On Pointe

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.

When I first arrived in NYC,  I took classes at ABT and there were plenty of NYCB dancers in attendance.  Some years later when I studied at Steps and David Howard's school,  there were tons of ABT and NYCB dancers,  from corps members to principals.   Maggie Black was popular,  too.  These days,  lots of company dancers take class with Nancy Bielski.  While it may be frowned upon,  company dancers have always taken outside classes.  Many of them also manage to find the time to attend college,  or raise a baby or two.  No need to rub the company director's nose in it,  but even with their busy schedules,  dancers can fit in additional coaching if they want to.

I don't think you can equate Kevin Mackenzie and other present-day company directors to the likes of Balanchine,  Martha Graham or Merce Cunningham.  (Is anyone considered a Mackenzie disciple?).  Those towering figures built their companies from scratch,  with the repertory made up nearly exclusively of their creations.  Getting outside coaching would rightly be seen as undermining the director's artistic vision.  But  ABT has always been an eclectic company,  with diverse influences.  Much of their rep consists of ballets that are performed by companies around the world.  Skylar Brandt's Giselle will not be unique to ABT.  To paraphrase LeBron James and Dwyane Wade,  she is free to take her hard-won talents elsewhere.   Giving that interview to the New York Times was a very smart move on Brandt's part.  Now there is fan interest in seeing her perform the role.  The ball is  in Mackenzie's court.

In other areas of the performing arts,  it's the norm for dancers,  singers,  and actors to seek out and pay for teachers and coaches in order to enhance their abilities,  and most of them don't have the enormous advantages afforded members of a big ballet company like ABT.  (Free daily class,  free shoes,  physical therapy,  not to mention the steady income.).  It's not unusual for Broadway performers to spend up to a quarter of their take home pay on dance classes,  scene study,  and voice lessons and coaching,  which are very expensive.  More ballet dancers should follow Skylar Brandt's example.  Ballet has become more competitive.  You have to make a real effort to move ahead.

27 minutes ago, canbelto said:

This is one of those years where the acting categories are all very predictable: Joaquin Phoenix for Joker, Renee Zellwegger for Judy, Laura Dern for Marriage Story, Brad Pitt for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I was hoping for more traction for Soairse Ronan who I thought was tremendous in Little Women and also I thought Leo gave the stronger performance in Once Upon a Time. Oh well.

Brad Pitt and Leonardo Di Caprio are both nominated,  BP for Supporting Actor and LDC for Lead Actor.  They could both win.  (But they won't.)

According to commenters on the Broadway World website,  all comments on West Side Story regarding  Ramasar,  Maxwell,  and Waterbury have been deleted.  One commenter suggested that the language used by some was so ugly that trying to police it was becoming too onerous.  Apparently the comments have been removed from Waterbury 's Instagram as well.

18 hours ago, nubka said:

Waterbury and Ramasar?

Maxwell and Ramasar,  of course!

I shouldn't have used the word "forgiven".  Waterbury is putting more energy into going after Maxwell and Ramasar because Finlay is not on the scene and she believes that he knows what he did was wrong.  Then there's his substance abuse problem,  which seems to absolve him of some responsibility.   So forgiven is the wrong word,  but she doesn't seem to care nearly as much about him as she does the others.  Instead of working through her anger,  Waterbury seems to be escalating.  I don't blame Maxwell for recording her calls.

1 hour ago, vipa said:

Personally, I think it means that social media makes it easy to sign petitions for whatever cause one wants, and feel like a crusader for doing it. In any event no one gets fired from a union gig because of a petition. 

Indeed - and the producers have already stated their support for Ramasar.  It isn't clear if there is any outcome that would satisfy Waterbury.  She wants to end Ramasar's career,  she wants Maxwell to walk away from NYCB and break up with Ramasar,  she wants monetary compensation from NYCB and Catazaro and Longhitano,  who did not see photos of her or mention her name.  She has stated that "somebody has to pay" for what was done to her,  but she's forgiven the actual perpetrator.  Waterbury seems to derive great psychic income from this whole thing,  as if bringing down members of NYCB puts her on their professional level.  That may end up being her greatest reward.

1 hour ago, Balletwannabe said:

I don't think you quite understood what I meant because I probably wasn't clear- she's responding to comments because she wants to defend herself, which indicates to me that she's willing to have this conversation.  It's not the same thing as the Copeland situation where minors were called out and didn't have the ability to control what was on Misty's IG.  I'm not saying it's a comfortable situation, but I admire her for her bravery in opening herself up to criticism.  It was more of an observation that she was choosing to keep comments open; not a judgement.

Edit: I also admire Waterbury (for some of what she has said/done).  I'm on no one's side.  I think the whole fight between them is unfortunate and distracts from the bigger issue. 

Copeland did not call out minors.  She made a very mild criticism about the continued use of blackface.   Waterbury is posting videos of herself screaming obscenities at Maxwell,  a very different situation.  Of course her followers feel emboldened to join in with calls to "burn the witch!". Waterbury will never ask them to tone it down.

59 minutes ago, Helene said:

No one defending him based on race, regardless of what he did.

In case you're referencing what I wrote,   I'm saying that some of the abuse sent Ramasar's way has racist undertones.  That is not the same as defending him based on race.

But now that you mention it,  perhaps the rich blond guy from Connecticut with the substance abuse problem is being defended because of his race.  Apparently some believe he acted the way he did because of "affluenza".  Let's all just forget that he was the instigator of this mess because he said he was sorry.

14 minutes ago, canbelto said:

 

People want Ms. Waterbury to be the perfect victim. 

No,  people expect Waterbury to act like an adult,  not an overwrought teenager.

6 minutes ago, NYCgirl said:

Waterbury brought Maxwell's name into things a day before Maxwell made her statement.

Waterbury brought Maxwell's name into the public when she filed her complaint months ago.  I don't follow NYCB goings on that much and I knew who she was outing.  It was deliberate,  unnecessary and cruel.

33 minutes ago, Helene said:

It doesn't take more than basic logic and average intelligence to understand that Ramasar is earning a living on Broadway and in the public eye, while Finlay has receded into the woodwork.

Finlay has receded because Waterbury has allowed him to.  She could be calling him out every time she mentions Ramasar's name,   and yet she doesn't.  That's odd.  I'll go there and say it's the old game of Blame the Black Guy,  a venerable classic ploy.  Of course technically Ramasar isn't black.  But being a person of Puerto Rican and Trinidadian heritage,  with dark brown skin,  he's "black adjacent" - he'll do in a pinch.  I believe that racism is driving a lot of the invective hurled his way.   To those who complain that I'm "playing the race card",  well,  that card is in the deck.  To pretend otherwise is to be willfully naive.

As for calling Maxwell a "bitch" and dropping f bombs,  apparently Waterbury doesn't realize that the judge who presides over her case is going to take her immature behavior into account. 

I saw this comment on Waterbury's Instagram:

"Here is my question to you. Why aren’t you concentrating on Chase? Why not bring Chases name up since he was your perpetrator? I realize you wanted all of the men to be fired and to have their lives destroyed, will you continue to haunt them for the rest of your life? I realize how painful it was to have been so exposed, but it was Chase that did that!! Not Ramasar! I hope that there will be healing for you AND the men."

 A very good question indeed.

1 hour ago, yukionna4869 said:

The day before Maxwell released her statement, Waterbury named her in a tweet accusing her of illegally recording their phone conversation and violating her privacy. Not sure if that affected Maxwell's decision to go public or not.

For what it's worth, Maxwell's social media activity seems to be primarily about correcting people about their misconceptions regarding Amar sending photos of other women. Waterbury, on the other hand, has been on a war path, even referring to Maxwell as a "bitch."

At this point a psych eval might be a good idea.  

26 minutes ago, canbelto said:

She's not harassing Maxwell. They have a strong personal conflict.

Waterbury outed Maxwell unnecessarily and is continuing to force her into a conflict she doesn't want to have.  Seems like harassment to me.

2 minutes ago, canbelto said:

The comments by Waterbury about Maxwell aren't very nice but as a high school teacher I know this is how younger people fight. They do it all via social media. 

Alexa Maxwell is twenty-five years old.  This isn't Mean Girls.

2 minutes ago, canbelto said:

You're just trying to slut shame her.

Nonsense.  Waterbury's behavior is odd and over-the-top,  but not what anybody would call slutty.  Believing herself to have been wronged does not give her carte blanche to make very damaging statements about other people.  It doesn't give her the right to harass Maxwell because she refuses to join in.

47 minutes ago, Leah said:

Looking at the amended complaint now. All three men are alleged to have shared photos. I had thought Catazaro was just an innocent receiver of a photo from Finlay. 
And Finlay admits in the texts that he knows Waterbury would be “pissed” if she knew about what he was doing. There’s your willful disregard.

Catazaro and Longhitano did not see photos of Waterbury.  They did not discuss Waterbury.

I believe that asserting that Finlay showed photos to a pimp,  and then removing the claim in the amended complaint was a deliberate ploy by the attorney.   Likewise falsely claiming at first that Waterbury was a member of NYCB,  and characterizing SAB as the "NYCB School"  were all attempts to create a false narrative that was favorable to his client.  Similarly,  in the Guardian article,  Waterbury is now saying that Ramasar "groped" women and that she had to ask Finlay to tell him to leave her alone because she didn't want to be touched,  and that she and several other dancers were "assaulted",  claims that were never put forth before.  Waterbury's recent behavior is so reckless I wonder if she's deliberately trying to get sued.

16 minutes ago, Leah said:

I wasn’t conflating intent to harm and harm itself. Speaking about Finlay, not Ramasar. He shared the photos to several men including a pimp and compared Waterbury to a farm animal. I think there can be a string inference of an intent to degrade and embarrass Waterbury. 

“Willful” blindness, like “willful” disregard and extreme recklessness, can count as intent.

I don't believe that Finlay showed photos of Waterbury to a "pimp".  I just don't.

29 minutes ago, Leah said:

So your logic is that showing Maxwell photos of herself is revenge porn, while sharing photos of Waterbury to multiple men without her consent constitutes no actual harm.

 

The defining aspect of revenge porn is intent.  "Several" men may have seen the photos of Waterbury.  (Catazaro and Longhitano didn't but she's suing them anyway.). All of us commenting here are aware of their purported existence,  but Finlay did not post them to the internet or threaten to do so.  He didn't want her to know about them at all.  Waterbury stupidly revealed her intent on her Instagram - she wants to coerce Maxwell into breaking up with Ramasar,  an incredible violation of Maxwell's privacy,  and she let the whole world know she has the photos.  How long before she succumbs to the temptation to show them to someone else?

33 minutes ago, canbelto said:

It's still a crime if you don't get caught when you do get caught. For instance there was a rape case where a woman recanted her testimony under pressure. Her pictures were later found in the house of a serial rapist who had been terrorizing Washington State. His rape of the woman who recanted her accusation was added to the prosecution and he is currently serving life in prison with no possibility of parole.

The whole thing was made into a Netflix series "Unbelievable."

It wa salso the subject of a Pulitzer Prize winning article.

https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

I think comparing the Waterbury situation to a rape case is apples-to-oranges reasoning.  Rape is unquestionably a violent crime.  I think that the conflation of what Waterbury is accusing Ramasar of doing with sexual abuse,  harassment and rape is the most dangerous aspect of the entire debacle.  I'd be willing to bet that most of the people demonstrating in front of the theatre don't know what Ramasar is actually accused of doing. The publisher of the theatre blog who has been whipping up opposition to Ramasar seems to realize that he has gone too far and is now trying to walk back the invective.  But considerable,  likely actionable,  damage has already been done.

Surely her lawyer  has warned Waterbury that showing Maxwell nude photos of herself,  with the intent to coerce action on her part,  could be considered harassment or even revenge porn.  As far as Maxwell is concerned,  Waterbury needs to let it go.

18 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Terms like "distasteful" and "vulgar" suggest that sharing explicit photos of someone without their consent is mostly a violation of public mores regarding nudity and sex. "Upsetting to the women when it was revealed" suggests that it's only harmful when discovered. But it's more than that: it's a fundamental violation of privacy.  It's a violation of trust. It places the value of a man's ego above a woman's right to determine who sees her breasts (or her vulva or her buttocks or herself having sex), when, and in what context. 

That harm was done whether the women involved knew about it or not. 

The question is was there a "violation of public mores"?  Finlay's defense attorney can argue that there was no public exposure of the photos,  no intent to expose them to the public,  and no intent to harm Waterbury.  People engage in any number of activities that are vulgar,  distasteful,  and may even be illegal,  but is there actual harm if nobody knows about them?  I don't know,  but I don't think so.

1 hour ago, Leah said:

Waterbury has the pictures because they are *ostensibly* evidence that Ramasar and Finlay were in some sort of joint scheme to trade explicit photos of their girlfriends. Waterbury has the right to the photos as they are evidence and should have come out in discovery regardless. That does not make her a hypocrite. If she threatened to expose the pictures publicly then she would be. I believe she was just referring to showing them to Maxwell. 

 

While trading photos of their girlfriends is distasteful,  vulgar,  and upsetting to the women involved when it was revealed,  what Finlay and Ramasar did is not a crime.  But by Waterbury trying to get Maxwell to bend to her will,  using a public platform to announce that she is in possession of nude photos of her,  (with the implied threat that they may come to light)  Waterbury may be close to committing a crime herself.   No doubt Maxwell  recorded conversations with Waterbury in order to protect herself.  It would be ironic if Waterbury is the one who gets charged with revenge porn.

1 minute ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Perhaps I misunderstood your observation that Maxwell was the only victim. Did you mean the only person who might be deemed Ramasar’s victim?

Chase Finlay is the rightful target of Waterbury's wrath.  Maxwell is the only person with any standing to sue Ramasar and she has no intention to do so.

19 minutes ago, yukionna4869 said:

 

According to Waterbury, the DA declined to prosecute.
"The District Attorney of NYC looked into my case, conducting a criminal investigation and similarly to how the DA handled the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, they’re claiming there’s not enough to prosecute the case with. They couldn’t “find” the photos and conversations that were taken and sent after the “revenge porn” law was signed in, in 2018 (although there were laws criminalizing this conduct which were passed in 2014 by Cuomo.) "

Waterbury's post below also includes some screenshots of Finlay's text exchanges. Content warning: the last image in the post contains some vile language, but those messages are not from Amar. One might get confused since the post is about Amar starting previews in West Side Story.

 

Waterbury is starting to sound unhinged.