Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KayDenmark

  1. Could be, but then we end up in an ongoing eye-for-eye situation. Finlay (or Ramasar or Catazaro or Jared Loghitano) could then argue that because Waterbury has now violated their privacy, they're in a position to dump all sorts of previously undisclosed personal information about her into the public domain. I don't think anybody wants that.
  2. Yes, according to Miss Waterbury (we still haven't heard from Finlay), he did, for the express purpose of checking her own email. Not for the purpose scrolling through his text messages and making screenshots of his texts and the texts of others, which she then apparently forwarded to herself and others without his consent. Personally, I do see her actions as a violation of his privacy - the same way I'd see it if, for example, I told someone they could look up an address on Google Maps on my computer and I then found them going through my financial details. Whether or not the law will see it as a violation of privacy is unclear.
  3. I don't think it's curious at all. Everybody has a right to privacy, even the highly disliked Mr. Finlay. I wouldn't appreciate anyone going through my computer.
  4. It could be that Waterbury originally took the screenshots only to confront her then-partner Finlay, but then realized (or was encouraged to realize) that she had some very potent information on her hands.
  5. If it is just an external nutjob, I'm not quite sure why it is the lead in the Times story. Every public-facing business has to deal with crazy people. It's only really relevant if it reflects some kind of (vulgar) internal support for the fired dancers.
  6. I wouldn't say that any of these men have been "redeemed", although they may not have been punished to the extent some would like. None of them has come close to reclaiming the status or power they once had. Louis CK has come the closest, since he is back onstage, but media reports say his (unannounced) act isn't going over well with audiences and venues are being forced to offer refunds. One thing we haven't discussed is the sign that the New York Times says was posted at City Ballet's stage door before the new season began in September. According to this article, it "demanded “justice for the accused men of City Ballet,” called for a boycott of the company and urged people to 'stop believing the word of jilted whores,' along with even cruder insults." Is the implication that this is from some deranged 'fan' of the ballet, or that it was posted by a company insider who presumably supports Catazaro and Ramasar? (I doubt Finlay has many supporters outside of his circle of family and friends.)
  7. Helene, what Ms. Waterbury alleges happened to her is very unpleasant, but I think that comparing it to genocide is unseemly. Finlay hasn't come out with an Instagram apology or a press release - I assume you are referring to Ramasar and Catazaro - so that is a poor comparison as well. As I've said before, Finlay is responsible for his own bad choices that made him the central character in this drama. If I were him, I'd leave the ballet business. Perhaps his partying and unimpressive dancing represented a man at war with himself - someone who on some level wanted to quit but on another level wouldn't allow himself to. At any rate, I don't think anyone is going to employ him as a classical danseur anytime soon. There's certainly an element of punishment in that.
  8. I haven't heard anyone say this about any of the #metoo people - or any sex offender I can think of, even old-timey sex offenders. Is there someone I'm not thinking of? Is there a good example of someone who redeemed himself by doing X?
  9. Well, I think it's a bit passive-aggressive to say, "You've done something wrong, and you need to atone for it, but I'm not going to tell you how to atone for it. Just guess!" Not to mention that in the Finlay case, the victims' careers don't appear to have been harmed by his actions, unless there is some information we do not know.
  10. I haven't seen anyone redeemed yet from #metoo related charges - so if there is indeed an "appropriate path to redemption" for these men to discover, it is unknown territory at the moment.
  11. The question is, who would want him? One general truth about the "#metoo" movement is that it hasn't established a redemption process. If Finlay admits misbehavior (although my guess is that his version of the truth would be different than Waterbury's), pays off the hotel bill and/or Waterbury and her lawyers and any other women affected, and says all the right things about gender relations and male privilege, does he get another chance to take the stage? Probably not in the US at the moment, even at a regional - no regional company wants or can withstand a #metoo protest by local donors. Probably not in Europe or Australia, which have their own #metoo movements (The head of the Finnish Ballet was just bounced for #metoo related reasons.) Asia? Maybe Finlay just needs to leave the ballet business. Reports that his dancing has been lackadaisical over the past couple of years suggests that maybe his heart just isn't in it any more. Maybe he needs to go to rehab and then to university to study something else entirely. He's only 27; life is long.
  12. Still no response from Finlay. I wonder what approach his lawyers are going to take, or if their approach is just to negotiate for a settlement. With wild hotel parties leading to broken water pipes, hangovers that result in suspensions, and the ugly allegations in the lawsuit, Finlay's story is beginning to sound like a late F. Scott Fitzgerald or early Jay McInerney novel. The privileged young man who has too much too soon - dancing the lead in Apollo at age 20! - and somehow throws it all away in a haze of alcohol, (alleged) drugs, and bad company. Lots of dramatic action here: the public love affair and break up with a widely-respected ballerina, and then the follow up relationship with another, less successful dancer who discovers the sordid underbelly of his thoughts while searching through his computer --- and exposes it all to the public. A good writer could do a lot with this.
  13. I'm assuming Good Morning America agreed to some ground rules before the interview, and morning TV interviews are by nature very short and not comprehensive. Jezebel wrote a sympathetic (and slightly profane) story based on the original NYPost story about Miss Waterbury's complaint; the story contains no original reporting. I looked for a Teen Vogue article on the case without success - can you provide a link? (I did find a fun Teen Vogue piece on the NYCB female dancers' skincare routines, though: https://www.teenvogue.com/gallery/new-york-city-ballet-dancers-share-skincare-routines) At any rate, Miss Waterbury hasn't had to deal with an impartial journalist asking awkward questions, and if I were her or her lawyer, I wouldn't make that part of my strategy either. Today's September 27th. Shouldn't we be hearing from Chase Finlay soon?
  14. I don't, and I'm not a lawyer. I'm an American living in Europe, where electronic privacy laws are extremely strict, so perhaps that is coloring my view on this matter. (Example: The New York Daily News, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times are blocked within the European Union because they don't conform to EU data-collection laws.) That said, I'm sure New York divorce courts deal with matters of one spouse searching through the other spouse's devices every day, so there must be legal precedent here.
  15. Yeah, I don't think it was her job to do that. She was very young, but even if she wasn't, I don't think it's a partner's job to "fix" the other partner. In general, I'm rather uncomfortable with the article and the case as a whole getting into Waterbury and Finlay's romantic relationship. It really doesn't make either one of them look good - cheating, petty remarks, suspiciously looking through the other's devices, yeccch. The question is, did Finlay circulate photos of Waterbury without her permission that were taken without her permission? The secondary question is did she break any privacy laws while obtaining evidence of the (alleged) transgressions against her. Privacy laws might also apply to the other people involved in the conversation with Finlay who did *not* (allegedly) offer her their computer passwords and had no expectation that she would have access to their communications.
  16. Yes, but usage at a single party is very different than someone who has "drinking and drug problems" to quote Waterbury's interview. Addiction is a medical condition, and disclosing someone else's medical condition can run afoul of privacy laws. It's similar to saying NYCB "knew he had ADD" or "knew he had cancer."
  17. 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. 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. I also noticed that she put Finlay's struggles with drugs and alcohol on the public record.
  18. I doubt Finlay would "land in prison" for a first offense. But if a conviction would put him on the sex offenders' register, that would have a much bigger impact on his life. Not only would he be unable to teach ballet - or teach anything to people under 18 - but he would also be restricted in where he would be allowed to live. And in many places, the sex offender registry has no end-date: once you're on, you don't get off. This is a very potent weapon for Miss Waterbury.
  19. Nope, but it appears that the new AD will have to be a bit of a hard-ass to get control of an organization that has been allowed to float, at least since the beginning of 2018 and probably before that. The fact that Stafford has always been a "temp" must have made it hard for him to put his foot down. You're right in that Lopez has experience under Balanchine that the other two do not. But she did dance in the Martins company for nearly 15 years, so it's hard to say she wasn't influenced by his management approach.
  20. Which raises the question of whether the new AD should come from outside the Martins-era NYCB culture entirely. In other words, not Woetzel, not Whelan, not Lopez.
  21. My impression was that balletomanes had been following the personal lives of dancers forever - certainly back to the Martins-Watts days. Now they just have more information, and perhaps more accurate information.
  22. This is a very silly piece with a click-baity headline that says more about the Decline and Fall of the New York Times than it does about City Ballet. (I'm a subscriber, but have done a lot of shaking my head about the paper's journalistic standards over the past two to three years). Like Wilhelmina Frankfurt, Toni Bentley is taking aim at an institution that she left long ago and which apparently has left her behind. I'm a big fan of having people of every age involved in the company, and older dancers have a lot to teach younger ones. That said, Bentley's jabs at "insidious" social media sound like some cranky old lady in 1964 complaining about the Beatles' haircuts. The world is evolving, Miss Bentley, join us!
  23. Yes, that's precisely what I have - perhaps I explained it poorly. The large window - the one you see on the right - is the most recent messages, and it is the only one that shows photos without a click. Waterbury might have opened Finlay's computer and seen her image within that window immediately, horribly, without taking any action of her own. However, if she performed "a quick scroll", that's technically undertaking an action that Finlay did not authorize when he agreed to let her check her own email on his machine. The same with clicking on any panels to the left. Even a "quick scroll" is a type of forensic search.
  24. Absolutely correct - but you (or she) would need to see the context in order to know these words were about her or the men's NYCB colleagues. Just seeing a few words and a name in the Apple system isn't enough to provide that context. Without seeing a full statement or a specific name, the man could be talking about some other woman entirely and it would be none of her business. I don't know what she saw, but my point is that the Apple system limits how much you see at one time - unless she "investigated" further. Also, unless the unauthorized picture(s) of her were in that "most recent message" window when she opened the laptop - which is certainly possible - she would not have seen them without some clicking and scrolling around. Her lawyer (who artfully minimized her age and exaggerated her connection to NYCB) doesn't seem like the type to walk away from a juicy case based on the questionable legality of screenshots. I can certainly understand why she took them; I'm sure I would have done the same in her situation. But based on their provenance I'm not sure they can be used in a court case. That said, even if they can't be introduced into evidence in court, they will certainly be key in obtaining any settlement.
  25. I agree with you about many things, On Pointe, but not this. Most of the initial stories were about Finlay; the reason Ramasar gets more prominence in recent stories is that Finlay's resignation is now old news. In addition, Ramasar is simply better known - he's on Broadway! - and more popular, even among his colleagues. He will be missed. No one seems to be missing Chase Finlay, or Catazaro for that matter. Edit: I did not see Drew's post before I posted - apparently great minds think alike. :9
  • Create New...