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.

1 hour ago, Helene said:

There can be benefits from the fallout without having designed them in advance, but if they were planning on it, it was expensive, since they needed to spend time and legal $$, risky, since there is no guarantee how an arbitrator would rule, and it's a win for AGMA, which is usually not something Management tends to want to encourage.

But the argument that they tried and were forced to back down could be to their advantage, and, even if not planned, could be useful in some circles.  Taking advantage of the byproduct could be a smart move, although just about anything can backfire.

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

2 hours ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

I will add that I believe that genuine remorse for the harm one's behavior has caused to others, accepting responsibility for that behavior, and making a good-faith effort at restitution is something we can encourage and embrace. So is forgiveness. Banishment is not the only course of action; but redemption requires more than regret at being caught or a mealy-mouthed "I'm sorry if anyone was hurt" by way of apology.

Perhaps "counseling" is shorthand for that difficult process.

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.

2 hours ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

If the allegations made in Waterbury's legal filings are factually correct, a number of men in the company or connected with it in some way circulated explicit photos of or made derogatory sexual references to other dancers and dance students. 

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.

1 hour ago, fondoffouettes said:

It seems far less clear how to deal with Coffee, if they decide to revise it. With Tea, there were obvious, mostly cosmetic changes that made the dancers appear less caricatured. But in that video, Reichlen isn't wearing blackface or blackface "light" (the spray-tan version you see in the Met's Aida), and her hair is her own. And as far as I can tell, her makeup is heavy, but not exoticized. So, it would come down to the costume and choreography. I could definitely imagine eliminating the gesture where she covers her face with her arm in the beginning, which seems like something out of Corsaire. But I think they'd have to consult with specialists to know what choreographic elements maybe be respectfully referencing Middle Eastern dance traditions and which may be stereotypical and potentially offensive. 

It's tough because the music itself paints a picture of the Middle East as highly sensual and languorous -- classic 19th-century Orientalism. It's like the musical equivalent of a Gérôme painting. And Balanchine matched that with his choreography. So even if you tweak a gesture here and there, it's still an eroticized fantasy of the Middle East. So how do you "fix" a piece whose very concept may be offensive to some? I guess you just do the best you can, and make compromises.  

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.

19 minutes ago, canbelto said:

But it is kind of cool to see where Balanchine lifted steps from Coffee Solo 1.0 into Coffee Solo 2.0. The arm movements are very similar, as is the general prancing around stage. 

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.

56 minutes ago, canbelto said:

Here is the old Coffee solo:

Here is the Coffee solo. I thought it was created special for Gloria Govrin.

 

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!)

15 minutes ago, FPF said:

Story in the NYT about changes to Tea to tone down the stereotypes (NYCB is the focus, but other Nutcrackers are also mentioned): https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/arts/dance/nutcracker-chinese-tea-stereotypes.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Dance

It looks like they've changed the hat and makeup for the man and eliminated the mustache, eliminated  the black wigs for the women, and modified the choreography to eliminate the pointing fingers. 

And Coffee may be next up for revision.

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.

2 hours ago, Helene said:

Your suggestion is not the way the Interpreters Archive works: what Paul and Clifford did is, and with dancers who were invited and understood the project.

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. 

9 hours ago, balletforme said:

It feels to me as though Clifford is kind of "throwing"  these dancers under the bus?  

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.

8 hours ago, dirac said:

My understanding is that the happy couples who submit their announcements to the Times and are thus presumably eager for the publicity gained thereby have a say in how previous unions are written about or even mentioned. I'd suggest that such mentions could and should be regarded as welcome doses of candor amidst the flaunting of pedigrees and resumes.

 

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.

2 hours ago, Helene said:

There have always been exceptions for men. 

And at least one woman - Sofiane Sylve.

1 hour ago, Marta said:

Maybe there are mystery candidates that none of us have yet mentioned.  All of the mentions are unlikely. Either happy where they are, have no experience,  too old, combinations of those.  Woetzel to me would have been the best choice, but I would be very surprised if he left Juilliard. I agree with fleurfairy that the interim team is managing very well yet I don't think they should remain permanently. Many people have advocated for Jon Stafford. Lopez or any other woman shouldn't be considered because she ticks the female and minority boxes. 

 

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.