British Critics and Balanchine

[cargill]

There was a very interesting article a few years ago about the myth of the British critics disliking/misunderstanding Balanchine when NYCB first visited. I think it was in Ballet Review, but I don't remember off hand. The gist of it was that it was more in Kirstein's mind than in actual fact, and quoted extensively from British critics praising the works in the 1950's. Audience reaction, I think, was somewhat more restrained, but certainly when I lived in England in the early 70's, a constant refrain in the criticism was that the Royal Ballet should be doing more Balanchine, and his works were extensively reviewed--the Stravinsky Festival, for example.

As for Liebeslieder, it is very dependant on casting, and if that isn't perfect, it can seem way way too long, sort of like Dances at a Gathering. (I have always felt that Goldberg was unbelievably tedious, but then maybe I haven't seen the right cast!) I was spoiled by Liebeslieder because I saw it in the mid-80's and, like the old Royal Ballet's version of Dances at a Gathering, it was perfect, and nothing else will ever match it--so much for an open mind! But I can see why people can think it is too long, but that doesn't mean that they don't get it, it just means that there are some dances that are extremely dancer dependant. I suspect the Enigma Variations is another one--if someone saw it without a close to perfect cast, it would probably look silly.

[Alexandra]

There was a very interesting article a few years ago about the myth of the British critics disliking/misunderstanding Balanchine when NYCB first visited.  I think it was in Ballet Review, but I don't remember off hand. The gist of it was that it was more in Kirstein's mind than in actual fact, and quoted extensively from British critics praising the works in the 1950's.  Audience reaction, I think, was somewhat more restrained, but certainly when I lived in England in the early 70's, a constant refrain in the criticism was that the Royal Ballet should be doing more Balanchine, and his works were extensively reviewed--the Stravinsky Festival, for example. 

Yes. thank you, Mary -- that was my main point, which Ms Brown apparently missed.

Hans wrote:

it seems to consist of those who admire a choreographer's works dismissing every criticism with "well, you just don't understand it, then." Not a logical argument, but one that it's difficult to argue with for precisely that reason--you can't prove that you do understand it if you're constantly being met with a wall of "no you don't, not if you don't like it," which is not easy to refute.

It is a problem, I agree. I do think you can understand a choreographer (or author, composer) and not like them. Perhaps "understand" is confused with "appreciate" which is confused with "like."

Re Ari's point on Tudor -- I sympathize. I feel I missed the glory days of Tudor and have never seen perfoormances of his work that were alive. Same with Graham. But I take it on faith that they're great choreographers and don't dismiss them.

[Helene]

But I can see why people can think it is too long, but that doesn't mean that they don't get it, it just means that there are some dances that are extremely dancer dependant. 

The "don't get its" I referred to in my post about Liebeslieder were believing that there's no difference between the Brahms Love Song Waltzes -- two song cycles written five years apart to poems of the same writer -- and that "emotionally drenched" performances are positive or even appropriate in dancing the ballet. Perhaps the latter attribute, which wasn't seen by others on this post who saw the POB production, was what made it difficult to see the development in the choreography and the character of the different couples. But if I saw, for example, Heather Watts approach La Fille Mal Gardee like Calcium Light Night, whether I liked it or disliked it, I wouldn't decide whether Ashton's choreography was good or bad or too long or too short based on it, just as I wouldn't confuse NYCB's Bournonville Divertissements with Bournonville, as much as I loved watching Suzanne Farrell, Kyra Nichols, and Merrill Ashley in it.

The part that I find long about Liebeslieder is the break between the two parts, mainly because the audiences I've been part of have tended to treat this as the seventh inning stretch, literally in the case of the mid 1980's performances at NYCB, when full-voiced conversations of, "So how 'bout those Mets?" were coming from all sides.

[Helene]

But to take Alexandra's point re: liking and "getting it," (Alexandra, I understand that you don't hold that position , but for the sake of argument...) it seems to consist of those who admire a choreographer's works dismissing every criticism with "well, you just don't understand it, then."  Not a logical argument, but one that it's difficult to argue with for precisely that reason--you can't prove that you do understand it if you're constantly being met with a wall of "no you don't, not if you don't like it," which is not easy to refute.  It reminds me of a cult

I hardly agree with Clement Crisp all the time. I wish I had seen the same performances that Edwin Denby did, because I think that would explain the very rare "huh?" I've had when reading him. Sometimes I wondered if Arlene Croce and I were in the same theater. Same with Tobi Tobias, Jennifer Dunning, Joan Acolella, and a number of other critics. Not to mention countless posters here whose opinions I respect and trust, even when I disagree.

I respect their points of view because I've seen the context which they criticize, regardless of whether they like or admire a choreographer, dancer, or work, or whether their opinion, preferences, or taste match mine.

[Lynette H]

I must say I am really puzzled by the general statement that British critics don't like or don't appreciate Balanchine. I'm racking my brains to think of any major critic in the broadsheet press, or in publications like Dance Now or Dancing Times who have referred to Balanchine's work in anything but admiring and often passionate tones, particularly in many articles in this centenary year. I can't bring anything to mind, at least in the last ten years or so of avid reading. I'm not familiar with Ms Mannings work though - it certainly struck me as a very uncharacteristic remark from the critical fraternity here. Are you thinking of some points from earlier in time or do you have any specific more recent examples you would cite ?

This isn't to say that the critics don't find fault with the execution of the works if they don't think the choreographer has been well served (especially when done by UK companies without the stylistic background).

As it happens, Apollo is probably the best loved and most widely performed Balanchine work in the UK. The Royal have had it in their repertory for many years (the older version, with the birth) and have performed it about 70 times now according to my last cast sheet. ENB and BRB both have also performed it in the last season or two, and other visting companies: Zelensky will be performing it at the Albert Hall in a couple of days time. Peter Boal's group has also performed it in London. The first Apollo I saw was way back in the 80s sometime when someone whose names escapes me from Dance Theatre of Harlem appeared with the Royal. I don't think the DTH version that I saw recently was a particularly strong performance, and it was a shame that it was to recorded music. I hope that doesn't make you think that I don't like this work, but I think it could be better served and that maybe DTH aren't on their top form at this time.

I think it is a great shame that the Balanchine we do get to see in the UK is limited in terms of the repertory. Visitors such as Dutch National Ballet, the Kirov, SFB, PNB and NYCB at the Edinburgh festival have brough over a number of works, but it is a limted range with many reliable items repeated rather than new introductions. It is lovely to see Apollo or Agon again, but I'm sure that there are many works which are key that we just don't get to see. BRB used to do Theme and Variations in the early 90s: they don't do it now, and no visting company has brought it. That's just one tiny example, but Balanchine made hundreds of works and I wish we could see something a little more unfamiliar than another version of say, Symphony in C.

[kfw]

I'm sure that those who some think don't get it would argue vigorously that they do, they just don't rate it highly, or as highly as others might.

I'll bet we can all think of work we used to love and have now lost interest in or positively dislike. To argue that if you don't share my likes, you must not get it, is to argue that my taste is perfectly formed, and if I can assume that's true for me, no proof required, then you can assume it's true for you, and there is no such thing as bad taste. I think bad taste is a reflection of misunderstood reality.

[Alymer]

I perfectly recognised the performance I saw by Rasta Thomas in Apollo from Hockeyfan's description. A baby god being born, going through adolescence to maturity. I think it's a perfectly valid interpretation - not perhaps my own ideal - but nonetheless to be taken seriously. It's also true though, that DTH was not on great form, not even as good as on its last visit to London which was a considerable decline from earlier seasons.

The POB performances of Liebeslieder I saw, I loved. It was different in nuance and interpretation from the performances I saw by NYCB many, many years ago (Verdy was still in the cast). I guess those would be very different from those New York audiences will see this season.

Balanchine chose and coached two very different casts in London all those years ago. I gathered at the time he was happy with them. I thought some of his choices were, shall we say, surprising, but presumably they pleased his eye. They in turn, brought something quite different to the work from the Viennese dancers I saw - again chosen and rehearsed by Mr B. (And I heard that he had real battles to get one of those Viennese dancers accepted by the management. It was a case of "No Fraulein X, no Liebeslieder. I'm off to Demel to eat Sachetorte.")

To refer to another thread which does have a bearing on this one; contrary to what Norman Lebrecht seems to be saying, a large number of critics doesn't necessarily mean a large number of good ciritics. And when I say good, I don't just mean those that one agrees with. I would say of those widely read in the UK, a very few are good, most are indifferent and quite a few really bad.

What makes a good critic? Well, I believe that Emma Manning holds the view that only people who have had performing experience should be critics. I think you could find find as many arguments against that stance as for it.

Obviously a critic has to be able to write. I also believe that before you write your first revue as a professional critic, you should have seen an awful lot of dance, read as many books as you can lay your hands on and asked as many questions as you can get knowledgeable people to answer.

And once you've attained the dizzy heights of third string critic of the Daily Whatever, you still have to keep seeing as much as you can fit in. Not just press nights or performances where you can get a free ticket. Not just things you plan to write about, or foreign companies you get to see on paid-for trips.

Get out there, look around, educate yourself and keep an open mind then, even if I profoundly disagree with your opinion, at least I'll respect it.

[sandik]

I'd like to get back to the "getting it or liking it" part of this thread. When I'm working as a critic, it's my job (or at least I think it is!) to see what's happening on stage, to do my best to understand what the choreographer is doing, to think about the work on its own and within its context -- and then to bring at least some of that to the reader (sometimes in 350 words or less) It's my job to "get it," but it isn't necessarily my job to "like it." Indeed, depending on the evening, the work, or the performance, sometimes it's my job to dislike it, and to explain why.

Most of the critics I know worked hard to educate themselves before they started writing, and continue to do the same now that they're published. Frankly, I know many of them who continue to impoverish themselves to be able to see what they need to see, in order to know enough about the field. I'm certainly not holding up all the members of the profession as saints, but I think they often feel much more personal responsibility to the job than they are given credit for.

I'll get down from my soapbox now...

[Estelle]

In fairness, the POB production of Liebeslieder in December wasn't at peak form, and many of the French viewers didn't get it either.  Liebeslieder isn't a ballet that springs forth fullgrown from the head of Zeus; the dancers need time to give it a perfume, be it Eternity or White Shoulders.  The improved after a single performance, but they hadn't gotten it resonant yet.

Also, I guess that (at least for the audience) it surely didn't help that it was yet another of those POB programs without any logic (I sometimes wonder if Ms Lefevre puts some papers in a bucket with the names of ballets and makes some random choices ) : three modern works followed by "Liebeslieder Walzer", so the change in atmosphere was huge (and the sets didn't help), and much of the audience, who had come for the Brown or Preljocaj works, was not very receptive to "Liebeslieder Walzer", to say the least... (And indeed it must have required quite a lot of concentration from Laurent Hilaire to change in a few minutes from a rather brutal Preljocaj duo to being an elegant gentleman in "Liebeslieder"!)

By the way, Alexandra, in "Violette and Mr B", the dancers that Violette Verdy coached in an excerpt of "Liebeslieder" are not from POB (unlike in the other works), it was Lucia Lacarra and Cyrille Pierre.

When reading that discussion, I was trying to think about what could be said about French critics and Balanchine, but I'm afraid my main conclusion was that anyway "French critics" is becoming almost a nonexistent entity as far as ballet is concerned, as most critics in the newspapers are interested only in (and review only) modern works, and detailed, non-superficial reviews in the dance magazines are rarer and rarer (especially after the end of "Les saisons de la danse" a few years ago) However, I think that in general Balanchine would be seen very positively by most of the existing critics (well, there are those who just dislike any kind of ballet, or perhaps it's a problem of "not getting it" indeed...) But I was a bit amused to imagine that probably some people could easily start a similar discussion in a French forum about how American or British critics "don't get" Béjart for example...

[Leigh Witchel]

But I was a bit amused to imagine that probably some people could easily start a similar discussion in a French forum about how American or British critics "don't get" Béjart for example...

I was thinking that too. From my writing I could be easily held up as an example of someone who doesn't get Bejart, Eifman, etc.

I've made as much effort as I can to get them. It's not my aesthetic. In fact, it runs directly contrary to my aesthetic. The best I can do is understand that it's out there, understand what its aims are and accept it for that. I can't advocate it. I'm glad to be an occasional writer so I can pick and choose when I write, a major luxury.

[Ann]

I’ve come late to this discussion, but I’d like to comment anyway

Like Lynette H, I’m baffled at this perception of British critics -and British -audiences generally- being ‘dismissive’ of Balanchine, or 'not getting' him. In the fifteen or so years that I’ve been watching ballet, I’ve never come across a single British critic who has not been fully appreciative of his greatness (apart from Hockeyfan’s quoted Zoe Anderson, but then she was only speaking of ‘Liebeslander Waltzer’, not an entire oeuvre). I could, if I had the time, trawl the archives for ample evidence to prove this point, but for present purposes let me just say that it would be difficult to find any current British critic’s report of a Balanchine programme that did not contain the words ‘masterpiece’ and ‘genius’ (and I don’t think I’m exaggerating here).

And to get back to the point about personal ‘taste’; let’s be honest here - wouldn’t most of us say that any critic who was ‘dismissive’ of Balanchine would instantly lose our respect , and hence their credibility? Certainly they would with me.

[Alymer]

"Most of the critics I know worked hard to educate themselves before they started writing, and continue to do the same now that they're published. Frankly, I know many of them who continue to impoverish themselves to be able to see what they need to see, in order to know enough about the field."

Good for them. I hope they get every pennysworth of enjoyment from it because it's a big investment, not just in terms of cash paid for the ticket, but also in time. After all, we all have to earn a living, do our chores, look after our families and get on with the business of living, as well as going to the ballet . But I don't think you'd get many of today's established British critics who would have that attitude. I've never spotted any of them at performances, even of companies they all clamour to see such as the Bolshoi or the Kirov, in anything other than house or press seats.

[Alexandra]

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, I can think of lots of examples, both from the 1950s and 1960s, which I read in researching my book (one prominent critic, writing in Dancing Times, of the Royal Danish Ballet's acquisition of "Apollo" in 1957 said that it was a good ballet to get for a young dancer, but it wasn't worth keeping in the repertory) as welll as more recent ones -- but on both sides of the Atlantic. In the 1950s and 60s, there was also a repeated criticism of Baanchine ballets that they were lacking in decor -- a perfectly reasonable comment from people whose eye had been trained by Diaghilev but doesn't take into account Balanchine's aesthetic. They may have argued, "I don't care if he wants us to concentrate on the choreography, ballet is a blending of three arts and he's ignoring one of them." Balanchine eventually "won" this debate, but it was a discussable issue for some time.

I don't think it's a national failing, though, and as I wrote above, we have to be careful about indicting an entire nation. There are American critics who "don't get" Balanchine either. Some may remember a fascinating review Ari found a few months ago about Balanchine's punk rock "Dracula" by an American critic. I think it could be argued that even if the program had said this, complete with the Balanchine Trust credit, anyone who understood Balanchine would have had alarm bells go off here.

The question of "not getting it" versus "I do get it but I don't like it" is both difficult and interesting. Alymer's post above interested me because it touched on the equally difficult issue of how different from the original style can a work be and still be acceptably in the style, as well as what standard are we using? What we see danced today or what we see on video or remember of the first cast?

I think the quote Hockeyfan pulled from that Liebeslieder review does fall into the "doesn't get it" category. Criticizing a Balanchine ballet for being too perfumed would set off alarm bells for me. And we also have the "it all looks alike" issue which is worthy of another thread, so I'm going to start one.

We've had a lot of very good posts here -- a belated thanks to infrequent poster Lynette for her very reasoned post. And thanks to Estelle for the correcition on the Violette and Mr. B video, as well as your Bejart comment.

[Paul Parish]

COming in very late in the discussion, aND NOT REALLY PICKING UP THE BIG QUESTIONS --

oops caps lock....

BUT I'd like to correct the misapprehension that Liebeslieder didn't go over well in SanFrancisco -- it wasn't, indeed, a smash, but I myself LOVED it, as did most of the critics -- and most of the audience, on the several nights I went, seemed to enjoy it a lot without making a lot of noise about it. THe couple in front of me one night were holding hands.

It was beautifully danced -- especially by Sherri LeBlanc (in Patricia Mc Bride's role, I guess that was maybe Hayden's originally), who was electrifying, and by Muriel Maffre, in von Aroldingen's (it was Von Aroldingen who set the ballet). Joanna Berman was not much better than ok in Verdy's, but Damian Smith was magnificent, very like Montgomery Clift, as her partner.

Tomasson did not, it's true, put it on hte bill the following season. I don't know why; I was really sorry, I wanted to see it again.

[Helene]

I also loved the Liebeslieder performance by SFB I saw in March, 1998. The cast was mostly different: I noted Allemann/Poussakov in the Adams/Carter roles, Berman/Faulls in the Hayden (later McBride)/Watts roles, Diana/Diaz in the Jillana/Ludlow roles, and, unfortunately, names I don't recognize, and I'm not sure I can read my writing in the Verdy/Magallanes roles: "Lewitzke/Contereel" is what they look like. I'm sure Diana danced Jillana's, and I was pretty certain at the time that it was Berman who was so moving in the forward falls into her partners arms during the deep, burnished cords of the third-to-last song. I must not be very good at matching faces in the program to dancers!

[Paul Parish]

Hey Hockeyfan --

I 'm really glad you liked liebeslieder, too -- and that you liked Berman, a dancer I admired a great deal, in fact loved would be a batter word, most of the time..... I wish I'd seen that performance. They mixed it up some.

I think MOSt people had a favorable response to Liebeslieder, though they were it's true quiet about it...I took my editor from SF magazine, who's a baseball fan and doesn't go to ballet much, and he thought it was wonderful....

Those names you don't recognize were Alice lu-Ann Lewitzke (a tall, stunning dancer, who adanced the ADams role the night I saw her, i.e., alternating with Maffre), and a man whose last name was Coutereel, first name Stephen I think, who didn't stay here long -- a superb technician, who'd won a gold medal at one of hte major competitions if I remember right..... but memory probably does NOT serve.....

[Alexandra]

Different perceptions -- my comment about Liebeslieder was based on reports by another San Francisco critic (who also liked it and wished it had remained in repertory) who said that not only was reaction quite muted, but that quite a few people walked out on the ballet at halftime. (I added that to source my comment, not to argue the point!)

[Helene]

Those names you don't recognize were Alice lu-Ann Lewitzke (a tall, stunning dancer, who adanced the  ADams role the night I saw her, i.e., alternating with Maffre),  and a man whose last name was Coutereel, first name Stephen I think, who didn't stay here long -- a superb technician, who'd won a gold medal at one of hte major competitions if I remember right..... but memory probably does NOT serve.....

Thank you so much for the info on Lewitze and Coutereel, and "Stephen" rings a bell. I bet I wrote Lewitze down for the wrong role, and that she danced the Adams, not the Verdy part, in the performance I saw.

HF