On Pointe

9 hours ago, canbelto said:

It’s very difficult for victims of sexual abuse to speak out. Society’s tendency to blame and harass them. I work with kids who were molested and they weren’t believed by their families even after kids were born.

i believe the women. People don’t lie about sexual harassment and abuse period. 

Domingo's behavior as detailed in the AP story seems obsessive,  even psychotic.  He seemed to get off on conquering women who resisted his advances.  (Surely there were willing groupies in his orbit as an opera superstar.)  It was especially shocking to me that married women felt that they had to have sex with him and even told their husbands about it.  But I wouldn't doubt their stories.

That said,  people do lie about being sexually assaulted,  sometimes in great detail.  For example the young woman who claimed to have been gang raped in a frat house at the University of Virginia,  as told to a reporter for Rolling Stone.  This past week the film Brian Banks opened,  about a college football player and hot NFL prospect who had his life upended and spent six years in prison,  based on a teenager's lie.  You can't just say that people don't lie about rape,  period.

Since Domingo's unsavory reputation was well-known,  I wonder why apparently no one in administration had a "come to Jesus" meeting with him.  The various opera companies may find themselves liable for civil damages for their failure to check their employee.  However powerful Placido Domingo is in the opera world,  he still has to answer to somebody.

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.

8 hours ago, dirac said:

True, but Kent also writes that the board cut her off as soon as Balanchine was no longer compos mentis. Such an arrangement to benefit one dancer would be unlikely to work today. American dancers should have pensions, but there just ain't no way.

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.

10 minutes ago, Quiggin said:

I'm just catching up on this, too. Wheeldon uses the dubious term "balance" several times in the interview. Balancing dark forces against rational and light ones doesn't really seem to work – and we can see the results of twenty years of such attempts in the political arena. Wheeldon:

Another biography problem: While I've never followed Jackson's music and career that much, only the effect on its fans, I did find his surgeries and skin whitening treatments very disturbing. Who did he want to be, to represent? What was his attitude towards his black heritage? Who did he become?

From a 2009 Rolling Stone article on Jackson's legacy:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/michael-jackson-black-superhero-71199/

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.

2 hours ago, Mashinka said:

There is however a great deal of footage of Jackson with the children involved,  adult males do not hang out with other peoples children.  How no one ever drew attention to his perverse behaviour is quite shocking.  From the testimony of the parents his enablers, entourage, call them what you will, actually colluded with his assaults on these kids.  The whole thing stinks.

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.

3 hours ago, dirac said:

In France Robson and Safechuck are getting sued by fans under France's defamation of the dead legislation.  The spokesman for the Jackson estate speaks wistfully of how nice it would be if we had such laws in the States - imagine, yet another avenue for intimidating accusers!

 

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.  

11 hours ago, Mashinka said:

Extraordinary that with so much evidence from testimonies and actual film footage anyone would ever seek to defend him.

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.

3 hours ago, Mashinka said:

I think you have to separate the music from the creator, think Wagner, Gesualdo. 

In Britain we had paedophile pop singers, but they weren't as rich as Jackson so finished up in jail.

 

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.

2 hours ago, dirac said:

There's also the issue of profiteering by the estate and the ongoing attacks on the credibility of his victims. I think Jackson's music should be accessible to anyone who wants to hear it, but a big jukebox musical is another matter entirely.

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.  

8 hours ago, Petra said:

Since West Side Story doesn't have an original story, I do wonder why van Hove and de Keersmaeker [love how they both have 'aristocratic' surnames] didn't decide to do their own musical version of Romeo and Juliet instead of updating WSS.

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.)  

32 minutes ago, nanushka said:

Well, for one thing, I don't think Van Hove and De Keersmaeker are in the business of creating musicals. 

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

On 7/10/2019 at 5:15 PM, Rick said:

Amar will play Bernardo in the upcoming Broadway revival of West Side Story, scheduled to begin previews in December 2019. I think this means he won't be in NYCB's winter and spring seasons? The new Ivo van Hove production will also replace Jerome Robbins's choreography with that of Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker.

'West Side Story' Broadway Revival Cast Unveiled

 

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.

21 minutes ago, aurora said:

Friends with benefits describes a situation quite different from what they were involved in.

Friends with benefits do not openly date for a year and a half.

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!)

2 hours ago, tutu said:

Waterbury’s affidavit states that it was two years.

On a separate note, there are now filed exhibits that directly screenshot this forum, so be careful about what you post, friends.

(If either of the above links doesn’t work, you can get to them via NYSCEF, using the login as a guest option and the case number 158220/2018.)

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.

1 hour ago, JuliaJ said:

I find it ironic and troubling that the person whose photos Ramasar DID share is mostly left out of these conversations. The NYT loves to talk about the women in the company are supposedly “shocked” by his return; the paper chooses not to acknowledge that plenty of company members are probably pleased to have him back – including his girlfriend, who has every right to forgive him if she wants to! And this line about Mearns just wreaks of judgement: “And yet there was Ms. Mearns, one of City Ballet’s biggest stars, a woman who once dated Mr. Ramasar, there by his side, seeming, at least implicitly, to endorse him.” I love the Times but I’m getting so, so sick of these extremely one-sided, moralistic, agenda-driven articles in the dance section.

 

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.  

11 hours ago, Helene said:

Workplace violations don't need the victim to make a case or raise a violation.  One person can, for example, steal from another person's bank account, with the victim uninterested in pressing charges for whatever reason, and the bank can be responsible for bringing charges against the perpetrator.

#85 in the amended suit, for example, is a discussion about an NYCB corps member, a co-worker. #84 is where Catazaro is discussing an SAB student -- not Waterbury -- in the same vein. 

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".

18 hours ago, pherank said:

A couple of pertinent quotes:

'“Lots of women have tried to use the collective bargaining process in male-dominated industries and found that when they tried to grieve the conduct of a fellow union member they were labeled as traitors, as betraying the union or solidarity,” said Ana Avendaño, a former assistant general counsel at the A.F.L.-C.I.O. who now works as a consultant.'
No surprises there...
 

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.

12 hours ago, dirac said:

Nice to hear it looked right. Sorry about your friend, but IMO if you're going to do it, do it properly or not at all. (I've never been able to inhale, myself.)

Thanks for your review, Marta.

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.

9 hours ago, dirac said:

Thank you, On Pointe and Roberta, for these detailed comments.

Russian dancers in particular were big smokers back in the day and I understand the habit isn’t entirely gone (if you’re smoking, you’re not eating). At least they are loyal enough to the period to show them smoking. Do the actors smoke convincingly? One thing I have noticed is that many actors these days can’t or won’t puff in a believable manner.

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.