KayDenmark

In a workplace where, by definition, everyone is competing for the same roles, it's difficult to believe that 

6 minutes ago, nanushka said:

some internal investigation following the raising of sexual harassment claims and similar alleged abuses,

wouldn't be weaponized. In addition, there is a long tradition within the NYCB for romantic partnerships between dancers, gay and straight. Relationships go bad sometimes. I don't think it's the role of the company to sort this out.

Perhaps the NYCB could outsource sexual harassment allegations to a qualified third party who could investigate carefully and impartially. But refusing to cast people because there's been an accusation against them sounds like a very bad idea. 

5 minutes ago, vendangeuse said:

Personally, I don't care if it happened on NYCB property, or at a NYCB event; if an NYCB dancer is assaulting other members of the company, that person shouldn't be allowed to continue dancing there. And if this is true—if there is a history of assaults occurring and those responsible being allowed to return to work? Yes, that creates an environment that emboldens behavior like the kind Finlay is accused of, and that is NYCB's fault, IMO.

Of course, none of this has been proven yet. But I do feel that NYCB has an obligation to provide a safe work environment for all its dancers, and part of that includes not hiring sexual predators.

Doesn't this put the company in the position of legal enforcers? Will it be expected to perform a criminal investigation of what can often be a he-said, she-said (or he-said, he said, or she said, she said) situation? 

i think crimes should be reported to the police and investigated by the police, and persons who are convicted of a crime by the justice system should be tossed out of the company. On the other hand, I don't want someone whose expertise is in the Balanchine technique to be investigating or serving as the judge and jury on sexual assaults. They are simply not qualified to do so. 

8 minutes ago, abatt said:

She would be getting medical bills from therapy.  I think  that apart from any medical treatment she may need in terms of therapy. the real damage is to her reputation. She is a model at a prestigious agency, and the distribution of these unauthorized videos and photos could certainly be damaging to her future earnings as a model.

1

Really? Given what goes on in the modelling industry, I don't think this would damage her career at all.  I also don't see much evidence of her working as a model, even though she is signed to a prestigious agency. 

Most people under 25 (or 30) in this world of Tindr and Grindr have nude images of themselves floating around, images they have voluntarily taken and shared with past, current, or potential partners. 

The important difference, of course, is that photos described in the suit were, according to the suit, taken and shared against her will, which is totally unacceptable and in New York City probably a crime. She should go after Finlay and whomever else shared these images - what they did was wrong and should be prosecuted. 

I'm still not convinced that the New York City Ballet is responsible for what happened to her, however. Perhaps new evidence will emerge that will convince me that it is. I just haven't seen it yet. 

44 minutes ago, Rick said:

Despite that, once NYCB was made aware of the allegations we investigated them and found that the actions had violated the Company’s norms of conduct, and immediate and appropriate action was taken. NYCB learned of this matter directly from the plaintiff’s attorney, Jordan Merson, in June of this year.

So NYCB learned about the situation in June and took "appropriate action", but Catazaro was dancing "Serenade" on August 18 in Copenhagen. Interesting. 

25 minutes ago, meatball77 said:

The victim had every right to ask NYCB for money (and probably the firing of the three main perpetrators).  I'm sure she has had medical bills and therapy.  It's not like she asked for several million for hush money.

Therapy seems like it would be a good idea.  But I don't understand what you mean about medical bills. And do you have inside information on how much money she requested as a settlement before going public? I haven't seen any figures mentioned in any of the stories I've read.

44 minutes ago, abatt said:

NYCB did not dismiss Chase.  Chase resigned. 

These events explain why Chase was not in Saratoga or part of the Denmark tour.  Ditto, I believe, for Catazaro.

Catazaro was in Denmark; I saw him dance "Serenade". I don't know about Chase. 

3 hours ago, l'histoire said:

My best friend filed a suit against her former employer with our state labor board & set out the terms - none of which were financial, or caused her any benefit - but I'm quite sure she could've asked for XYZ payment from her employer to "settle the matter to avoid adverse publicity" (especially if she'd signed an NDA) and the company would've CHEERFULLY have done it.

I understand why your friend might want to file suit against her employer. But the NYCB is not Alexandra Waterbury's employer - only the employer of her former romantic partner.

Although I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that when it comes to Miss Waterbury's situation, what's material here is the extent to which NYCB (in particular, the management and board) knew about Finlay's and Ramasar's reprehensible behavior towards her (as well as that of the unnamed dancers toward her) and condoned it. It might also be material how much of it took place on NYCB premises or other work-related premises or took place on NYCB-provided devices, if dancers have access to such a thing. Otherwise we're talking about bad behavior on the dancers' own devices and own time. Is that their employers' responsibility?

Of course, if some of the other female dancers (which the suit says are employed by the NYCB) decide to join this suit or file their own, then there's a much stronger case for a hostile workplace, and that is certainly NYCB's responsibility.

3 hours ago, Drew said:

ikewise when it comes to reaching a financial agreement or "payoff" as you write. The fact is that if big organizations and, for that matter, individuals, don't suffer economical consequences--or face the possibility of suffering economical consequences--in situations like this, then they don't often change.

Would NYCB have been just as motivated to change if Miss Waterbury had been given a private settlement?  

---

EDIT: Just to clarify, I agree what Chase Finlay (allegedly) did sounds awful, and the fact that he pre-emptively resigned from his job suggests that he knows he is in trouble. I also agree that the events described in the lawsuit are completely unacceptable and that NYCB should take a strong and clear stance against sexual harassment.

I'm just not sure that cutting a large check to Miss Waterbury (and her lawyer) is the best way to accomplish this. 

10 hours ago, FPF said:

I hope they select a female AD.

 

I hope they select the best AD, and I'm not too concerned about that AD's gender. From the accounts I've heard, Jon Stafford and his team are a pleasure to work with and the workplace environment has been much more positive and relaxed than it was in Peter's days, at least before this incident broke. Poor married-to-a-man Craig Hall, doomed to be confused with the other married-to-a-woman Craig Hall as this unspools.

I'm also a bit concerned about the New York Times' report that the woman's lawyer "contacted City Ballet “to try to negotiate a payment from the company to settle the matter to avoid adverse publicity” but the company had “refused the demand.”

So if she'd received a payoff none of this would have gone public?  Hmmm. 

To me, it looks like Finlay was a problem and has been a problem for awhile. Why didn't they get rid of him? Union reasons, ADA (it was alleged in the lawsuit that he had substance problems, which are a disability), a desperate lack of male principals, or something else? He seems to have been the instigator in this ugly circle of picture-trading, although we clearly don't know the full story with so many dancers unnamed in the complaint.

If the woman's evidence is solid, she could have charged Finlay with a crime, or multiple crimes.

But instead she went to his employer (not her employer) and asked for money. When his employer refused, she and her lawyer released an incendiary (and according to the posters above) poorly-written document. 

It's also interesting to me to see how the media has handled the release of this report.

The Washington Post ran several long, bylined pieces about the accusations, but only a short wire service piece about the release of the report supposedly clearing Martins.

Both the Dance Magazine write-up and the NYTimes piece about the report seemed highly skeptical of the idea that Martins could be cleared.

I haven't seen *any* other coverage of the release of the report - and I have a Google News Alert turned on for Martins specifically because I am interested in this case. (I've received several notifications of tiny developments in his DWI case.) 

Dozens of pieces containing accusations but hardly any pieces reporting (so-called) exoneration? Doesn't seem balanced, and seems to suggest an agenda.

12 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

Any abusive behavior is wrong, regardless of the decade in which it occurred.

 

My point was that the definition of "abuse" changes with time. Calling someone a "bastard" in 1945, for example, would have been deeply offensive and abusive; in 2018 it is a relatively mild insult.  Dating a subordinate, or many subordinates,  was not considered abuse in the 1940s and 1950s.  It was common and the way many marriages began.

On another topic, I find it absurd that anyone could make Heather Watts out to be the trembling, demure victim of the towering strongman Peter Martins. Watts was (and is) a strong, loud personality who can give as good as she gets, which is probably why she hasn't been interested in jumping into the discussion about Martins' misdeeds. If we're going to discuss what Martins did to Watts, we need to discuss what Watts did to Martins too. 

A quote from the much-discussed 1992 Los Angeles Times piece:

Both Watts and Martins agree that the word "tempestuous" is exactly right to describe their relationship. Watts says she has never read Kirkland's book and has no recollection of the stairs incident. In an interview, she at first insists that "Peter and I did not have a physically violent relationship." But after a long silence, she adds, "That is not to say that I have not pummeled him in the arm more than once" and that "if I pushed Peter hard enough, if I shrieked and yelled and cried and screamed and caused a scene, and he couldn't take it anymore, he would restrain me."

5 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

Balanchine and Robbins are dead, and there is definitely more accountability for abusers than there was back then, but wrong is wrong, regardless of the decade

 

Sorry, but this is nonsense. In the 1940s and 1950s, interracial marriage was considered "wrong", having children outside of marriage was "wrong" and gay marriage was unthinkable. All of these things are accepted and often applauded in 2018. By contrast, in the 1940s and 1950s, the idea of a relationship between a boss and an underling - usually a male boss and a female underling - was accepted and often commonplace. How many men of that era married their secretaries? What's "right" and "wrong" change with time and place, and I'm not sure I'd like to know what the self-righteous types of 2088 will be saying about us. 

With reference to the earlier-quoted 1992 Los Angeles Times article about Martins' and Kistler's brawl and their relationship that started at age 16, I noticed that whomever quoted from the article bypassed this section:

Company members say Martins' less punishing class was just one of many signs early on that he was less despotic than his predecessor. Richard Tanner, who was an assistant ballet master with the company in Balanchine's time and who has returned under Martins, says Balanchine didn't hesitate to snap at his dancers and humiliate them. "Balanchine used to just scream the same thing day after day: 'I thought you were better. Come on, come on, what's wrong with you? Are you stupid ?' " On the other, hand, says Tanner, "Peter trusts people more."

It is part of a longer passage about Martins' respect for dancers. I also recently re-read Jock Soto's autobiography, and his praise for Peter's working methods is fulsome. 

I don't know Peter Martins personally; I have no idea if he abused Wilhelmina Frankfurt, Kelly Boal, or anyone besides Darci Kistler, which he has acknowledged. I would like to see evidence of these and any other assaults presented in a court of law, not a court of public opinion. Based on his arrest record, Peter appears to have an alcohol problem. Most balletomanes have heard the gossip about his affairs with young dancers, and I have too, although I tend to respect women's agency in these matters if they are over 18. In general, I'm not particularly sad Peter left the company - it was past time, and he did not seem inclined to leave on his own.

That said, I think it's important to place these serious accusations - because they are accusations right now, not convictions - into context. Peter Martins has worked with hundreds of dancers during his time at the NYCB, and he has worked for tens thousands of hours. His entire body of work should not be judged by some ugly incidents, even if they are found to have taken place. I would not like to be judged solely by the most unseemly and shameful ten-minute periods of my life over the past 30 years. 

People very eager to point fingers at others seem to be doing so for reasons reflecting their own psyches, not for the good of society at large or for the protection of young dancers. 

Hubbe and the dancers pay tax too, which also funds the Ballet. How they spend their money is none of your business. And do you truly believe that the way all public service officials, civil servants, armed forces, doctors etc use their wages for wholly wholesome things? Our taxes also bailed out massive merchant banks when they screwed up with our money and those dudes are some of the biggest drug abusers out there.

And do you truly think that drugs didn't exist within the RDB before Hubbe?

As some of the other posters mention, this is less about drugs specifically and more about a hostile work environment. But yes, how public servants act on public property is the public's business. Particularly if they are breaking the law.

Why is this anyone's business? Because my tax kroner (we pay a 60% income tax rate, plus 25% sales tax on everything we buy - the world's highest tax rate!) finance the Royal Danish Ballet. This is not a story about Hubbe doing lines while on vacation in the Bahamas. This is a story about him taking drugs as a public employee, with other public employees, on public property. On my time, basically. And - which I think is worse - allegedly creating a hostile work environment for other employees, so hostile that 20 out of 92 are considering leaving a top-tier company to look for other jobs in a very difficult business.

According to one of the Danish papers (Jyllands-Posten, a 'national provincial' paper comparable to the Washington Post or Chicago Tribune), Hubbe would scream at dancers from a distance of one or two feet. "We're used to harsh criciticism - we're brought up with it from a very young age. But this was not normal," dancers were quoted as saying.

Today's news is that Hubbe is supposedly getting a coach to help him deal with personnel better. "Seen from outside, it could seem like this man is totally out of balance," says the ballet's administrative head, Henrik Sten Pedersen, to the Berlingske Tidende, a New York Times type of newspaper. "But that's because he has great artistic sense and great artistic temperament. His behaviour doesn't reflect any kind of management theorey." Pedersen also says he doesn't think Hubbe has a drug problem, but acknowledges that dancers may have assumed he was under the influence because of his mercurial temperament and behaviour. If he's drug-free and his employees are still experiencing him as abusive, there remains a serious problem to address.

I have followed Hubbe's career since the NYCB and met him on a couple of occasions. I have absolutely zero knowledge about the fairness or unfairness of these allegations. I think he's done good things from the Royal Danish Ballet. The company looks better and sharper since he took over, and I'm sure that in order to create an omlette, he's had to break some eggs. Some of the truly terrible dancers from Frank Andersen's reign are gone and not missed. As an audience member, I like his work.

But that doesn't mean that these allegations aren't worth taking seriously. They are.

This is not the first report Hein has produced for the Royal Danish Ballet: it is the third, and she has been associated with the company since 2006. Apparently they were pleased with all her previous studies, or they would not have hired her again.

She interviewed 55 members of the company, as well as several "external business partners" of the company and the consensus was that the cocaine problem was pervasive and growing: Jyllands-Posten, a legitimate newspaper, also interviewed many members of the company and reached the same conclusion. In other words, this is not a case of four sour dancers. According to the report, numerous attempts had been made to approach the board about the situation before the report was released, but those doing so were either not taken seriously or told they would have to approach Hubbe himself.

The real villain here seems to be the Royal Ballet's board, which should have looked into these charges as soon as they surfaced, and should have taken Hein's report seriously when it was presented to them. I'm quite sure they are doing so now. The Danish Royal Family, which as a previous poster suggested are quite involved with the ballet, does not appreciate any link with narcotics - one of the Crown Prince's friends convicted of cocaine dealing has been very publicly exiled from all contact with the royals. The intelligent, activist Queen will be leaning on the board quite heavily to sort this out.

I agree with many aspects of this review. Christina Michanek was indeed an excellent Cinderella - one of the best ballerinas I've seen at the Royal Ballet in a long time, and Mads Blangstrup was also better than I've ever seen him, perhaps because he is finally out of Kenneth Greve's shadow.

The costumes and the staging were indeed excellent, although unlike the reviewer, I liked the second act. It was a whole lot of Matthew Bourne combined with a little Preljocaj - wit and a little weirdness.

That said, Tim Rushton, the choreographer, has a signature move that drives me crazy - he has his dancers move their heads forward and backward like a chicken, again and again. I think he thinks it looks fluid, like water, but to me it's just incredibly ugly and awkward. The first act is full of this move, along with that annoying digging-arm motion that Preljocaj overdid in the NYCB's La Stravaganza, back in 1997. What's more, the first act includes a couple of "hairdresser" characters who walk around with limp wrists, quivvering buttocks and a lot of other gay-stereotype moves that I found pretty offensive, although I'm not a politically-correct type.

The third act is also not very impressive - I found myself closing my eyes to listen to the excellent orchestra instead of watching it. Blangstrup as the searching Prince is indeed good, particularly when he searches for his princess in a seraglio of lost souls, but that couldn't overcome the basic boredom of watching Cinderella hang out at home.

There's also a short prologue to this ballet that I didn't understand - two people who appear to be Blangstrup and Michanek in different costumes hug goodbye while the fairy godmother watches. The fairy godmother doesn't have much of a part in this "Cinderella" - she's kind of a cloud that appears from time to time, and doesn't dance at all.

Despite the problems with this production, however, it's still better than anything I've seen by the Royal Ballet in a long time. The dancers are fresher - Nikolaj Hubbe seems to have cleaned out a lot of dead wood - and better trained. The production looks modern and has a bit of humor to it. I wouldn't call this "Cinderella" an instant classic, but it bodes well for the future.

Bart, I don't know much about the "pauseklovn" or intermission clowns, except that they appear to be more common in the Danish circus, which may be why the audience was to thrilled to find them in a high-art context.

Arizona Native, the "businessmen" went out into the audience to specifically invite selected audience members onstage. Everyone I saw said yes: there was one 60ish man with a pot belly who seemed especially charmed to be invited by a comely young female dancer in a business suit. Naharin managed to choreograph the piece so the professional dancers were able to form patterns and create themes while simultaneously keeping their amateur partners busy.

After five minutes or so, the amateurs were very gracefully dismissed to the wings, although one young male dancer with a fedora made a great show of clinging to his partner, a middle-aged lady with a fanny pack.

The Royal Danish Ballet put on a show of "new" works at the newly opened Skuspilhus, a gorgeous and cozy theater - go out of your way to see a show on the main stage if you're in Copenhagen.

The three short works were by Nacho Duato, Christopher Wheeldon, and Ohad Naharin.

Best part of the evening: seeing that the Royal Danish Ballet has a great crop of young, energetic dancers coming up to replace their elderly, boring principals.

The young dancers were used energetically in "Coming Together," the Duato, which seemed to be a takeoff on "Fearful Symmetries" - lots of quick crossing of the stage to minimalist music, although unlike the Adams piece, this music had an annoying and repetitive voiceover. I actually considered taking my iPod out of my purse so I could enjoy the dancing with a decent soundtrack. The boys all had large letters on their shirts - "K", "T", "H", etc., and when taking bows at the encore, they spelled out "I think." There was some real talent on display here, but I didn't feel the piece added up to much.

I hope Christopher Wheeldon someday takes the good bits of "The Wanderers" and re-uses them in a good ballet. What was presented in Copenhagen was a half-assed pastiche with monotone music and no coherent theme - plus a few lovely moments. Wheeldon either chose or was forced to use Royal Ballet perenniel Kenneth Greve in the lead. As usual, Greve makes no emotional connection with his partner (Silja Schandorff), but now he's also fortyish and unashamedly pudgy. They had him in a net shirt here with goth eye make-up, which did nobody any favors. Greve is leaving the company to become AD of the Finnish National Ballet, and he won't be missed, at least by me.

In the intermission before Ohad Naharin's piece, what the Danish called a "pauseklovn" ,or "intermission clown" took the stage - a single pantomime artist charged with entertaining the audience members who stayed in their seats. This one was a man in business suit dancing passionately by himself to a rhumba. He was funny and very popular.

After the intermission, however, it became clear that the lonely businessman was actually a part of the Naharin piece. Another businessman took the stage and began dancing wildly, and then another, and then a young woman dressed up as a businessman, and ultimately 20 or so "businessmen", all going nuts with their ballet steps. It was humorous without being cheap. The businessmen/women then gathered a circle of chairs to sing a Hebrew lament (Naharin is from Israel), shed their clothes down to dance underwear, put them all on again, and invited audience members onstage for a rousing finale.

Although billed as new, "Minus 7" was actually a pastiche of two earlier pieces, one of which played in Copenhagen a few years ago and was great. I'm not Jewish and have no connection to Israel, but Naharin can't help but remind you of all that's positive about Jewish culture - the passion, the intelligence, the energy, the wit. I loved this piece, and so did the audience, which was mostly made up of elderly Danes. They called for so many encores that the dancers eventually came out with a sign that said "The End" - another Naharin touch.

The good news: Nikolaj Hubbe, who takes over the Royal Danish Ballet on July 1, has some real young talent to work with. The bad news: He's going to have to put a lot of effort into building an audience. The (small) house was sold out here, but surveying the lobby at intermission, I found perhaps 10 other people who weren't receiving pension payments.

Add me to the voices that love the new site. I think it looks contemporary and exciting.

And I think Balanchine would have loved the "+" in Romeo and Juliet and, in fact, anything that kept the company young and fresh and new.

If he were still around in 2008, he would have probably gotten rid of the lyre himself.

Ouch. It sounds less like a theater and more like a baseball stadium.

Will spectators also be allowed to throw peanut shells on the floor and yell at the umpires?

Or yell at the orchestra conductor, perhaps. "Dolce! Dolce!"

I'm no great fan of Martins' choreography, but I can't agree that his work is misogynistic, Carbro.

Much of his choreography deals with problematic and disappointing romantic relationships, and because he is coming from a male point of view, his frustration is expressed as frustration with women. But that's no more misogynistic than "Sex and the City." the same frustration expressed from a woman's point of view, is anti-male.

How exciting to see so many young, fresh dancers in major roles. I think this production is noteable for that reason alone.

How great to see the company renewing itself with new, young talent.

Say what you will about changes in coaching, skill level or repetoire at NYCB - at least the company doesn't stand still, frozen in the headlights of its own legacy. It's dynamic and evolving, constantly fresh.

And ditto-ditto-ditto on the long-overdue promotion of Craig Hall. He's one of my favorite dancers anywhere.

Glad to hear that Apollo and Orpheus are back.

Wonder if we'll be getting the same old Hubbe/Martins casting, or if someone new will get a chance.

I think I would be willing to fly to New York solely to see Craig Hall in Apollo.

What a lovely piece. I'm not surprised that Hall learned his technique from Jock Soto, another wonderful and charismatic dancer.

What upsets me is to learn that Hall will turn 26 this year. When is NYCB going to give him a chance to show what he can do?

I'm also a bit annoyed that all the men of color at NYCB - Soto, Evans, and now Hall and to some extent Ramasar - seem to be chosen mostly for modern roles. I think that 2007 audiences are ready to see a black Siegfried, or a black Romeo, or a black Frantz or Albrecht.

For those of you who wouldn't ordinarily read the New York Times business section, there's a lovely article/video that features a rather clunky businessman being taught to dance by Charles Askegaard and Jennifer Ringer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/business...uits.ready.html

Ratmansky would definitely not be MY wishful thinking.