count for more than the artists people come to the theater to see?

I had read here about Kowroski and Veyette, but I'll take your word for it that there are many...in any case, if evaluating the situation shouldn't be a popularity contest, than even more so it shouldn't be a popularity contest in which the votes of the most famous/admired dancers count for more than others, especially when they are friends with one of the parties involved in the situation. The issues have to be looked at more coldly than that.

As far as whether it might be painful to dancers to have unclothed photos of themselves circulated without their permission--the point is they have the same rights as anyone else and photos they themselves choose to disseminate are an entirely different matter.  (THREE people just posted on this issue while I was typing so...uh...yeah -- what they said.)

I just saw, too, the Bentley piece posted, though I have yet to read it. I have long found a few of the publicity campaigns by NYCB sometimes sexualized in a way that I personally didn't care for  (And I didn't even know about the young patrons video.) I believe I used the word "soft core porn" to friends YEARS, maybe even decades, ago about one campaign though I don't know that I ever said that on the internet! However, it was always my thought that perhaps I was being too puritanical, showing my age etc.  After all, ballet IS sexy--or can be. But I will read the Bentley piece with interest.  I don't think she is known for being puritanical at any rate!

Edited to add: I did just read it. It's less informative/insightful than I had hoped. Or, rather, it's more mourning for Balanchine and dismay at Martins.  She doesn't appear to give anyone or anything under the Martins regime (and since) the least benefit of the doubt on any front.

Excellent!

Thanks for your review. It's always valuable to me to read others seeing the company...

Gaifullin is just wonderful...probably my favorite dancer in the company right now, though I certainly have my eye on Airi Igarashi after this weekend and Nadia Mara is, as it were, a long-time favorite.

19 minutes ago, balletgirl22sk said:

Don't like most of the rest of the season but will probably go to La Sylphide. Can't handle another Nut and there are quite a few modern pieces coming up during the year which I don't want to see. I do miss the rep of Sarasota Ballet.

 

As you probably know from the press, the Atlanta Ballet repertory was even more oriented to contemporary work in the years prior to Nedvigin coming here in 2016. (Though it was always somewhat eclectic.)

Sarasota Ballet has built up such an outstanding repertory -- and with the Ashton specialists at the helm to make that repertory come alive -- I'm not surprised you miss it.

19 minutes ago, balletgirl22sk said:

 

Last piece I didn't like except for appreciating the dancers.  A lot of it was- done that already like Drew said. Even if I don't like the choreography, I can enjoy the dancers. When the music started it wasn't too loud but when the violin concerto and Capriccioso started, it was ear splitting. Miss having an orchestra.

I'm hoping there will be an orchestra for Sylphide as there was for Don Quixote last year.

On 9/17/2018 at 2:12 PM, balletforme said:

Maybe I missed something but why are Ramasar and Catazaro, being fired after an initial decision was made for suspension? 

NYCB had 2 months with the evidence made available to them in June to determine if these two needed to be fired or not. They chose to suspend them but now, once the negative press is accelerating, they fire them?

Seems like a PR motivated thing to do. A panicked, "We've got to do something," move. 

What is new now that requires these two to be fired and not suspended as originally determined? 

I have cut and pasted below what they wrote (which you may have seen): the issue is "further assessment"  which surely is the company's prerogative; I don't assume it just means PR assessment, but assessment of what is happening in the workplace. Here is the quote:

"In a previous communication from New York City Ballet, you learned that the Company recently undertook an internal investigation that determined that Zachary Catazaro, Chase Finlay, and Amar Ramasar had violated the norms of conduct that NYCB expects of its employees. At that time New York City Ballet took the initial action of suspending Catazaro and Ramasar, and had made the decision to terminate Finlay, prior to receiving notice of his resignation.

"After further assessment of their conduct and its impact on the NYCB community, the decision has been made to terminate Catazaro and Ramasar. A workplace where our dancers and staff feel respected and valued is our highest obligation, and we will not allow the private actions of a few to undermine the hard work and strength of character that has consistently been demonstrated by the other members of our community, or the excellence for which the Company stands."

I can't say I'm surprised dancers (notably a couple of principal dancers) are expressing sympathy for their friends.  But I would like to believe it's not simply a matter of knee-jerk loyalty. Loyalty is a lovely quality as is friendship, but that kind of show of loyalty often happens in other fields (eg academia) around similar kinds of issues and I think that, on the whole, it has been detrimental to movement on issues of sexual exploitation in universities and in the workplace. As Stephen Colbert said about Les Moonves who hired him and was a big supporter of his show--even if it's your guy, you shouldn't just automatically be on his side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKa5u6mX05o  

Indeed if this WERE a popularity contest within the company, one can't help but suppose that Waterbury's interests would stand no chance, because she is presumably not known to most of the dancers. Which is yet another reason this shouldn't be a popularity contest. (For that matter a new corps de ballet member wouldn't have the clout of a long time principal etc. etc.)

If other dancers'/employees' photos have been distributed as alleged, then this all must be unbelievably painful for them and I hope and trust the company's leaders and, when appropriate, other dancers and the union also have concern for their interests. (There are a number of issues raised by the complaint that extend beyond Waterbury that I hope have been or are being investigated by the company seriously.)

I notice a lot of people above read Ramasar's second statement more warily/critically than I did...I was just relieved there was some nod to regret and sympathy for Waterbury.

1 hour ago, MadameP said:

Yes, I agree it is Sergeyev version, allowing a little for personal artistic license and maybe the company allows this?!  (Kolesnikova embellished the port de bras  - as, for example, in Odile, when raising her arms to 5th -)  As for the Bolshoi Grigorovich Swan Lake ... I greatly admire Grigorovich for Spartacus,  Ivan the Terrible, Golden Age, Legend of Love  ... MANY ballets .. but I do not like his Swan Lake.   But just my opinion!  

The Grigorovich Swan Lake  is possibly my least favorite of any that more or less keeps much of the lake scene intact--especially in its most recently updated version with the overwhelmingly beautiful final measures of the score CUT.   And I can't help but think it an uphill battle for any ballerina, even the finest, to create a  a truly profoundly moving Odette/Odile when playing a figure who is explicitly presented as an illusion to trap Siegfried. And indeed Grigorovich seems much more interested in Siegfried's relationship to the evil genius than to Odette.

That said, I hope to see Stepanova's Swan Lake for myself this summer--even in this version. Though I'm much more looking forward to seeing her (and other Bolshoi ballerinas) in Bayadere. Fingers crossed...

We may read different media. I actually have seen very strongly worded public facing social media statements exclusively  focused on Finlay —none focused entirely on Ramasar except on his Instagram page. And I saw early press that was circulated all over the place primarily accompanied with pictures of Finlay or Finlay and Waterbury. But as the story has grown and Ramasar has begun issuing statements, it is certainly well to be sensitive about how Ramasar gets depicted for the reasons On Pointe alludes to.

For ballet watchers and Broadway goers Ramasar is also the best known and most admired of the dancers involved as well...so that adds another layer to responses. Even in the Times's first article about this suit, quotes from the paper's dance critic made it clear he had critical reservations about the recent dancing of Finlay and Catazaro but not Ramasar. 

Ramasar's second statement is considerably better than his first. One wishes it had not taken him two tries to express sympathy for Waterbury and regret for some of his actions. But likely this helps him if not with NYCB than in other career avenues he may have.

17 hours ago, maps said:

 Barnett is wonderful and I'm glad you got to see the spirit of the work in Tch Pdd.  Last 1.5 I saw missed the mark. Next might be the most expensive 8 minutes of theatre in my life. 

Hope it's a great performance then...

I had a factual error in what I wrote above that I just edited out--The Kylian that the Bolshoi recently took into its repertory is "Forgotten Land."

45 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.

I wasn't addressing your comments (or legalities per se) except in the broad sense that I'm struck by the kinds of criticism accusers are subject to in cases like these--which speaks to why people are indeed reluctant to speak out, bring accusations, etc.

42 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

  This is not a ballet issue,  it's a personal issue.

This seems to me a crux....it may turn out that that is how the courts will see it as a legal matter. Yet some workplaces are better than others, some institutions better than others. Is it really luck of the draw as to personnel etc.?  Sometimes surely yes...but I own In my work experience, I have not entirely found it so. At some workplaces problematic people are allowed to run amuck; at others not so much. I don't feel as confident as you that we know yet which it was at New York City Ballet, though we know what has been alleged. I confess the fact that at the very least three principal dancers are involved in whatever fashion gives me pause.  (I find it hard to believe the company fired Catazaro casually--just as I don't believe ABT opened an investigation into Gomes casually. But if they did, then it appears we are likely to find out through arbitration...)

Regarding the Kaufman piece: I would love to see Balanchine era dancers like Farrell etc. back at the State Theater. One of the best things the interim team has done is bring in Villella, McBride, and Baryshnikov to work with the dancers on roles they created. But as a response to this particular crisis...it's a bit of a head-scratcher for me. 

Thanks for this report. (I won't get to see this when it's brought to the States but I would love to have done so....)

I think it's rather fascinating that Osipova wanted to dance Tudor--she gave an interview where she spoke about admiring his choreography--and find myself wondering how she even came to know much about Tudor beyond the name.

1 hour ago, Longtimelurker said:

 I think that since her lawyer and the media have mischaracterized her relationship with the company that she has chosen to sue...

I assume the company's lawyers will also insist on this--regarding what she said about studying at New York City Ballet Inc. (I assume that's what you are referring to...) For me, leaving aside the legal issues, it makes little difference to the larger implications of the case. Whatever turns out to be the legal status of New York City Ballet Inc., the School of American Ballet is intimately intertwined with New York City Ballet, and not just as their feeder school but sharing a director etc.  If a case went forward against the company (I don't think it will because it will likely be dismissed or settled), then it would not be hard to show that School of American Ballet stands in a very different relationship to New York City Ballet than, say, Ballet Academy East does.

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

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.

Just one Bolshoi dancer that has been formally found guilty, but yes--and actually, more disturbingly to me, that same dancer has been allowed back into the theater to take class! I brought it up because I wanted to be candid about how conflicted situations like this make me as a ballet fan feel, though in such situations my particular feelings are rather trivial considerations. But as I said, I also feel differently about a company  that is, so to speak, my home company, and to which I have made donations. (I have never donated to the Bolshoi.) 

Right now, I DO continue to support New York City Ballet -- partly because of their most recent statement. At the same time, if Ramasar and Catazaro successfully fight to get their jobs back on the basis of arbitration and what their contracts do and do not allow etc. -- and the whole scene does NOT become a victim shaming fest and I am given reason to understand the other issues raised by the suit are being taken seriously -- then I believe I could continue to support the company too. (Not that my support is a serious issue here. It's not...so perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up. But since I did I thought I should explain myself.)

And thank you Villette for your post....these are very hard things to talk about in any setting...

3 hours ago, On Pointe said:

 If they want to risk being bruised and broken that's on them.

No-one wants to risk being bruised and broken at any workplace. Speaking generally, one issue I notice is that sometimes people find themselves in situations where they also doubt--and indeed are implicitly encouraged to doubt--their own perceptions. "Everyone says x is such a great person...I must be over-reacting...;" "Well, so-and-so didn't actually physically hurt me, I just felt weird-- I guess I shouldn't say anything" and "Perhaps it was just the one time, I don't want x to lose his/her job" etc.  "So-and-so reported something two years ago and ended up losing HER (or HIS) job after blowing the whistle...I don't want that to happen to me..." and, very common, "It must have been my fault--I sent the wrong message when I stopped to chat...asked for advice..." etc. etc.

I wish people spoke up more too. But a blanket condemnation for people who don't speak up at their workplace about behaviors that are genuinely inappropriate or even illegal  seems puzzling to me. Especially when you add gaps of age and experience, complex legal scenarios--since without certain kinds of evidence some statements can be considered libelous etc. 

To return to this case: Waterbury doesn't work at NYCB--though I don't think her history as an SAB student is morally insignificant in this story and I suppose there is a chance that it may turn out not be legally insignificant either--but even the way her complaint has been received gives one an idea of how hard it is to come forward in similar situations including when employers are involved: "Oh she isn't really suffering--I saw her in class last week;" (which implies and more than implies that she's a liar)  "Oh what was she doing on Finlay's computer anyway?"  (which implies and more than implies she is a suspicious person) "Obviously, she is out for money...revenge..."(which implies she is an opportunist) to say nothing of the insults she reports receiving in one of her interviews...And all this despite the fact that the company's own investigation found wrongdoing on the part of Finlay, Ramasar, and Catazaro.

The fact that we may see more of this kind of thing as the legal disputes go forward actually has me in a bit of a cold sweat (not that that is the main problem with it!!) since--for example--if the company were to go after Waterbury in a personal way (as opposed simply to disputing their legal responsibility for what happened to her), then I would likely feel compelled to stop travellng to see NYCB perform for quite a while.  (This may seem comical--or hypocritical--from someone planning to travel to see the Bolshoi this summer--but New York City Ballet is New York City Ballet, a "home" company for me. I do feel differently about it and a different kind of responsibility as someone who has donated money to the company etc.)

Edited to add: Maybe someone is reading this and thinking "oh grow up...all major ballet companies have horrible stuff going down all the time..." But if that were true, so much the more reason for there to be a reckoning and an attempt to think about what the companies and their schools might do differently. There are always bad people (something On Pointe has said several times), but not all workplaces are equally bad.

5 minutes ago, California said:

Thanks for this lovely report, Drew. I'm always so pleased to see that great dancing is being shown by the regional companies that are so often overlooked.

Yes...

I believe it's a tad déclassé for a serious ballet fan to get overexcited about fouettés but when--at this afternoon's performance of Atlanta Ballet's Return to Fall program--I saw a Don Quixote pas de deux in which Airi Igarashi executed fouettés of a quality I would have been delighted to see at the Metropolitan Opera House with, say, ABT, you can bet I got overexcited. After executing the first half as a series of singles alternating with doubles at good speed with a more than decent upper body--all traveling downstage evenly in a controlled straight line, right down the center--she went into the second half of the series doing singles smack on the beat while the audience started clapping rhythmically (just as one hears Russian audiences often do). I must admit I was so delighted I joined in...In fact, her whole performance was very good--for example, she was able to make something of the échappés in her variation etc. And it was already clear from the adagio that she was a confident turner. Huge cheers from me. After the performance it did cross my mind to wonder if she had competition experience; checking her company bio in the program I see that she won a competition in Japan in 2011 and was a semi-finalist at the Prix de Lausanne in 2013 and 2015. Anyway, I think she is a dancer, not just a turner or 'competition dancer,' and I am very much looking forward to seeing more of her.

It has been some years since Atlanta Ballet performed a Fall program before Nutcracker season got underway--hence the moniker "Return to Fall" with its other curious connotations not just seasonal but dance-wise; I'm glad they have been able to add this program, though I believe it will be repeated in April at a different Atlanta area venue--so I don't think there will be a "new" program in April. (I attend performances at the Cobb Energy Center. In April Atlanta Ballet will be dancing at a new performing arts center in Sandy Springs.) 

The program began with Kylian's Return to a Strange Land. I had thought this was new to me, but after a short video feature talking about the ballet as a response to the Stuttgart's "return" to their home theater after Cranko's unexpected death I suspected that I had seen this before with the Stuttgart, and once the curtain came up was certain of it.  I remember the ballerina turning fluidly on her knees in particular.  This ballet is now performed all over the world.  I find it very effective and moving; as a Kylian "classic" I prefer it to Petite Mort--it seems to me to go deeper and watching it, and remembering what interest I and other ballet fans I knew felt when Kylian's work first appeared on the international scene, I found myself thinking 'no wonder we were so excited.' Among dancers of the cast I saw I thought Jessica He and Jonathan Philbert (new to the company) did the most to invest the choreography with layers of emotion as well as physical facility. I believe the emotion is there in the choreography and its relation to the music, but does need the dancers to bring it out most effectively.

The central portion of the program was made up of three pas de deux beginning with Tchaikovsky pas de deux staged by Robert Barnett. Happily, one could also see Barnett in the audience, sitting next to Gennadi Nedvigin. As anyone reading this post likely knows he was a onetime dancer with New York City Ballet who came to direct Atlanta Ballet during its transition to being a fully professional company and had Balanchine's permission to stage his ballets. I am quite pleased Nedvigin brought Barnett in. Not just in principle--I'm happy with the results too.

This was a soft, graceful performance by Emily Carrico and Igor Leushin and Mr. Drew's favorite work of the program as well as one of mine. (I liked the Kylian much more than Mr. Drew did and, as noted above, very much enjoyed Igarashi's performance in Don Q pas de deux.) This Tchaikovsky pas de deux wasn't hard hitting (a good thing). Having recently seen the ballet danced by Bouder and De Luz I can't say I found it particularly dazzling either, but I did think it had warmth and a very lovely and appealing flow. As Odile last season in the stand-alone Act III of Swan Lake the company performed, Carrico had seemed hard edged at times and slow.  It's a little mean to say but I kind of dreaded seeing her in Balanchine, but it turned out to be very smart casting because either the ballet itself or Barnett's coaching seems to have brought out a much more flowing and, though not super-speedy, still much faster Carrico than any that I, at least, had seen before. I found the performance enjoyable and will be happy to see how her dancing develops. 

The next pas de deux was a performance by two guest artists from the Czech National Ballet (Miho Ogimoto and Michal Štípa) of a pas de deux from Bigonzetti's Vertigo. (Atlanta Ballet has some vague language in its publicity about a collaboration with this company.) The dancers were excellent and the by now familiar-to-ballet-goers Shostakovitch music very beautiful. But this kind of anguished contemporary coitus choreography will never be my favorite. Perhaps if I saw the entire ballet, I wouldn't be quite so cavalier ... The concluding pas de deux of the three was the Don Q. with Igarashi and Sergio Masero-Olarte.

The final ballet on the program was a big ensemble piece--a very lively premier by Ricardo Amarante, who has been resident choreographer and artistic associate at the Astana Ballet. (That's from his program bio.) The ballet celebrates its ensemble of 18 dancers but has different dancers featured in little vignettes or episodes of the choreography. Amarante has spoken so warmly of his experience with the company I hesitate to respond with anything other than equal warmth, but I had a mixed reaction to this.

The title of the work is "The Premier" with the subtitle "Class. Rehearsal. Performance" and I think I expected something with more of a narrative like Wheeldon's Variations Serieuses. In the event, it had rather less narrative than that and I personally found its little thread of narrative hard to follow; I should say that by attending matinees I rarely see the premier or opening night casts, so possibly the dancers I saw hadn't had quite the same chance to work out their roles as the Friday night cast. Anyway, the "classroom" part of the ballet was so theatricalized I wasn't sure whether it had morphed into rehearsal until I saw the dancers stop to applaud and shake out their muscles and then realized that was probably supposed to be the end of class; the rehearsal section had some gags I could have lived without (competitive female dancers who seem to be fighting over partners) and some that seemed amusing enough (6-7 pairs of dancers lined up in shoulder lifts, and when just one pair gets the lift wrong, they all come tumbling down). I did very much appreciate that none of the gags was underlined or punched hard for the laugh; they weren't even treated as gags but just seemed to happen--as they might at rehearsal--and then the dancers immediately regrouped. For my taste, that was actually the best aspect of how Amarante developped his material.

New skirts that appeared on the women seemed to signify the ballet had gotten to "performance," but since most of the bodices still looked like rehearsal wear I wasn't entirely sure. Also the set/drop was kind of an arena theater as if the  "premier" performance was to be aimed opposite to the actual audience, but the choreography only once or twice treated it that way. Just generally, I never felt I could quite orient myself in the ballet.

It may be I was just a little slow in response -- that others "got" the choreography better than I, but for me it was also confusing on the eye. Individual bits of choreography featured dancers in appealing ways and the overall energy was good, but I could probably take a pass on seeing this a second time. Several dancers did stand out, notably Nikolas Gaifullin whom I find to be consistently one of the most impressive dancers in the company. It didn't hurt that he was given some very flashy bits of choreography--and indeed was the one dancer to draw individual applause in the middle of the ballet which really didn't pause for applause. 

On the subject of applause: though the ballet was warmly received at the end, applause seemed to me warmest for earlier works on the program including the Balanchine and Petipa which were both just as warmly received or rather more so than the Kylian and certainly more warmly received than the--certainly well-received--Bigonzetti. Audience applause isn't a sacred measure of course, but in this case, it reflected my own reactions.

 To coin a phrase: classical ballet--if you build it, they will come.

I know I write a lot--for one thing it helps seal my memory of the performances I see--but I am always eager and curious to hear from others who see Atlanta Ballet.