On Pointe

As a young dance student, I was enamored with Eliot Feld's dancing in the film of West Side Story. He played the youngest Jet, Baby John. But in the original production, he was a Shark. I was shocked to learn later that he was dark haired. They bleached his hair blond and gave him blue contacts for the film. One rap on the Van Hove production is that by including light and dark black performers as Jets, it's very hard to tell who's fighting who. Darkening Moreno's skin, as they did with George Chakiris who isn't Latin at all, helped the audience to distinguish between the two gangs. It's not like they were wearing blackface. Natalie Wood, who was Russian, wasn't darkened. In an earlier stage revival of WSS in the eighties, some Latinos complained that Maria, who was played by an actual Puerto Rican, was too light. I knew people in that cast, and it became a running joke, especially since there were no complaints about Debbie Allen playing Anita. (She grew up in Mexico and speaks fluent Spanish, but she's African American.)

So according to this article, it's laudable and compelling that (at least) two gay Belgian artists expand upon the misrepresentation of Latinos originally created by four gay American artists? Mr. Pollack-Pelzner is entitled to his no doubt well-considered opinion, but he gets a few facts wrong. For example Sondheim's original lyric in I Feel Pretty was, "I feel pretty and witty and bright". It was changed to "gay" for the film when the position of the scene in the story was changed. At any rate, gay did not automatically mean homosexual sixty years ago. Rita Moreno wearing dark makeup was not a misrepresentation of Puerto Rican identity. Many Puerto Ricans have dark brown and black skin, just not Moreno. But Latino society has a big problem with colorism - dark Latinos are severely under-represented in popular culture and often have to pass as black Americans to have a career, like Christina Milian and Zoë Saldana. And yet again, a writer in a major publication has gotten the facts wrong regarding Ramasar. At any rate, surely it's questionable whether it belongs in a discussion of the artistic origins of the production.

Puerto Ricans often are conflicted over WSS. On one hand, the depiction of Puerto Ricans solely as gang members is stereotypical and demeaning. On the other hand, some of their issues are dealt with seriously - America deals with the pros and cons of leaving the island, it's not just a cute dance number. For black Americans, there are no such redeeming qualities in Porgy and Bess. Catfish Row is a mess of stereotypes, starting with the name. But then there are those wonderful songs, and the undeniable fact that for a number of black classical singers, Porgy is their most reliable source of income, especially abroad. Early on, when I first heard of this production of WSS, I felt that it was inevitable that Van Hove would get it wrong. Not just because he's Belgian and so unfamiliar with American racial dynamics that he cast black performers as the Jets. But because he's arrogant, and by his comments in various interviews, he seems not to respect American cullture at all, and therefore feels no need to try to understand it. He just wants to exploit it. He could have produced the Belgian equivalent of the Romeo and Juliet story, but that would take far more time and effort than rehashing and trashing an American classic.

This is not a good look for AGMA at all. A union has no business making side deals like this.

The person who wrote the blog post imploring the audience to boo Amar Ramasar posted an article today detailing the abusive behavior of the costume designer of Hadestown. https://www.onstageblog.com/editorals/2020/2/26/hadestown-costume-designer-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-by-former-student Nowhere in the article does he indicate that he's organizing demonstrations at Hadestown, asking the audience to boo, or demanding that the producers toss the costumes. One has to wonder, why not? This man is accused of far worse transgressions than Ramasar. He's a hypocrite. Maybe all those passionate teens who are so appalled by bad behavior can move a few blocks down Broadway. What we think does matter. The law has determined that Ramasar did not commit a crime against Waterbury. (I'll go out on a limb and predict that her civil suit against him will be dismissed as well.). She may feel that it was violence, but her feelings don't have the force of law.

One could ask a passerby or even one of the demonstrators exactly what they believe Ramasar did to gauge whether the material is misleading or not. Realistically, not that many people are going to parse each sentence carefully. I'm not the only person to notice that even some experienced journalists, who have a professional obligation to seek accuracy, have misstated the facts of the case. It's obvious that it's Waterbury's aim to paint Ramasar as negatively as possible, otherwise there would be little justification for demonstrating in front of the theatre. As Ramasar is still on the roster at NYCB, and NYCB has much deeper pockets than Ramasar, it would make more sense to be demonstrating at Lincoln Center. But standing next to the new, high profile production of West Side Story garners more attention. Because that's really what this is about. Waterbury seems to be energized by the psychic income the attention brings her. She's even got an Oscar-winning movie star validating her cause, not to mention the endless articles and opinion pieces in the press and online. If Waterbury's primary motivation was justice, she would have settled this matter quietly, and the general public would be totally unaware of the existence of humiliating images of her. But she doesn't want mere justice. She wants revenge.

According to the post, Waterbury participated in disseminating the petition. She should have made sure that its meaning was clear. No, I don't think there was a third person in the room with Waterbury and Finlay. But the text of the petition could lead one to believe the guy was Ramasar. Few people know as much about this case as we do.

How was there a "severe power imbalance" between Waterbury and Finlay? While he was some years older they were both adults. He was not her professor or her boss. Unlike the Weinstein case, Finlay could not affect Waterbury's career as a model or a dancer. She has not maintained that he ever beat her or intimidated her (although now she's claiming that Ramasar threatened her). Just because he was a principal dancer didn't give him power over her. It's not at all clear that it was Finlay who took photos of Waterbury. And by using "countless women" she is implying that Ramasar was exploiting a number of people. It appears to the general public that she has put all of her eggs in the Ramasar basket - she is ascribing all of the bad behavior and the vulgar terms to him. For example holding up a big sign in front of the Broadway Theater reading "still not your farm animal" when Ramasar never said that about her or anyone else. I am genuinely curious to know what Ramasar can do, other than spontaneously combust, that would satisfy Waterbury and her band of teenage acolytes. (I don't think he needs to do anything, and considering that she's suing him it would be unwise for him to reach out to her anyway.). She reminds me of another Columbia student - Emma Sulkowicz, the "mattress girl", who turned her claim of being a rape victim into a form of performance art. At this point Waterbury's protest in front of the theatre is more performative than effective.

By the way, as predicted by Broadway fans, two days after opening night, numerous cast members are missing shows, including Tony, Maria, and Ramasar's Bernardo. Evidently they were holding it together for the critics, but performing in such a hazardous show, and spending half the show soaking wet during flu season, is taking its toll. It's been my experience that after the adrenaline of a Broadway opening, for several weeks afterward it's very hard to keep energy and enthusiasm up for eight shows a week. (It gets better, but this is an inexperienced cast that doesn't know that.)

Chase Finlay's actions were the catalyst for all the protests, and yet no one is screaming in the streets that he's a "sexual predator", an "assaulter", a "pervert" or a "pedophile". He's left the narrative. It must be easier for him to go a year or more without work than it is for Ramasar. If he walked past the Broadway Theater, probably most of the protesters wouldn't even notice him. Meanwhile Ramasar's life is ripped to shreds. (And it's no cakewalk for Alexa Maxwell either.). There seems to be no consideration for Zachary Catazaro who lost his NYCB career, or Jared Longhitano, who lost his job, his insurance coverage and all of his money, and neither one of them saw any photo of Waterbury or discussed her at all. I've been reading audience members' impressions and reviews of WSS and a number of them believe that Ramasar doesn't belong in the show because he's "Middle Eastern". Anti-Arab views could be fueling some of their animosity. (It doesn't matter that he isn't an Arab - perception is everything.) Yet even when the show was in previews, some felt that Ramasar was the strongest actor in the show. One even said he was the only member of the cast who can act. I just read a laudatory comment from an audience member who believes that he has improved tremendously since he was in Carousel because of all he's been through. So there's that, but it's a small consolation for having crowds of teenagers trying to drive him out of his job.

I've read many reviews of the new WSS, and most of them bring up Ramasar's involvement in the Waterbury-Finlay dispute and the protesters in front of the theatre. The UK Guardian has devoted more column inches to it and Ramasar being cast in the show than they have to the show itself. Whether the reviewers like or dislike Ramasar's performance is almost an afterthought. For example, from the Guardian: "Less wise was the casting of Amar Ramasar as Bernardo, a performer plagued with controversy after he disseminated sexual images of fellow female dancers during his time with the New York City Ballet. The casting decision has surely caused a headache for the production and ethical reckoning for some viewers which seems, given the performance, not worth it; Ramasar’s Bernardo fades to the background, upstaged by a magnetic Yesenia Ayala as Anita, Shereen Pimentel as Maria and a smoldering ensemble of Sharks. It’s as if the production strapped the distraction of his casting to the character’s back and willed both to disappear." There is a negative review of Ramasar embedded in all the verbiage, which is legitimate, but dragging in his problems with NYCB is not. (Note the absence of Chase Finlay's name.). They are supposed to be reviewing the show, not Ramasar's life. These reviewers do not have the protesters' excuse of being young and naïve. They know damn well that Ramasar's transgressions are in no way comparable to the bad behavior of powerful men like Harvey Weinstein, Les Moonves, Charlie Rose or Matt Lauer, or even comedian Louis CK. If every performer's bad behavior was put to the Ramasar test and thereby deemed uncastable, there wouldn't be a show running on Broadway. This is America. Everything is about race. If Chase Finlay is "paying the consequences" I guess I missed it.

Maybe because I have been in theatre for many years, and because I am a minority American, I have a very different view of this case than most who post here. I think it's telling that most of the protesters on the street are fervent youngsters who don't seem to understand the gravity of the terms they fling around with such conviction. They bring to mind Dory Previn's lyric, "Beware of young girls, too often they crave, to cry at a wedding and dance on a grave.". And I'm particularly peeved that Ramasar, who danced his way out of the projects, has become the sacrificial lamb for a lovers' quarrel between two entitled rich white kids from Connecticut. (I am well aware that many will disagree with that characterization, but that's how it looks to me.)

I don't know what "reading in good faith" means. I do know that I have read article after article in so-called reputable media that have gotten basic, easily verifiable facts about Ramasar and the Waterbury suit wrong.

In several earlier revivals going back years, the Sharks have been appropriately cast, so there's nothing innovative about the current production casting Latinos as Latinos. There was no need to bring up brown face at all, except to indulge in a little virtue signalling about how deplorable it was in 1957. But if she had to mention it, she could have included at least one sentence to put it into context. To a young person reading her review, the use of brown face might seem like a tacky choice on the part of the producers, instead of being emblematic of the dearth of opportunities for artists of color. Perhaps, but I have seen many comments that indicate that a large chunk of the public is unaware of Ramasar's background.

I must say that it annoys me when critics write about how relieved they are that we are "far from the miserable days of brown face" without any context or consideration of why performers were in brown face to begin with. There were few opportunities for Latinos in musical theatre in the 1950s, and those with the extensive ballet training Robbins demanded were very rare, Chita Rivera being the exception that proves the rule. Lin-Manuel Miranda has often spoken of how he became a composer because he loved musical theatre and wanted to be a part of it, but he was keenly aware that if he wanted decent three-dimensional roles, he would have to write them himself. And as much as he loved WSS, the portrayal of young Puerto Ricans as knife-wielding gang members was painful, especially because it was for many decades the only image of Puerto Ricans on Broadway. Nobody in theatre thought that brown face was "miserable" when WSS debuted. It was just the way things were.

I wonder if the New Yorker critic is aware that Amar Ramasar is one of the few performers in WSS who is actually Puerto Rican? I guess the Indian name threw her. Somehow I think a Puerto Rican who grew up among Puerto Ricans might have a better handle on a realistic "Spanish" accent than Ms. Schwartz.

RAINN's definition does not have the force of law. At any rate, the images were never online. While there is a right to peaceful protest, some of Waterbury's followers are taking it way too far by harassing other members of the WSS cast through their social media. The producers have had to hire cyberstalking experts to deal with the problem, and Actors Equity issued a statement urging affected cast members to bring problems to their attention.

In her Instagram rant, Waterbury writes "He sexually assaulted you, whether you forgive him or not". She doesn't include names, but it's evident by the context that she is referring to Alexa Maxwell and Amar Ramasar. She also claims that Ramasar threatened her, which is new as far as I know. She apparently believes that she can be outraged on Maxwell's behalf and is furious that Maxwell is still with Ramasar. She also spews invective at producer Scott Rudin for not firing Ramasar. As a veteran Broadway producer, Rudin has a thick skin, but he's not known for being soft and cuddly. He might sic his legal attack dogs on her if she continues to include him in her unsupported rants. Is Amar Ramasar actually a public figure just because he performs on stage? I thought that public figures have to actually be famous people. I'd be willing to bet that the average New Yorker has no idea who he is.

I described Ramasar's lawyer as "very able" because of his excellent answer to Waterbury's lawsuit. In my opinion, it was the best by far of the defendant pleadings. I'm not a lawyer, but Waterbury and her supporters antics seem to me to fit the definition of slander - the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. Any casual observer of the protesters might reasonably conclude, based on the signs and the slick handouts featuring a glamor shot of Waterbury, that Ramasar had physically assaulted her. Their demand that the producers of WSS fire him show clear intent to harm him. Waterbury's continuing efforts to engage Alexa Maxwell, after Maxwell has made it clear that her intrusions are unwelcome, might constitute harassment. The producers have made their statement - they are not going to fire Ramasar without cause. Good thing, because under their agreement with Actors Equity, they would have to pay him for the term of his contract whether he performed or not. It would also be grossly unfair.

I What do you mean by the term "legal threat"? I hope that the parents of the high school girl who has whipped up this protest have explained to her that making false accusations against someone could land her in serious trouble. At this point she may not even be the main instigator, but she's the one whose name is in the New York Times. A cease and desist letter is certainly in order.

This article in the New York Times makes it clear that at some point in the near future, somebody needs to rein in Alexandra Waterbury and her cohort of protesters. Amar Ramasar's very able counsel points out that they are tossing around terms to the public like "sexual assault" without understanding their meaning or impact. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/19/theater/west-side-story-amar-ramasar.html

Jerome Robbins experimented with combining live dancers with film projection in his ballet I'm Oldfashioned, which featured Rita Hayworth and Fred Astaire. The live dancing couldn't compete, because the film images were so overwhelming in size, but mostly because it was Rita Hayworth and Fred Astaire for God's sake. Nobody on stage could come close to their style, technique, and charisma. In that 60 Minutes piece which revealed that Maria's bedroom was actually a dressing room converted to a video studio on the fourth floor, I wondered what would happen if she tripped running up the stairs and missed her cue? She should be in great shape by the end of the run. I also wondered if it was really necessary for all the gang members to be shirtless in the rain during the rumble? Nice eye candy, but not typical gang behavior.

The reporter was Bill Whitaker, and I'm sure he knows how Broadway shows are produced. But assuming ignorance is a technique often used by television journalists, because they try to ask the kinds of questions that viewers who may know nothing about the subject might ask. That said, this was a puff piece, not a review, more public relations than actual reporting.

To be fair, you shouldn't judge an evening length work from short excerpts, but having watched the 60 Minutes report, the Van Hove production of WSS appears to be so determinedly wrongminded it just might work. It will be one of those shows that Broadway regulars will brag about having seen, but it looks unpleasant and uninspiring. I was struck by how on the beat, how "European" the choreography seemed, even when there were attempts at incorporating elements of street dance. Bill Whitaker described the cast as "looking like America now", but nowhere in America at any time have black kids joined in with white kids to fight Latinos. It's ludicrous. On a journalistic note, they mistakenly used Peter Gennaro's choreography for the America number to try to make a point about how "dated" Jerome Robbins' work is, which was a punk move in the first place. Denigrating the original does not enhance the current production. This WSS will sell tickets and has already made back a chunk of its investment. But I doubt that subsequent productions will be influenced by it. It's too tech heavy and grim.

May I add that, interestingly, it was amazing to me how there were corps dancers and soloists who were far more compelling in class than they ever were on stage. But some principal dancers, even famous artists, just blended in to the woodwork at the barre and even in center. They seemed to be saving the magic for the audience instead of the mirror.