Tár-promoting conductor is cited as defendant in abuse case
NewsThe vigilant violinist Lara St John has written to the New York Times pointing out that the conductor John Mauceri, a persistent promoter of the Cate Blanchett film, is a defendant in a lawsuit against the University of North Carlina and named teachers for ‘wilfully ignoring the sexual abuse and exploitation’ of underage students.
A copy of the indictment is available on public record.
The New York Times has failed to publish Lara’s letter.
We’ll do so instead (below – double-click to enlarge the text).
We should also wonder, by the by, why a paid advisor to the film has been given free rein in the Times to promote it.
Mauceri? Tàrred with the same brush as all the other apologists for sexual abuse in music colleges the world over.
Who expects journalistic integrity from the New Jerk Times?
Is it ever emerges, that would be a surprise, not selective reporting.
Absolutely correct. The corruption of the corporate mindset and its media loud-hailers!! And they’re so hypocritical they target Fox!! LOL
It won’t publish her letter because it’s filled with ad hominem attacks on a conductor she probably had a bad performance with once. Ms. St. John does enjoy stirring the pot though, and her followers eat it up…
It’s an opinion piece by a guest writer, not news or journalism, not is it the work of the NYT. Please learn to distinguish this. It’ll help you sound smarter.
Oddly, I have little desire to see this film, but I frequently wonder how it would be perceived if the lead character were male.
Wonder no more… “Whiplash” is the recent abusive male musical authority figure movie.
The film is a fantasy, like the concept of a woman being chief conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic.
the bigger fantasy is the Berlin Phil voluntarily working with such an autocrat. Over the past 33 years, whenever they had the choice, they chose the nice guy over the jerks.
Whoa! Very well put. No one would have raised anything had it been a male conductor in the film. As it is, the film is so good (until near the ending) and the acting of Blanchett is so good that the film needs no defense.
This is just another in many sad recent illustrations of how timely and relevant the movie Tar is these days when being “named as a defendant in a lawsuit” is routinely sited as tantamount to being found guilty and convicted of a serious crime (the principle of “innocent until proven otherwise” be damned) – and therefore deserving of punishment – which is one of the main themes in that admittedly imperfect but quite an intelligent and compelling motion picture.
Mauceri/NYT should’ve disclosed it as good journalistic/editorial practice and let the reader decide. Not mentioning it is the same as hiding it. Now they both look like they got something to hide.
The NYT long-since gave away the notion of ‘good journalism/editorial practice’.
The zealous NYT comment censors would make China’s censors proud. I’ve had many a comment that deviated from the central messaging of the article not appear. Stick to the Party line if you want to see your comment.
I have to agree with you on this one. The censorship at the NYT is mile-high.
And its standards and credibility are in the Mariana Trench. But it’s fodder for the true believers.
Anyone thinking the NYT is a source for news is sadly mistaken.
I stopped reading that untrustworthy, highly biased bird-cage liner when Jason Blair was exposed. He was not the last.
More predictable self-promotion from LSJ? I thought Mauceri’s article was fine. If it was fine for Alsop to cry and whine about the film then it’s ok for Mauceri to defend it, I should think. I hope Cate wins the Oscar!
Mauceri worked on the film! He was the musical advisor. You think it’s ok for him to be plugging his own work in a NY Times op-ed?
As long as he disclosed it within the article, and he had something worthwhile to say, yes.
He did disclose it in the article. Whether he had something worthwhile to say, that’s up to the reader.
He didn’t disclose that he was a defendant in a lawsuit pertaining to decades of widespread sexual abuse, some of it under his watch. He’s oblivious to real as well as fictional sexual abuse.
It’s an ongoing lawsuit. With open outcome. Anyone can sue anybody. Why should he have to disclose that at this point?
That’s not aligned with the spirit of the ‘rule of law’ we try to have as one of our columns our supposedly enlightened societies are based on.
Even though the strong trends to mob rule by putting people in the pillory before legal judgement are stronger than ever.
Is St. John’s objection to the film that the fictional abuser is a woman? I just can’t believe we’re now saying it’s a problem for a fictional character in a fictional world to be flawed (even villainous) based on what gender the character is or is not.
Not that I would be defending Mauceri and whatever happened at the school, but, if these allegations are true, they are yet again affirming the abuses of power that are apparent in all walks of life that the film emblematizes through the classical music world, abuses that are systemic and run through august institutions, be they a university or the Berlin Phil.
Maybe her objection is that a conductor who’s a sexual abuser was the musical advisor on a film about a conductor who also happens to be a sexual abuser. And that said advisor wrote a self-congratulatory piece about his own film which the clueless NY Times published.
But that’s not exactly right, is it? I skimmed through the filing, and it simply lists Mauceri as one of many defendants in a class action against the university first and foremost without listing exactly what he himself did personally (whether he is alleged of sexual abuse, ignored accusations in an administrative capacity, or simply was an employee at the university when these events possibly occurred). It’s pretty common to cast a somewhat wide net with these kinds of lawsuits, especially when there is a sizable financial settlement to be paid out through an institution’s insurers. There’s WAY too much gray area here to even say what he specifically is being accused of, and I think anyone who’s bothered to read the filing would agree. And again, in Tar, it’s not actually clear what the title character actually did. Probably a reason that the film has generated so much discussion on all sides of the political and cultural spectrums.
Yeah either way John Mauceri is an idiot to be announcing himself in the NY Times with a class action of this magnitude pending.
Attorney Gloria Allred in LA has now taken on the case & has expanded it substantially. Maybe she’ll subpoena Mauceri on the red carpet on Sun. We know he’ll be there advertising himself & his ridiculous career.
Allred & Mauceri. Gotta appreciate the Hollywood connection.
While she has a valid point, I can see why the Times wouldn’t publish it; being named in a lawsuit isn’t actually proof of wrongdoing.
Read the lawsuit. Google “John Francis Mauceri”. Plaintiffs are represented by the Lanier Law Group in NC. Nov. 2021.
Dozens of students from University of NC School for the Arts came forward with graphic accounts of abuse by faculty members. Many were underage at the time. John Mauceri was Chancellor of the school & despite complaints, he did nothing to stop it. He was complicit.
This might explain something about the sexual power games in Tar. John Mauceri saw nothing wrong with sexual abuse in real life. As advisor to the director of the film he evidently didn’t, either.
Agreed with MacroV, innocent until proven guilty. And furthermore, LSJ, while often right on many issues, is doing a huge disservice with her sanctimonious attitude to precisely the issues she is trying to highlight. From angrily accosting former employees of her husband, a NYC landlord, with slandering accusations without proof, at parties where she is consequently kicked out (Dec 2022, described by her on Facebook), to berating a Canadian composer for being a token female artist on the Montreal Symphony’s concert program at Carnegie Hall only yesterday, with her many social media posts, Lara is quick to make enemies and slow to recognize her immense white privilege (her millionaire husband is the ‘anonymous donor’ of her JB Guadagnini violin, and rentiers are no better than parasites in Marxism, remember?). Many a highly talented artist such as her has experienced fewer opportunities in later stages of their careers, and Lara has not reacted to this elegantly whatsoever, blaming it on wicked music biz agents who prefer a certain ethnicity, body type and gender (this first-hand from her). It is sad to witness it so publicly and see a once important artist turn so insufferable a person. Life isn’t fair to many and Lara is hardly the first one to be bitter, though how one acts about is no doubt a choice. As for Mauceri, the info she highlights is freely available on Wikipedia, with the last update from two months ago (as of yesterday), so this information is not a secret to anyone with access to the internet.
She has proof. The lawsuit is online. Mauceri is a defendant.
What does this even have to do with this woman Lara? No idea who she is but she’s just the messenger here. There are plenty of us who are sick of this John Mauceri who inserted his outdated perspective & nasty snipes into the film. He’s superimposed himself into this to promote his own mediocre conducting career. “We conductors” he pontificates in this piece. What a self serving ass. Nothing to with the St John woman or your personal grievances with her.
What has his being involved in a lawsuit have to do with his NYT opinion piece? It’s called defamation to imply a connection?
With the various connexions with cheap and risible London tabloids like The Telegraph, the fixation with attacking the NYT is a fixture around here if you haven’t noticed
Because 1) the lawsuit names him as a defendant in a massive case about sexual abuse & that is a major theme of Tar. & 2) John Mauceri was the musical advisor to the director of the film. Is it ethical for someone in that position to be writing an op-ed in praise of Tar in the NY Times the week before the Academy Awards?
The article in the NYT is headlined:
OPINION
GUEST ESSAY
By John Mauceri
Mr. Mauceri is a conductor and author, and was the musical adviser to the filmmakers of “Tár”.
It is what it is, the at least half way educated reader can put it in the right context?
(And the Academy Awards are voted on already, before this.)
The value of the Academy Awards isn’t all about who wins, it’s the buzz they create, including around the ceremony itself. Anything that makes people want to go see it. So, yeah this was a pretty calculated placement for an op-ed.
and if it was, business as usual. what’s the outrage?
Dear Laura,
Being named in a lawsuit does not mean one is guilty and neither does “alleged”. People who have the presumption of innocence should not be punished as if they are guilty. That being said, I am sorry for the things that happened to you and may justice be served.
NL, this is sloppy “journalism” and you should stop. Really.
It’s clearly stated at both the beginning and end of the op=ed that Mauceri was the musical advisor for the film:
“By John Mauceri
Mr. Mauceri is a conductor and author, and was the musical adviser to the filmmakers of “Tár.””
“John Mauceri is a conductor and the author, most recently, of “The War on Music — Reclaiming the Twentieth Century.” He was the musical adviser to the filmmakers of “Tár.””
One can use that information as a reason to ignore his thoughts or to become curious due to his role in the making of the film.
Why shouldn’t the person who was the musical advisor have an opportunity to respond to the critiques of the film? As much as I find it very specific and also completely inaccurate it is a work of fiction and a fascinating film.
Talking of sloppiness, her name is Lara St. John, not “Laura”.
Glass house, casting stones, yadda yadda.
Sure, whatever Emily……..
LOL, I’m not a journalist Emil…… whatboutism and all, yadda yadda
Is there incongruity in the fact that her debut record cover photo was of her (then) shapely torso, naked with just her violin covering her breasts, yet she’s lately taken up the mantel of sex victims? Oh yes, the angry ultra-feminists say it’s never the victim’s fault, even if what they wear-or don’t- is clearly meant to titillate. I can’t imagine, say Heifetz, or Hilary Hahn for that matter, wanting to sell records with such photography. Just asking.
interesting practices from St John and her husband, one stephen judson:
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/about/Final-Agency-Decision-Judson-Management-Group-Inc.pdf
Your point? This looks to be a minor claim for less than $2000 filed by a disgruntled party claiming that Lara St James’ husband offered consultancy services. What does that have to do with Tar or its musical advisor John Mauceri turning a blind eye to pedophilia during his tenure as Chancellor at the University of NC School? Not even close.