On Pointe

I had the honor of meeting Toni Morrison, who was a close friend of a relative of mine. She was a charming, down-to-earth, warm and witty person, who wore her honors and accolades lightly. Hard to believe that she was eighty-eight as she was so young in spirit and outlook. May she rest in well-deserved peace after a life well lived.

American dancers do have pensions, as members of AGMA. However they can't access them until years after typical retirement age for a dancer.

Perhaps Francesca Hayward is on the cover of British Vogue simply because she's very beautiful. Her unusual background as a highly-regarded principal dancer is a bonus. She has accomplished a lot in her young life. There is a bit of a kerfuffle brewing over her role as the white cat in the film Cats. She is literally in white face makeup, so much so that her black African background is a total surprise to some film buffs. When the film is released I'm sure that the studio will push her to participate in publicity junkets.

It could be that Wheeldon and Nottage believe that a mere jukebox musical is beneath their talents. Based on that interview in the NY Times, they want to produce something deep, a meditation on the Michael Jackson created by the mainstream media. But it is hardly their place to "balance" light and dark or serve as judge and jury. Jackson faced a real judge and a jury that found him not guilty of any of the charges brought against him. (Ultimately the stress of that ordeal killed him, but that's not enough for some people. They want to destroy his legacy too.) The natural audience for this show will be made up of Jackson fans, not New York social critics. Wheeldon and Nottage are making a basic show biz mistake if they think the Jackson fan base wants to see a show that suggests that he sexually assaulted children. But they might win an award for it.

Michael Jackson suffered from vitiligo, a skin disorder which causes the skin to lose pigmentation. He did not "bleach" his skin. In some people it is stable, like Michaela DePrince, who has had the same lesions on her body since childhood. (She felt that she could pursue her dream of becoming a ballerina when her mother told her that her spots weren't noticeable from the stage.) In other people it is progressive until it affects the entire body. Jackson started wearing his trademark sequin glove when the white spots on his hand began to spread. He explained his condition, and it was confirmed by his autopsy, but some people stubbornly refuse to believe it. Jackson always proclaimed pride in his black American heritage. Actions speak louder than words - he funded college scholarships for black students and gave more than a million dollars to Fisk University. He always uplifted black people in his videos, especially black women. He was respectful of black cultures in Africa and Brazil where he remains very popular.

Adult males play with and "hang out" with children all the time. Especially when those children and their parents are guests in their homes. You may find it perverse, but it's not a crime. There is still no evidence, no proof, no footage of Jackson assaulting children.

The dead can't intimidate anyone. Debunking a liar is not intimidation. If you have any knowledge of Safechuck and Robson being intimidated or threatened by the Jackson estate or anyone else please share it.

There is no footage of Michael Jackson assaulting a child. There is no testimony from Robson and Safechuck, just unsubstantiated allegations designed to be revolting, shot with melodramatic camera angles, editing and background music. When these two gave actual testimony, in court, under oath and under penalty of perjury, they swore adamantly that Michael Jackson had never behaved inappropriately toward them. Robson was Jackson's first defense witness and withstood hours of probing questioning from a tough examiner. The court transcripts are readily available. What's extraordinary to me is how so many sophisticated, intelligent people are so totally invested in a false narrative. There seems to be an existential need to believe that a man, known for his kindness and generosity as much as for his artistic genius, was a monster so heinous he deserves to be pilloried even ten years after his death.

Bill Cosby is as rich as Michael Jackson and he's in jail. Jeffrey Epstein is supposedly a billionaire and he's being held without bail pending trial. When people make facile remarks about Michael Jackson "getting off" because he was a rich man, I wonder, how exactly does that work? Do you believe he bribed every officer in the LAPD and the Santa Barbara Police Department that raided his homes twice with no notice and found no evidence against him? How about the FBI, which investigated him for ten years and found nothing? It's not like they're known to go easy on black suspects. They even tried to blackmail MLK. Then there are the grand juries that refused to indict Jackson. We have a saying in the US - a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. But they didn't indict Jackson. Think of the money to be made if even one person could claim to have been bribed by Michael Jackson and provided proof. It never happened. Royalties and streaming fees might represent profits, but I've never heard them referred to as "profiteering". There have been no ongoing attacks on Robson and Safechuck by the Jackson estate, although one could argue that there should be. In fact they have disappeared from public view altogether. They still owe the estate thousands of dollars in court costs from cases that they've lost.

I know I'm late to the discussion, but I stumbled across this thread and found myself so upset that I was unable to sleep. If others vehemently disagree with my opinions, it's understandable perhaps, but I feel compelled to express them. I agree that Christopher Wheeldon is a poor choice to stage a show about Michael Jackson. At no time in his career has he exhibited any knowledge or interest in black American popular entertainment, and his work has not exhibited any black influences. (It's not just because he's British. British musicians, Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton, Steve Winwood and many others, are well-known for taking inspiration from their assiduous study of black American musical forms.) It's a great frustration to African Americans that people outside of our community are assumed to be better qualified than we are to tell our stories. I wonder if Wheeldon has ever been to Gary, Indiana or even knows where it is? One afternoon there would tell you more about Michael Jackson and his family's drive and desire to succeed than any book. But I am saddened, frustrated and angered at the unceasing attacks on Michael Jackson, a man who has been dead for ten years, by liars and grifters whose allegations can be debunked by anyone who took high school journalism. The scary part is that the mainstream media is completely aware that Robson and Safechuck are lying, but the attempt to destroy the Jackson legacy suits their agenda. Harvey Weinstein was known to pay tabloids to run negative stories on Jackson to deflect attention from his sexual misdeeds. He still has friends in high places who are shaping the current negative, united by their hatred and jealousy of the skinny black kid from Indiana who is known and loved around the world. (After this mockumentary was released, sales of Jackson's music and views of his videos went way up.) Contrary to what is stated above, other than defending Jackson's estate in court, where Robson and Safechuck have been turned away multiple times, the executors have done almost nothing to defend him. It's his fans who have done the heavy lifting; one young man from New Zealand, with very little money, produced such a polished defense of Jackson, HBO assumed it had been made by the estate and cited it in their answer to the non-disparagement lawsuit against them. Fans in France, where there are laws against defaming the dead, are suing the director Dan Reed for the symbolic sum of one euro. Paradoxically, right wing commentators such as John Ziegler and YouTube pundit Razorfish, who are not Jackson fans at all, have been the most vocal in defending him against Robson and Safechuck's ludicrous claims. Anyone who believes that Michael Jackson was guilty will no doubt continue to do so, despite the total lack of any evidence. But I am dismayed that Wheeldon and esteemed playwright Lynn Nottage would participate in the Broadway project when they obviously think he was a terrible "deeply-flawed" human being. I'm even more dismayed that they're getting paid by the Jackson estate, which didn't do their homework or just didn't care. The Jackson children should pull the plug on this travesty, but they have no say in how their father's affairs are administered.

Original musicals require lengthy commitment from the collaborators before they ever reach Broadway, usually with development workshops, out-of-town and off-Broadway productions first. (Hamilton took seven years.) This costs millions of dollars. With all that, only one show out of four makes back its investment. And that's when the creators have years of experience and successful productions behind them. It's much easier to mount a re-staging or an "update" of a classic. West Side Story is a known entity, with a built-in audience base. There's already a certain amount of interest in the project, even though some of it is negative. (No such thing as bad publicity.)

You said a mouthful. All the more reason why they should get in a little practice before messing with West Side Story. Great minds with but a single thought, lol. Here's showbiz411's take on the enterprise: https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/07/15/new-broadway-version-of-west-side-story-will-replace-classic-soaring-dances-with-moves-from-avant-garde-choreographer-who-accused-beyonce-of-plagiarism

Ramasar being cast in West Side Story is probably a strategic move on his part. He may have signed on before his reinstatement was ordered by AGMA. Or maybe he feels that NYCB management is unlikely to extend his contract past its current end date, so having a prominent Broadway role lined up is an excellent backup plan for him. That said, I am dismayed by the idea that a classic American musical is being "reinterpreted" by Europeans. West Side Story was conceived by Jerome Robbins. If you're going to chuck his work, why not throw out the Bernstein-Sondheim score while you're at it? If Van Hove and De Keersmaeker want to create a musical about lovers defying ethnic conflict, their own country can provide them with sufficient material.

Not sure there's a rulebook, but relationships, affairs, and openly dating often cool down to a friends with benefits situation. Even marriages - I know of divorced couples who are no longer in love but continue to have sex. ETA Friends with benefits are usually "evenly yoked". Waterbury was inexperienced and much younger when she took up with Finlay. He had a drinking problem and she was too young to drink legally. He was a star dancer and she didn't make it into the company. The odds were against them from the get go.

One could say that all affairs are relationships, but not all relationships are affairs. In the case of Waterbury vs. Finlay, she believed she was in a relationship, but apparently he just notched it up as another affair. They weren't planning a marriage, they didn't live together. Many people today might describe them as "friends with benefits", but unfortunately she was actually in love with him. A bad breakup was inevitable, although the sensational public aspect, with all the collateral damage to the lives and careers of others is unique. Metaphorically, it's a lot like the current horror film Midsommar, whose director has said was inspired by his own bad breakup. (Again, metaphorically - I don't think anyone involved has murderous intent!)

I don't understand why we should be careful. Are we in any jeopardy for expressing an opinion? Considering that Waterbury was never employed by NYCB, it's hard to see what company culture has to do with her case. NYCB does not owe her a duty of care. Would it have made a difference if I had referred to Finlay and Waterbury as having a "love affair" as opposed to "affair"? To my mind, the terms affair and relationship are interchangeable, but obviously others have a different opinion. I didn't use the term to denigrate their situation.

This Nguyen affidavit is really bizarre. Pearl-clutching from an indicted thief and embezzler, over private affairs that are none of his business. He really undermines Waterbury's suit. Evidently everybody in the vicinity of Lincoln Center knew Finlay's reputation as a lothario, and his penchant for soliciting and sharing naughty photos. Everybody except Waterbury, a consenting adult who willingly engaged in an affair with him. It reminds me of the punchline of the song The Old Lady and the Snake - "You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in." Nguyen seems to be one of those social butterflies who just can't pass up the chance to involve himself in a juicy story.

Well really, what did Seibert expect Sara Mearns to do - bitch slap Ramasar during the curtain call? She may have been troubled by his return, delighted by it or not have cared much one way or the other. She is a professional and carried herself as one. (Mentioning her previous relationship with Ramasar was pretty tacky on Seibert's part, particularly in light of her recent marriage.) The symphony musicians who were recently fired are accused of physical sexual assaults on multiple colleagues. Why are there no hand-wringing articles regarding the toxic environment of symphony orchestras and the musicians' behavior, in the NY Times or any other major media? It could be the infantilization of ballet dancers as opposed to other artists. I can't think of any other profession where highly-accomplished adults are routinely referred to as "girls" and "boys".

I really wish that this case would go to court, even though it's highly unlikely, because it brings important unresolved issues to the foreground. Catazaro is not accused of actually doing anything against a co-worker. He's been punished for finding a co-worker sexually attractive and expressing his attraction in a message (granted in vulgar terms) where he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Is private speech, that the alleged victim knew nothing about, now going to be considered harassment? To me, this smacks of the Stasi, the means by which the East Germans kept control of their citizens. In your example, if one person steals from another, and the victim makes no complaint, who is the bank responsible to? (This situation is not uncommon, where family members avail themselves of funds that belong to wealthy relatives, but the victims prefer not to prosecute.) There is no indication that the photo Catazaro allegedly shared was taken non-consentually. According to the suit, the face of the woman in question was not revealed, and she is described as an "ex-SAB student", not a current one, and over the age of eighteen. SAB has been around a long time - she could be a sixty year old grandmother (although probably not!). The suit, and to some extent the union, seem to be conferring a quasi-parental status on the management of NYCB, making the company responsible for policing the "incorrect" private thoughts of legal adults. I'm not aware of any other union ruling involving performing artists that is remotely similar.

You could make a case against Ramasar, although his alleged victim didn't. But what action did Catazaro take against a co-worker? It's not evident from the lawsuit. He appears to be "collateral damage".

What's unique about the NYCB case is that the company took action based on the complaint of a non-employee. It wasn't the usual situation of workplace harassment involving fellow union members.

I just saw the latest installment in the Keanu Reeves John Wick franchise; the theater was packed in the early afternoon. I knew that Unity Phelan was featured as a tattooed ballerina in an assassins' ensemble, run by Anjelica Huston as a Russian ballet mistress from hell. But I was surprised to learn that the choreography we see in a fragment of a ballet was by Tiler Peck, and, as they say in the film business, that it didn't suck. Would love to see more work from her. Dance is featured in a number of current films. (I really enjoyed the wacky sequence performed by Rachel Weisz and Nicholas Hoult in The Favourite.) While Girl, the controversial film about a transgender dancer seems to have made little impact, it was interesting to read reviews of it by critics with no knowledge of ballet who found the classroom and rehearsal sequences fascinating. Other than the protagonist, the dance students were, happy, lively and engaged in their studies, unlike the usual film depiction of ballet dancers.

The risks that an actor can be expected to take is a hot button issue in the industry. Oleg Ivenko is a very young dancer with his life and career ahead of him. An actor in his position with a bigger name or more moxie could have demanded that the other actors use fake cigarettes with the smoke CGIed in afterward. Since the overwhelming majority of people (in the US at least) doesn't smoke, seems to me that they could have toned down or eliminated the smoking without harming the film. I know I would find it very onerous to spend hours on a film set surrounded by people smoking.

The smoking in White Crow looked authentic to me. An actor friend of mine who didn't smoke was cast in a play where his character had to take a couple of puffs on a cigarette. At the end of the short run, he found himself addicted to smoking and it took many months of effort to kick the habit. You can't blame actors for not wanting to risk their lives because of some director's vision.

I saw The White Crow today and I was immensely impressed with Ralph Fiennes work as director and his portrayal of Alexander Pushkin. (He plays the role entirely in Russian.) It's a visually beautiful film, especially the scenes of Nureyev's hard scrabble childhood. Oleg Ivenko is very affecting as Nureyev. He doesn't resemble him much, but as the film played on, to me he became more and more credible in the role. I saw Nureyev dance many times, back in the days when the Royal Ballet toured North America almost every year. Of course Ivenko doesn't have Nureyev's spectacular presence - if he did he'd be world-famous. But he has excellent technique, with even better legs and feet than Nureyev had. By casting an actual dancer Fiennes' film has an authenticity that Black Swan and Red Sparrow lacked. Ivenko was obviously a real ballet dancer even in scenes where he wasn't dancing at all. Johan Kobborg was Fiennes ballet consultant, advising him to emulate Fred Astaire's wide angle framing of dance sequences instead of cutting to closeups. For me, the best aspect of the film is its intelligent, realistic depiction of the dancer's work process. I like to read reviews on Rotten Tomatoes after I've seen the movie, and I wondered if any publication would feature a review from an actual dancer. (Many of the reviewers on RT admit that they had no previous knowledge or interest in ballet.) Lo and behold one did - AARP Movies for Grownups had a rave review from Nichol Hlinka, the marvelously individual NYCB principal. I think most serious ballet fans and students will want to see this film, but it's not for the kiddies. There is a brief topless and bottomless scene of cabaret dancers, full-frontal male nudity and frank depictions of sexual affairs. But it's not lurid. One aspect marks White Crow as a period piece - everybody around the dancers smokes like a chimney, including some of the dancers themselves.