kfw

1 hour ago, its the mom said:

Just for the record, I in no way shared the article above to excuse Martins' behavior.  I just believe it sheds light on the situation.  

It hardly excuses it, no, but it gives some grounds for empathy at a time when he's down and easy to kick (and I say that as someone who's never been a supporter). Thanks for posting it. 

ETA: Not that I'm knocking anyone for criticizing him.

8 hours ago, abatt said:

Martin's dating of Kistler when she was 16 isn't the issue.  It's an irrelevant side show. So are the DUI's.  The only issue is whether he committed sexual abuse or physical abuse,as defined under the law, against dancers or students during the course of his employment since he was elevated to director in 1983.

24 minutes ago, pherank said:

Plainly, some (most? half?) of the New York audience are intelligent enough to decide for themselves about what is working or not working in a ballet. And have an opinion about racial and cultural stereotypes in the stage arts. But, and this is a big but, we live in a world in which many people want to perpetuate existing stereotypes and create still more. I'm afraid there are plenty of places in this world (including the country I live in) where many people are not the least bit interested in having "serious conversations" about sexism, racial stereotypes, imperialism/colonialism, etc. They want only to relive some 'golden age' of the past that never really existed.

Does one rarely seen ballet really perpetuate any kind of stereotype? To whom? Who in 2018 is really so unintelligent as to think less of Asian women having seen Bugaku? Unfortunately sometimes it's precisely the insistence, well-intentioned as it is, on having serious conversations monologues in which one opinion alone is considered respectable and others are labeled shameful that makes the people most in need of education turn away. Some are racist; few are stupid. 

It's a factually incorrect statement. One cannot lead from point A to point A. 

Quote

The SAB Board truly appreciates Peter’s tremendous contributions to the extraordinary success of NYCB and SAB over the past thirty years as he led our institutions to a position of international prominence and an exceptional record of artistic achievement. 

"To"? That's very odd wording. Martins has maintained the prominence and artistic achievement already existent in the institutions he inherited.

2 hours ago, dirac said:

Hi, diane. I taped it and plan to watch it soon, since I agree it's important to watch on New Year's Day or very soon after. Yes, the program is a bit kitschy but I admit to enjoying that aspect. It also tends to be predictable - marches, polkas, waltzes - but again that's a plus for me; one of the predictable pleasures of the new year, like the Budweiser Clydesdales in the Rose Parade.

It's never shown live here as far as I know.

Did anyone else see it?

We watch it every year. Three hundred and sixty-four days of the year, it's the other Strauss I love, and I never listen to this one. On New Year's Day, coming from the Musikverin, I find this one delightful. Except for the dancing which strikes us as . . . kitschy?

The 

8 minutes ago, pherank said:

But all this talk just makes me want to see it more.  ;)

The company's rehearsal of the second movement, originally on Facebook live, is now on YouTube.

6 minutes ago, Helene said:

he way I read Apollinaire Scherr's "morass" tweet, that is one major accusation against ABT.   

Is she really accusing a 21st century ballet company board of a homophobic presumption?

33 minutes ago, DanielBenton said:

Kudos to canbelto for actually discussing details of the performances s/he witnessed; I contrast that with Gottlieb's "I wanted to swat her".  What is that, except some personal petulance unleashed.  

There is much else in that review of course. But yes, canbelto's reviews are excellent.

36 minutes ago, canbelto said:

Wow. I'm stunned. I can't even imagine ABT without him. And he had a reputation as the ultimate company dancer, beloved by all.

I'm not even a ABT fanatic, but I'm still sad for all  involved. "Beloved" is the word. 

3 hours ago, DanielBenton said:

The problem with a lot of writers on ballet, e.g., Gottlieb, is that their review tells us what they think is terrible and what they think is swell and very little about the actual performance.  His opinions about aspects being the worst he has ever seen, etc., is not relevant nor helpful.

I would think that his explanations of the Balanchinean style versus what he mostly saw from the French and the Russians would be extremely helpful to someone new to ballet and eager to learn, and they tell us what he did and didn't see in this program.

17 minutes ago, dirac said:

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.

Not to gainsay the criticism, but I don’t so much not take it seriously as don’t take it. Since I don’t view women that way, I don’t experience the ballet that way. I see those particular women on that stage that way for as long as the ballet lasts. I experience it as a particular story, not a metaphor. Again, I’m not denying what seems to lie behind the story; I just choose not to give it all that weight. But that may not be an option for some other people. 

33 minutes ago, Helene said:

Gelsey Kirkland did: in "Dancing on My Grave," she described being a young dancer in the company and hearing that Balanchine, in exchange for gropes, would have appliances delivered to their apartments.  Imagine being a young teenager, and learning this about someone people considered to be god-like, your new boss.

The dancer world closed ranks and bombarded her with criticism, rage, and distain.  

Farrell actually did in her own way:  after a journalist asked if she was going to be Balanchine's fifth wife (after "Don Quixote," if I recall correctly), she balked, and her explanation has always been that she didn't want to be one in a line of others.

 

If the Kirkland story is true, I'm sure more such accounts will emerge now. Not to knock her, but given her other troubles she perhaps wasn't the most reliable interpreter of events. Farrell was smart enough to see that Balanchine wouldn't idolize her forever; that's a far cry from feeling she was in a hostile work environment. 

Balletwannabe, for people to fall in love which each other and treat each other badly when that love is not reciprocated is unfortunately quite normal in the sense of being common. Farrell was the one wronged there, and she apparently had no trouble forgiving him, continuing to work with him, and seeking to work with him again after she couldn't. That says a lot, I think.

49 minutes ago, Helene said:

That's only relevant to establishing that a hostile work environment exists if the Board or company management is waiting for someone else to raise the issue.  They can act without anyone bringing it up or saying a word, when the boss is having sexual/romantic relationships with his employees.

One way to create a hostile work environment is when bosses have sexual/romantic relationships with their reports, regardless of the fact of being consensual.  Balanchine clearly did.

 

I think your second paragraph is plainly true. Balanchine's pursuit of women could have created an environment in which the female dancers were uncomfortable with him, feared his attention, and feared to refuse it. But 34 years after his death, no one, to my knowledge, has publicly said that was the case. By all accounts, they loved him. It's possible that someone will say otherwise now, given all the attention sexual harassment is receiving. But until such a time, the opposite appears to be true.

35 minutes ago, Stage Right said:

I wasn't really thinking of ballets like The Cage--you have a good point on that one. I was thinking more of the great classical and Romantic ballets that often portray women as soft, gentle creatures, or as willis, fairies, swans, etc, and men as the strong tough fellows who to some degree influence their fate, or drive them to death and insanity (Giselle), etc. I suppose we could call those gender stereotypes. No overt violence, but it certainly could be seen to lurk under the surface, depending upon your point of view. Do we really want to get rid of all of those, and with what would we replace them?

Not that this is a simple question, because it obviously isn’t, but one thing I at least don’t want to get rid of in any ballet is idealization. It’s not that women are only soft and gentle, or that all are or should be. But love idealizes (for a time), and we need ideals, and behind the ideals is something real.

1 hour ago, AB'sMom said:

I will never accept, “but they created great things...” as a justification, for anyone. We will never know how many potentially amazing things were never created due to the oppression of others, be it through racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. 

It’s no justification certainly, but in my opinion the isms are just the easy wrongs to spot and categorize. Every single work of art was created by someone who hurt and wronged other human beings, because every single person hurts and wrongs other human beings. Reflecting on that can help us empathize with rather than other-ize the oppressor, as is our first instinct, and by doing so can ease the discomfort of loving, say, the music of Wagner.

1 hour ago, Helene said:

Balanchine's womanizing, though, speaks to creating a hostile work environment, which is separate from acts of sexual harassment directly against specific individuals or physical violence.  You don't have to be a "basher" and can be a "gentleman"  and still contribute to a hostile work environment, and, on those grounds, Balanchine would be an epic fail.

It's unlikely anyone would have protested or spoke up against him, though. 

Has anyone spoken out and said so since? Leaving aside Farrell, who it seems never stopped loving him in her own way despite his wanting more, do we know of instances where his attention was unwanted? We know that Balanchine could be jealous of and even vindicative towards male dancers, but his ballerinas all seemed to revere him. Today they might see him differently, but if none did then, maybe they saw him truly. I'm sure he wasn't the only person in the company falling in love a lot. Even his wives never really spoke ill of him.

3 minutes ago, dirac said:

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.

I don't mean anyone was denying anyone's humanity; I just meant "human nature being what it is . . . " Sorry to be unclear. I think your second clause makes an important point. 

1 hour ago, Marta said:

 Women already know how to speak up, especially the when and why.  I don't think it's possible "to really stop this", however  it is men who have to learn.  

Given that (we) men are human beings, I expect some hearts and minds are being changed by all this attention to and discussion of the issue. But I also agree that's it's not possible to completely stop and prevent sexual harassment. Or to put it another way, we'll only stop it when we manage to change human (not male) nature. That's why the zero tolerance precedent finally being set now is so important.

18 hours ago, On Pointe said:

  Any defender worth his salt would point out that there is more than a whiff of sour grapes in some of these anonymous claims.) 

I don't think we can guess that it's sour grapes unless and until we know who made the claims. For all we know, they were made by principals. 

4 hours ago, Helene said:

In reality,  that Martins was shamed temporarily, and then continued his abusive behavior is the take-away.  That shame didn't prevent much for long, if the allegations from students and dancers across a quarter of a century are true, and it doesn't replace the oversight responsibility of the Board.

The second is not the primary responsibility of the workplace or school to teach, and it should never be a trade-off at the expense of safety and healthy messages of respect.

53 minutes ago, Helene said:

The logic is:

At the time of the Kistler incident in 1992:

• It occurred against an employee off premises, ie, not in the studio or theater, which would have made it harder for the Board to classify this as a "private matter."  It is not unusual for people who work with someone to be surprised to find that they beat their spouse or SO and/or children, because their behavior at work shows no indication that they are beastly to their family.
• There were no public allegations before, or as a result of, the newspaper article about Kistler's reporting to the police, that this was his behavior at work, so they had plausible deniability, at least as far as the public was concern

What the Board made clear was that a violent incident outside the theater by the boss against a spouse/employee was not a fire-able offense.  Which, based on the allegations and chronology -- Jeffrey Edwards' ignored complaint was in 1993 -- sent a clear message to the Company, and ignoring Jeffrey Edwards' workplace complaint reinforced that message.

Thanks for explaining. It's true Martins did abuse a NYCB employee, but that neither were at work and acting in their capacities as employees at the moment he did so. I disagree however that this would have sent a clear message that Martins could get away with the same thing at work - because in this case, the victim herself clearly forgave him. Imspear, Martins wasn't fired, but he was shamed. That's the takeaway I would think SAB students would come away with. That and that it's possible to love and forgive someone who wrongs and even harms you. Those are two possible messages, at least. 

39 minutes ago, Helene said:

the Board's classification of  this as a "personal matter" was not only made his behavior possible for the next quarter century, it normalized it.  As early as the LA Times article linked above and continuing extensively now, people expressed shock that his career survived the 1992 attack on Kistler,  by allowing it to survive, the Board made it clear what it would take to change their minds: charges equally appalling or worse, and people willing to be on record and follow through.  He may not have been able to shoot someone on the street and keep his job, but he apparently was able to abuse and destroy at an alarming rate and remain unaccountable for his behavior.

I don't follow that logic. Apparently the dancers and probably some parents knew he could become violent at work, so it's possible the board did too, but is there evidence to show so? I think all the board made clear is that an incident at home was not a firing offense. Also, not to minimize what had happened at home, but it's possible it was never repeated. It's one thing to stick with a repeat abuser and another to stick with someone for whom abuse is, so far at least, only an aberration. In other words, it is of course possible to love in a healthy manner someone who has acted badly.

1 hour ago, dirac said:

Well...presumably those other stewards are around because Martins wanted them there (?)

But that's the least he could do, and a no-brainer.

Likewise, Drew, you make good points of course, but to me what he's done for the Balanchine legacy is only what would have been unthinkable not to do. Also, while Ashton’s neglect at the Royal is a terrible shame, he at least wasn’t the founder of the company and the creator of nearly all of its iconic works (with no disrespect to Robbins; the Royal has Petipa's work). I also agree with Quiggin that Mazzo and others at SAB probably deserve as much or more credit as Martins.