Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by abatt

  1. I think in terms of forced retirements, the new administration is much kinder and gentler than Martins.  I think there are people on the roster who would most certainly have been forced into retirement if Martins was still running the show.  People have correctly complained that promotions to principal have been few and far between.  However, until there are principal departures there is little possibility for upward movement of some of the soloists, in my opinion.




    In an unprecedented collaboration with Showtime and The Actors Fund, Goodman Theatre is proud to present the stream of the Tony Award Winning Broadway production of Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman, starring two-time Tony Award winner Brian Dennehy and directed by Goodman Theatre Artistic Director and Tony Award winner Robert Falls. The event will be available for viewing beginning on Wednesday, October 21 at 8 pm ET through October 25 only at Playbill.com.

    For more information, visit actorsfund.org/DeathofaSalesman . Donations to The Actors Fund are encouraged at actorsfund.org/Salesman to support everyone in entertainment and the performing arts via The Actors Fund’s COVID-19 relief efforts.

    “I am thrilled to share this momentous, timely production with a new generation—and grateful for the enthusiasm of Showtime and our original Broadway producers in making it available in support of The Actors Fund at a time when, sadly, we are unable to produce on our stages,” said Robert Falls, who directed the production at Chicago’s Goodman Theatre (1998) and its Broadway transfer the following year. “The great Arthur Miller explored in his plays what it means to be an American, asking what can we expect from our country? How do we find fulfillment if we are just scraping by? Do all our daily efforts make a difference? These questions remain as relevant today as they were in 1949, when the play premiered—and in the late 1990s, when I directed it. I invite you to consider Miller’s vexing questions through the lens of America’s past, present and future.”

    Captured on film in 2000 for Showtime and not aired since its original release, this landmark production features the Broadway cast.

    The New York Times hailed Dennehy's Loman as "played with majestic, unnerving transparency" and lauded Falls's "powerhouse staging." The production was the winner of four Tony Awards in 1999, including Best Revival of a Play, Best Actor in a Play (Brian Dennehy), Best Featured Actress in a Play (Elizabeth Franz) and Best Direction of a Play (Robert Falls).


    I saw this production in 1999, and remember Dennehy's powerful and heartbreaking performance.  This is well worth your time.


  3. Larry Nasser was abusing women during the course of and in the scope of  his employment as a doctor employed by US Gymnastics.  He was the agent of that organization, and his job on behalf of US Gymnastics  was to provide medical care to the women on the team.  US Gymnastics gave him authority to act on its behalf, and  gave him the imprimatur of authority with respect to the ladies on the team.  That's why his misconduct resulted in the resignation of so many other people who were supervisors and administrators for US Gymnastics. They were negligent in giving Nasser power over team members. 

    In contrast, when Chase Finlay goes on a date and acts like a pig, that activity is  part of his private life, and it is not part of the scope and course of his employment at NYCB.   He is not acting on behalf of NYCB in his  personal relationships. 

  4. Just to clarify the decision, these were summary judgment motions.  As explained at pp. 5-6 of the Court's decison, in that type of motion the court assumes that the allegations contained in the plaintiff's complaint are true. As stated in the opinion, "the plaintiff is accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and the court determines only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.”  I don't think there was much, or any, discovery, in this case.  The Court did accept all of Waterbury's allegations as ttue, but even so determined that she had no cognizable legal claim against anyone other than Finlay.

    No sanctions or penalties were imposed against Waterbury or her counsel  in this case.  However, none of the parties specifically requested  such relief or submitted legal arguments on this issue. 



  5. 4 hours ago, BalanchineFan said:

    Regarding Waterbury's intentions, I don't see how any one of us could know what she intented at any point. Basic negotiating tactics favor starting with a big ask, knowing it will get whittled down in negotiations, and also starting with a promise to keep things private knowing you can go public later. You can't do the reverse. That's all that I see. No brazen blackmail. That's how one negotiates. Additionally, in the civil court system the only thing you can be awarded is money. The defendants can't undo the suffering they've caused. They can only pay money in recompense and acknowlegement. That's our American system of justice.

    Don't blame a woman for using it.

    In the legal profession, when a preposterous claim is asserted, the lawyer phrase is that the claim does not pass the giggle test.  In other words, sometimes a claim is so lacking in legal or logical support that it cannot seriously be asserted with a straight face.  The claims asserted by Waterbury and her attorney against NYCB and SAB flunked the giggle test.  They were NEVER going to succeed.  Any halfway decent lawyer knew that from the outset.  The claims against NYCB and SAB  were asserted simply for purposes of blackmailing a deep pocketed institution. 

  6. Another thing that I strongly objected to in her video was that she mentions that her partner told her that management's treatment of her was unfair.  I believe the intent was that such comments were made  in confidence. I'm sure Lopez and others in the company know to whom she is referring. Even though she did not specifically name the person, there was no reason for her to potentially make his life at MCB difficult for taking sides with Morgan against Lopez. 

    Also, she mentions not being "thanked" for coming to a demonstration.  I don't know about you, but it's rare that I get thanked for doing my job.  That's what I'm getting paid to do.

  7. 5 minutes ago, abatt said:

    I  enjoyed her performances at NYCB many moons ago, but I have to agree with you about the narcissism.  I guess she wanted to make sure her followers knew she left and was not terminated.  Contrary to what others have written, I think Lopez was generous in taking a chance and  giving Morgan a chance after so many years of injury/illness.  Maybe it would have been better for all parties if Lopez offered her a guest gig first just to see how things would work out.  Isn't it equally possible that her calf injury was caused by the fact that she has not danced professionally, full time for so many years.  Is it justified to blame all of her maladies (calf injury, hair falling out, re-emergence of her disease issues) on Miami City Ballet and Lopez?  Perhaps her body simply cannot adjust to the demands of being a full time professional ballet dancer because of her disease. 


  8. 19 minutes ago, KikiRVA said:

    Personally, I don't care for KM's dancing, and I find her social media empire insufferable, like that of most social-media-obsessed professionals.  It is all incredibly narcissistic.  But America loves a narcissistic celebrity.  And yet, I watched almost the whole self-serving ("I'm an inspiration"), self-aggrandizing ("top-five company"), solipsistic ("trifecta of dance magazines') video right through like a sucker.  It is like the Housewives - hard to turn away from.  Can I get my money back?


  9. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/arts/dance/nyc-ballet-alexandra-waterbury.html?searchResultPosition=5

    I  have attached the original article from the NY Times when this debacle began.  It mentions that Waterbury's counsel initially went to NYCB to demand a settlement from NYCB before filing the lawsuit in order to help NYCB avoid bad publicity.  NYCB rejected the demand, and the lawsuit was then filed.

    This was a classic shakedown attempt.  Money was always the motive. If Waterbury were really interested in exposing a culture of bad behavior at the company, she would not have first gone to the company to offer to keep NYCB out of the lawsuit in exchange for a payday.   Any moderately good lawyer could see that the claims against NYCB and SAB had a snowball's chance in hell of surviving, so the company didn't take the bait.  Without NYCB in the lawsuit, there was little likelihood that  the media would have paid much attention to this lawsuit. It was the fact that she  sued a venerable cultural institution (with baseless allegations that have now been tossed out of court)  that garnered the media attention.  This was a brazen blackmail attempt, pure and simple.

  10. I think her lawyer must have known there was no chance of success against SAB or NYCB, but decided that getting the opportunity to be on television and in the press was worth it.   I remember seeing the attorney on television with Waterbury at least once.

    Do you remember how so many television stations and print news outlets regularly broadcast the news of Waterbury's lawsuit, the news of her relentless protests outside of the musical West Side Story, and interviews with Waterbury?  I've heard nothing about this decision tossing her case out on any television news program.  It's time for NYCB and SAB to regain their reputations.  They should be sending out press releases about this decision.  This decision deserves the same level of media attention as Waterbury's discredited, frivolous  lawsuit. Granted, with the election coming up and Covid, there is a lot of important news to cover. 

  11. Well, justice was certainly delayed, but it was not ultimately denied.  The Court has dismissed with prejudice NYCB, SAB, Ramasar, Catazaro and Longhitano  from Alexandra Waterbury's lawsuit.  Finlay is the only remaining defendant, and there is only one remaining claim against him.  Most of the claims against Finlay have been dismissed. 



  • Create New...