Wet Blanket

In a week when I've heard from many people on both sides of the Atlantic about the excitement surrounding the New York City Ballet's trip to London it was somewhat dismaying to read Alistair Macaulay's 'preview' story in today's NY TIMES which casts if not a wet then at the least a rather damp blanket over the event. Perhaps Macaulay didn't choose the title for the article which seems to be telling Londoners they aren't getting the best of NYCB; and while the story alerts the potential ticket buyer to be on the lookout for certain names in the casting it also takes unnecessary pot-shots at some other established performers.

Mr. Macaulay seems to express doubts that the present look of NYCB can engender the passions that he recalls from Company's 1979 and 1983 London visits; he may be right of course but on the other hand it might be the viewer rather than the Company that has become jaded. Times have changed and what might have been 'incendiary' 30 years ago may not seem so today. But the ballets may still impress, move or delight new audiences - provided they haven't realized that they "shouldn't" be enjoying them since they don't look like they used to.

He talks quite a bit about the 'off-balance' feeling that he remembers from past NYCB dancers and that he no longer sees; this is odd because in the season just past two of our stellar ballerinas danced in just that manner and I heard comments that they looked unstable. One woman sitting behind me sniffed to her companion during the applause: "She really kept looking like she was going to fall over!"  Maybe I should have told her that the dancer had probably worked hard to achieve this look that was once considered a key element of Balanchine's style.

It's always easy for an armchair impresario to devise an opera or ballet season or tour more to his/her liking that what is actually being offered. As far as casting for the London visit, one must bear in mind that three of the top ballerinas are currently benched due to nursery duty or injury and another brilliant dancer left the Company on short notice just as the Winter season got underway. When the London season was first imagined these names were most likely in play.

Complaining about dancers going on post-prime reminds me of a certain night circa 1976 when two iconic Balanchine dancers limped thru leading roles on the same programme while the fans grumbled. These things have always happened and sometimes even with Mr. B's apparent approval or at the very least his understanding.

Macaulay says he can no longer watch BUGAKU; that's too bad because the Kowroski/Evans performances caused several long-time fans to take a fresh look at this sometimes problematic ballet. It's not your grandmother's BUGAKU but then if your grandmother is anything like mine she is well past the point of knowing BUGAKU from a Bingo game.

The Times article may be well-intentioned but it has just enough of a whiff of the dismissive to make potential London ticket buyers wonder if they might be better off spending their money on another place-setting of Princess Diana Commemorative dinnerware. The timing of the article, which appeared as the Company were airborne en route to the British Isles, seemed to me sort of an unfortunate coincidence.

But you know, some people don't read the TIMES any more and so this Winter a friend of mine who I'd brought to the ballet didn't realize that it was inappropriate for her to be moved - to tears - by Darci Kistler's performance in SERENADE.

Comments

[Dmitry]

But who is this Macauley? What are her qualifications? I have this thing about critics who only know the thing they criticize in theory, almost never in practice. Does Anthony Tommassini sing or compose? What qualifies him to be a music critic? Does Manohla Dahrlis make movies, write scripts, act? What qualifies her to be a film critic? As I always say: those who can do, those who can't teach, and those who can't even teach become critics. There was a time when people like Hector Berlioz reviewed music, George Bernard Shaw reviewed theater, and Francois Truffaut reviewed movies. These people knew what they were talking about. Almost all other critics are just hacks who don't know how to do anything. There's a brilliant scene in the Pixar animated film "Ratatouille" where the poisonous critic ponders writing a review for a meal prepared by a rat and evaluates his role as a critic. It's a great scene and a slap at every critic out there.

[Bob]

You did a great job of exposing the logical flaws and inconsistencies in Macauley's piece in yesterday's NY Times. Hopefully, Londoners will pay more attention to the Feb. 25 article on NYCB's visit by Debra Craine in the London Times (see the link to it in your "NYC Ballet to London" entry). In commenting on the point that Londoners will find NYCB dancing somewhat differently than it did in its last visit almost 25 years ago, Peter Martins said: "That's inevitable and even desirable. It's called evolution..." Perhaps it is time that someone reminded Mr. Macauley of what Balanchine himself said many years ago in response to the question: "What will happen when you go?" Balanchine's response was "You see, everything finally will be different. It wouldn't be any good fifty years from now to do what we do now. It will be something else."

[Sarah]

McCauley is living in the past. A past that he doesn't truly understand, as his reviews are based on his exposure to NYCB while on tour in London. A touring company is NOT the same as watching the company in their home over the years and seeing the progression of talent.

He also seems to take no shame in being out and out MEAN towards some dancers. Criticize. I get that, you're a critic, but you don't have to be so mean and insulting.

Also, like Dmitry commented above me. Who the heck decided what the qualifications are to be a critic? I would think SOME insider knowledge of the field the person is responsible for critiquing would be useful and, in this case at, I don't think Mr. McCauley has dance experience to speak of. I'd be interested to hear more about his background and where HE comes from before I would take anything he says particularly to heart. Also, he clearly despises Peter Martins, as he misses no opportunity to reintroduce the reading public to certain skeletons that I think would be better off left in their closets!

[philip]

My favorite quote about critics came from Sir Rudolf Bing: "Critics! All they do is criticize!"

Last week's faux pas by Bernard Holland reviewing the Queler OONY gala for the Times underlines one of the problems of mainstream media vs the blogs: no blogger would have made the error of fact that Holland made. Because the people who blog about opera LOVE opera and they know the difference between Bellini and Verdi. And while it's likely Holland knows the difference too, he either slept thru the gala or wasn't actually there. At the very least he is guilty of not proofing his own review.

I'm not sure what the qualifications for landing a reviewing job in the performing arts field in mainstream publications are these days. And since the mainstream print media are so slow getting their stories out, they're becoming fossils anyway. In this fast and furious age, two days getting a story in print is the equivalent of two weeks a decade ago. X's Lucia has already been supplanted by Y's Desdemona and Z's Ellen Orford on the blogs and boards while the venerable TIMES has yet to weigh in on whether or not madamoiselle's scream in the mad scene is appropriate or not.

From my own experience writing about things like the Ulbricht/Reichlen PRODIGAL SON this winter I can tell you that people want reviews/observations within an hour or two of the curtain calls. Most of the print media didn't even bother to cover it since it was a 'second cast' performance. Meanwhile my site-meter went berserk.

Whether one likes Opera-L or Cieca's Parterre or not, one can find fast notices of performances there within hours or even minutes of the final curtain; they tend to be more amusing and accurate than Tommasini's litanies of praise for Deb, Ruth Ann or Renee or the latest barihunk.

Balanchine knew exactly what would happen with his ballets; he knew some of them would endure but that they would look different. My feeling is that if he came back today he would be glad that his works were still giving people so much pleasure and less critical than most critics as to how they are being danced. No one knew better than Balanchine what it takes to be a dancer; the perils of the career and its short duration. He understood the human aspects of the art form, the dedication the career requires, and that things go awry at times. It's the humanity of it that I think many writers don't appreciate. Or even consider.

[philip]

Hi Sarah, our lunch today was so much fun. I think we should have just stayed there all day and had the waitress keep bringing us more food!

Yes, gratuitous meanness in a story that isn't even a review is really cheap. If you want to dissect a dancer's performance and cite specific failings, that's your prerogative I suppose. But just lumping together the names of dancers you don't like and dismissing them doesn't serve any purpose. Other than to show people what a mean dude you can be.

Most people who follow the Company know the dynamics of the careers, the injury histories, the reasons some people are cast in certain roles when necessities arise, etc.

I think a 'preview' article such as Macauley's purports to be - basically advising Londoners who haven't seen the Company in a quarter century as to what ballets or dancers to be on the lookout for - doesn't call for such personal negativity. But if he felt compelled to point out any weaknesses on the roster, he could simply have said: "In my view, some of the Company's principal dancers are no longer at their peak" and leave the British public make their own conclusions after watching the performances.

[philip]

NOTE TO READERS: Due to recent problems with people using unverifiable names and addresses to comment here, I must be able to verify your actual name and where you are from before publishing your comments. If you are a regular reader and have commented regularly there is no problem.

Hopefully I will not need to resort to filtering comments or banning them altogether but in the past week there have been a number of seemingly unrelated incidents which make me suspicious of anyone using an assumed name.

A comment left here which takes a very different view of Macauley's article is on hold until the writer contacts me by e-mail.

It's too bad I have to start doing this but several of my blogging friends have also been experiencing problems of late.

[Deborah]

Hi from London!
I'm happy to report that NYC Ballet posters are all over the tube (nice placement), and our company is also prominent in ads in various newspapers here (I arrived early this am). I'll be at the first performance tomorrow night (I'm then seeing a lot of theatre until I return on Sunday). I'll report back. Deborah

[philip]

Hi Deborah, thanks for the first report from London. I have opened a new topic above, THE NEWS FROM LONDON, and used your comment to start it off. You could continue to update us there. Thanks!