Jump to content


This site uses cookies. By using this site, you agree to accept cookies, unless you've opted out. (US government web page with instructions to opt out: http://www.usa.gov/optout-instructions.shtml)

Alastair Macaulay @ NY Times


  • Please log in to reply
215 replies to this topic

#136 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,332 posts

Posted 27 June 2007 - 09:56 PM

There is no question that referring to Nichols as "this greatest ballerina of the past 20 years" on the same weekend that Ferri retired was a backhanded slap at Ferri - but it's also an insult to Susan Jaffe, Nina Ananishvislli, Wendy Whalen and a host of other ballerinas. If he truly thinks that Nichols is in a class above all others then he should have told us so overtly - and told us why.



But just calling her "dull" doesn't tell much of anything except that mr Macaulay doesn't like her.
In the context of the role, what does it mean? Does he mean she was restrained? Didn't emote sufficiently? Wasn't sufficiently hysterical at the death of Tybalt?



Macauley should be trying to enlighten his reading audience rather than get off personal barbs at the dancers. Snide, sarcastic remarks (see those on Georgina Parkinson and Irina Dvorovenko today) or harsh judgments without qualifiers (like "dull" for Veronika) are personal attacks and show a deep disrespect for artists who are certainly doing the best to honor their craft and give their all to the audience.

Based on his writing so far, and from his earlier criticism in The New Yorker, I'm fairly certain Macaulay has the ability to go into great detail about these judgements.

Be careful what you wish for.

#137 Amy Reusch

Amy Reusch

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,779 posts

Posted 27 June 2007 - 10:02 PM

Thanks for the heads up about the video clip! There was a great deal of video there... much more than just the flowers. I'm sure there was also video taken of the Nichols farewell, as someone toting a Sachtler tripod practically bumped into me leaving the theater... I suppose it could have been backstage footage, but I doubt it... whether the rest of us would have access to it, though, is another story. Maybe it will be at the NYPL Dance Division.

Footnote: I just can't get used to "dead" people with fully pointed feet.

#138 kfw

kfw

    Sapphire Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,320 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 03:33 AM

Thanks for the heads up about the video clip! There was a great deal of video there... much more than just the flowers. I'm sure there was also video taken of the Nichols farewell, as someone toting a Sachtler tripod practically bumped into me leaving the theater... I suppose it could have been backstage footage, but I doubt it...

I saw a video camera and tripod set up in back of the theater. Can't remember where exactly, but I think in back of the orchestra or First Ring.

#139 bart

bart

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,320 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 03:40 AM

I think we should distinguish between 2 very different things:

(1) the fact that there is subjectivity in reviewing, which is both inevitable and probably quite a good thing; and

(2) the responsibility of the reviewer to support his subjectivity with as much detail, and historical perspective, as he/she has space for.

I happen to love most of Macaulay's ballet writing, and actually introduced his name (very positively) in a long-ago thread discussing who possible candidates for the Times post. He's erudite, has tons of close viewing experience, and seems to possess a phenomenal visual memory.

I'd hate to see him give in -- for whatever reasons -- to the blah-blah ex cathedra judgmentalism and short-hand labellling that seems to infect so many arts critics -- in all the arts -- when they find themselves occupying influential critical platforms.

As for Ferri-versus-Nichols: there will always be a certain emotional thrill in fighting to support one's favorite artist (and, possibly even more important, the style which they represent). The concerns raised here about this particular comparison (did Macaulay "diss" F by over-praising N?) made me think about Perrot's famous "Pas de Quatre" in the 1840s. Historians tend to write about this event as some sort of marvelous fusion of the 4 "greatest" ballerinas of the age -- Grisi, Grahan, Taglioni, Cerrito -- each with her own style and stage personality, and all in the same ballet. But can't you imagine all the arguments in the lobby, the competing claques during curtain calls, and the disagreements as to who was "best" or "greatest" in whatever critical writing existed at the time?

Such passions have been around at least as long as Sophocles and Euripides. They're fun. They do no harm. But serious critical writers should probably try to avoid giving them anything to feed on. Leave that to the hacks.

#140 Ray

Ray

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 997 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 04:23 AM

Footnote: I just can't get used to "dead" people with fully pointed feet.


Well, technically speaking, the Willis are dead--and their feet are pointed (or are supposed to be!).

#141 Mme. Hermine

Mme. Hermine

    Emeralds Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,758 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 04:40 AM

apart from all the above, i have to admit to being really surprised at the way he chose to criticize georgina parkinson; i suppose you can always say it's opinion, but i always thought her character portrayals were well done and very appropriate.

#142 aurora

aurora

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 08:33 AM

apart from all the above, i have to admit to being really surprised at the way he chose to criticize georgina parkinson


Especially since she was with the Royal! :blushing:

After all, she should know about these important bits of Royal Ballet Swan Lake wisdom and passed them on to the current dancers at ABT!

#143 Amour

Amour

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 09:12 AM

apart from all the above, i have to admit to being really surprised at the way he chose to criticize georgina parkinson


Especially since she was with the Royal! :blushing:

After all, she should know about these important bits of Royal Ballet Swan Lake wisdom and passed them on to the current dancers at ABT!

Yes, but like Ferri, she decided to come to ABT! He seems to have his knife (and pen) sharpened for any dancers who left the RB and prefer other, non Brit companies.

#144 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,258 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 10:02 AM

I've tried to stay out of this one, but it's becoming disturbing to me and I have to put in a word. Some of these comments are so petty that they're out of character for this board. The idea that a serious critic would have a grudge against a dancer who left one company for another is highly unlikely.

I'd echo much of what Bart said above, and add that "Critical objectivity" is a term of art. It does NOT mean that a critic doesn't have personal biases - that's "taste." It means that in writing serious criticism one executes "judgment" -- that one writes in an objective rather than personal way, which is to "pull back," look at the object on view in long shot, as it were, and place the performance within a context. That's writing with critical objectivity. Subjective, or personal, writing is, "I went last night and I just loved Soandso as the Prince." Nothing wrong with the latter, except when it's in a newspaper :blushing:

In Macauley's case, I'd also say that I doubt he's trying to impress people or show off what he knows, but that he (perhaps wrongly) assumes that he's writing to peers -- to people who are knowledgeable and sophisticated, who share his love of ballet, and understand at least something of its history and current aesthetic issues. This goes against the grain of current newspaper writing -- many papers want snazzy breezy pieces that, they fondly believe, everyone who picks up the paper will read. I was very happy that the Times chose a critic instead. That's what serious critics, like Macauley, or Robert Greskovic, or Joan Acocella, or Tobi Tobias, among others, do. (He writes for the same audience I assumed was out there, and why I started this forum -- so that likeminded souls could have serious discussions of ballet.)

We've had discussions about space before -- you can't put everything in a review. It's not possible. No matter how much space you have, the history of "Giselle," say, and every dancer who's danced the role just won't fit :)

I think it's time to post again the links to Joan Acocella's pieces on criticism. I'll come back and add them.

What's Good About Bad Reviews

What critics do

#145 Mme. Hermine

Mme. Hermine

    Emeralds Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,758 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 10:08 AM

no, i do understand that, alexandra. and if that's the way he feels about her portrayals, he's certainly allowed, though it does surprise me because i feel she's really good at them. but i don't think that he or any other serious critic would hold it against a dancer for going from one place to another, that's not where i felt his criticism was coming from. just wanted to be clear!

#146 Amour

Amour

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 12:06 PM

I've tried to stay out of this one, but it's becoming disturbing to me and I have to put in a word. Some of these comments are so petty that they're out of character for this board.

I'd echo much of what Bart said above, and add that "Critical objectivity" is a term of art. It does NOT mean that a critic doesn't have personal biases - that's "taste." It means that in writing serious criticism one executes "judgment" -- that one writes in an objective rather than personal way, which is to "pull back," look at the object on view in long shot, as it were, and place the performance within a context.

I don't believe anyone is objecting to Macauley's opinions, biases or personal "taste". I think the problem has been the snide tone to many of his recent reviews or his panning someone harshly, without giving any reason why. I also believe the discussion going on here about MacAuley's writing is a legitimate one and it is being conducted civilly.

I don't think anyone airing a grievance in this forum believes critics shouldn't have (or express) opinions or bias. However, there is a world of difference between a neutrally-toned critical comment - such as the one Roslyn Sulcas makes today about Mathilde Froustey - and belittling a dancer. For example, yesterday's personal remarks about Irina's face, which Macauley states while dancing, is "marred by her forever negotiating different angles of her chin", steps over the line into personal attack. The snidely toned criticism of Georgina Parkinson is equally mean and written in a way that I believe many (especially the dancer, herself) would find offensive.

Critics should have opinions but they should be written in a way that is civil and constructive; there is no reason to attack or humiliate the artists who try their best to give us (their audience) pleasure. And there is no reason to censor what has been a civil and legitimate discussion on this board about what seems to be a disturbingly mean tone to Macauley's recent reviews.

#147 bart

bart

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,320 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 12:30 PM

Thanks, Alexandra, for those links to those two 1992 Acocella articles. I hadn't seen them before. I've printed them out and put them in my file of dance writing to revisit and to think about.

A quality shared by the finest reviewers, is that they DO think about what they are doing and what their obligations are to both readers and to the art. They reflect on the implications of their words and don't just respond to what they see. Acocella's work over the years definitely shows this. So does Macauley's, despite what might be perceived as a few recent lapses.

I love Acocella's defense of what even a negative review can become in the hands of a master in love with the art:

At their best, negative reviews can tell us what good art is and reassure us that it exists--that we had it before and we'll have it again. Indeed, paradoxically, they do this almost more feelingly than good reviews, for they are on surer, Platonic ground, speaking about good art in the abstract rather than in the more confusing particular. George Bernard Shaw, whose fierce words were quoted at the opening of this essay, wrote many good bad reviews of this kind in the course of his career as a music critic. Emboldened by a thorough knowledge and a fiery love of his subject, Shaw can tell you, in the course of condemning a singer or conductor to eternal torment, exactly how Handel should be played or how Don Giovanni should be sung. He tells you with joy, vividness, and precision. You can hear the trumpets; you can hear the tremolo in the strings; you can hear the voices come in--the sopranos, the altos. He practically sings it for you. The luckless musicians whose concert Shaw attended may fall, but Handel rises resplendent. Shaw gives him to you again. This is why W. H. Auden called Shaw "probably the best music critic who ever lived."



#148 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,258 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 12:46 PM

Amour, I disagree. Many of the comments in this discussion have been catty and snide, and not consistent with the history or culture of this forum. Several participants are more recent members, which is one of the reasons I stepped in. This isn't what we do here. The many anti-British comments especially have made me wince. We have many British readers and I don't know what they must be thinking -- but I do understand why they don't often post here.

Critics are supposed to write strongly. Namby pamby feel-good comments aren't good criticism. I see nothing wrong with writing about the way a dancer uses his or her face or feet. It's a specific comment, not an insult. Saying someone is plug ugly or has bugs for brains is quite different. That WOULD be an attack. [editing to add: Not saying that I agree or disagree with the comment, just that what Macauley wrote wouldn't raise an editor's eyebrow.]

In the best of all possible worlds, we'd have a number of critics writing from a strong knowledge base, and writing opinionated criticism. (As they do in London! We're poor by comparison, not for lack of talent, but for lack of outlets.) And then if there are critics whom one simply cannot stand, one doesn't read them.

Bart, this is it, exactly. It should be the standard for critics.

A quality shared by the finest reviewers, is that they DO think about what they are doing and what their obligations are to both readers and to the art. They reflect on the implications of their words and don't just respond to what they see.


Editing again to add that we've gotten away from the Wolcott article. Dale made a comment about 20 comments ago that no one seems to have noticed: "And it brings up how journalistic ethics plays into blogs. If that was in a newspaper or magazine, it might be required for Wolcott to say that he is married to dance critic who holds differing views from Macaulay. Maybe in a blog it is expected the readers to know more about Wolcott's life and therefore he doesn't need the disclaimer." Should Wolcott have mentioned this? Does not doing so raise a question of motivation? Or doesn't it matter?

Edited by Alexandra, 28 June 2007 - 01:05 PM.


#149 Leigh Witchel

Leigh Witchel

    Editorial Advisor

  • Editorial Advisor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 02:05 PM

Does anyone else think the Times would be delighted with Wolcott's response?

I'm wearing rose colored glasses, but I keep thinking a passionate argument about ballet, however vituperative, will bring positive attention. (Do you think we could get them to fight a duel?)

Let's address some of Wolcott's points. Do people find Macaulay's writing overly emotional?

Also, what about Dale's point about Wolcott and his remaining silent on his wife's position vis-a-vis the profession? Can you make that kind of attack and leave that information out?

#150 Dale

Dale

    Emeralds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,054 posts

Posted 28 June 2007 - 02:17 PM

Leigh, that I feel is a good point. I love that Wolcott writes about ballet in his blog. And if it were just that, no disclaimer would be needed, although he does mention his wife's work in his blog. But in that entry regarding Macaulay he didn't. And your first comment, that Macaulay does not "like" Wolcott's (and Jacobs'?) favorite dancer is also needed to put the blog post in context. There's more at work here than just Wolcott feeling Macaulay was too emotional, especially when he admits to practically having an orgasm when Part dances.

But then again, are blogs supposed to be "fair and balanced"?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):