dirac

Thank you for delurking, DC Export. Well....no one has been pressed to death. I can’t say I’ve detected any evidence of mass hysteria recently, unless you count Messrs. Kavanaugh and Graham. It is remarkable to see so many prominent heads falling at once, but even more remarkable, surely, is the level of misbehavior so many got away with for so long. Investigations are being conducted, and people are either resigning or being dismissed with cause. So far, there have been very few borderline cases. The firings of Ramasar and Catazaro do give me pause, and if they have a good case I hope their union makes it for them. Just so, abatt. I do find the dancers’ feelings understandable in the heat of the moment, but in the long run a union that is willing and able to defend its members robustly is good for everyone.

They, too, were youngsters in the company once -- and not all that long ago. We all have our biases, but I am inclined to doubt that their success has somehow robbed them of the capacity for empathy or automatically brings their testimony to their own experience and observations of company life into question.

There's no danger in the foreseeable future, none at all, of the Times not covering dance. It is possible that Macaulay's successor doesn't get the same title, or has to share it with someone, however. The ongoing concern for me is the shift away from reviews toward chatty Q&As and fluffier pieces in the NYT arts pages because they get more clicks than reviews do. Not to mention more space given to giant photographs, because everyone knows that people who actually read a hard copy paper read it because they hate words and only like to look at pictures. But I digress.

I also recall Farrell saying that she was able to recover from a serious knee injury without surgery because Bejart's repertory was less intense than Balanchine's. She also restaged pieces by Bejart with her own company. All that said - she would likely feel differently, at least privately, if she had had to spend the rest, or most, of her career with Bejart. Fortunately that didn't happen, thanks to Farrell's own initiative.

Balanchine later apologized to Farrell, as she relates in her book, although by that point there were no hard feelings and she felt he had nothing to apologize for. After her marriage, Farrell continued to be cast in her accustomed roles. She did have to teach some of her parts to understudies, which she had never had to do before. Wiser heads tried to talk Farrell out of tendering her resignation, but she went ahead. (Not for the last time, she overestimated her clout with the boss.) She may also have felt pressure to stand by her husband and I’m guessing some of it came from Mejia. By all accounts Farrell benefited from her time with Bejart, but she would also have matured as a dancer and performer with NYCB. Overall she lost, Balanchine lost, the art form lost during those years, but fortunately they were able to make up for lost time artistically when she returned. True, On Pointe, but she returned at a time when the company really needed her even if some individuals weren’t so happy. (“Suzanne's coming back is the best thing that's happened to us since she left” – Delia Peters.) Of course Balanchine would want to see Farrell and not Mazzo in “Diamonds.” That’s not favoritism, that’s doing what’s best for the ballet, even at the cost of hurt feelings. Re: Steichen's post. Balanchine accepted Kent back to the company time and again in spite of interruptions and issues with weight fluctuations that he might not have tolerated in a less favored dancer. She remained on the payroll even when she hardly danced at all, and the money was cut off as soon as Balanchine was no longer compos mentis. And why would he want a artist as greatly gifted as Kent to spend her time changing diapers and waiting for Bert to get home from his latest infidelity? Until recently it was a challenge for any ballerina to have children and continue dancing until late in their careers -- if then (it’s still not easy). By and large Balanchine seems to have been a more than decent boss by the standards of the day in ballet companies, particularly when you consider the unique power he wielded. That said, he was human and not beyond criticism.

Sad news. I am sorry we will not have him around for more years but as Drew says, what a life! Always an engaging interview, too, if not necessarily the most reliable of sources. You are likely right, Tapfan. The interview I link to below certainly suggests that he wasn't close to his old troupe. I hope that people who saw him dance in person will write about it here. An interview from January of this year from the Times by Gia Kourlas.

It may be that we are reading different news accounts. No, I haven’t seen anything here that’s on a level with the worst of #MeToo.

Those hobbyhorses won't ride themselves. “Very worst imaginable?” Without minimizing the offenses of which Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar are accused, has Bentley been paying any attention to the stories running in the paper for which she writes?

Which the (Democratic) ladies felt safe in doing because Franken had the bad luck to come from a state with a Democratic governor who would appoint his successor. Otherwise, it's possible the matter might have been left to the Ethics Committee and, in due course, the voters of Minnesota.

I wouldn't go as far as "codswallop" - Kaufman makes some good, if not unduly arresting, points. It certainly seems, however, that she also decided to use the occasion to exercise an old hobbyhorse or two.

Female dancers have contracts, too. Drew writes: Not a great example to be followed, perhaps. The NFL's union is notoriously weak.

That's right. As I remember it, Farrell said that Balanchine asked if she could touch her head to her knee. So maybe he thought of it first with her, or he'd been looking for it all along. Kistler once said that at first she fell over trying to do it and was told not to bother, but she persisted until she could.

Looks like your mileage varies on that, as well, nanushka. I'm satisfied with my own vehicle's MPG, myself, and will stick with that -- and continue to deplore the use of the term "ballerina" when it plainly does not apply.

Your mileage may vary, etc. For general purposes "ballet dancer" is more appropriate and it is also not gender-specific, which is not mandatory but can be helpful.

The habit of the media of characterizing any female ballet dancer of whatever rank as a “ballerina” is annoying enough (they don’t refer to privates and sergeants as generals) but as you note in this case Waterbury never even seems to have danced.

Thanks for the heads-up, pherank!

For the record, there's nothing new in this link, and in fact I think it was posted several days ago in this long thread. And needless to say no one is obligated to comment here at the expense of other more important matters in their lives........

Thank you, FPF. Page Six has details about the will. An obit for Carole Shelley, one of the original Pigeon sisters.

The NYT observes Bernstein's centenary. A quiz. Bernstein's former assistant gets spliced.

As I noted in my previous post, because of the resignation and suspensions we know there is fire amid the smoke. However, the specifics are yet to be made publicly known. As far as I'm aware, we know that the company stated that "inappropriate communications" were made and the complaint details what Waterbury claims was the substance of those communications.

Well, anybody can ask for money. Whether the company is on the hook, as opposed to (potentially) the accused individuals, is another matter. The company appears to have been confident in its legal position, confident enough to tell Waterbury's lawyer to take a hike when he made the initial approach (the uncharitable might think of it as an attempted shakedown - not making any judgment myself, just saying). Whether those who made the call were correct remains to be seen, of course. (If anyone else has made this point in this long thread, sorry for the repetition.) I add my voice to those who have reminded us that these are accusations only. Given the resignation and the suspensions, plainly there's some fire within the smoke, but that's all we really know to date.

We rejoice in the number of NYCB fans here on the board (and thanks to all of them who post here). Also, sex sells. What a catastrophe for the company, if even part of this is true.

Yes, Martins did resign abruptly -- after a long and stable, if at times controversial, tenure. Many companies can’t say anything like as much. My understanding is that the interim leadership are managing affairs fairly smoothly, all things considered. Even this incident may not lead to any publicity beyond the Times article. There was a complaint, the company investigated, this was the result. It could well end here.

It was Croce. The association with Bejart benefited both Farrell and Bejart, I'd say, even if Farrell could not of course never be completely at home in his repertory. She was his prima for as long as she had been Balanchine's, and devoted herself to his work while she was there. As with sports figures, suspension is an option for a number of reasons. Someone may be under investigation with nothing yet proven, but to play it safe the organization will suspend the person, with or without pay depending on circumstances (and, I assume, union agreements). An example would be the NYT editor who was suspended after charges of sexual misconduct and later returned to work at a different post following an investigation. Or suspension is employed as a punishment in lieu of dismissal. Firing is a severe step, with potential legal risks if it is done without due care, and depending on circumstances can end a person’s career. The suspended person may be a valued employee, (or a well-connected one) whereas a less valued employee in the same situation gets canned. That’s conflating a wide range of behavior there. Cosby is a convicted rapist. Until we know more about what happened here – and we may never know more – perhaps we shouldn’t rush to judgment. I felt pretty safe in the case of Marcelo Gomes in guessing that he was accused of something quite serious. I’m not so sure here. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a company still in turmoil acting out of an overabundance of caution. Did Finlay resign out of pique, or because he had no case to make? I'm thinking the latter, but who knows.

I have no recommendations either, but I'd suggest doing a search through some book reviews (LRB, NYRB, etc.) Even if you're not a subscriber and can't get past their walls, you should be able to see the titles of books on the subject they thought worth reviewing and get an idea of what they're about. I know "Testimony: the Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich" by Solomon Volkov caused some controversy back when. If you live near a good library, it may have some of those books on its shelves, or maintain physical or digital copies of book reviews and magazines that contain articles with Shostakovich as a subject.