dirac

And their deadliness is inextricably intertwined with sex. It's rare to see fear of female sexuality expressed so graphically, although I doubt Robbins understood what he was telegraphing. I wonder if perhaps these days its obviousness may render it harmless (?) It's so blatant I can't imagine anyone taking it seriously now, but I could be mistaken. You could argue that it's an important ballet in terms of Robbins' career and sensibility and so should be revived now and then for that alone. However, if it was dropped entirely, somewhere out there in the great beyond Stravinsky would be smiling. Edited to say: I didn't see Quiggin's post before I posted this, but I echo much of what Quiggin said.

She said something similar to Ballet Review many years ago. As I recall it -- “A performance is an enactment that is done in accordance with the music on a given night.” That certainly seems to have been true for her. Zippora Karz remarked that it didn’t always work – Farrell would fall off that precipice from time to time. It never worried her – she would come back and take the risk again and it would pay off. It does seem like one of those don’t-try-this-at-home things – it wouldn’t work for everyone and Balanchine did not permit every dancer the liberties he allowed Farrell. But it’s an observation that any dancer would find of enormous value, I think. (The critical response to Farrell's company was interesting. Now that it's kaput, she's receiving the best reviews since the company's inception.)

Farrell is interviewed by Alastair Macaulay in the NYT.

Many thanks for posting, Anthony_NYC, and it's good to hear from you. The drink in hand is well advised. The director, Lasse Hallstrom, has done some good work, so there's hope. Looks like Copeland is a sort of specialty act in a show-within-a-show.

From 1987:

It's certainly not a question of denying anyone's humanity, although some would say that sexual harassment and sexual abuse are to some extent a denial of the full humanity of the victims of both sexes.

Interesting take, YouOverThere. Did you see the movie original, and if so, how would you compare the two?

I like " As we find ourselves joining a critical national conversation, we feel fortunate to be able to share the power of musical expression with our audience and work to make our society stronger." So much more tactful than "As we find our revered leader publicly outed as a sex offender........" Interesting that there is no reference at all to what the musicians themselves might or might not have known. Of course I can understand the difficulty of their position. Levine has been the Met orchestra's chief champion and benefactor - it's no exaggeration to say everything they are today is because of his talents and efforts. Did any of them remain silent because of that?

I had the impression that a significant portion of the sexual harassment debate has been devoted to women’s fear of speaking up, hence the recourse to anonymous accusations, etc. The term “Stockholm syndrome” has been used here. If women always felt capable not only of a “Please stop” but “Knock it off” things might indeed be very different. That said -- it’s a tremendous, and unjust, burden on women to be the gatekeepers. Part of that is the way our cultural expectations of the sexes are structured – men make the first move, women say no or yes or maybe – and that feeds into sexual harassment situations. Absolutely men have to examine their own conduct and assumptions. And having said that -- I think this quote is apropos:

Anne Midgette weighs in. (Some of what she says is relevant to the Martins matter as well.)

Drew writes: Yes. Twenty-somethings haven't necessarily been in the workplace long enough to understand what their elders had to deal with and are still dealing with. Sometimes sexual harassment doesn't start in earnest until the jobs get bigger and the stakes get higher. I tend to shy away from overuse of generational distinctions, but progress isn't guaranteed with every generation, and every new generation is not necessarily more "advanced" than the previous one. It's my hope, however, that real change will come out of this, and young women will have to carry on the fight for that.

Yes, it's an obvious defense. That doesn't mean that the "sour grapes" don't exist, among principals as well as those who don't make it so far. (Joan Crawford: "How can I compete with Norma when she sleeps with the boss?" Very well, as it turned out.) It's up to investigators to sort this kind of thing out when it's a fuzzy area - and fuzzy areas do exist. It also won't be much of a defense if the accuser's story is believable, particularly in the current environment with heightened awareness.

That is certainly the implication, although additional details about the alleged affairs and the circumstances would be helpful and that's the kind of thing the board has to look at. "Affair" can apply to liaisons where neither party is married. We know for certain that Martins had multiple affairs with dancers before he took control of the company, and we know at least several of their names because they've made it into print one way or another. Be that as it may, the issue is not whether he was unfaithful to Kistler but if those alleged affairs were specific instances and/or created a larger environment of sexual harassment. True, sidwich. Martins would likely have to come through with a perfectly clean slate to get through this, particularly with regard to any recent instances of trouble. It's hard to see him doing that and it's possible the Board is simply buying time. They can say truthfully they investigated thoroughly while figuring out what to do next. (I certainly hope they're not sitting on their hands waiting for the outcome.)

If we are going this far into speculation about motives -- Keeping him close in limos, trashing young dancers, as Allison Brown asserts? (I'm just asking.)

If Martins has been beating up on Kistler in the decades since, we don't know about it. As far as we know, there were no repeat instances. It is possible that Kistler has maintained silence on such repeated abuses to protect her husband and it's also possible that the Martinses moved on from the incident. We don't know. balletforme, I think many people are using “due process” not in its strict legal sense but as a way of saying that a process should be in place for the handling of such charges and the accused should retain some rights in that process, even if the process is not a legal one. You don't have to hold any brief for the accused to be concerned about this. It is quite true that American private employers can and do fire people quite freely. I’m not sure why anyone aside from employers would regard this as a net plus. In most of the cases that have become public recently, it is true that the rights of the accused haven’t been much of a concern. The conduct is egregious or worse, multiple accusers come forward with detailed and believable accounts, often dropping anonymity, the media report it in some detail, so the public have at least a general idea of the offenses committed, and the offenders admit the conduct, straightforwardly or tacitly. The accused are often powerful men worth millions, amply able to defend themselves against any unjust charges. It seems to me that in this particular matter, the Board is doing the appropriate thing. Martins has denied the claims and will presumably be able to defend himself. He has taken a voluntary leave of absence while what appears to be a thorough investigation goes forward. (We may never learn the details of that investigation, as sidwich noted earlier.)

In any event the greatest dancers don't necessarily make the best coaches. Certainly reliable utility ballerinas can make good, even great coaches. My larger point was that Watts embodies issues that made the Martins regime controversial in the first place and having her back at the company isn’t exactly opening the door to fresh breezes and influences. I note that when Allison Brown hopped into that limo Watts was one of the in-group putting Cass down. I’m sure she’s a perfectly fine coach and could be/is helpful to dancers at NYCB.

Many thanks for posting this, AB's Mom. I enjoyed watching this, and did so more than once. Delgado is delicious, Peck is almost sexy, and the chemistry is great. Nice dance, well directed video. This Peck fellow shows promise.

Definitely. Outgoing leaders - and it feels safe at this point to say that Martins will be outgoing - often have Board loyalists that go along with them, voluntarily or otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens here.

Croce addressed the point about Balanchine making her a principal in the piece. She also mentioned that Watts's repertory was big in part because she never got hurt. I never heard that Watts blames Martins for the decline in her dancing, but wow. Well, Croce thought she was watching the repertory she cherished go down the drain and that what Watts was doing with her roles was a part of it. But no question, it was rough stuff.

Regardless of the kind of coach Watts is now, I sort of had the impression that she was part of the problem, not the solution - a problematic court favorite and the most notorious example under the Martins regime of a dancer who benefited beyond her gifts from her intimate relationship with the boss. Croce: "Balanchine had his pets, but none of them were ever as egregious as Heather Watts." I also remember Croce remarking that Watts was making a hash of her Balanchine roles, "simplifying what she couldn't put over." Not so? I suppose there would be an irony in there somewhere if Damian Woetzel got the nod - the old boss' famous ex returning to the company on the arm of her husband the new boss.

It does. Of course, that doesn't mean there's nothing to come, but you have to assume reporters are asking potential sources about sexual harassment as well, and this is what they're coming up with. Hard to see how Martins can remain now, nor should he. At the very least the company would be split. (I wonder if he had just kept to non-physical abuse, like Robbins, if he would be able to survive this?)

Moderator note: We have an existing thread for NYCB's 2017 Nutcracker season here for any comments regarding Nutcracker casting or other matters related to the production. Please carry on any such discussions in that thread. Thanks.

Thanks for taking the time to report back. Sorry the evening was uninspired.

Interesting. I was actually going by Gottlieb's memoir and previous writings (he's written about the break with NYCB more than once). I don't remember reading anything about Martins being angry at him for not killing the article, so that's news to me. I have dipped into the Duberman book, but no more than that, I'm sorry to say. If so, then that would be unreasonable, to say the very least. Obviously Gottlieb could not b expected to censor his writer.

Well...presumably those other stewards are around because Martins wanted them there (?) If I remember correctly, as Gottlieb reported their conversation, Martins said something like, “It isn’t that you publish Arlene, it’s that you agree with her.” I suggest respectfully that’s somewhat different from holding him responsible for what Croce said, with the implication that as Croce’s editor Gottlieb should have been able to do something about what Croce said.