On Pointe

I have been a union arbitrator for a performers' union and when we held hearings, each side was given time to briefly state their case, but there were no lengthy legal presentations allowed. I wasn't in the room where it happened, but it's likely that NYCB maintained that Catazaro and Ramasar were fired because of private communications. AGMA likely maintained that those communications would never have become public except for the actions of a third party and they didn't rise to the level of fireability anyway. It doesn't take a lot of time or preparation to make those statements. Unless there is a provision in the contract that allows a dancer to be fired for personal, non-work related, legal activity, the company had no justification for firing the dancers. And that's what the arbitrator decided.

By its nature, arbitration is narrow in scope. NYCB doesn't have to justify its reasoning as to the firing of Catazaro and Ramasar. That would be a waste of time and money. The arbitrator uses the firing as a starting point, and must only determine if, according to the terms of the AGMA contract, the firing is justified. While the arbitrator determined that the firing was not just, I am surprised that he or she ruled that the suspensions were allowable. It seems like an all-or-nothing situation to me. Individuals will have to determine if seeing Ramasar onstage makes them feel some type of way. But there are dancers up there now who have engaged in blatant adulterous affairs with other dancers, and I don't recall any public outcry against them.

The beauty of arbitration is that it is very inexpensive, unlike most legal proceedings. Sometimes the parties involved only have to pay $5.00.

I agree. The term "counseling" rubbed me the wrong way. It would be helpful if all NYCB personnel participated in a workshop on sexual harassment and hostile workplace environment issues, as well as the perils of using texts and emails that could prove embarrassing if made public. Many of the allegations in Waterbury's legal filings are not factually correct. In her interview with Amanda Knox, she even contradicts her previous claim as to how and why she accessed Finlay's texts. I believe she is being used by a greedy attorney who expected a speedy settlement, but some of her actions could be characterized as illegal and possibly criminal, leaving her in a vulnerable position. While this whole episode has been painful, Catazaro is in a better position and Ramasar can go back "home", where there are probably many who welcome his return.

While I applaud the outcome, I believe that the stipulation that Ramasar undergo "counseling" is unnecessary and insulting. And if some female dancers are uncomfortable with his return, they can state their case if he behaves in an unprofessional manner at work. Otherwise the conduct of his life is of no legitimate concern to them.

I'm not sure how they're going to handle the dancing later in the series, but I worked with both Bob Fosse and Gwen Verdon behind the scenes, and Sam Rockwell and Michelle Williams are doing an extraordinary job of capturing their personalities, body language, and especially the distinctive tone of their voices. They weren't angels, but both of them were at heart very vulnerable people.

The first thing that the new team should do is make it company policy that all statements by employees about the inner workings of NYCB should be vetted by their media office. That's policy at nearly every big corporation in the US.

I must say that I was disappointed in the Taylor Stanley piece in the New York Times. I feel that I know less about him as an artist and a human being than before I read it, which is quite an accomplishment. Profiles of performers usually include far more background material on their training and rise through the ranks. People complain about the copious coverage Misty Copeland gets as a rare black principal dancer. (I don't - more power to her.) There are a few others out there - a very few - who no doubt also have interesting stories to tell. Maybe it's just me, but I found the photos accompanying the piece disturbing, with his face out of focus and the closeup of his and Tiler Peck's hands. In my opinion, there should have been full body photos of TS as Apollo with his Muses.

Sorry for the confusion. I refer to the dance which is linked in canbelto's post above. It is a Russian company, not the Royal Ballet. In this version, the soloist isn't a soldier. He is a mouse king, with a darkened face and a crown on his mouse head. But the way the headpiece is fitted, you see more of his face than you should, making it reminiscent of blackface. Then they repeat the bars at the end of the dance for a damsel-in-distress pas de deux with the girl doll from the first dance, until the men at the party shove the mouse king back into his box. The Russians tend to be insensitive when it comes to racial stereotyping onstage. As for the Royal's blond wigs, maybe it doesn't concern them because they are accustomed to light colored wigs on dark people - nearly all of the Caribbean and African countries that were part of the British Empire retain the custom of judges and barristers donning white or gray wigs in court.

Boy, could that second doll dance in the Royal version be problematic in the US! I know it's supposed to be the Mouse King, foreshadowing his appearance later in the act. But the dancer looks like he's in blackface, and when he tears the little white lady doll away from her cavalier, it evokes images from Birth of a Nation. Maybe I'm overreacting, but that's the first thing that I thought of when I saw it, exacerbated by the menacing tone of the score.

The original male solo seems akin to current male belly dancing, which is very popular in the Arab world. Here's an example: For a whole host of cultural reasons, I can't imagine an American ballet company staging anything like this.

I recall reading that Tchaikovsky based the Danse Arabe on a Georgian lullaby rather than on actual Arabian music. In the days before sound recording, it's likely that he had little opportunity to become familiar with Arab musical themes anyway.

Yes, it is. I was kidding about the solo. It made a great impression on me as a child. This was aired at a time when the mere appearance of someone black on television caused all other activity in black households to cease as we stared in wonderment. I'm amazed that this sexy solo made it to air. Segregation was still the law of the land in a large swath of the country. I believe this was the broadcast where Balanchine changed the grand pas de deux to give the Sugar Plum Fairy four Cavaliers, one of whom was Mitchell. He wanted to make a statement about racism, a very gutsy move at the time.

Oh my goodness - cultural appropriation, black exploitation, implied homoeroticism - what's not to love! What really makes it politically incorrect is those puffs on the hookah that seem to have a narcotic effect. Who knew that Nutcracker could be so problematic? (I do "appreciate" Arthur Mitchell's torso, although I could never say so out loud these days!)

When I was a child - long long ago - Coffee was a solo for Arthur Mitchell. The current "belly dancer" version was supposedly devised to keep the daddies in the audience from being bored, but that story might be apocryphal.

Every Broadway show is recorded for archival purposes, with the cooperation of the multiple unions' members involved, and the express condition that only scholars and theater professionals be allowed to access them. (In the age of the cellphone camera, bootleg copies of hit shows abound, but they're taken down from the Internet as soon as producers get wind of them.) Did the archivists or the dancers give permission for Clifford to post their coaching session on the internet? Some things are not meant for the eyes of the general public.

Yes, it does. It's rather impolitic of him to coach two principal dancers, both of whom have been with NYCB longer than he was, as if they were students in need of "correcting", as opposed to giving notes to mature artists. It might have been a better idea to make his points with up-and-coming corps dancers.

I have a close friend who discovered that her relationship of many years with a Broadway star, had apparently ended when she read the New York Times' featured coverage of his wedding to another woman. She would have appreciated a bit more candor on his part.

They've had a few brides who chose pale pink for their gowns, and one Indian bride who tried on white dresses but had her style made in red, the traditional color for Indian weddings. They even had a "Beetlejuice" style dress custom made in black.

Marc Happel could develop a nice little revenue stream on the side by designing a capsule collection of wedding dresses, although he probably doesn't have time. One of my guilty pleasures is watching Say Yes to the Dress on TLC, a show that consists of nothing but monied women and their entourages deciding on which over-the-top gown to choose. Most popular are Cinderella-like ballgowns and form-fitting "mermaid" looks. Interestingly, the one time they had a professional ballerina on the show, she was adamant that the last thing she wanted was to look like a princess on her wedding day, because as she put it, "I dress like a princess every day." She chose a modern architectural style dress.

Daniel Day-Lewis, dedicated actor that he is, spent a year working with Marc Happel in NYCB's costume shop in preparation for his role as a couturier in The Phantom Thread. (Surely the most peculiar "love story" ever filmed.) That experience could make a compelling documentary by itself. One wonders if the costume makers and the dancers knew who he was? It certainly was not common knowledge that he was there. Day-Lewis seems to be enamored with craftmanship. He took a considerable amount of time off from acting to work as a shoemaker. I'm not sure what to make of John Clifford's latest letter to the world. It's hard to believe that he thought he was seriously in the running to become AD, but his disappointment seems real. If his concern is preserving the Balanchine legacy, there's no reason why he and others who worked with Mr. B can't stage and coach his works. (Suki Schorer, Rosemary Dunleavy and Susan Pilarre apparently don't count to him, even though they're in-house and worked with Balanchine far longer than he did.) But if that session with Clifford and Mimi Paul is representative, his coaching methods could use some work. You can't throw that much information at dancers in one rehearsal and expect good results. It's like trying to direct a play in one day. The dancers need time to absorb the valuable insights being given to them, and to discover how to build them into their personal understanding and interpretation of the work. My ballet teacher used to liken the process to the old commercial for Sunshine seedless prunes - "Today the pit, tomorrow the wrinkles!".

When Lindsay Fischer joined NYCB as a principal, his wife Mandy-Jayne Richardson, who had been a soloist with the Royal Ballet, was also invited to join the company in the corps.

And at least one woman - Sofiane Sylve.

To be clear, I think Lourdes Lopez should be considered for AD because of her accomplishments. Being female and Latina just give the board cool points if they pick her.

I mean Wendy Whelan no disrespect, but what experience or qualities does she have that automatically put her in the running as AD of NYCB? It's got to take more than being a well-regarded former principal, who has the bonus of being female. If the directorship of the company and school will be vested in one person, the new AD should have significant experience running a largish ballet company, be able to raise money and work with a board, and be a Balanchine devotee, having danced and staged his ballets. The logical choice, given Damian Woetzel's unavailability, is Peter Boal, but given his wife's role in bringing down the former director, that's problematic. Maybe the board will decide that, optics be damned, they're going with Boal anyway. Or they'll offer it to Lourdes Lopez, who also meets the criteria and ticks the woman and minority boxes as well. Either one would be a better choice than Whelan, who would have the additional burden of being the boss over dancers who were her peers in the recent past. Maybe they'll decide that "if it ain't broke don't fix it", and the leave the leadership as it is.