It is an insultingly loathsome ballet that demeans womanhood. To include it in a program that inevitably attracts family audiences verges on irresponsibility.
Tudor, its creator, was one of the 20th century's most influential choreographers, but Judgement was surely his most hatefully trivial, throwaway work. Apart from its woman-as-whore sexism -- to be fair, they ultimately triumph as thieves -- Judgement of Paris is barely competent at the mere level of choreographic craft. To place it on the same bill as Balanchine's Apollo, arguably the greatest ballet ever made, is to tempt disaster, especially when the target of Judgement's whoresome trio is as unconvincingly callow a rouť as Ryan Boorne.
What do you think about Michael Crabb's harsh critique of the ballet? To call it demeaning to women seems to suggest a misunderstanding of the piece's sardonic humour.
As for it's inclusion in the program (Napoli excerpts, Apollo, Judgement of Paris, Intermezzo) being irresponsible, I can see where he is coming from, but have to disagree. I was there both tuesday and yesterday and the audience response was very positive. Everyone thought it was hillarious! Many with young children left after Napoli and Apollo because the program ran quite late. After Napoli excerpts, Karen Kain introduces both Apollo and Judgement. She describes Judgement's sleazy setting, so that those who may be offended may leave (although I think they were few).
Sure, it's not the best ballet to represent an average night at the Hummingbird Centre but the small size of the outdoor stage is limiting and Judgement is a work that fits very well there. Also, it shows new audiences what a variety of styles there are in ballet.